20060114
    Someone launched an air strike against a village in western Pakistan yesterday on the intelligence that Al Qaeda’s number two man Ayman al-Zawahiri might be staying in a compound in the village. The Pakistani government insists it was the CIA, although the US government is characteristically silent on the matter.
    This event illustrates the complex and difficult circumstances of the War on Terror and the prevailing cynical view of it. If al-Zawahiri was in the village, and the US did know and did not strike, the eventual criticism would be that we let him get away. Since the US did strike and did not kill him, the criticism is that the intelligence was poor and the attack unjustified.
    This is a difficult situation for the dedicated warriors prosecuting the War on Terror, and an element that helps the enemy in this war maintain a significant advantage. Based on what we know from the contents of the 9-11 commission reports, it is conceivable that this act was approved by the President himself after a careful review by multiple levels of intelligence gathering and analysis. If indeed al-Zawahiri was not in the village, it just means that this was one of the innumerable, inevitable tactical mistakes that occur in war.
    The scrutiny of this fact, however, belies a greater problem in our resolve to fight the War on Terror. Our enemies will make whatever attacks are necessary in order to prosecute their goals. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi killed dozens of his fellow Jordanians in an arguably misplaced attack, but even his own family renouncing him has not made him second guess or relent in his war against the West.
    How can that West hope to succeed in its war against the likes of al-Zawahiri and al-Zarqawi when we critically and cynically suggest in our media and our public discussions that we should not act unless we are completely certain that our action will be successful. It is this cynicism that leads to the current second-guessing of our mission in Iraq and our near paralysis in dealing with Iran.
    This is not to say that critical evaluation does not have a place, but such evaluation must be constructive, not destructive and divisive. Be assured that our enemies do not harbor the same cynicism, and as a result, a worldwide terror network numbering at most in the tens, perhaps a hundred, thousand keeps the most powerful nations of the world at bay.
    The only way for the West to win the War on Terror is to engage in a frank, honest, and optimistic approach to its fighting. Mistakes will be made. Bad intelligence will be acted upon. Sometimes innocents will be killed. While this is tragic, it is not grounds to dismantle the process by which we fight the war.
    For those who doubt the poignancy and reality of these statements, wait. By the end of the coming week, someone, likely a liberal leftist, will demand that the President be held accountable for this action. There will be demands for hearings into who authorized such a strike and how the intelligence was gathered. The media will buzz with criticism of our so-called haphazard prosecution of the war. And our enemies will laugh at us as they unremorsefully plot to kill us.
DLH
