Saddam's Hanging

Saddam Hussein has come to the end of the trail…

Saddam Hussein has come to the end of the trail according to the decision of the judicial system in Iraq. Interestingly, he went down fighting—showing no remorse still screaming and hollering his hatred for the West and particularly the USA. He called for Iraq to continue the fight against imperialism.

What drives a person like Saddam to this state of affairs? What makes them do that which they do?

I have never taken the time to study such people and so I do not know if they generally have had a terrible and abusive childhood and they take it out on those around them. Maybe they are just very egocentric and carry a mean streak a mile wide. It does seem to me, however, that they usually have a cause which the population can identify with and that helps propel them to office. They look good to begin with but they fade in the stretch.

They rise to power only after creating a circle of henchmen, with whose help they kill their opponents and take office. They usually scrap the constitution, if there is one, make null and void the laws that would slow them down, stifle the media, take money from the national treasury and, of course, open a Swiss bank account.

Ultimately, the population hates them

The henchmen become the soldiers who are beholden to the despot. He rewards them and they do his bidding in order to put bread on the kitchen table. They become very powerful in state affairs and in the lives of the guy on the street. Ultimately, the population hates them.

One can bet a despot is in charge of a country when the dictator begins to protect himself and the office he has created. They do this by creating an intelligence service to spy on the general population. They link the intelligence agency to the secret police and with this combination they monitor and take action (capture, torture, imprison, murder) against any and all opponents.

Usually, by the time the despot goes down he is old news

Usually, by the time the despot goes down he is old news. Slobodan Milosevich died of a heart attack in jail while under trial. No one cared. Adolph Hitler took his own life as the allied armies were closing in on Berlin. The Germans were glad he was gone and the war was ending. Mao, with his cultural revolution, great leap forward and other schemes that set China back, was not missed when he went to despot heaven or despot hell.

...the current fight is all about who the next despot will be

So how will the Iraqi’s respond to the hanging of Saddam? No one knows but I predict that there will be some sympathizers carrying flags and some noise on the streets but it will all blow over quickly. Why? Because Saddam is old news and the current fight is all about who the next despot will be. No one will be willing to support Saddam in death because he can’t put bread on the dinner table for anyone after he is dead.

Did Saddam Hussein deserve to go? He was one mean mass killer---so send him to the gallows and don’t allow him to pass ‘Go’ and collect two hundred dollars.

Vanity Fair magazine

Thus Spake the Neocons

The January 2007 edition of Vanity Fair magazine features an article by David Rose concerning comments made by several neo-conservatives during his interviews with them. Those interviewed come down hard on the administration blaming it for the many problems we face in Iraq.

Richard Perle, who left the Defense Policy Board in 2004, said with regard to Iraq that, “The unfolding catastrophe has a central cause: devastating dysfunction within the administration of President Bush. The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn’t get made in a timely fashion and the differences were argued out endlessly---at the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible---I don’t think he realized the extent of the opposition within his own administration, and the disloyalty.”

Kenneth Adelman said, “I just presumed that what I considered to be the most competent national-security team since the Truman era was indeed going to be competent. They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the post-war era. Not only did each of them individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly dysfunctional.”

David Frumm, the President’s speech writer, said in his interview, “I always believed as a speech writer that if you could persuade the president to commit himself to certain words, he would feel himself committed to the ideas that underlay those words. And the big shock to me has been that although the president said the words, he just did not absorb the ideas. And, that is the root of, maybe everything.”

Tough comments all those above, yet I ask myself could they be on the mark with their criticism? If decisions were slow in coming and if issues were tied up with the President’s advisors for months on end before any decision could be reached---if the President wasn’t really committed----all of that is simply intolerable. And if true, it yet again demonstrates how lackadaisical and blundering the government can be in handling problems.

The only way to lose…

In a Newsweek article of November 6, 2006, Fareed Zakaria quoted President Bush as saying, “My view is that the only way we lose in Iraq is if we leave before the job is done.”

Zakaria asks, “If you think that Iraq’s tumult is a product of its culture, religion and history, ask yourself what the United States would look like after three years of 50 percent unemployment. Would there not be civil strife in Manhattan, Detroit, Los Angeles and New Orleans?”

Let me answer that question----there would definitely be chaos, civil strife and violence in America under such conditions. Carry out the logic to Iraq and one can easily conclude that there is a civil war going on in Iraq which plays on the misery of the people and it is all about one faction or another gaining control of the country. It is a war between terrorist groups. It is a war we do not know how to fight.


The loss of life and the waste of our national wealth for lack of decision making would be criminal

Now back to the comments in Vanity Fair—if the criticism is right and the administration is glutted and unable to reach vital decisions in a timely fashion, it could be that we allowed this mess to occur through our inept decision making process. The loss of life and the waste of our national wealth for lack of decision making would be criminal. The internal destruction of Iraq for our ineptness is shameful and evil.

Having served two tours in the Pentagon, I know that bureaucratic sluggishness can occur. Why? Because fighting within a bureaucracy is common and sluggishness is a weapon used in the fight. The people in the government’s machinery will contend with each other by not cooperating with other agencies, withholding information, slowing down processes and the flow of ideas and stonewalling events and decisions. And we pay the taxes to pay the wages of these bureaucrats.

…just maybe Iraq slipped down the tunnel of civil war and self destruction while the administration dithered

If the people quoted in the Vanity Fair article are right, just maybe Iraq slipped down the tunnel of civil war and self destruction while the administration dithered. In fact, we did the dither dance in a big way. Anyone should have known we didn’t have enough troops in country when the terrorist violence began. We needed at least 100,000 and maybe as many as 300,000 more soldiers at that time to put a stop to it and that is my guess and not the government talking. But let’s assume the 300,000 idea was an idea that was conjured up within the halls of power in Washington, DC. Can you imagine how the administration would have handled the idea? Maybe we bring back the military draft? Oops, can’t do that---think of the next election. What do we do?

A little more dithering please as the planners say---let’s study the issue a little more---what does the State Department say? How about DOD? Better ask Carl Rove and have 15 more meetings to discuss the problem. Probably, the issue would have been put on the back burner until later. Well ladies and gentlemen, it is later and today we suffer trying to make difficult decisions as to should we stay in Iraq or should we depart from Iraq and if so when and how?

Our world does not tolerate a vacuum

Having gone into Iraq and effectively removed an infrastructure that was, to say the least, inconvenient to US interests, we failed to replace it with a functioning improvement. Our world does not tolerate a vacuum. Unfortunately, we are living with the consequences of that fact and will continue to do so until we have seen to it that the needs of the Iraqi people—in addition to those of the United States—have been met.

During his visit to Baghdad Senator McCain...

Senator McCain’s conventional tactics do not work in this urban guerrilla scenario

During his visit to Baghdad Senator McCain announced that, in order to win, we need another 20,000 to 30,000 troops in Iraq. Senator, that is not the way I see it. We don’t need another 30,000 troops in Iraq because they cannot tip the scales in our favor. About 3 years ago, when the terrorists were coming to life and foreign terrorists were streaming across the borders everyday to cause mayhem, we needed, at least another 100,000 and possibly as many as 300,000 troops in addition to what we had already deployed. With those numbers, we might have been able to stop the terrorists dead in their tracks.

To send 30,000 troops now is pure folly. To send 300,000, if we could find them, is also without merit. All the terrorist groups have had time to train and organize, are well armed and have found zealous, vocal leaders. They are a new threat and because of them, Iraq is in a civil war. Senator McCain’s conventional tactics do not work in this urban guerrilla scenario. It is being proved to us daily. Sir, we need unconventional fighters and we don’t have them trained in the numbers required to move in quickly. An additional 30,000 troops, prepared or not, in the face of this threat is ridiculous.

Unfortunately ladies and gentlemen, our representatives in Washington missed the train. It left the station long ago on this issue and is well down the track. So please, all of you folks in charge, evaluate what is really going on and do not throw good money after bad.

Did we really go to war?

Look at it this way----we never really went to war in Iraq. Think about it for a moment. The rationale for the war was shaky, and the threat to our national interests was never actually proven. We, the people, never saw the Iraqi’s threatening our shores with invading forces. But we went to war anyway without mobilizing the country and all of its citizens. We didn’t mobilize industry. We didn’t institute the draft. We didn’t sell war stamps and war bonds. We tried to make 9-11 into our new Pearl Harbor. Yes, it was a tragic event but we should have examined it and its implications very closely before we made the choice to invade Iraq.

Washington is playing at war like a bunch of little boys in the backyard. And like the back yard boys, they have not learned a damn thing from history. The lessons of 9-11, and all that it represented, were not assimilated. We went into combat with the best fighting force in the world. We quickly took out the Iraqi conventional ground forces. We are also fully capable of taking out the terrorists when they come out to fight. And here is the problem. We are too good at conventional war. That is why terrorism, as we know it today, was born. No one can handle us on the battlefield. David couldn’t handle Goliath so he found a new solution to take the big guy down. He chose not to close with his enemy. No, he held him off at a distance and, using unconventional tactics, killed him with a rock right between the eyes. Terrorism and urban guerrilla warfare is neutralizing our advantages just as Goliath’s size was neutralized. I plan to discuss this in future writings that will appear at this address.

The terrorists are no longer looking to fight the US military

Furthermore, the terrorists are no longer looking to fight the US military---they are battling each other for control of the country and the fight is internal. We can’t change the battle that is raging but we can easily end up losing out in Iraq.

The terrorists on both sides are now well armed, trained and killing each other-- as well as members of the current Iraqi government – in record numbers. Our troops get caught up in these events and we continue to take casualties. Our military elements do not know how to handle the situation. It is not their fault. They are superior fighters of conventional war, but they are not equipped and armed to take on the current problem and solve it. Possibly some of the Special Forces elements could do so, but there are far too few in number.

What does history say?

What can history tell us? Consider the revolutionary war. Can you see those long straight lines of infantry approaching each other on an open field with musket volley after musket volley and artillery barrage after artillery barrage resulting in people dead and dying all around? That is what it was like---pure stupidity. But we evolved. The military developed machine guns and trench warfare. However, the battlefield was static and a stalemate prevailed. Subsequently, the tank and airplane provided mobility, air support and blitzkrieg bringing us into the modern era. The big bomb was the ultimate weapon.

Then came Vietnam. It was a challenge for which we were not prepared because we did not evolve to meet the unique threats facing us in Southeast Asia. Remember Mogadishu and the fight in the middle of the city? It was another powerful lesson. These lessons should inform our approach to Iraq.

Vietnam and the fight in Iraq have clear parallels

What is apparent here is that the military did not evolve as the threat changed. Vietnam and the fight in Iraq have clear parallels. But Americans must know that, even if we had expanded our thinking, changed tactics, developed new equipment for this type of war, another 30,000 troops added to with our current deployment levels would still result in failure.

The very basic problem is---we do not have enough soldiers with the right training in place to save Iraq. The shortfall is at least 100,000 and maybe as high as 300,000--but certainly not 30,000. In fact, we cannot field enough troops to fight this new civil war between terrorist groups unfolding war in Iraq.

This is not a political matter. It is a military issue.

Robert Gates, in his testimony...

December, 2006

Robert Gates, in his testimony at the Senate Confirmation hearings, said that the US is not winning the war in Iraq and warned that if that country is not stabilized in the next year or two it could lead to a regional conflagration.

My, my. Is this news or was Washington still listening to its own propaganda as late as that morning?

Of course we are not winning the war. We have been in second position since the militants, in all their forms, decided to come to life. A foreign power cannot simply walk into another country and take over. Why did we walk into Iraq? Everyone remembers: The administration talked about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and made it the rationale for invasion. When we could not find any big bombs, we developed a new reason for spending lives and bucks in Iraq. We decided to believe that we were needed and that the Iraqis wanted us to liberate them. Some Iraqis believe we are in their country for the long haul. Let us see this clearly and begin to recognize we are not wanted in Iraq.

Early on we did some strange things

How did we get into the mess we are faced with today? Early on we did some strange things. We ripped out the bureaucracy and destroyed the military and the law enforcement agencies. We forgot about the tribes and tribal issues as well as the religious aspects of Iraqi life. We looked at solutions through Western eyes. We helped put together a government and we monitored a widely touted election. Now that freely elected government seems stuck and powerless. In the meantime, we are trying to build an Iraqi military force and revitalize the law enforcement units. But the police are constantly being murdered on the streets and in their police barracks. At the same time we also take casualties and continue to spend an inordinate mountain of dollars.

Robert Gates is right---we are not winning across the board. But when the US military comes up against the terrorists in a combat situation our military always win. Reason: Superior firepower. So our ground troops are winners and the American public must be assured of this fact. But there is much more at work then just a few fire fights between the US military and a handful of terrorists.

There is an ongoing civil war in Iraq

For example, we are afraid to say there is a civil war going on in Iraq. Wake up America. There is an ongoing civil war in Iraq.

Also, I am beginning to believe that the conflagration in the Middle East that Gates mentioned will take place no matter what we do in Iraq. The terrorists, the marginalized and the poor masses who occupy every nation of the Middle East sense our weaknesses. They smell blood and they understand the terrorist use of leverage and the principles of asymmetrical warfare. They know how to come at us and make us uncomfortable and tentative.

The underdog terrorist gathers any available weapons and makes do. He steals weapons and ammunition and stores them at strategic points. His arsenal grows as he becomes a populist force and the locals see him as hero and martyr while offering their support. Often times, as the terrorist group gathers strength, it also draws to itself support from sympathetic governments in the region. Such external support can be a major problem.

… he can be expected to have excellent intelligence

If the underdog terrorist is fighting within his homeland he can be expected to have excellent intelligence—his eyes and ears are in every neighborhood and in every back alley. He searches only for targets that are vulnerable and weak. He never attacks US forces with a protracted fight in mind---he disengages quickly and disappears. He manufactures home made mines and bombs and remotely detonates them when a convoy is passing and he quietly blends into the crowd at the detonation site. He attacks soft targets such as pipelines, fuel storage areas, ammunition dumps, motor pools and other valuable concentrations of assets. He looks for the biggest bang for the buck—it might include the slaughter of women and children---anything of media value in order to gain international attention. All of this is un-nerving and that is why it is called ‘Terrorism’.

When this emboldened terrorist comes to America, he again searches for the soft target. Dams, power grids, water purification plants, airplanes, airports, ship harbors, heavily populated venues, national monuments, churches, the World Trade Center and other asymmetrical targets are on the list to hit. Reconnaissance missions are assigned to evaluate these targets.

The soft target approach used at home is the same approach used abroad and this makes us nervous, uncomfortable and tentative. Finally, to add to our apprehension, the terrorist has every advantage; he chooses the time of attack, the place and the method.

We have evidenced an inability to adequately understand the political and social dynamics that would confront us in Iraq

Indeed, one of the consequences of having committed our missteps in Iraq is that we have demonstrated to our enemies, be they in Iraq or elsewhere, that we are incapable of prevailing when confronted by an urban, guerrilla-style counterinsurgency. This is not the sort of encouragement the United States wants to offer potential adversaries. Worse still, we have evidenced an inability to adequately understand the political and social dynamics that would confront us in Iraq.

We need some brilliance now

Yes, we are in trouble and it is going to require some clear thinking, planning and, understanding of what our actions will bring to us, as every action has a countering reaction.

Robert Gates is a brilliant man. We need some brilliance now and we need some powerful positive leadership now. I am for you Dr. Gates and, yes, it is time for some major changes.

© 2006 Richard Wilmot