Ronald Reagan on War

President Ronald Wilson Reagan made many statements that will go down in history as exhibiting some of the most gripping and eloquent wisdom ever known since the beginning of this Republic. One of those statements had to do with war.

Nobody wants war, said Reagan, but if it is necessary then it must be fought to win.

The quintessential example of how not to fight a war was Viet Nam, said Reagan. In his stellar and moving tribute to the men and women who served in Viet Nam, Reagan stated in the campaign against Jimmy Carter in 1980, 'These courageous men and women fought honorably in a war that the liberals in Washington would not let them win.'

No truer words have ever been spoken, and no more relevant words could be chosen to address the present War in Iraq.

Honorable men and woman can disagree on whether or not there was adequate justification for going into Iraq. Hindsight is always 20/20. However, the best intelligence we had indicated that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. We know he was working on such a program, for his blueprints somehow wound up in the hands of Iran's government--the very blueprints which led to their development of nuclear bombs. Our intelligence, and that of Britain and Europe, indicated Saddam had the weapons. This same intelligence led various politicians such as John Kerry, Joseph Lieberman, and Hillary Clinton to vote to go to war.

That same intelligence led President Bill Clinton to state in 1998 that the day was quickly approaching when Saddam would have the bombs, and, to quote Clinton, 'If he gets them, we know he'll use them.'

How quickly Americans have forgotten the statements made by the very ones who today suggest that we 'cut and run.'

So why are we still in Iraq so long after our initial invasion? The short answer is that it is a difficult war like we have never fought in our history. A deeper look, however, reveals a similar scenario to the Viet Nam era--politics in Washington and the overt attempt of the 'politically correct' police to hamstring the operations of our military.

Presently we are not fighting to win. This is because we fear the repercussions of public opinion, goaded by the mainstream media, that would seize on the 'horrors of war,' the 'brutality,' the 'blood-thirsty American imperialists,' and other such nonsense.

In short, we would take a big hit in the media and in the court of public opinion that is always swayed by such things. Nevermind the images of the Islamic head-choppers who have videotaped the beheadings of dozens of hostages.

The PC police in America and throughout Western Europe would make sure America came out of an all-out effort in Iraq as the villain. They would be gladly aided by the New York Times, Newsweek, CNN, and the three major networks. The slanted reports that would proceed from these bastions of liberalism would feed upon American squeamishness.

However, we are quickly approaching the day when such squeamishness and the condemnations of leftists across the globe will pale in the face of the real danger that is before us. The Islamic Jihad movement is on the march, and we, the 'Great Satan,' are its ultimate targets. We can either fight this war now in a land far away, or we will surely fight it in downtown Manhattan.

Reagan was right. We lost in Viet Nam because Washington would not let us win. If we allow the Democrat Party to control Congress and ultimately the White House in 2008, we can rest assured we will face yet another defeat. But this time we have much more to lose. Viet Nam was not involved in a global Jihad to destroy America.

The hand of President Bush must be strengthened to take on the Jihadists on their own turf, not here in America. Democrats must not be allowed to get into a position to weaken our resolve. We must fight this war to win and ignore the world court of public opinion.