As I viewed the crowd and the many Marines in attendance I couldn’t help but notice how young most of them were. Many were years younger than our son, a Marine on active duty. I watched the wives of these Marines dab their eyes, joining the widow in her sorrow but I wondered how many were silently thanking God and questioning if their husband was next. Each had been to too many memorial services honoring those killed in service to our nation. I stood with Marines I knew, double and triple amputees, who survived previous IED blasts but will live with their battle scars forever. I saw lots of medals and ribbons and far too many Purple Hearts. These men and their families knew what too few truly understood; freedom isn’t free.

As we neared the end of the service, seven Marines executing military precision aimed their rifles to the sky and fired three volleys, a twenty-one gun salute. The volley of shots adhered to a European custom when the warring sides ceased fighting long enough to remove the dead and wounded from the battlefield. Back then the volleys signaled the bodies had been properly cared for allowing the battle to resume. For the family of this Marine, his body was no longer on the battlefield. It was home and he was resting in glory for eternity but the fight in a distant land continues.

Following taps, two Marine non-commissioned officers sharply folded the flag draping the coffin. When complete, the now tri-corned package, with only the blue field and stars showing, symbolized the hat worn by American patriots during the Revolution. I heard a soft whimper as the widow was presented the flag, tears streaming down her cheeks. Following the final salute as she was being ushered to a black hearse, she succumbed to her emotions collapsing into the arms of her Marine escort; her sacrifice, in the name of freedom, more than most have paid.

Political commentator Dennis Prager believes the greatest crisis facing this nation is the fact we no longer understand what it means to be an American. I don’t believe the men and women I saw at the hilltop memorial service have that problem. They understand honor, courage, and commitment. They understand tradition, duty, faith, sacrifice, and individual responsibility. They understand what it means to be an American.

Last year I met a young Marine at Balboa Naval Hospital and we have since become friends. He came to this country in 2000 when he was twelve years old not speaking a word of English. He joined his mother and brother in fleeing the Ukraine. Now he speaks perfect English with no hint of an accent. Less than a year ago he lost both legs above the knee to an IED blast in the Helmand province of Afghanistan. When I asked him why he joined the Marine Corps, he looked me in the eye and without wavering said, “To pay back this nation for all it has given my mother and me.” He understands what it means to be an American.

Less than one percent of the nation’s population has served in the military since 9/11. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines define their patriotism by more than a bumper sticker or an American flag refrigerator magnet. They knew when they signed the enlistment papers they were offering up life and limb for this nation. They understood an irrational ideology wants to destroy the liberties we too often take for granted. Unlike most political pundits, these men and women have been in the arena, not in the grandstands hurling epithets. They have watched friends and loved ones bleed and die in the name of freedom. They looked beyond self-interest and committed to a cause greater than themselves. We live free today because of those individuals, past, present, and in the future, willing to lay it all on the line. This Memorial Day honor those who served and sacrificed; those who paid the ultimate price for our freedom. Semper Fi.

Shortly after the column appeared, a senior U.S. intelligence officer – and a friend – admonished me, “It’s not just HUMINT.” He described the problem as “institutional arrogance” and a failure to give credence “to information from outside the system.”

“The System.” Those two words describe a risk-averse, inertia-driven, leak-prone, and politically-correct bureaucracy now committed to “responsibly end” – not win – the war in Afghanistan. “The System” tells us that “the war on terror is over.” But the institutional arrogance in “The System” goes well beyond simply ignoring information from “outside.” It also creates complacency about vulnerabilities, jeopardizes our troops on the battlefield – and exacerbates threats to American civilians anywhere on the globe.

This week, before the so-called mainstream media plunged into a frenzy over Mr. Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage, Saudi Arabia’s intelligence service retrieved a new “underwear bomb” that was intended to be worn and detonated by a suicide-terrorist aboard a U.S.-bound airliner. According to published reports, the device, designed in Yemen by al-Qaeda’s master bomb builder Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri, is much improved over the version carried aboard Northwest Airlines Flight #253 from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day, 2009.

Though the new aircraft bomb is now being analyzed by FBI explosives experts, the operation to obtain the device from Yemen was run by the Saudis. Nonetheless, the Obama administration immediately claimed credit and in a now familiar pattern – details about the bomb and the Saudi double agent who penetrated al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) were leaked to the press. Aboard Air Force One, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that the president is “pleased with the success of our intelligence and counterterrorism officials in foiling the attempt by al-Qaeda to use this explosive device.” He went on to insist, “At no time were Americans in danger as a result of this, and, as you know, we were able to foil the attempt to use this device.”
Prince Mohammed bin Nayef – head of Saudi Arabia’s intelligence service – has to wonder about the words “our” and “we” in the White House commentary. The prince has “skin in the game” when it comes to al-Qaeda. In 2009, Nayef was nearly killed when an AQAP suicide-terrorist detonated a “cavity bomb” during a royal audience. The bomber: al-Asiri’s own brother.

In an effort to reassure Americans who fly, the Obama administration maintains the capture of the new al-Qaeda aircraft bomb demonstrates the effectiveness of “measures we take to counter threats to the aviation industry” and “indicative of the multifaceted approach” the O-Team is taking for “dealing with the threat.” This, too, is institutional arrogance.

Rep. John Mica, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is concerned that there may well be more bombs and bombers out there. Officials from Janet Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) – already under investigation for mismanagement, waste, fraud, and abuse – insist the latest scanners can detect the “new and improved” suicide bomb. But Mica has reason to be skeptical. Many overseas airports don’t use sophisticated equipment to detect nonmetallic explosive devices.

Members of Congress from both parties are howling about the hemorrhage of classified details regarding how the Saudis penetrated AQAP and the bomb they recovered. On Thursday, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters that the leaks “damage our ability to pursue our intelligence efforts.” James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence is supposedly conducting an “internal review” to determine whether classified information has been revealed. And just so everyone feels good about all this, an anonymous O-Team source leaked that the FBI has opened a criminal investigation on the leaks. You can’t make this stuff up.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s self-congratulatory “leaks” and hollow assertions about how safe we are from form-fitting exploding underwear mask an even more serious threat to commercial aviation. Four times over the last ten months, this column has warned about man-portable anti-aircraft missiles – known as MANPADs – missing from Moammar Gadhafi’s arsenals in Libya. This week, David Ignatius, writing in the Washington Post, revealed that 800 of the refurbished missiles are now in the hands of al-Qaeda affiliated groups in Africa.

The Obama administration’s chest-thumping claim that they are “winning the fight against al-Qaeda” is hubris. Worse, the “institutional arrogance” and rejection of “outside” information places anyone who flies in harm’s way.

Gay-marriage objections fail

Wendell Henry

Here’s my problem with this opinion and its supporters, the argument fails to meet its own standard, reason, and the writer effectively puts himself above God.

He does the latter by assuming his value-set has more authority than what God put in His book. Obviously, Mr. Henry rejects the existence of a power higher than himself, but that does not endow him with moral authority over the majority of people in America who do believe in God.

There’s nothing reasonable about Mr. Henry’s argument. Backhanding the documented damages of the homosexual lifestyle is disingenuous if not purposely deceptive. Suggesting religious tenets have no place in law displays an astounding depth of ignorance of both history and the present.

Mr. Henry may never have read the Constitution, so I’ll point out here that the first amendment to that document called “the supreme law of the land,” says; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…,” (emphasis mine). It might also help him to read our nation’s birth certificate, The Declaration of Independence. Our national construct is based on the preeminence of The Creator.

I know it’s “cool” these days to propagate the canard that our founders held no respect or support for religion and its tenets, but empirical evidence simply renders that theory unsupportable by any “reasonable” person.

The final straw-man argument based on the “only two societal reasons” the writer has so far heard is neither reasonable nor thoughtful.

On the one-year anniversary of bin Laden’s demise at the hands of U.S. special operators, the Barack Obama re-election campaign made a “surprise,” middle of the night visit to Kabul, Afghanistan. According to White House “talking points,” the purpose of the trip was twofold: “thank the troops” and sign a “historic” strategic partnership agreement with Afghan’s erratic president, Hamid Karzai. It was brilliant political theater in a theatre of war.

Since the end of World War II, few military operations have received as much self-congratulatory acclaim by a commander in chief as the operation to kill the head of al-Qaeda. Mention of Osama bin Laden’s death is a constant in every Obama campaign appearance and fundraiser. Bin Laden being dead is a staple in Democrat Party direct mail and internet solicitations, and mentioned more often than the POTUS Nobel Peace Prize. The topic even creeps into speeches about green energy, healthcare, the economy and White House meetings with foreign dignitaries.

Republicans and conservatives complain about the O-Team hyping bin Laden’s death. They cite Vice President Joe Biden’s chest-thumping comment, “Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive,” as proof that Obama is “overplaying his hand,” or “taking too much credit,” even “dancing in the end zone.” But wait. Every politician running for re-election touts his or her “accomplishments,” deserved or not. And face it, killing bin Laden is one of the few real accomplishments of this administration. Anyone who didn’t see this “we killed bin Laden celebration” coming knows less about American politics than my Boykin Spaniel.

Angst over the O-Team’s use of bin Laden’s death in the president’s re-election campaign is a distraction. Critics – including Governor Romney’s advisors – should focus on issues that really are important to protecting the American people. Some recent examples:

There are Republicans running around Washington trying to calculate how much this week’s campaign junket to Kabul cost the American taxpayers. But this isn’t just another GSA swindle. Those who want us to hire a new commander in chief need to explain what’s in – and not in – the so-called “Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement” Obama and Karzai signed in the few minutes they spent together on Tuesday morning. The document has glowing words about “shared determination” and “mutual commitments” but is silent on our financial burden. It contains nothing about how many American military personnel will remain in Afghanistan after our “combat forces” are withdrawn in 2014 and fails to describe their mission or capabilities. Unlike a status of forces agreement, it provides no legal protections for U.S. troops. In short – it’s fluff. The Romney team needs to tell us how they would do better.

The substance of what actually transpired in Kabul wasn’t the only missed opportunity for the GOP to hone in on the Obama administration’s destitute national security record. On Monday, John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, told a Washington audience that “targeted strikes” from remotely piloted aircraft (the media incorrectly refers to them as drones) are the most “effective,” “legal,” “proportional,” “ethical” – even “humane” way of protecting us from terrorists. Instead of a quick GOP response, it took Jose Rodriguez, former director of the CIA’s National Clandestine Service and author of the new book, “Hard Measures,” to ask how death by Hellfire missile is more “humane” than capturing and questioning terror kingpins. Rodriguez points out that Obama’s “take no prisoners” policy means no captured terrorists, no interrogations and no human intelligence (HUMINT).

Mr. Obama doesn’t talk about our abysmal lack of human intelligence in this long war. He called waterboarding and sleep deprivation for captured terrorists “torture,” and banned these enhanced interrogation techniques.

Our appalling HUMINT deficit was evident shortly after Air Force One took off from Bagram Air Base early Tuesday morning when suicide bombers struck “Green Village,” a secure compound outside Kabul. Press accounts incorrectly ascribed the attack – which killed seven and wounded dozens, including school children – to the Taliban. But a credible source says the assault was conducted by the Haqqani network and that NATO officials were alerted more than 6 hours before the strike about the arrival of the suicide team in Kabul. The intel provided included information on how to precisely locate the terrorists. When asked why the attack wasn’t prevented I was told: “It was HUMINT. Nobody pays attention to HUMINT.”

Strategists in the “Romney for President” campaign need to identify problems like these and explain how they will fix them – fast. Bin Laden is still dead. But the war being waged against us isn’t. If Republicans fail to focus on doing better, the O-Team will turn the “theatre of war” in Afghanistan into a “theater of the absurd.”

I said I would vote for whomever won the GOP nomination. As of this writing, it appears to be Mitt Romney. Truthfully, I believe Mitt has the skills and organization to defeat Obama and stop his fundamental transformation of America. We all know what four more years of increased socialistic decisions would do to our country.

By all reasonable rationale and political forecast, in a couple months Mitt Romney will reach the necessary delegate count and become the GOP’s official nominee. And before the GOP fractures with a third-party candidate (as it did in 1992, 1996 and 2008) and hands over the election again in doing so, I want to propose to Romney a way to rally the GOP base and even, I believe, those who dislike him.

Typically, this is the time when we all speculate about the GOP nominee’s choice for vice president – his running mate, and we pray to God that his decision is so magnanimous that it will instantly rally the entire spectrum of political preferences at his side. Of course, that’s a political pipe dream, and I believe a short-sided, typical campaign technique in a unique election war that requires a very unconventional strategy for winning. With existing polarities (indeed, divisiveness) in the GOP and conservative base alone, choosing the right VP is alone not going to be enough, inasmuch as a Super Bowl team couldn’t rally its fan base based upon just a controversial quarterback and great wide receiver.

For those optimistic statisticians who would point out that just last week a new Fox News poll showed that the race between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is “dead even” with 46 percent of society favoring each, I would remind them that those statistics are equal, despite four years of President Obama’s reckless decisions against our republic and despite that his re-election campaign hasn’t even unleashed its billion-dollar war chest against Romney. (That sum makes Mitt’s effectual 20 million used to destroy Newt’s candidacy back in the Florida primary look like chump change.)

If the Obama campaign machine and its mainstream media minions are already pigeon-holing Romney as “extreme right wing” (Are you kidding?!), imagine what they will say and do to his likely more-conservative running mate? (Does anyone remember the plight of Gov. Sarah Palin with Sen. John McCain in 2008?)

I think Mitt Romney, and maybe even most Republicans, are underestimating the difficulty of persuading conservatives, evangelicals, libertarians, let alone the rest of the country, to vote for Romney, despite the sultan of socialist swing might remain in the Oval Office. General election apathy and depression in the fall could alone take its toll.

It doesn’t take a political scientist to see that, if liberals like former President Jimmy Carter say they would be “comfortable” with Mitt Romney, conservatives, evangelicals, libertarians and others are going to have a gigantic struggle rallying around Romney. But if he would take the following course of action, they might find backing him much more palatable.

Enough talk. The idea is this, and it isn’t my idea – but the action of President Abraham Lincoln.

A book that highlights Lincoln’s brilliant action is titled, “Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln,” by Doris Kearns Goodwin, Pulitzer Prize-winning author and presidential historian. In addition to topping charts and receiving scholarly acclaim, the book itself is political genius and I believe it outlines the crucial strategy not only needed to rally the present GOP base but also win the White House and save our republic. (I also wrote about this unifying strategy in a former article, “The 8th miracle that saved America.”)

Goodwin’s prize-winning treatise details how Lincoln brought together his candidate rivals by appointing them to key positions in his administration when he became president.

Let me re-highlight a few critical points from Goodwin’s book review in the New York Times:

As these internal Republican feuds suggest, the party in the 1860s was a coalition of politicians who only a few years earlier had been Whigs (Lincoln, Seward, Bates), Democrats (Blair, Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles and Vice President Hannibal Hamlin), Free Soilers (Chase), or had flirted with the short-lived anti-immigrant American Party, or Know Nothings (Cameron and Bates). In addition, several cabinet members personally disliked each other: Blair and Chase, Seward and Welles, Chase and Seward, Blair and Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, who replaced Cameron in January 1862. Lincoln’s “political genius” enabled him to herd these political cats and keep them driving toward ultimate victory.

How did he do it? Goodwin deals with this question better than any other writer. Part of the answer lay in Lincoln’s steadfastness of purpose, which inspired subordinates to overcome their petty rivalries. Part of it lay in his superb sense of timing and his sensitivity to the pulse of public opinion as he moved to bring along a divided people to the support of “a new birth of freedom.” And part of it lay in Lincoln’s ability to rise above personal slights, his talent for getting along with men of clashing ideologies and personalities who could not get along with each other.

Whether you agree with Lincoln or not, his team of rivals worked, propelled his leadership and ultimately unified the country.

Isn’t our divided country again ripe for a new “team of rivals,” made up of past presidential candidates and other vetted, qualified and esteemed national leaders, rather than merely a dynamic duo fighting the billion-dollar Obama campaign machine?

Abraham Lincoln recognized the wisdom of Jesus when it came to collective success: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

The question is: Will Romney?

(In Part 2, I will not only elaborate more on this concept of a team of rivals, and who I believe should be a part of it, but also share the inspiring dream my wife, Gena, had that we both hope comes true).

Thirty-seven years ago this week, North Vietnamese armor units closed in on Saigon, the capital of South Vietnam. Shortly after dawn on April 30, 1975, a U.S. Marine CH-46 helicopter lifted off the roof of the U.S. embassy in “Operation Frequent Wind” in a last desperate effort to evacuate U.S. citizens from the city before it fell to Ho Chi Minh’s invaders. The fall of Saigon ended the Vietnam War, but the only “victory parades” for those who fought there were held in Hanoi. The U.S. Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines who battled in Vietnam for more than a decade were quietly welcomed home by their families and comrades – but few of their countrymen bothered to even thank them for their service and sacrifice.

Now it appears that another war has ended without a “victory parade.” According to an article this week in the National Journal, an unnamed “senior State Department official” has declared “The war on terror is over.” This bold proclamation was amplified by a stunning claim that the “Arab Spring” has been a great success: “Now that we have killed most of al Qaida, now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism.”

This must come as welcome news to members of Al Shabab, Abu Sayyaf, Jemmah Islamiyah, Hamas, Hezbollah, Boko Haram, the Taliban, the Haqqani network and the 38 other violent radical Islamist groups already on the State Department’s “List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations.” Knowing that the “war on terror is over” must also be a relief to the ayatollahs in Tehran and the brutal regime of Omar Hassan al-Bashir in Khartoum, Sudan. One can only hope the word gets out soon about the war on terror being over so radical Islamists planting improvised explosive devices (IEDs) to blow up our Marines in Afghanistan’s Helmand Province and those ambushing our 10th Mountain Division soldiers in the shadows of the Hindu Kush will stop plying their deadly trade and just celebrate.

Unfortunately, the war on terror isn’t over. The White House tried to “clarify” the State Department’s ludicrous claim – but as usual, got it wrong. After the National Journal piece hit the wires, White House spokesman Tommy Vietor insisted, “We absolutely have never said our war against al Qaida is over. We are prosecuting that war at an unprecedented pace.”

And therein is the problem. The Obama administration cannot seem to figure out who our enemies really are. The once global terror organization known as “al Qaeda” (or “al Qaida” to some) is indeed just a shell of what it was when we were attacked on 9-11-01. The group has been decapitated and badly damaged. Osama bin Laden’s successor, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is so deep in hiding he cannot order a new pair of socks without fear of a Reaper or Predator dropping a Hellfire missile on his head.

Al Qaeda is just one of more than 80 hyper-violent radical Islamist organizations committing acts of terrorism around the world today. Al Qaeda could disappear tomorrow, but the war being waged against the West by radical Islamists won’t be over. American civilians will still be their number one target. That’s why Obama’s pledge to “end these wars responsibly” by 2014 makes no sense.

Whether our president realizes it or not, radical Islamic militants from the islands of the South Pacific to the Sahel in Africa are committed to their jihad. Those ruling in Iran – while they rush to build nuclear weapons – aren’t deterred by flowery rhetoric from a Nobel Laureate or “sanctions” from the U.N. Nor are the radical Islamists striving for power in Egypt, Syria, Yemen, and the “stans,” as they terrorize Muslims and Christians alike.

The words “win” and “triumph” are rarely heard in Washington today. That means a “victory parade” for the young Americans who have been fighting this war for more than a decade is unlikely. Before declaring this war is “over,” the O-Team ought to recall the words of Ronald Reagan: “There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace–and you can have it in the next second–surrender.”

One of the latest battles is on the campus of Vanderbilt University, right here in Music City. In what can only be described as ludicrous, this school wants to rid itself of any student organization that “discriminates.” Once again, a perfectly useful word is perverted to lend “moral” authority to what is truly discriminatory. In function, this policy would mandate that if an atheist wants to “lead” a Christian group, they must be allowed.

Chancellor Zeppos, I want your job. Using the logic of the inane policy you want to impose on your students, can you give me one good reason why I can’t move into your office next week? Your school takes tax money, which came from my pocket, so I should have the same authority to choose who runs your school as you want to lord over your students.

Or how about this? I want to take a post-graduate course at your school to get a doctorate in chemical engineering. I don’t have a college degree of any kind and I don’t really know the first thing about this field, but would you not be discriminating against me to decline my request? Oh, and one more thing to come fully in line with this worldview, I want this degree for free and I don’t want to have to do any of the work to earn it.

This kind of thing shames all higher education and exemplifies why our nation is in decline. Those who are standing up against this tyranny are to be lauded and supported.

The Secret Service Scandal. On April 11, security cameras in Cartagena, Colombia, captured images of eleven Secret Service agents and at least ten U.S. military personnel in the company of prostitutes. Set aside for a moment the lack of moral judgment by the participants or how an “advance team of experts” for the upcoming Summit of the Americas could be ignorant of security cameras. In the aftermath of this incident and an ongoing investigation, the president and likely GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney – also a Secret Service protectee – have both repeatedly told reporters that they still “have confidence” in Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan. “Why?” ought to be the next question. But that isn’t asked.

Perhaps the most unusual response to this event came from the lips of General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. At an April 16 news conference on the Middle East, the general was asked for his reaction to the caper in Cartagena. His answer was blatantly political: “We let the boss down, because nobody is talking about what went down in Colombia other than this incident.” Let “the boss” down? What about potentially catastrophic security breaches, the incredible lack of judgment or even letting down the American people? But those questions aren’t asked either.
Hillary’s Hijinks. On the evening of April 14, day one of the two-day, 33-nation summit, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton apparently decided to take the heat off the Secret Service by performing for the cameras herself. Her antics at Café Havana nightclub were reminiscent of government bureaucrats on a taxpayer-funded GSA boondoggle or a sorority gal at a frat party.

State Department spokesman Mark Toner dismissed the exhibition saying, “I can confirm that she did indeed have a very good time and was just enjoying some of the nightlife in Cartagena… There’s nothing to it.” In a subsequent interview on CNN, Secretary Clinton laughed and said, “It was a lot of fun. We had a very good time just enjoying beautiful Cartagena.”

Offending Allies. At the conclusion of the Cartagena summit, during a joint press conference with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, Mr. Obama was asked by a member of the Latin American press corps about future U.S. policy toward “Cuba and the Malvinas.” Apparently unwitting to the fact that April marks the 30th anniversary of the bloody fight to retake the Falkland Islands from Argentine invaders, our head of state replied, “In terms of the Maldives or the Falklands, whatever your preferred term, our position on this is that we are going to remain neutral.”

This had to disappoint our British allies. President Reagan backed them in the two-month long operation – during which they lost more than 250 Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines. Mr. Obama’s statement also had to stun any student of geography, since the Maldives are an island chain south of India. There was no follow-up question for our Nobel Laureate.

Afghanistan. The craziness in Cartagena did serve one purpose for the O-Team. It distracted attention from at least seven, near-simultaneous terror attacks on April 15 in Kabul, Jalalabad, Gardez and Pul-e Alam, the capital of Logar province. U.S. and NATO officials praised the effectiveness of Afghan National Security Forces for their “effective response,” and noted that there were no American or NATO casualties. But Afghan President Hamid Karzai said the attacks were proof of an “intelligence failure for us, and especially NATO.”

Pentagon officials deny this charge, but acknowledge there was “very little ‘chatter’ in advance of the attack.” Unfortunately, this admission confirms what nobody seems ready to admit: the fight in the shadows of the Hindu Kush is dogged by inadequate human intelligence. This crucial deficiency will exacerbate the danger to U.S. and NATO troops as they begin their withdrawal from Afghanistan this summer.

By the end of the week, even this story was eclipsed by the publication of two-year old photos showing U.S. troops posing with the remains of dead suicide bombers. The reaction to these images by senior government officials, from the commander in chief on down, is to express “shock,” apologize and promise “to hold those responsible accountable.” But events this week indicate those “in charge” need to ask themselves, “What were we thinking?” And members of the so-called mainstream media ought to remind them all that leadership begins at the top.

The December 13, 2003 capture of the deposed dictator, dragged filthy and bedraggled from a “spider hole” within sight of his palace in Tikrit, failed to quell a rising insurgency. During the following spring and through the autumn of 2004, the U.S. Marines and Soldiers we lived with in Anbar Province were in daily gun battles with well-armed Sunni insurgents waging jihad against the “invaders.” To the east and in Baghdad, Shiite militias launched a campaign of terror against their Sunni countrymen and coalition troops. At home, critics of the war and the Bush administration prognosticated that the fights for Fallujah and Ramadi were prelude to all-out civil war. But that didn’t happen either.

In the spring of 2005, we were embedded with the Marines when they launched Operation Matador in Al Qa’im, where the Euphrates River enters Iraq from Syria. Their mission: staunch the flow of weapons, munitions and suicidal Islamist militants flooding into Anbar Province from Syria. Interdicting the Damascus-supported ratlines turned out to be a very good idea. Five months later, we documented the first free, national legislative election in Iraqi history – and a better than 70 percent turnout.

U.S. military operations along Iraq’s border with Syria didn’t end the insurgency, but they made the subsequent “awakening” in Anbar – and then the rest of the country – possible. By the time we were covering the “surge” five years ago, the bloody operation in Al Qa’im was all but forgotten by those who once predicted catastrophe in Iraq. The “reporters” who didn’t make it to Al Qa’im in 2005 ought to go there now. This desert town on the banks of the Euphrates is once again the scene of a flood from Syria. But now it’s a torrent of refugees fleeing the sanguinary carnage wrought by Bashar al-Assad.

None of us – including the U.S. Marines we accompanied to Baghdad and beyond nine years ago this week – expected the outcome we now see in the Middle East. In the aftermath of the attack on 9-11-01, the end of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was predictable. So, too, was the demise of Saddam Hussein once the battle in Iraq was joined. But no one in government or elsewhere spoke or wrote about these military operations precipitating a near-spontaneous cascade of collapsing authoritarian regimes throughout the region. Yet, that’s what has happened.

When unarmed civilians protesting oppressive government policies, rampant unemployment and escalating food prices drove Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali from power in Tunisia on January 14 of last year, devotees of Barack Obama attributed the event to our president’s Nobel Prize-winning oratorical skills. They called it the “transition in Tunis,” and described it all as the beginning of an “Arab Spring.” It was repeated yet again in February as crowds in Cairo forced Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak from power. The term was still in vogue in October when Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi fell to an armed rebellion – and NATO airstrikes. Now it’s happening in Syria – but this time the crowds are armed – and no one speaks of an “Arab Spring” anymore.

This week’s “cease fire,” brokered by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, hasn’t stopped Syrian refugees from trekking through the Syrian Desert and across the border into Al Qa’im. Deterred by harsh conditions, lack of fuel, inadequate food and water and banned by the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki from going any further, they have become unwelcome squatters in the border town that once served as a refuge for terrorists.

The brutal irony in all this is that many of those who once passed through Al Qa’im to threaten the government in Baghdad are now among the armed rebels menacing the regime in Damascus. For six years, Bashar al-Assad was deaf to U.S. pleas to cut the terror ratlines from Syria into Iraq. Instead, he did the opposite – facilitating the movement of thousands of Islamist fighters into Anbar Province to kill and maim. Now, those same Islamists have turned on him and he is learning one of the harsh realities of war: what goes around – comes around.