I decided to edit this for grammar. In bold.
THE TIMID WAR ON TERRORISM
Despite America's military prowess, she is not winning the war.
By Elan Journo and Yaron Brook
Although American forces impressively deposed the tyrannical regime of
Saddam Hussein, the nearly two-year-long War on Terrorism is, in fact,
going badly.
Good, the comma sets off an introductory phrase. The subject in this sentence is the War on Terrorism and the verb is is. The tragedy is that we lack not weapons, nor military prowess, nor
bravery; our military is the most powerful in the history of the
world.
Hmmm. I spy a semi-colon. It's good. You could replace the semi-colon with ", since." I think the sentence would have been better if he said "The tragedy is not that we lack weapons, or military prowees, or bravery; ... " The problem lies not with our armed forces, but with the ideas
guiding our military campaign.
Comma separates two different but related sentences ", but." Consider how we fought the two major
battles of the war so far: Afghanistan and Iraq.
Colons are meant to "alert the reader to pay attention." Afgh and Iraq are essential to the sentence. Looks good to me. In Afghanistan we exposed our self-crippling ambivalence about the
purpose of the war.
You could put a comma after "In Afghanistan," but given it is such a small intro phrase, it doesn't need it. If our goal was to wipe out al Qaeda terrorists
and their Taliban hosts as a step toward eliminating militant Islam,
we should have attacked ruthlessly. But we were tentative.
I'm not sure, but I don't think you can start a sentence with "but." However, he separated the sentence as to draw drama to the sentence, which is acceptable. As we
dropped bombs, we also showered the country with food and medicines,
some of which doubtless made it into the hands of the Taliban.
He could have used a dash instead of a comma for the second comma, if he wanted. I would have. Early on President Bush had promised: "I will not yield, I will not
rest, I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and
security for the American people."
Colons introduce quotes. Yet in Afghanistan, on orders from
Washington, our military *did* yield--refraining from bombing mosques;
it *did* rest--calling for needless cease-fires during the Tora Bora
siege; it *did* relent--catering to the wishes of our coalition
"allies," who demanded that we limit the number of American ground
forces.
Ooo, interesting. All dashes in that sentence are used to add asides to his points. The semi-colons separate the items in his list, which are long. The semi-colons separate "did yield ... ; did rest; ... did relent." In deference to the wishes of such "allies" as Saudi Arabia, a
known financier of terrorism,
these commas separate an appositive, which is a word or phrase that highlights or introduce the noun before it our military had to rely largely on
proxy soldiers led by venal warlords, who let the enemy flee.
This last phrase is not an appositive since it starts with "who." I'm not sure what it's called, but the comma looks right. By hampering our military operations, Washington subverted them. The
forces of al Qaeda, scattered rather than eradicated,
another appositive continue to plot
against us. American soldiers die almost daily in skirmishes with
lingering Taliban and al Qaeda forces.
In the war against Iraq, the timidity of the Administration was
obvious. Though President Bush had explained the threat of Iraqi
weapons and expertise falling into the hands of terrorists--and our
urgent need to act--
the dash sets off an aside to the sentence he dithered, groveling abjectly before the United
Nations for approval. The battle plans he finally issued were
seemingly calculated to thwart the efforts of our military. Even as we
sought to wipe out Hussein's regime, our goal, apparently, was to
avoid upsetting Iraqis. As was true in Afghanistan, high-priority
targets such as power stations were to be spared, and our military was
ordered methodically to pull their punches. It is much to the credit
of our soldiers that they succeeded while bearing only minor
casualties, despite Washington's contradictory injunctions.
The Iraq war, however, has done nothing to quell Islamic terrorism.
Whereas Afghanistan, the stronghold of al Qaeda,
another appositive was a plausible first
target, Iraq was not a major base of terrorists, nor the most
significant supporter of them. We have let the arch-sponsors of
Islamic terrorism--Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran--believe that they are
untouchable. Observe that terrorism against American and Western
interests--from Indonesia to Kenya to Morocco--continues unabated.
Dashes dashes everywhere. Setting off asides. The
American people, urged by Washington to believe that Iraq was a
success, cannot fathom why more of our soldiers are dying there now
than during the hostilities. We should not be surprised if our resolve
to fight is diminishing.
To defend American lives properly, we should target not terrorism, a
tactic, but militant Islam, the ideology that motivates the
terrorists.
I think "a tactic" would have been better is dashes. But we have been flailing in unpredictable directions,
unsure of where to go next, because the war lacks a clear purpose.
Why? The Bush Administration lacks moral confidence. At every turn we
blushingly pretended that we are fighting to liberate the oppressed
Afghans or tyrannized Iraqis--anything but confess what we should
proclaim loudly: that we value and seek to protect American lives.
Here you go. Dash separates a relevant but not necessary part of the sentence. The colon alerts the reader "pay attention." Facing the prospect of civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan,
the Administration quailed. It should have asserted that, though such
casualties are regrettable, they are the responsibility of the regime
that initiated force against us. Instead, America was guilt-ridden,
apologetic and appeasing.
Commas separate items on a list. The last comma before the "and" is optional. We are not winning the war, but we could be.
Our Founding Fathers did not have even one hundredth of America's
present military power, but they were armed with the conviction that
political freedom is an ideal worth fighting for. Their moral
certainty gave them the courage necessary to fight for their
independence from England, the 18th century's lone superpower. We are
at war with militant Islamists who lust for our annihilation. Our
survival depends, not only on having a more powerful military, but on
the courage to use our might--to act on what is *morally* proper--to act
on our urgent need of ferocious self-defense.
Dr. Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI).
Elan Journo is a senior writer for ARI in Irvine, Calif. The Institute
(
www.aynrand.org/medialink) promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas
