Reagan's Lessons in the War with Terror

Chuck Busch

Even in a post 9-11 world, there are many Americans who do not accept that the freedom and independence of the United States could be lost in this war with terror. They would deny that the struggle against Islamic radicalism, is a “real” war requiring a total effort against an enemy devoted to the subjugation or annihilation of our culture, similar to the decades long Cold War confrontation with communism or the WWII hot war against fascism. They dispel the reality of a vicious barbaric adversary. They cling to the notion that the jihadist will be mollified if just left alone. They have no faith in their own country, but believe the only solution lies with international organizations that have proven to be completely ineffective or corrupt. They reject the truth that the responsibility of our liberty is ours alone. They worry more about foreign opinion, than what the majority of people in America want. They believe the use of force to be mostly unnecessary and a pre-emptive strike to be outside international law. Furthermore, they believe America should not act at all except in cooperation with members of the UN and NATO. They are reluctant to identify certain countries as a threat despite evidence of terrorist activity within their borders and hostile actions by its government.

Terrorist’s assaults against the United States are not a recent development. Though the struggle for dominance between Islamic ideology and Judeo-Christian civilization dates back for centuries in time, the most significant hostility toward this country began during 1979 with the kidnapping of our embassy personnel in Iran. President Bush is not the first U.S. president to actually stage a counterattack against the forces that threaten our economy, our freedoms, and our very lives. Much has been remembered about our 40th president, Ronald Reagan, as we mourned his passing, marveled at his character and celebrated his accomplishments. Not only did this man bring about the dissolution of the Soviet Union communist regime by “peace through strength”, he also demonstrated dramatically that in dealing with state terrorism, that strength must at times be exercised.

The onslaught of state-sponsored terrorism against American and Israeli interests was coming into full swing when Ronald Reagan assumed office in 1980. He did enjoy an early success, when on January 20, 1981 the Islamic Republic of Iran released the 52 members of the US embassy in Tehran who had been taken hostage under the direction of the Ayatollah Khomeini. After 444 days, Jimmy Carter’s weak negotiating efforts and one failed rescue attempt had not brought the situation any closer to a resolution. He said, “I think our answers are adequate. It’s up to the Iranians to make the next move.” Ronald Reagan’s message to the Iranian government was of a different tone. Calling the Iranians “criminals and kidnappers,” he sent out the warning, “the Iranians should be prepared that this country will take whatever action is appropriate.” Ronald Reagan’s tough talk succeeded where Carter’s reliance on persuasion failed.

This momentary triumph faded soon, when on April 18, 1983 the Lebanese terrorist group, Hezbollah, led by Imad Mugniyah bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut killing 60 people including 17 Americans. This was followed on Oct. 23 by a devastating attack on by the same terrorist group on the Marine barracks in Lebanon that cost 241 lives. A stunned President Reagan withdrew our troops having realized the US did not have a vital interest in the region and that the mere presence of force would not deter this fanatical menace. Unlike the communist governments, which, though dangerous, were at least stable and careful to avoid confrontation in lieu of Mutual Assured Destruction, these Muslim leaders were volatile and provocative. Iran, the financial and spiritual supporter of the Hezbollah group, would become the United States’ nemesis in its foreign policy involvements over the next two decades leading up to the present.

On Dec. 12, 1983, the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait was bombed by members of an Iranian based Shiite group called Al Dawa. Another Hezbollah attack on the Embassy annex building in Beirut occurred a year later on Sept. 20, 1984. What followed then was a series a highjackings like the TWA-847 incident on June 14, 1985 and the kidnappings of westerners (an Iranian trademark) in Beirut. An attempt was made in France to capture Mugniyah in 1986, but French officials refused to detain him. Having witnessed the failure of diplomatic ventures by his predecessor, Jimmy Carter, President Reagan was challenged to devise a different strategy in confronting this emerging formidable Islamic threat.

President Reagan did not retaliate directly against Iran, but as a major war between Iraq and Iran raged during his entire eight-year term, Reagan sought to affect the conflict to maintain the balance of power in the region, gain influence with both governments and secure the release of the hostages being held in Lebanon. Fearful of Iran’s grand design of controlling the oil reserves of the entire region, he announced the “Reagan Codicil” stating that the US would not “permit Saudi Arabia to become an Iran” and would protect the flow of oil from the Middle East. His approach to Iran was two pronged. Building a strategic connection with Tehran against the Soviet or leftist influences in Iran through arms transfers and intelligence sharing was one goal. This was the philosophy surrounding the Iran-Contra scandal that was to emerge in 1986. At the same time, the US government also sought to undermine the Khomeini government in favor of a more moderate government such as the one which preceded it under the Shah, counteract Iranian advances on the battlefront, and contain their attempts to control the oil tanker shipping lanes by deploying an American fleet to the Persian Gulf.

Another attack from another source came on Oct. 7, 1985 when terrorists hijacked the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro and killed Leon Klinghoffer in order to gain the release of 50 Palestinians held by the Israeli’s. The hijacking ended when the terrorists surrendered to Egyptian authorities in exchange for safe passage to Tunisia. Reagan, who refused to tolerate the loss of even one life, was not content with this resolution, “Good God, They’ve murdered an American here.” Despite the displeasure from Egypt and NATO members, he ordered the US military to “Just go get them!” Navy pilots set out and forced down an Egyptian airline carrying the terrorists over Italy. As a deterrent to other terrorists, President delivered the warning, “You can run, but you can’t hide.” Unfortunately, the Italian government released the terrorists. They were all later charged, but Abu Abbas, the mastermind of the attack, escaped recapture and since 1994 had been under the protection of Saddam Hussein. He was taken again during the US liberation of Baghdad.

Then came the1986 Berlin nightclub bombing that resulted in the death of a U.S. Marine on leave and injury to many others. Evidence indicated a Libya plot authorized by Omar Gaddafi. President Reagan knew instinctively that failure to respond decisively and forcefully would only invite more such attacks. He did not solicit UN approval or issue a legal indictment or wait for a criminal conviction based on a preponderance of precise evidence and he did not prepare a carefully nuanced response in the hope of pressing home a delicate point upon these unthinking savages.

He promptly ordered a surprise air raid targeting Gaddafi’s private palaces killing 17 persons including a family member and sending Gaddafi scurrying for safety in the desert. This is how much President Reagan valued the life of one Marine. (How unlike the Clinton administration that years later ruled that the 17 deaths aboard the USS Cole did not “warrant” a retaliatory strike.) The American government had spoken. It made the hard decision to protect its own citizens’ lives notwithstanding international reaction and the unfortunate collateral costs in human life. The Islamofacists of the world paused in their crusade to measure the boldness of this unexpected fierce warrior in the west.

At the eve of President’s second term, America’s resolve was tested again. On December 21, 1988 Pam Am Flight 103 on its leg from London to New York was downed by a bomb blast over Lockerbie, Scotland killing all 259 onboard and 11 on the ground. American dead numbered 189. It would be up the United State’s new President George H. Bush to decide the course of action. An investigation by the British was launched and two years passed before two Libyans were identified as the bombers. Syria and Iran were also thought to be involved. Omar Gaddafi refused to extradite the two men, even though UN sanctions were applied until 1998 when Libya agreed to a trial in the Netherlands for the men. Sanctions were lifted and on January 21, 2001, over 12 years after the attack, a verdict was reached. Since then Libya has agreed to take responsibility and compensate the victims. In 2003, sanctions were officially lifted and in 2004 Libya agreed to dismantle its WMD programs. A Palestinian who furnished the Semtex explosive was captured in Baghdad this spring. The legal process and UN pressures eventually bought Libya into compliance with the civilized world, but they would never have been effective at all, if Gaddafi had not first felt the sting of an American president’s wrath.

Yet some in the Arab world remained unconvinced of America’s convictions. Saddam Hussein of Iraq completely misjudged the determination of the United States and its respect among the nations when he invaded Kuwait. President George H. Bush did not wait long but immediately organized support for war against Iraq at the UN and placed 300,000 troops on the desert in an awesome display of the US military might. The battle was over in 100 hours, and the Arab world marveled at US power. But this limited war did not end the menace of Saddam Hussein. Though Kuwait was liberated and Saudi Arabia protected, Saddam was left in his palaces to continue to harass his neighbors and attack the United States.

To further secure his power, thousands of Shiites in southern Iraq and thousands more in the northern Kurdish area were slaughtered after a futile uprising. Saddam refused to accept the no-fly zone conditions and continued hostile action against allied aircraft. He did not disclose his weapons of mass destruction and in 1998, all UN inspectors were called out of the country. For twelve years, he was left mostly unmolested to spread terror through the region, develop weaponry and plan his revenge. Saddam rewarded financially the families of intifada martyrs that killed several hundred people in Israel including 12 Americans. Iraq became a home for wandering fugitive terrorists including Abu Nidal and Abu Musab al Zarqawi and a training ground for future jihad warriors.

Countering terrorism was never a priority for the Clinton administration. The superb military that gave us victory in Iraq was reduced from eighteen divisions to ten and intelligence resources were reduced drastically. While Clinton cut defense spending and raised taxes in order to fund more social domestic programs moved ahead, the terrorist’s plans for the destruction of America continued unobstructed. On February 26,1993, a bomb exploded aboard a Ryder van in an underground garage beneath Tower One of the World Trade Center. The explosion killed six people, injured 1,040 others and created a larger crater beneath the tower. The intent had been to collapse one tower into the other and release a cyanide gas cloud into the area. Nearly, 100,000 people work in or visit the WTC everyday.

Arrests followed quickly and in May of 1994, four men were sentenced to life. Later in October 1995, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, a blind cleric and member of the Islamic Group, was also sentenced to life for masterminding the bombing. Two other principle conspirators however escaped. Abdul Rahman Yasin who mixed the chemicals for the bomb, fled to Iraq where he was given sanctuary. Ramzi Yousef, who entered the US on an Iraq passport and planned the WTC wasn’t captured until 1995 in Pakistan. He had also sought to explode 12 airliners over the pacific in a plan called Operation Bojinka. In 1997 and 1998, eleven years after the “crime”, six more Islamic conspirators were convicted of the crime. Khaled Sheikh Mohammed who was just arrested in Pakistan in connection with the 9-11 plot was also involved in the 1993 bombing. Despite the obvious Iraqi connections, no investigations were conducted into that country’s complicity in the attack. Because of Bill Clinton’s insistence that acts of terrorism be treated as criminal activity, the focus was only on prosecuting individuals. Because of the high wall constructed between the Justice Department and the FBI, the issue of state sponsorship in this disaster was simply never addressed.

This attack had the potential of being just as destructive and perhaps even more than the 9-11 tragedy. Yet no terrorist state was targeted for retaliation. No 2-26 Commission was held. No investigation was made into an informant claim that the FBI had foreknowledge of the plot as early as Feb. 6, 1992. No inquiry into the preparedness of the nation’s security or the thoroughness of our response or recommendations for preventative measures was ever held. Had there been an aggressive appraisal of our security apparatus and policy toward terrorism at the time, perhaps much of the subsequent bloodshed might have been avoided. Instead, terrorist states began to believe again that they could operate against the US with impunity. The humiliation of our Rangers in Somali by elements of Al Quaida in October 1993 convinced international freelance terrorists that they could also prevail against the US.

In 1996, Bill Clinton ignored Osama bin Ladin’s declaration of war against the United States, thus failed to react appropriately to the ensuing acts of violence against our country’s interests. Bill Clinton emasculated our military and intelligence capabilities, leaving America weak and blind. There was no significant counteroffensive against terror during the entire eight-year term because Clinton wanted it that way. Bill Clinton chose to avoid the political risks of averting Middle Eastern terror. Consequently, he left the whole population at risk. National security suffered for the sake of his presidential legacy. During his term as leader of the free world, he gladly passed the responsibility of Iraq over to the UN, resigned our country to “co-existing” with terrorism, and even strove to cover up the full-scale assault underway by Middle Eastern terrorist organizations. The full story has yet to be told concerning the Oklahoma City bombing and Flight TWA 800.

While Clinton fooled around in such non-vital non-threatening places like Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo and harassed the “vast right wing conspiracy” at home, burned down a community of religious eccentrics or was otherwise “distracted”, international terrorists established their network of communications, raised finances, and released over 120,000 fresh recruits out into unwary nations. As Clinton continued to prosecute terror in the courts rather on the battlefield, our enemies continued to rack up one successful assault after another; Kolbar Towers military barracks in Saudi Arabia; the bombing of the two U.S. embassies in east Africa, and the USS Cole anchored in Yeman. Undaunted by subpoena papers, the international terrorists intensified their attacks which culminated in the single largest lost of civilian life and property destruction in America’s history on 9-11-2001. Welcome to WWIII.

How would a John Kerry administration wage the war against terror? During the standoff with Libya, Kerry joined with the squeamish appeasement crowd who fretted about overreaching and world opinion and put more faith in the UN than the US. Not surprisingly, France had denied flyover permission forcing US bombers to circumvent their country. France’s offensive “no show” at Reagan’s funeral eighteen years later no doubt can be attributed to the bitterness over this event. Massachusetts’s Senator John Kerry who downplayed the vicious nightclub attack saying the retaliatory bombing was “disproportional” to the act. In other words, the country should tolerate certain acts of aggression and restrain itself from punishing the offender too harshly.

His penchant for trying to occupy both sides of an issue at the same time was well established even then. He began, “My initial inclination was to support the President.“ He finished by maintaining the action failed to meet to two tests of irrefutable evidence and being proportional to the act. He did not think that targeting a head of state is ever acceptable, “no matter how repugnant we find the leader.” It was his firm opinion that “we are never going to solve the problem of terrorism with this kind of retaliation. There are numerous other actions we can take, in concert with our allies, to bring significant pressure to bear on countries supporting or harboring terrorists.”

His recommendations have already been put to test during the Clinton administration. The result has been a terrible rise in the scope and demonic activity of the Islamofacist forces. Kerry was wrong then, as he is wrong today. France was as opposed to us then as they are now. The UN was ineffective then as they are ineffective today. The only issue Kerry has remained consistent on through the years has been a liberal opposition to a strong military capability and a restrained approach in confronting terror. In the year after the 1993 WTC bombing, Kerry proposed an amendment that would have cut an additional $4 billion from the national security appropriation bill that had already been reduced by $18 billion. In 1995, he wanted to reduce the intelligence budget by $300 M for the next five years. John Kerry heartlessly abandoned the Kuwaits to the tender mercies of Saddam by voting against the 1991 Gulf War. In 1994, he voted against funding for rebuilding Iraq and support for the troops, even after voting for military action.

Kerry would also reject the death sentence for terrorists convicted of murder. Today he is convinced that strictly following the “obligations of the Geneva convention,” something he personally ignored during his service in Vietnam, will determine the outcome of the war with terror. He did not explain how acting civilized would persuade animals that slaughter helpless human beings by sawing off their heads to become peaceful. John Kerry, during the Democrat primaries, claimed the war against terror was being “exaggerated” and has promised to return to Clinton’s failed policies of intelligence operations and criminal investigations with minimal military involvement, if he were to be elected Commander-in-Chief. In a December speech before the Council on Foreign Relations, he pledged to apologize before the UN for President Bush’s conduct and seek “cooperation and compromise” with friend and foe. Kerry wants to ignore 25 years of terror and shed American blood thinking he can entice the hard liners in the Iranian government through “dialogue.” Obviously, he does not understand the seriousness of the terror, doesn’t remember anything from history about it or hasn’t a clue on how to deal with it.

Throughout the history of our war with Islamic extremism, when our Commander-in-Chief acted forcibly and decisively, the threat of terror receded. When the response was slow, methodical, complicated diplomatically or completely absent, the danger increased dramatically. This is proof enough, that in dealing with state sponsored or international terrorism, brute force is the only message a terrorist understands. Ronald Reagan gave us the first victory in the war against terror. That lesson should never be lost. The war is not going to be won if we handicap ourselves by imposing excessive politically correct restrictions on preemptive measures in the homeland and on the war front. Our enemy is an implacable foe who scorns our civilized ways and exploits them as weaknesses. What did it take to destroy the German war producing capacity and subdue the Japanese empire? What did it take to force the Soviet Union to capitulate? Our defense strategies cannot be made subject to approval of international organizations that have proven to be unreliable, motivated by self-interests and have yet to unite on their own initiative against the rise of jihadism across the globe.

President George W. Bush has heeded the lessons of the past and put national security above his own political future. He did not attempt to appease or ignore our determined enemies, but declared them as the “Axis of Evil.” He has implemented the “Bush Doctrine” which defines any country that harbors or supports terrorist as a terrorist state and a pariah in the civilized world. He has reserved the right to launch pre-emptive strikes against any developing threat against our nation with or without the consensus of international groups. Since that awful day in New York when America was awakened from its naiveté and apathy, there have been no significant strikes on U.S. soil. An entirely new government agency has been set up to develop extensive homeland security measures. The FBI, CIA, NSA, INS and U.S. Border Patrol have all been re-organized, streamlined and given greater authority under the Patriot Act.

In the Middle East, two totalitarian barbaric terrorist states have been crushed by coalition forces and democratic style governments begun in their place. Bin Laden and the Taliban are on the run. Libya has given up its WMD programs. Iran and North Korea are now open to discussions concerning their nuclear development programs. Sanctions have been placed on Syria. Iran has been warned about interfering with the formulation of the new government in Iraq. Other countries such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Pakistan have joined the “coalition of the willing” and are pursuing radical elements within their own states. The Islamofacists have ambitious goals. They must be opposed with an equally broad and bold vision for stability and freedom for the Arab peoples.

This was not a fight of our choosing. We were not at war toward any Muslim country with the exception of Iraq when we were attacked on 9-11-2001. In fact, all previous military operations as in Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo were in direct support of Muslim peoples. In times past, we even assisted Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet we are regarded as the “great Satan.” So how is persuasion or enticement even possible? (Liberals are always at a complete loss when they can’t talk themselves out of a situation.) Failure is not an option. Losing would mean the death of hundreds of thousands. There is no “exit strategy” from the war with terror. We can only sometimes choose where to fight it.

The war against international terrorism remains a war against state sponsored terrorism, just as in Reagan’s time. Terrorist groups do not exist in air. They are sustained by the weakness or complicity of a host country. We must seek them out and destroy them wherever they are found. Not only did Iraq have extensive ties with various terrorist organizations around the globe, it was itself a terrorist state. The government of Saddam Hussein and his sons was the only nation to officially praise the attacks on 9-11. If our terror war does not include Iraq, then where should the enemy be engaged?

Afghanistan and Iraq are only the opening battles of what will be an interminable bloody ordeal until one side loses the desire to bear the fight. A terror war though replete with the accompanying scenes of destroyed buildings, massive civilian deaths and maimed soldiers strewn across city streets, still is largely waged in the psychological realm and is a test of will or spirit. When President Bush campaigned for his office in 2000, he promised his approach to foreign policy would be “real.” It’s up to the American people now if they are able to abandon the willful false sense of security created for them during the Clinton administration and accept that we are bound in a brutal life and death struggle with an unrelenting subhuman merciless adversary.

The strength of our enemy today, is directly proportional to their belief that they can win. Unfortunately, everything they have witnessed since UN 1991 Gulf War that left Saddam in power, to the feeble resistance of the Clinton years, to the selfish cowardice of the liberals displayed in this year’s electioneering and to the Anti-American sentiments and passivity of most European countries indicates that they will. Terrorists must be made to doubt their prowess and fear the wrath of the United States. Every threat that manifests itself deserves a quick decisive unflinching devastating strike at the heart, which will do more to silence the beast than “swatting flies.” This will not be possible unless we as a people exhibit solidarity against our oppressors and are prepared to do whatever it takes with or without assistance from other nations.