Terrorism has been described as "the weapon of the weak," a weapon employed by those who cannot win in direct combat on the battlefieldwrites Robert Tracinski.
That is the meaning of today's wave of bombings in Baghdad. The terrorist insurgency just suffered a defeat in Tal Afar--so they retaliate, not by attacking the US military or even the Iraqi military, but by blowing up Iraqi civilian day-laborers.Read more about the hostility of America's alleged intellectual "elite" to the ideals and even the existence of their own country… Robert Tracinski adds:
As a military strategy, this makes no sense. If the insurgents keep suffering losses on the battlefield, and they can only answer by attacking unarmed civilians, how do they expect to win the war? The better question is: who do they expect to win the war for them? The answer: the American left, who they hope will use new terrorist attacks as an excuse to claim that Iraq is a "quagmire" and call for a US withdrawal.
This is the sickening irony of the so-called "peace movement": that it is a crucial part of the terrorists' war strategy--and that the terrorists commit the worst war atrocities known to man precisely to appeal to the "peace movement's" alleged humanitarians.
The problem with America's strategy in Iraq is that our leaders have refused to treat this as a regional war, acting as if they can defeat the insurgency in Iraq without confronting its sponsors in Syria and Iran. That's why it's encouraging when we occasionally hear some new tough talk against Syria…
But we need more than just talk. It's time to show that we are serious by backing the talk with action. After all, wasn't the Bush Doctrine supposed to make no distinction between the terrorists and the states who support them? Why isn't that doctrine being applied to Syria and Iran?