- The Washington Times - Saturday, August 7, 2004


Last week, I left Ar Ramadi, Iraq, and headed home for a little rest and recreation at the beach with those I love the most. I was glad to return from the anxiety, uncertainty and weariness of war in a place where violence is routinely the means of resolving disputes.

I thought I was coming back to the calm, quiet stability of my native land where differences are settled by reason, the rule of law and political discourse. Now, after a week at home, watching the news, listening to the radio and reading the newspapers — I feel like Louis Carroll’s Alice, who stepped through the looking glass from a world that made sense into “Wonderland,” where nothing made sense.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad to be home, surrounded by friends and family, enjoying a respite from the peril, ferocity and fatigue that is a daily reality for our troops in Iraq. Here on the beautiful beaches of South Carolina, the greatest hazard I face is sunburn. In Ramadi, U.S. soldiers and Marines risk death if they fail to put on 25-pound “flak jackets” and 5-pound Kevlar helmets before going on patrol in 125-degree heat. For them, the War on Terror in Iraq is dangerous and deadly.

While American troops have gunfights with well-armed foreign terrorists, local insurgents and criminal gangs, they are simultaneously training Iraqi police and National Guardsmen, rebuilding schools and infrastructure, stimulating small businesses and helping the institutions of democratic government to take root.

Everyone with whom I spoke in Iraq — from local government officials to lance corporals manning .50 caliber machine guns atop armored Humvees — agreed real progress is being made.

Yet Americans at home are besieged by bad news and conspiracy theories. In Iraq, the war on terror made sense. Here, it does not.

While I was in Iraq, U.S. forces discovered a terrorist plot to kill the governor of Al Anbar Province — the county’s largest political jurisdiction. Alerted by the intelligence report, U.S. troops, the governor, the commander of the Iraqi National Guard and the chief of the Provincial Police made appropriate plans to deal with the threat. The result was a five-hour gunfight in which more than 30 terrorists were killed and 25 more captured. And though 14 U.S. Marines and soldiers were wounded, everyone agreed the operation was a resounding success. Unfortunately, that’s not what is happening here.

Before I left for Ramadi, a senior U.S. intelligence official told me there was “great concern” Islamic radical terrorists were planning a major attack within our borders before the U.S. presidential election. Citing the Madrid train-bombings in March, three days before the Spanish elections, he said Jihadists, “timed the bombings to influence the elections and get the Spaniards out of Iraq.” He then ominously added: “They succeeded. Spain pulled out of the coalition. The Spanish troops left the coalition. Are we next?”

Maybe. While I was in Iraq, covering those who serve on the frontlines in the War on Terror, U.S. intelligence agencies discovered a terrorist plot to attack U.S. financial institutions. As a result, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge raised the terror alert in Washington, New York City and Newark, N.J. Mr. Ridge issued the alert based on what he termed “unusually specific” information about where terrorists would next like to strike and pinpointed specific targets.

One might think, after the September 11 Commission Report, such a warning would be reasonable, logical and prudent. But here on this side of the looking glass, less than three months before our elections, some people don’t see it that way.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, campaigning for the Kerry-Edwards ticket, told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer last Sunday, “The president is basing his political campaign for re-election on the notion that he ought to be re-elected because terrorism is a danger, and his case to the American people is, ‘I’m the only person who can get us through this.’ So, of course, this is politics.”

Howard Dean isn’t alone in advancing conspiracy theories to describe every action of the Bush administration. New York City Council Speaker Gifford Miller said, “I would hope they are not playing politics with this announcement.” Newark mayor Sharpe James warned, “with homeland security, you can’t separate the politics from the security.” And adding grist to the conspiracy mill, in an editorial this week about the September 11 commission and the terror alerts, the editors of the New York Times complained they had to “fight suspicions of political timing,” and concluded raising the terror alert “does nothing to bolster the confidence Americans need that the administration is not using intelligence for political gain.”

Maybe it’s just a summer of conspiracies. Michael Moore’s movie “Fahrenheit 911” is loaded with conspiracy theories about ties between the Bush and bin Laden families. The “Manchurian Candidate,” starring Denzel Washington with a cameo by Al Franken, is a story about soldiers “brainwashed” after the Gulf war by an evil conglomerate — Manchurian Global. The goal of the movie is to give legs to the conspiracy that the Bush administration is a puppet of Halliburton.

If you think all this sounds crazy, you’re not alone. In Iraq, the war on terror made sense to me and to those fighting. Now that I’m home, on this side of the looking glass, it’s all upside down. Alice, call home. The Mad Hatter is loose in the land.

Oliver North is a nationally syndicated columnist and the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide