Every four years, during the presidential debate season, the Islamic Republic of Iran re-enters the American political spectrum. Conservatives are pressuring the President to act in order to disrupt the rekindling Iranian nuclear capability. It is prudent to review the history of the Iranian regime to properly understand the situation we now face, and the dangers of callous actions.

Founded in 1979, the former Persian Empire became an anti-American theocratic regime under the rule of Ayatollah Khomeini, and a handful of mullahs, when the Iranian people overthrew the monarch Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, who in 1953 had been installed as Prime Minister to continue providing cheap oil to the British, Iran’s former colonial ruler.

Iran was further aggravated by American support of the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during the eight-year Iraq-Iran War. Fifteen years later, as the world’s largest Shiite nation, Iran was emboldened by the American toppling of the Sunni Ba’athist Party during the 2003 Iraq War.

Since 2004, Iran has appeared to be the imminent national security threat, as it has led a “Shia Revival,” extending to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Violent Islamism – and the vehement Anti-Semitic language that accompanied it – did not sit well with the Iranian people: In 2009, the moderate Iranian public showed their disdain for their extremist regime by protesting the fraudulent presidential election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Some protestors gave their lives in the struggle.

During this period of opportunity, American officials largely sat silent.

Today, America faces a renewed threat, with a more desperate Iranian regime.

Although Iran has not initiated a military strike against another nation since it was under British rule, given the recent plot to kill the Saudi Ambassador on US soil, last month’s hijacking of a US Drone, and the likely Iranian assassination of a Houstonian student last week, the threat is real. Our actions today, however, are counterintuitive to toppling the regime; furthermore, conservatives are making critical errors in pushing Obama to action with Iran.

Our first mistake is imposing massive economic sanctions, crippling not the regime, but the entire nation. The EU recently joined the US in these efforts, with the EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton saying: “The pressure of sanctions is designed to try and make sure that Iran takes seriously our request to come to the table.”

The financial embargo is destroying Iran’s currency, and their gasoline imports have been cut in half. These actions do not accomplish the goal of stopping the Iranian regime; in fact, we are arbitrarily turning those moderates who protested Ahmadinejad toward their regime, and away from us. When an embargo becomes a blockade, sanctions become an act of war. Make no mistake: Forced starvation will lead to aggression. We are essentially radicalizing an enemy.

Our second mistake is confusing what is acceptable from the Iranians, and what is not. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has explicitly stated the Iranians are not developing a nuclear weapon, but are pursuing a nuclear capability. It is understood that an Iranian nuclear capability could pose a threat to Israel, but we have not specified whether or not Iran’s return to nuclear energy – which they had until 1979 – is acceptable. A nuclear weapon in the hands of this particular regime would be a threat to our national security, whereas nuclear power is not.

Furthermore, Iranian naval exercises in the Persian Gulf have riled Defense officials.

In direct retaliation against sanctions, the Iranian regime – as of this writing – has sworn to “definitely” block traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. I understand the seriousness of the situation; in the US Navy, I drove a $5 billion warship through that Strait, was followed by the Iranian missile silos ashore, P-3 aircraft overhead, and coastal patrol vessels afloat, and can attest it is a contentious area, through which roughly 25 percent of the world’s oil flows.

Iran’s closing of the Strait in response to a blockade would indeed be an act of war, and would require action. A hasty counterstrike, however, would lead to an asymmetric and chaotic naval war. The Revolutionary Guard commander Brigadier General Jafaari has threatened: “The enemy is far more advanced technologically than we are, we have been using what is called asymmetric warfare methods… our forces are now well prepared for it.”

Irregular war with Iran poses the largest threat to our ally Israel. While the Arab Spring was promoted by the Obama Administration – and emboldened the Administration’s circumvention of the Congress in warfare – it destabilized Israel. Defense Secretary Panetta has warned an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear sites would be “catastrophic” to the region. I disagree. A true friend to Israel would back off and let Israel take care of itself. With over 300 nuclear warheads of its own and the best intelligence agency in the world, Israel should be allowed to act in sovereignty and in accordance with its own national security.

It is unclear whether the United States has the resources, or if the American public has the willpower, to escalate to another war, without being struck first. It is clear, however, that our federal government is actually inviting war with Iran; that is why we deliberately confuse our “red lines.” That is why we restrain Israel. That is why we are provoking Iran, to incite them to act first, in order to generate instant American support for another war.

Why would our government want a war with Iran? The reasons are simple.

When asked what the greatest threat to American national security is, former JCS Chairman ADM Mike Mullen said not Iran – nor any other nation – but our national debt. Because the federal government lacks both the willpower to cut government spending and the capacity to tax the American public any further, it is preparing to hyperinflate our way out of this financial mess. Doing so will destroy what is left of the US Dollar, which is in a downward spiral, as the world slowly gives up on it as reserve currency.

This week, India dumped the US Dollar for gold in purchasing Iranian oil; a week earlier, Russia did the same. To understand why the world is abandoning the Dollar, it is critical to note that while the price of a barrel of oil is high, it has remained constant compared to the position the US Dollar holds to gold. The Dollar has been devalued by 95 percent since the 1913 advent of the Federal Reserve, which now holds the majority of US Treasury bonds.

Engaging in war with Iran would shroud the Fed’s actions while the maturation of these bonds destroys that final 5 percent, enabling a transition to a global currency and monetary standard progressives have wanted for decades.

If you are still not convinced the federal government would welcome war with Iran, consider this: Since James Madison, no wartime President has lost reelection. War with Iran ensures four more years of President Obama’s social control and class warfare. Obama will pretend as though he doesn’t want war with Iran, up until the point he must act, which I would wager to guess would be around October of 2012.

History teaches that free trade and the advancement of ideas would spur the people of Iran to topple their own regime. Irregular war with Iran would come at the expense of the American soldier and the Iranian citizen, while the Iranian regime could escape unscathed. Conservatives must consider the consequences of pushing the President to reelection and plunging the nation into another war.

This President’s wars are far from over:  This past week, Obama plunged unilaterally into Uganda, sending 100 troops to chase down Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army, as it has plagued Uganda’s government for years.  Uganda, you know: that lovely beacon of freedom that has outlawed homosexuality and kills their gay men and women in the streets.

For a true picture of Obama’s foreign policy, it’s best to ignore his words, and analyze his actions.  It’s key to remember that, first and foremost, Obama is a lawyer:  To him, words are everything, and winning the argument means winning the case; facts, therefore, are of little concern.  Actually, the United States ‘are’ engaged in military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, once in Pakistan, and now, Uganda.

President Obama, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, promised to withdraw troops from Iraq by August 2010, a date that has long come and gone; today, Obama promised to withdraw from Iraq by December 2011, a date rapidly approaching.  Looks like he might not be able to keep that promise, either.  Additionally, the United States seems to be committed in Afghanistan until at least 2015, according to State Secretary Clinton, as we continue to struggle in our efforts in the “Graveyard of Empires.”

Advancing militarism through never-ending withdrawals and precipitous warfare, Obama declared yesterday Gaddafi’s death is a warning to other world leaders who rule with an “iron-fist.”  Clearly, the Obama Administration is turning its attention to Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and Republican leaders are egging him on in that regard, although putting democracy before freedom will continue to destabilize the region.  What does this expanding vision for our military mean for American foreign policy?  What does it mean for us?

America Adrift

Obama’s “victory” in Libya has emboldened his military actions overseas, with the Associated Press declaring Gaddafi’s death a ”vindication of his doctrine.”  The virtual “ease” of our actions in Libya – and the lack of resistance to unjustified action – are perpetuating a scope creep in foreign policy, which is precisely why I was opposed to American military action in Libya from the beginning, and expanded on reasoning in my post Viet-Libya.  I spelled out my own foreign policy doctrine regarding the Arab Spring in February, six weeks before we entered our Libyan conflict.  I have provided links for your perusal, but the takeaway is this:  ”We must always support the democratic process, no matter the outcome.  We must not publicly endorse one side over the other.”

Obama’s interventions have far surpassed “endorsement.”  In backing rebels militarily without Congressional approval, we are witnessing the wholesale destruction of the rule of law in American foreign policy.  Bypassing Congress for 60+ days of military action, with no formal declaration of war, is a violation of War Powers Act of 1973. The War Powers Act was enacted Post-Vietnam to restrict the Executive Branch in committing troops arbitrarily.  The other coequal branches of government not only sit idly by while the law is trampled, but praise Obama’s actions, supporting his further interdiction overseas.  In fact, the same day Gaddafi was killed, a U.S. District Judge dismissed a lawsuit against the President by ten brave U.S. Congressmen for his War Powers violations.

Although entering Pakistan was an act of war, the surgical assassination of Osama bin Laden, I believe, was justified.  I praised the Commander-in-Chief for authorizing the action against America’s most wanted enemy combatant.  While I also supported the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki, I do not support the Administration’s justification for killing an American citizen, not by trial – even in absentia – but with a “memo.”  Al-Awlaki was a dual citizen, and as a traitor, his US citizenship should have been revoked in accordance with US Code Chapter 8 Section 1481, a.7, for treasonous activities. If these legal proceedings were carried out, we don’t know about them. I suspect they weren’t; the Executive just declared him an enemy combatant.  This begs the question, who else does the Administration have memos to kill?

What I find saddest of all is that a once-sane nation cheered the torture and execution of Gaddafi, the leader of a nation on which we did not declare war, nor was at war with us.  Gaddafi deserved to be held accountable through legal means.  It’s questionable whether members of his family – including three of his grandchildren under the age of twelve - deserved to be killed by NATO Predator drone strikes.  Remember, in the words of the Occupy Wall Street protesters, who proclaim their solidarity with the Arab Spring: “This is what democracy looks like.”

Not challenging the Obama Administration on his War Powers is inducing him to plunge headlong into more wars - possibly for political gain - and is turning his Administration into that which he vows to crush around the world: a military dictatorship.

As I have not given my account of 9/11/01 yet, I will do so here, in my final compulsory Anniversary post.  Everybody remembers where they were on that fateful day.  I was in the middle of my pre-commissioning physical examination, at the optometry clinic at USNA, going in for my eye exam, when I heard a plane had hit one of the World Trade Center towers.  I came out of my exam, eyes dilated, and headed directly for the waiting room, where about fifteen other midshipmen were gazing upward at a television set on the wall.  I squinted to see CNN’s Aaron Brown, reporting live across the Harbor in New Jersey, with smoke pouring out of the North Tower behind him.  Being midshipmen, we were talking amongst ourselves; someone asked, “Do you think this was a deliberate attack?” Seconds later, a second plane hit the South Tower.  An answer to his question was no longer needed.

At that moment, everything changed.  Immediately, we were a nation at war.  I stood there silent with the others.  We were a fraction of society, people in active preparation for military careers that had instantly changed in unbeknownst ways.  Suddenly, our existence was part of the national story.  In 20 months, we would be military officers.   In true junior officer form, we had no answers, only questions.  Would the Class of 2003 be commissioned early, like the Class of 1942 had been?  Screams of a nurse whose husband worked at the Pentagon rang down the hospital halls; how many other planes were there?  Could we be targets ourselves?

Confusion became paramount, both for me as an individual and for the country largesse.  Confusion persisted for days, weeks, months, some might say, even years.  Everyone knew we would be attacked again; we weren’t.  Nevertheless, I was ready to go.  In preparation, I cleaned up my personal life.  Fifteen months later, this same midshipman who supported atomizing the Tora Bora Mountain range – and the entire Pankisi Gorge, for that matter – sat silent in front of a television again as his fellow midshipmen cheered President Bush’s “48 Hour” final warning to Saddam Hussein.  I knew what a preemptive strike was – Pearl Harbor, 9/11, and now, Iraq – and I was hesitant.  I trusted the Administration knew something I didn’t.  I watched Colin Powell make the case for war to the UN on faulty information.  Likewise, I see now what others still fail to see: Al Qaeda had indeed moved into Iraq, in the form of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi.

During this rapidly changing era, patriotism became a political mallet with which to beat each other over the head.  Antiwar rallies in DC were a national embarrassment.  Topics of discussion were the aptly-named PATRIOT Act, the Orwellian Department of Homeland Security, waterboarding, extradition, and later, the Surge, which I supported.  Over time, America ran through trillions of dollars in deficit spending, and lost more soldiers in two wars than we had civilians on 9/11.  At the end of it all, although we were safe, we seemed to have lost our way.

Looking Back

With the assassination of Osama Bin Laden on 1 May of this year, we feel some closure for this ugly period of American history.  We still have to overcome two problems we have in fighting the War on Terror, which I addressed in last year’s post:  a leadership problem and a logic problem.  A year ago, I wrote that our leadership problem begins with an Administration that will always stand with the minority in a conflict, no matter who it is.  I believe that less today than I did a year ago.  I believe more so today that the Administration wants to pick winners and losers wherever government can touch them, based on a preconceived and often illogical loyalty.

To his credit, President Obama authorized permeation of the Pakistani border to lay waste to Bin Laden’s compound.  I have been supportive of the President in his efforts in the War on Terror on this website, but there is no way to undo him philosophically in this regard.  The President is not the problem, though.  What needs to change with the Executive Branch is to wrest some of the responsibilities for security from the federal government, and return them to states, municipalities, and individuals.

Worse than a leadership problem, America has a logic problem, which inhibits us from logically addressing our own beliefs on fighting the War on Terror. We see this in the small things:  last year, we were trying to reason with both the Koran-burning Pastor Terry Jones and the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of 9/11 Mosque fame.   Keep in mind, last year we faced down three attacks inside the United States, with the coward Major Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood killing 32 of his co-workers, the Panty Bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab trying to blow up his Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas Day, and the Pakistani Pathfinder Bomber Faisal Shahzad who was apparently upset about a South Park episode.  Looking back, we are reminded how quickly things change.

The largest result of 9/11 in government, the Department of Homeland Security, is simultaneously inept and overbearing; grandmothers and babies alike are having to remove their diapers for federal agents in airports.  What has been reassuring is the public’s outcry over these violations of freedom.

Do we need a Department of Homeland Security?  Recent developments of a terror plot out of New York this week remind us that terrorism is still a threat; this may justify the existence of the DHS to some.  Nevertheless, the threat does not justify the federal department, in my mind.  Realize it was Mayor Bloomberg, not Secretary Napolitano, who notified the public of the threat.  In the spirit of Alexis De Tocqueveille, the response proved that the security of a city is best handled by the city itself.

Hopefully, the killing of Bin Laden will accelerate the end of our reactionary period without making us naive to the threats we face.  As I said on the eighth anniversary two years ago, fighting the fight in Afghanistan, “the graveyard of empires,” has taken its toll on American sentiments.  We must remain vigilant, relying on intelligence services at all levels to stay alert, and upon the Department of Defense – not Homeland Security – for a response.

We must mark this ten-year anniversary as a milestone, and  rearrange ourselves accordingly; otherwise, what good is a milestone on an endless road?  As justice continues to be served for Islamic extremism, our focus also shifts to the rapidly-changing Muslim world in North Africa and the Middle East.

Looking Forward

With ten years gone, and with Bin Laden dead, it would be easy to forget about threats, and grow naive.  Naivety on our parts, only makes us more vulnerable to newer threats.  So it is with the “Arab Spring,” which became the Arab Summer and Fall.  Our government actively sided with the rebels in Libya, in efforts to promote democracy throughout the region.

As I pointed out in June of this year, democracy in the Middle East is a far cry from freedom:

“It’s important to remember that democracy in the Arab World does not amount to freedom in the Arab World.  While democracy may come to the Arab World, the spread of freedom throughout the region will likely not.  If the region were democratic, the world would likely experience its Second Holocaust, at a more blinding speed than the first.”

While freedom begets democracy, democracy does not always beget freedom.  In the Arab World, democracy would beget a theocracy, which would beget tyranny.  This is a situation we have seen in previous Islamic Revolutions, and we are set to experience it again.  Nevertheless, the American media prepares for Life After Gadhafi in  Libya and Life After Assad in Syria without knowing the outcomes of these conflicts.  Americans are left confused by it all, wondering what logic our government is using to bomb one nation undergoing transformation (0utside the War Powers Act) and stay silent about another.

Moving forward, ten years after 9/11, we must not place the democracy of a simple majority before the civil rights of a free society, whether in the U.S. or elsewhere.  Likewise, we must not fall victim to the paradox of tolerance, for by tolerating the intolerant, we will be displaced by the intolerant.  While trying to coexist with the Muslim world, we must not ignore the fact that of all the religious symbols that comprise the “COEXIST” bumper sticker, Islam is the one religion simultaneously at war with the other major world religions.  We must recognize that in this world, almost anything is possible; fooling ourselves only damages ourselves.  We must face the facts of this world; the onus is on us, as individuals, to protect each other.

Never forget.

“Our country is that spot to which our heart is bound.”
~ Voltaire

As the number of American citizens with any memory of WWII declines, so does our ability to understand what America could have become, as that was the last great conflict we undertook.  America now lives in relative peace.  In the aftermath came American supremacy, and over time, a glorification of power, war, and conflict that other nations simply do not have.  This glorification of power, like the responsibility of power, comes with status, I suppose.  Can this relative peace last?  Given the historical fact that empires wax and wane, can our position in the world remain the same?

I ask myself these questions after ten days in Europe; namely, Munich, Germany, and Warsaw, Poland.  I wonder why I experienced what I did, why I saw what I saw, in these two vastly different – yet related – cities.  Munich is the former headquarters of fascism, the Nazi Party; Warsaw is perhaps its greatest casualty.  Things are different for me now, having walked these city streets.

This trip, however, was not my only experience seeing casualties of conflict; here in the States, I have seen the (thankfully) few and far between indications of conflict.  I’ve seen both Ground Zero in New York City and the USS ARIZONA Memorial at Pearl Harbor.  I was an Officer in our Navy and currently work for the Navy.  I’ve been a cog in the wheel of the American war machine.  I’ve been stationed on ships with armament, captured Somali Pirates, and had skirmishes with the Iranian Navy.  I was stationed at the Navy Annex, outside the resting place of many of our military’s casualties, Arlington Cemetery, up the hill from the Pentagon.  I’ve been to all the memorials in DC on a number of occasions, and have visited the Holocaust Museum four times.

But New York, Honolulu, and the DC area are thriving, although there are warning signs this may be coming to an end.  Throughout the second half of the 20th Century, Europe has struggled to rebuild itself.  So it is in Warsaw; Warsaw is what it is because of Munich.  Warsaw, at the end of the day, won my heart, not for what it is, but for what it’s gone through, and for its potential; I’ll write more about Poland in a later post.  Arriving here, I thought I had seen it all already.

But I had never seen the jagged walls of a capital city that were blown apart seventy years ago, with bullet holes still visible in the mortar.  I had never touched the walls of a Ghetto death camp, or walked the streets where women and children were starved, and if they survived, burned to death, in Warsaw. I had never seen prisons where people were held in spaces too small to sit.  I had never walked through gas chambers disguised as showers, or looked into the ovens where people were “liquidated” en masse at the concentration camp site in Dachau.  I’m having some issues dealing with these sensations, because I thought I knew what there was to know about war.  I was wrong.

On the surface, my outlook on foreign policy has not changed.  Deeper, however, something else is going on.  Like most folks, my world-view and my outlook are built upon values, which are built upon assumptions, which have changed since my trip.  As the very foundations of my psyche have shifted, I’ll be reassessing how to deal with current events as I go, as I am still trying to understand what I saw… as if there is any way to understand it.

With war, I’m now convinced, there is no understanding, only coping.  War is more than lines shifting on a map; I knew that.  War is men dying for causes sometimes not understood; that, I knew as well.  I also knew that wars were won by defeating the will of your enemy, often by means outside of the regulations of the Geneva Conventions.  I believed that; I’ve read Sun Tzu and Clausewitz.  I knew how that all works.  I’m not so sure anymore.

War is the bodies of women gunned down in fields while uprooting potatoes.  War is when the women and children left alive from that episode continue to uproot potatoes, making the calculus that they, like their friends, may be shot uprooting potatoes, but if they leave the field, they will “surely starve.”  So they continue with their work, around the dead bodies.  We have a responsibility to remember.

War is children left starving inside of a ghetto wall erected with the express intent of starving children, simply because they were Jewish.  Do not be confused by that.  Facts do not lie, and history should not be manipulated regarding the facts.

What’s more, war is women and children burned to death in the civilian cities that we Americans destroyed, either by conventional (Dresden) or by nuclear means (Hiroshima and Nagasaki).  War ended there, but not without a price.  Again, and more painfully here, we have a responsibility to remember.

This is why we have the Geneva Conventions now, something in the past I’ve differed with.  I’m not so sure anymore.  This may have you wondering if I’m antiwar now:  No.  Not entirely, that is.  I see things differently, though.  I am reassessing everything now; I’ll find out as I go.

So What Now?

We have responsibility to look at our past if we expect to move forward in the future; otherwise, we will fall into the same pitfalls we are trying to escape.  This is my greatest foreign policy fear.

The United States are/is now involved in conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, and once in Pakistan, which is where we should have been the last half of this decade.  Justification for aiding the conflicts in Libya and Yemen are wobbly.  If Libya, why not Syria?  While I have become more hesitant about conflict since my trip, I have learned we cannot ignore human rights violations.  This not so much redefines, but solidifies my outlook, which does not, and will likely never, conform with partisan platforms.

So let’s talk about human rights, a supposed priority of the American Left.  President Obama was in Warsaw the day before I was.  In remarks made with Prime Minister Donald Tusk, used the spread of democracy throughout Eastern Europe as a model for our ongoing Arab Spring.  There is a fundamental difference between struggles for democracy in Eastern Europe at the end of the Cold War and the ongoing Arab Spring, and that caveat is freedom.

The President’s remarks last month on the Middle East and North Africa show that democracy is more important than freedom.  This is dangerous.  It’s important to remember that democracy in the Arab World does not amount to freedom in the Arab World.  While democracy may come to the Arab World, the spread of freedom throughout the region will likely not.  If the region were democratic, the world would likely experience it’s Second Holocaust, at a more blinding speed than the first.  As philosopher George Santayana famously stated, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Our values must therefore be unwavering; our application of them, however, must adapt to the circumstances of the day.  The lesson is, existing models and theories on democracy and freedom cannot be applied in cookie-cutter fashion.  This is further discussed in my post Frenemies ‘R’ Us from February, regarding the revolution in Egypt.  Turns out, Egypt’s revolution has blown up in our face.  The reasons for war must be directly related to clearly articulated values; if not, we have no justification for making war, as we have no perspective on what it means to the families below.

Personally, I will try to be less slanted towards people as collectives; regardless of observations about a certain religious group, I will try to not see all Muslims as of one mind.  Likewise, I will try to not see all Democrats as Leftists.  I will continue to make judgements as I see them, but I hope to encourage more diverse opinions by not jumping to conclusions.

I will also try not to complain so much about hunger, or aching feet, or long bus rides, or the temperature outside, after seeing what I’ve seen.  I have no right to do so.  By checking myself, I hope to remember.

As for the gaping wound to Bin Laden’s head, the Navy SEALs proved, once again, that they are the standard-bearers of military might, whether overt or covert in nature.  The assault itself was a flawless operation, by all accounts, handled beautifully by SEAL Team 6, even in the face of extreme adversity.

Then, what happened?  We shoved Bin Laden’s body off the back of the USS CARL VINSON in an awkward act of grace towards the World’s Most Wanted person.  I understand why it happened, I just don’t agree with it.  In that vein, may I make a suggestion: SHOW THE PHOTOS.  As of this writing, there are none.  Again, I understand the delay, but this is something you must do; otherwise, Americans have no proof, questions linger, and sentiments broil.  It’s time to fix this.

Other than that, nicely done, Team Obama; yes, I said it.  As you might have guessed, this is by no means an endorsement in 2012.   I am especially proud of Obama’s team, though, for unparalleled bravery in bringing the War on Terror closer to its end.  You took great responsibility as Commander-in-Chief, and I thank you.

Likewise, we should be equally thankful in this moment for Team G.W. Bush, who authorized the use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques upon the head of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, which rendered the intelligence we needed to find Bin Laden’s Kuwaiti courier, which ultimately lead to finding Bin Laden himself.  Simply put, this moment would not have happened – at this point, at least – without waterboarding KSM.

This moment makes me wish I was still in uniform.  Bin Laden’s death serves as a landmark – a milestone – in bringing this war to a close.  Otherwise, what does a milestone like this mean on a never-ending road?  If this confounds neoconservatives, I’m sorry; I don’t support a perpetual “war” on anything, whether that be poverty, drugs, or in this case, terror.

This is where I also sharply depart with the anti-war crowd.  As for methods to bringing the War on Terror to an end, I suggest a two pronged approach:  1) show no quarter; and 2) minimize damage to our assets.  Make of that what you will.  I have no special sentiments for those who would arbitrarily kill me or my children for religious means.  Whether these individuals be in Pakistan, like Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, or in Yemen, like Anwar Al-Awlaki, I care not.  Let our wrath rain down upon their heads, wherever they are on Earth, and let God determine wrath on the other side.

We cannot tolerate the intolerance of those who seek to kill us.  Never forget.

“Unlimited tolerance will lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them… We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.” ~ Karl Popper