Mark Steyn recalls his recent participation with our writers in a meeting with the President:
When some dread State Department concept like "sanctions" or "resolution" passed the presidential lips, Mr. Bush would glance warily at the Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer. He recalled a previous visit in which the columnist had queried whether the administration was going to get "mired in diplomacy." Bush savoured the phrase, enunciating the syllables. "Mired in dip-lo-ma-cee," he said, as if it were the forlorn hook of some country ballad. "I think that's what you were wondering."
"I usually do," said Krauthammer, dryly.
The President had begun his remarks by saying that "we need to be on the offence all the time." And, for those of us who agree, that's part of the problem. "You say you need to be on the offence all the time and stay on the offence," I began. "Isn't the problem that the American people were solidly behind this when you went in and you toppled the Taliban, when you go in and you topple Saddam. But when it just seems to be a kind of thankless semi-colonial policing defensive operation with no end . . . I mean, where is the offence in this? Instead of talking to Syria, can't Syria get some payback for sending all these guys over the border to subvert Iraq? Shouldn't Syria be getting subverted in return?"
Indeed. Back in 2004, I argued for a wide-ranging operation in the Horn of Africa region to do some good and remind our people (who were faltering in the polls over supporting the Iraq War) that we were making progress:
But a Somalia offensive could use Rangers and a carrier, plus a Marine Expeditionary Unit as part of an amphibious strike group and the Djibouti-based US and allied forces, to hit al Qaeda in the Horn region. These units could support special forces and CIA operatives in a widespread operation designed to nail Islamists all over the Horn region after they fled there following our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Allies such as Kenya, and perhaps Tanzania if they are up to it, could coordinate actions against domestic Islamists to spread the net.
I’ve urged some type of offensive soon to maintain the momentum of attacking the enemy. We cannot let our people or our enemies forget we are still coming after the Islamists. Yes, avoid the really tough ones like Iran and North Korea until after the elections in November (and Syria and Saudi Arabia for that matter) but we must strike someplace now. Before the “anti-war” side here argues an operation is an October surprise (can we count on terrorists to similarly show restraint as they indicate who they’d prefer in the White House?) This will also have the advantage of not stressing our main conventional units as they recover from Iraq.
I liken a Somalia operation to the North African invasion in 1942. We needed visible movement in the war yet could not go after the enemy in its home lair yet.
We are at war. This is no time to rest on our laurels.
Given the recent advances by jihadis in Somalia, I should think my advice is still good. A campaign in East Africa with relatively few forces to bust up jihadi camps and concentrations of forces while bolstering local allies (and add Ethiopia to this category now) would be far better than putting new forces into Iraq where we'd just risk getting expectations for quick victory at home too high and risk the Iraqis letting us fight for them.
Americans want victory, not defeat. But if we don't think we are advancing and winning we wonder just what the point of fighting is.
We need to be on offense. Our people expect nothing less.
