A lot of politicians since 9/11 have been so intent on ripping on president Bush that they have forgotten to focus their attention on the brutal enemy we face. Here is an example. Just today Republican Senator Pete V. Domenici called for a new strategy in Iraq. Last week Richard Lugar was calling for new strategy as well. Now these Republican Senators are getting praise from the liberal media, because anytime you oppose President Bush, especially on the war on terror, you instantly become a hero with the mainstream press. But there is one problem with these out of touch Senators and what they are saying; Most of the top military brass does not agree with their assessments’. Case in point: Major General Rick Lynch, commander of coalition forces in central Iraq said just today, “An abrupt exit of US troops from Iraq would trigger a bloody "mess". General Rick Lynch went on to say, the addition of thousands more "surge" troops in recent weeks had enabled him to clear 70 percent of his territory south of Baghdad of insurgents. Now it’s really easy to criticize the war from the halls of congress but the reality on the ground in Iraq is totally different from what we hear from the media and politicians on a daily basis.

Story Continues Below

Most politicians are running from the war on terror because of bad poll numbers and re-election hopes but I would rather win a war than be re-elected to a political office, wouldn’t you? The Democratic Party does not even speak about the war on terror in their debates, which only six years since 9/11 is pathetic. But we know where most Democrats stand on the war on terror and it is best summed up by John Edwards: “The War on Terror is just a bumper sticker.” What a thing to say-- I wonder if John Edwards could look the 9/11 families in their face and say the war on terror is just a bumper sticker, I doubt it.

Keep Cooper Republic alive with a small donation

One politician has stood out as understanding the stakes Americans face on the war on terror, and that is Joe Lieberman, and he deserve our praise for standing tough, when his own party has abandoned protecting the United States. I cannot do Joe Lieberman’s words justice, so I let you read them for yourself; Writing in the Wall Street Journal Yesterday: 

Iran is acting aggressively and consistently to undermine moderate regimes in the Middle East, establish itself as the dominant regional power and reshape the region in its own ideological image. The involvement of Hezbollah in Iraq, just revealed by Gen. Bergner, illustrates precisely how interconnected are the different threats and challenges we face in the region. The fanatical government of Iran is the common denominator that links them together.

No responsible leader in Washington desires conflict with Iran. But every leader has a responsibility to acknowledge the evidence that the U.S. military has now put before us: The Iranian government, by its actions, has all but declared war on us and our allies in the Middle East.

America now has a solemn responsibility to utilize the instruments of our national power to convince Tehran to change its behavior, including the immediate cessation of its training and equipping extremists who are killing our troops.

Most of this work must be done by our diplomats, military and intelligence operatives in the field. But Iran's increasingly brazen behavior also presents a test of our political leadership here at home. When Congress reconvenes next week, all of us who are privileged to serve there should set aside whatever partisan or ideological differences divide us to send a clear, strong and unified message to Tehran that it must stop everything it is doing to bring about the death of American service members in Iraq.

It is of course everyone's hope that diplomacy alone can achieve this goal. Iran's activities inside Iraq were the central issue raised by the U.S. ambassador to Iraq in his historic meeting with Iranian representatives in Baghdad this May. However, as Gen. Bergner said on Monday, "There does not seem to be any follow-through on the commitments that Iran has made to work with Iraq in addressing the destabilizing security issues here." The fact is, any diplomacy with Iran is more likely to be effective if it is backed by a credible threat of force--credible in the dual sense that we mean it, and the Iranians believe it.

Our objective here is deterrence. The fanatical regime in Tehran has concluded that it can use proxies to strike at us and our friends in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine without fear of retaliation. It is time to restore that fear, and to inject greater doubt into the decision-making of Iranian leaders about the risks they are now running.

I hope the new revelations about Iran's behavior will also temper the enthusiasm of some of those in Congress who are advocating the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Iran's purpose in sponsoring attacks on American soldiers, after all, is clear: It hopes to push the U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan, so that its proxies can then dominate these states. Tehran knows that an American retreat under fire would send an unmistakable message throughout the region that Iran is on the rise and America is on the run. That would be a disaster for the region and the U.S.

The threat posed by Iran to our soldiers' lives, our security as a nation and our allies in the Middle East is a truth that cannot be wished or waved away. It must be confronted head-on. The regime in Iran is betting that our political disunity in Washington will constrain us in responding to its attacks. For the sake of our nation's security, we must unite and prove them wrong.