Echoes in Eternity

It has been fashionable -- indeed, de rigueur in political and media circles -- to view contemptuously President Bush's assertion that we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we wouldn't have to fight them here. Even conservative commentators have tended to tiptoe around the proposition. We are all far too sophisticated to believe such simplicities. Nor will any self-respecting public chatterer even raise the little matter of America not being hit by terrorism on our soil for the almost seven years since Sept. 11.

And yet the undeniable facts certainly would justify a debate -- if not yet a consensus of agreement -- on President Bush's assertions. Regarding killing Islamist terrorists in Iraq rather than New York City, consider the numbers: According to USA Today in September 2007, more than 19,000 insurgents had been killed by coalition forces since 2003. The number obviously has gone up in the nine months since then (these were midsurge numbers), but I don't have reliable updated numbers.

Of course, most of those 19,000 killed insurgents were not foreign terrorists, but local Iraqis moved to action by our occupation. However, according to studies by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and by the Defense Intelligence Agency, foreign-born jihadists in Iraq are believed to number between 4 and10 percent of the total insurgent strength. So it is reasonable to assume that we have killed -- as of nine months ago -- between 800 and 1,900 non-Iraqi terrorists who otherwise would have been plying their trade elsewhere. It only took a couple of dozen to commit the atrocities of Sept. 11.

Moreover, we know specifically that Al-Qaida in Iraq has been decimated recently. According to the British newspaper The Times in February: "Al-Qaeda in Iraq faces an 'extraordinary crisis'. ... The terrorist group's security structure suffered 'total collapse'."

And last month, Strategy Page reported: "Al Qaeda web sites are making a lot of noise about 'why we (al-Qaida) lost in Iraq'. Western intelligence agencies are fascinated by the statistics being posted in several Arab language sites. Not the kind of stuff you read about in the Western media. According to al Qaeda, their collapse in Iraq was steep and catastrophic. ... If you can read Arabic, you can easily find these pro-terrorism sites, and see for yourself how al Qaeda is trying to explain its own destruction (in Iraq) to its remaining supporters."

Now, it is doubtlessly true that our invasion of Iraq (and Afghanistan) helped al-Qaida's recruitment. I have been told that by U.S. government experts I trust. But that is an old fact. What Osama bin Laden famously said about recruitment is also true: People follow the strong horse. And the new fact is that as we are winning in Iraq, as we are killing al-Qaida fighters and other Islamist terrorists there by the truckload (along with other insurgent opponents of the Iraqi government we support with our blood and wealth), we are proving to be the strong horse after all and can expect to see a reduced attraction for young men to join the Islamist terrorist ranks.

Fighting and winning always impress. Even merely fighting and persisting impress. Shortly after the fall of Soviet Communism, I had dinner with a then-recently former senior Red army general. He told me that the Soviets were astounded and impressed by the fact that we were prepared to fight and lose 50,000 men in Vietnam, when the Soviets never thought we even had a strategic interest there. They thus calculated that they'd better be careful with the United States. What might we do, they thought, if our interests really were threatened?

The full effects of the vigorous martial response of President Bush to the attacks of Sept. 11 will not be known for decades. But if history is any indicator, military courage, persistence and a capacity to kill the enemy in large numbers usually work to the benefit of such nations.

On Sept. 10, 2001, many Islamists thought America and the West were decadent, cowardly and ripe for the pickings. (Hitler thought the same thing about us.) On the basis of President Bush's political courage -- and supremely on the physical courage, moral strength and heartbreaking sacrifice of all our fighting uniformed men and women (and un-uniformed intelligence operatives) -- America's willingness and capacity to fight to protect ourselves cannot be doubted around the world. This may prove to be the most important global political fact of the first decade of the 21st century -- with implications even beyond our struggle with radical Islam.

It is time to reconsider whether President Bush or Barack Obama was right on whether to fight. Obama has had a good political run on the early and inconclusive evidence. As victory starts to emerge in Iraq, more persuasive data begin to fall on President Bush's side of the argument. This is a debate worth having before November.

A Quebec father has decided to appeal a decision by a judge who ruled he had no right to stop his 12-year-old daughter from going on a school trip, even though the girl has already gone on the outing.

The dispute began in May when the girl had a disagreement with her stepmother. That prompted the father to forbid the girl to go on a three-day outing with her classmates to celebrate their last year in elementary school. The girl then moved to her mother's house.

The parents, who live in the Gatineau region of Quebec, are divorced, and the father has legal custody.

Last week, Quebec Superior Court Madam Justice Suzanne Tessier ruled the girl could attend the outing despite her father's wishes. She went on the trip this week.

Kim Beaudoin, a lawyer handling the father's case, said the judge's ruling raises unsettling questions for families.

"It's dangerous to let kids play their parents. They have to learn to respect rules," Beaudoin said in an interview on Thursday.

Beaudoin said her client feels the judge had undermined his authority over his daughter.

"He doesn't think a judge should be allowed to take away a punishment," she said. "And he doesn't think another parent should be allowed to say 'Well, come live at my house, and you won't have to live that punishment.'"

Canadian students now face repression of their fundamental freedoms on their university campuses. After the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) passed a radical motion last weekend, many esteemed places of learning have been transformed into exclusivist regimes. University students across the country are now being forced to defend their constitutionally-recognized rights and freedoms.
...
Last weekend, the York University Federation of Students (YFS, a CFS member) tabled a motion at the CFS annual meeting. The end result: the authorized restriction of pro-life student groups. Pursuant to York’s action, the CFS passed a motion condoning student unions (like York and Lakehead) that refuse access to resources and campus space to student groups that offer the pro-life perspective on abortion. Without student consultation, the CFS has committed to restricting pro-life groups and individuals on their respective campuses. The York situation continues to develop. It is yet unclear whether the Students for Bioethical Awareness club at York University, which addresses bioethical issues including abortion, will continue to exercise the same rights and privileges as other clubs.

Earlier this year, the Lakehead University Student Union (LUSU, a CFS member) resolved to withhold "any and all funds, space, resources and services within its control from any groups, either on or off campus... if that group holds any aim, principle, belief, goal, etc. that is anti-choice." Explicitly stated, any student that wishes to speak against abortion is labeled “anti-choice,” and will receive no support. This would also include clubs seeking status. It is this position that the CFS now officially endorses. The pro-life message is not only unwelcome on the university campus, but its marginalization is now sanctioned.

The time has come for Canadians to awaken to the reality of totalitarianism in our midst. Ironically, the CFS claims to represent students of differing ethnicities, creeds, ages, and sex; however, it has taken a stance contrary to tolerance and inclusivity. This recent decision demonstrates that the CFS has adopted a dogma of dictatorship. The Federation has employed rhetoric to defame pro-life students as “anti-choice,” and has made a sweeping motion at a time when students are not at school. This lack of transparency, and obvious restriction of the right to choose to be actively pro-life, is startling and unjust.

Also ironic is the setting of this situation. Universities are cherished institutions, our "marketplaces of ideas." After so much progress by the human community to recognize and celebrate human diversity, it is disturbing to acknowledge the prevalence of discrimination at our institutions of higher learning.

The truth about abortion is becoming clearer every day to the Canadian populace. Attempts to suppress free speech about abortion is evidence of desperation--the desperation of those unwilling to concede that abortion is not the only choice, or the best choice, for women. By creating barriers to pro-life students, women on university campuses are paternalistically refused their right to information. Yet we are hopeful and confident; hypocrisy is eventually revealed. The human spirit remains strong. At many points in human history the elite have systematically marginalized those who disagreed with them. This is a time not unlike those times. And in the end, the message of compassion and truth will set us free.