March 20, 2006 marked the third anniversary of the beginning of the war in Iraq. American forces quickly toppled Saddam's regime but, three years later, the war continues – as the U.S. faces a dire terrorist enemy that seeks to prevent democracy from coming to Iraq and to impose a tyrannical Sharia state on the Iraqi people. To mark the third anniversary of this center of conflict in our war on terror, we have assembled a distinguished panel to assess: how are we doing and where are we headewd? Our guests today are:

Captain Chuck Nash, a retired Naval Aviator and former F/A-18 HORNET squadron commander. He is the founder of Emerging Technologies International Inc., a defense technology consulting business in Alexandria VA. He is also a FOX News Channel Military Analyst. 

Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney, the co-author with Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely on their book Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror. He is a retired Air Force Fighter Pilot who has been a Fox News Military Analyst for the last four and a half years and continues to appear regularly on Fox. He just returned from his second visit to Iraq in December, 2005.

Paul (Dave) Gaubatz, a former U.S. Federal Agent (Arabic linguist/counter-terrorist specialist) who was deployed to Iraq at the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He is currently the Chief Investigator with the Dallas County Medical Examiner, Dallas, TX.

and

Buzz Patterson, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF (Retired). He is the author of the New York Times bestseller 'Dereliction of Duty' and 'Reckless Disregard'. He is the host of 'The Buzz Cut' at Rightalk Radio Network.

FP: Captain Chuck Nash, Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney, Paul (Dave) Gaubatz, and Buzz Patterson, welcome to Frontpage Symposium.

Captain Nash, let’s begin with you. Let’s start with a general theme and see where our discussion goes. Three years later in Iraq, how do you think we are doing? Are we winning or losing? What have we done right and what have we done wrong? What have been some of the significant landmark watersheds, if any?

Nash: I firmly believe that we are winning in every sense of that word. If you look at the polls taken in Iraq, the vast majority of the people think their lives are getting better and see the future as brighter. 

Having said that, there are some significant hurdles that the Iraqis must get over but in the main, I believe the people see that their future is more secure as a nation state of Iraq with its borders intact than they would be in a tough neighbourhood as separate religious/ethnic identities. 

The people in real trouble over there today are the foreign fighters because the populace is turning on them as there is real recognition now that they are the main source of the problems and have been stirring up most of the trouble.  Hard wrok and some difficult times but things are definitely looking up.

FP: But how about the conflict between the Sunnis and the Shi’ites? Doesn’t civil war between them pose just as much, if not more, of a threat to our goals in Iraq than the terrorist threat does?

Mr. Gaubatz what are your thoughts on the war three years later, Captain’s Nash’s optimistic view and my question?

Gaubatz: I am normally a very optimistic person and always try to find the good in any situation.  I supported our President 3 years ago when I went to Iraq at the start of the war, and support him today.  I do have my concerns though.  When I was in Iraq 3 years ago, myself and another agent would travel to major cities throughout Iraq.  We were often alone.  We felt pretty safe.  Today I would be apprehensive about doing this due to serious security concerns.  I foresaw potential problems 3 years ago.  It was not uncommon for U.S. military personnel to visit the Iraqi shops, restaurants, gift stores, etc.  This has pretty much been eliminated. 

The only time average Iraqis see our troops is when they are patrolling the streets.  I spoke to literally thousands of Iraqis during my tour.  They want and need to have the confidence of the Americans.  They need us in their towns day and night.  The Iraqis want simply the 'Maslow" needs.  They want food, schools, electricity, clean water and medical care for their children.  For the most part until these needs are completely satisfied there will be problems. 

We must have the average Iraqi supporting us to win the war in Iraq.  It is achievable, but we are going to have to go back to the rebuilding efforts and be with the people 24 hours a day.  This will take more troops, but I see it as the only way. The Iraqis told me 3 years ago that a civil war would erupt; it may not be a civil war now, but it is getting closer.  I will end with an optimistic view: We are the best trained and best managed military in the world.  If victory is achievable in Iraq, we have the troops and leaders who can do it.

Now in terms of the possible civil war between the Sunnis and Shi'ites, it is no surprise to me, nor to the Iraqi people. A full scale civil war would be disastrous to all. I do not think it is too late to prevent a civil war.  Everything comes down to building rapport.  The rapport must be built between the Sunni, Shi'ite, and Americans.  Rapport equals trust and acceptance.  

I have trained over 3000 law enforcement officers during the last 6 months; Basic Arabic, History/Geography, Customs, Culture, Courtesies, and the basic fundamentals of Islam.  Every soldier (from E-1 to 0-10/General) and civilian going to or interacting with Iraqis must have a solid understanding of each of these areas.  If you do not you are asking for problems.  When we first went into Iraq there was only a handful of people who even knew how to say good morning, hello, etc.  A greeting as simple as hello goes a long way in building relations. 

Upon leaving Iraq in 2003, I wrote a guide book titled, "Arabic for Law Enforcement and Military".  It was published in Feb 2006.  It is a small contribution, but it can go a long way in developing an understanding between all involved.  We have to admit trust and acceptance between all parties is lacking.  Once this is accomplished we will be on our way to achieving our goal. 

FP: Ok, so, in terms of security concerns for American soldiers, things are much worse. What does this mean?

And are we sure that what Iraqis want is just a good standard of living? Even if we get the Sunnis and Shi’ites to cooperate, do most of them want Islam or democracy? Are these mutually inclusive or exclusive?

Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney?

McInerney: I concur with comments of both Chuck and Dave above. We are winning but it is a tough fight and we should expect it to be. The Islamic Extremists are not going to give up easily but remember 11 million Iraqi people voted at the risk of life and limb in December 2005. I believe they want democracy and freedom but our adversaries are just killing innocent people to create instability. The Iraqi people realize this and that is one of the reasons Zarqawi has been replaced because it isn’t working. I believe a new government of unity will help as which is somewhat frustrating as they have been slow to bring it together. In the final analysis it will be the Iraqi forces that defeat the insurgency and let the moderates bring about a democratic form of rule.

FP: Lieutenant Colonel Buzz Patterson, how do you see Iraq three years later and what do you make of the comments of the other panelists?

Lt. Gen. McInerney brings up the latest Zarqawi replacement. What do you think it signifies?

And I hope, of course, that the optimistic note struck here is correct, but isn’t it a bit more complicated than “Iraqi forces” defeating the terrorists? Isn’t this a bit more problematic because the Iraqi forces themselves are split along Shi’ite and Sunni lines and that is the big problem?

Patterson: It is going to take the Western world to win the greater war. This is just one of many battles.  I agree, generally, with all of your distinguished guests. I'm a bit more optimistic based on daily communications with my peers in the theater and my trip to Iraq last summer.  I would go so far as to say we've won the war but now we have to win the peace. The only possibility of a U.S. loss is on Capitol Hill.

This is not a vanilla insurgency. This is the best shot the Islamofascists can give us from across the region.  Democracy and self-determination scare the hell out of Al Qaeda, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and most probably Jordan. The replacement of Zarqawi signals exactly what General McInerney says it does -- beheading innocents, targeting children with car bombs, taking out a wedding party in Amman is not playing well with the populous.  That being said the recent video of terrorists dragging dying American pilots from the wreckage of their Blackhawk will not play well in the US. I believe the Iraqis want freedom badly enough to achieve it.  We can't abandon them until they do.

FP: Thank you. Ok, Captain Nash, it is your turn. First I would like to comment on what has been said so far by the other panelists. After that, I would like you to say something about the trial of Saddam. Charles Krauthammer has been rather critical of the trial, commenting:

“If anything, Hussein should be brought in wearing prison garb, perhaps in shackles, just for effect. And why was he given control of the script? He shouts, interrupts and does his Mussolini histrionics unmolested. Instead of the press being behind a glass wall, it is Hussein who should be. Better still, placed in a glass booth, like Eichmann, like some isolated specimen of deranged humanity, symbolically and physically cut off from the world of normal human values.”

I very much agree with this. Or is this unrealistic and would it be counter-productive in some way?

Your thoughts Captain Nash? How important is the trial and its conclusion to what happens in Iraq?

Nash: I think the panelists have nailed most of the really important issues and not to put too fine a point on it but a friend of mine was talking with his nephew - a Navy Seal - who had just returned from Iraq.  My friend asked him what he thought after his eighth combat deployment about what he saw over there as opposed to what he had seen on TV since coming back a week ago.  The young Seal said that there was a universe of difference between what was really going on over there and what was being portrayed here in the media.  He said as far as he was concerned "this wouldn't last another six months certainly not a year."  His meaning was that things were about to break out into stability after this period of walking to the brink.  His faith in the future was rock solid. 

Now one might dismiss this as a young warrior with too close a view and not an "enlightened broader view."  Point is, he was down where the Real work is being done getting the bad guys.  He and his folks talked to the real people of Iraq and he said that they are turning in the bad guys faster than they can round them up.  There is an avalanche of intelligence information coming our way now that we have never experienced. The Iraqi people are fed up with this violence and are stepping in to stop it.
 

Moving on to Saddam, he is a butcher and a criminal and he is a ward of the Iraqi judicial system, not ours.  It is up to the Iraqis to handle this and I believe they will do so appropriately in accordance with their customs and laws.  This has to be that way -- the Iraqi people, represented by their government and their judicial system seeking redress from their former leader.

FP: I have to say that the positive note and outlook struck here in this discussion is not what you hear about in the media.

Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney, your turn. A comment on the discussion and then the question on Saddam.

McInerney: I do not want to sound too optimistic because these vicious killers are not going to give up easily. They think that we do not have the will so they are going to continue the vicious killing of innocent people. But we are seeing some very good take downs of terrorists. For instance: Abu Ayman, leader of the secret Islamic Army, was captured by Iraqi Security Forces in early March, plus numerous IED factories etc are being discovered through human intelligence tips. This is how you defeat an insurgency, but we must be patient on the home front.

I believe Zarqawi is not going to be around for long; as someone will turn him in. This is probably why he has been demoted, because he has turned the Iraqi people against the insurgents -- one of the early signs of failure of an insurgency.

My concern is: will the American people reject the cut and run cry of the Democratic leadership and will President Bush and the administration explain why our forward strategy success is so critical to victory? Simply stated: you defeat Islamic Extremism Ideology  in the region where it is so pervasive, not at home. The Cut and Run crowd does not realize we are fighting this ideology which is why their strategy is bankrupt.

With reference to Saddam’s trial, I must agree with Charles Krauthammer, Saddam should be in chains and a stripped suit signifying he is a criminal and not talk unless asked in an isolated glass cell.

Gaubatz: Security for our military personnel is going to get worse before it gets better.  At the end of the day America will prevail, but we have to be prepared for more deaths of our military personnel. General McInerney makes a great point.  The extremists are not going to quit easy.  Not only do we have to stay the course, but we as Americans must stay united.  We have to be united as we were on September 11th.  There was a reason our forefathers called America the "United States". On September 11th we (all political parties) seemed to be one instead of separate groups.  I had mentioned the extremists are patient.  They look for weaknesses and take advantage of them. They observe the clashes between Democrats and Republicans; they see the war protesters, and when some of our leaders criticize our President, they watch.  This is playing into their hands and it will be used as a weapon by them. Zarqawi may have lost power or may be killed, but there are dozens of Zarqawis waiting to replace him.

I wholeheartedly believe the "average citizen" of Iraq wants the same things in life that we Americans desire (jobs, security, medical, school).  You can have Islam and democracy, as we have Christianity (and other religions in America) and democracy.  The Iraqis that I spoke with (from doctors to Bedouins) want a country closer to the political and economic situations similar to Jordan.  They do not want an Iran or Saudi Arabia.  Again, we will win, but as the panelists have stated, it will take the support of the Americans to stand with our President.     

In terms of the Saddam trial, the dictator should have been warned once only when he disrupted the court.  Subsequent disruption should have resulted in chains and him being placed in a sound-proof room.              

FP: Well I hope you can have Islam and democracy. I support what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan of course, but I do not think we can deny that there is a serious concern in terms of how the dedication to Islam in those countries will play out in the context of the attempt to nurture democracy.

I am not sure the analogy with Christianity is correct, seeing that Islam does not recognize the separation of Church and State as Christianity does.

The Rahman case in Afghanistan is a worrying sign. Wherever Muslims observe democracy (i.e. in the West) it is because they have agreed to live by the rules of the host society, not by the rules of their religion, which mandates Islamic law. And wherever any form of freedom exists in Muslim societies it is not because of the application of some legitimate strains of Islam, but because there has been a relaxation of accepted Islamic principles. Secular Turkey, for instance, was established in the context of a war with Islam.

We can hope, of course, that moderate Muslims who reject extremism can help reform their religion and bring it into the democratic and modern world. But they have a huge task ahead of them.

I am all for our military action in the Middle East and if we need to engage in more regime change by force (i.e. Iran, Syria etc.) then so be it. But that does not mean we make ourselves blind to the challenges ahead.

Buzz Patterson go ahead.

Patterson: Look, what the Bush administration is doing is historically unprecedented and obviously unpopular internationally. It’s as revolutionary an effort as any I can think of.

With the understanding that our enemy is not a few nut jobs hiding in caves in Afghanistan but well-organized and technologically-adept Islamofascism stretching around the globe, we are attempting to remove the totalitarian regimes which support and the oppressive conditions which breed this radicalism. I agree that it is the only way to ultimately vanquish this latest threat to the freedoms of people around the world.  We had Nazism, fascism and communism in the last century and we prevailed.  We will do so again, but it is going to be a long slog and, as I said before, Iraq isn't the final piece. In many ways it’s just the beginning.

We were slow to wake up to the fact that we'd been under attack by radical Islamists for 20 years by the time 9/11 occurred.  Western Europe is realizing they have a huge problem on their hands as well. Regimes like the Taliban and Saddam have to be confronted and removed. There is no doubt in my mind that Iran will be next barring a complete turn-around on their government's position on nukes which isn't very likely.

There are certainly many more knowledgeable people than I on the complexities of Islam such as Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer but a quick read of Muslim theology pretty clearly tells me that either moderates in that religion step up or we are well onto our way toward WWIII or IV depending on how you interpret the Cold War.

Whether or not Islamic countries can fully absorb democratic concepts and set aside Sharia law will be the acid test.  The Rahman case is worrying but we wouldn't have even known about him during the Taliban years and he'd no doubt been beheaded in a soccer stadium for people to watch. I mean, I think the fact that it became an issue and was resolved signals some progress to me. As do women attending school, voting, and holding governmental positions. I think that's the clue to why the Saddam trial has been such a spectacle so far. The Iraqis have to try him under their system.  We can't do it as that would be politically untenable.  We certainly don't want the International Court doing it as that would result in a much larger circus.  As much as I personally would have him in a Scott Peterson orange jump suit, chains and crew cut, we have to hope the Iraqis can pull it off in a way that sanctions their legitimacy.  I don't think there's any doubt, though, that one way or another Saddam's days on earth are numbered.

From the larger perspective, moderate Muslims will have to be counted and condemn the terror of the Islamofacists are there is no amount of American sweat and tears that will guarantee democracy in their lands. As noble a goal as I think President Bush has, and as tremendous a job as I know our military has accomplished, we will need allies and friends in the Islamic world for there to be an end to all of this. I pray that that's forthcoming sooner than later. 

To continue reading this symposium, click here.