An historical lesson for the United States of America

They are standing on a rocky road…

The picture above shows soldiers, both young and into their mid-life, on high ground along a mountain road on the Pakistani side of the Khyber Pass. They are probably tired, both physically and emotionally, from the long grinding war. They are concerned about their wives and children, their country, their property and their future. Note that they are taking time out for God. They have an undying faith and they are resilient in the face of tough challenges. They have removed their foot-wear in honor of God. They are standing on a rocky road--shoeless--with makeshift prayer blankets spread out in front of them so they can bow deeply in their ritual to their God.

There were about two hundred of them; dirty, cold, maybe a little hungry, in civilian clothes some wearing shoes made from rubber tires. It was late October and the wind was blowing and the air was fresh and cold. They saw us struggling up the steep road in an old, beat up little car finally reaching the flat place. As I got out of the rickety, oil belching machine they cheered and ran to me and surrounded me wanting to shake hands or make contact in some way.

What the picture does not show…

What the picture does not show is that behind the scenes in every village and town there are legions of people supporting these fighters in every way possible. The weary fighters shown here have the help of collaborators and supporters of all ages from children to the very old, both male and female.

It is that backup support that makes it nearly impossible for a country to be over-run and held in bondage forever. Recent history will bear this out---Japan and Korea, Nazi Germany and Western Europe, the USSR and Eastern Europe, and the colonists who held India and a variety of African nations. Be they invaders with war as their tool or colonists with economics holding the power, it matters not---they will all be forced out.

I asked myself, what made them tough, what gave them courage, what motivated these rag-tag guerillas to stand up against the Soviet army? Could they succeed? What special talents did they possess? What were their tactics and their operational procedures? The following are some of my observations on these questions.

My wife grew up on a family farm in Kansas…

It seems to me that rural people and people of the land are tough. Farmers who work the soil and tend to livestock, out in the weather, up early, planting, harvesting, watching nature and relying on things natural everyday are a grounded strong breed of humans. My wife grew up on a family farm in Kansas. Like her siblings she was given daily chores to perform as a child. They were simple tasks at first and more difficult and physically challenging and important as she grew older and stronger.

As a family member, she felt family ownership of the property and she felt pride in her accomplishments. This made her strong and even courageous. If some outside force attempted to uproot her mother, father, brothers and this little girl from the farm, it would have been resisted. They were devoted to the ground they lived on. They were connected to it and it belonged to the family.

Sun Zu, in his book the Art of War…

What does a Kansas farm have to do with the toughness and resilience of the Afghan fighter? The Afghan rebels who opposed and drove the Soviet army out of Afghanistan knew their land. They knew their home and their culture and their religion and their property and it was that sense of rivers, mountains, villages and hamlets and earth that brought them courage and dedication.

Sun Zu, in his book the Art of War written a couple of thousand years ago, made the following point. It is very difficult to invade a foreign land and hold on to that land over a protracted period. The indigenous population will constantly dream up ways to oust the invaders and at some point they will find the power, resolve and method to do so.

Sun Zu also said that there is an easy way to raise up a powerful army. When a threat has been detected along the border and invasion is imminent, he suggested calling all the farmers and landholders to a meeting and telling them of the threat. They are told that if the invaders succeed that everyone’s land will be confiscated, animals taken, rice paddies, wives and children taken and nothing will be left and they will be killed. Such a message will cause a man to fight to the death because there is no other alternative.

… the freedom fighters in Afghanistan came right out of Sun Zu’s book

I believe that a message like the one described by Sun Zu was passed to the Afghan freedom fighters by some very wise leader. In fact, the freedom fighters in Afghanistan came right out of Sun Zu’s book. They decided to become a fast moving guerrilla/terrorist force. You can compare them to a boxer with short arms facing an opponent with long arms. The guy with short arms must get “close” to the opponent and pound away at him with body blows, shots at the kidney and the convenient powerful uppercut. The guerrilla must get very close to his enemy in warfare and hit at him from close proximity.

The guerilla must ask the indigenous population for support. Intelligence support should be first on the list. The Afghans had superb intelligence because the entire country was supporting the rebels and more then willing to report to the rebels all Soviet plans, movement and activities. The local population was in close and actually among the Soviets collecting information all the time. But the civilian population suffered from this practice as the Soviets burned villages and murdered people in an attempt to stop the flow of information. Yet the Afghans would not give up and this courage and dedication is a very powerful asset and it actually spurs the underdog on.

The key to this tactic of getting in close is to do all the damage possible and get out quickly avoiding the air and artillery support that will be called for and will come. The Afghans cached weapons everywhere around the countryside allowing them to move quickly without the burden of carrying the weapons. They picked up weapons and ammunition near the point of combat and right under the nose of their enemies.

Let me ask you…

The Afghans created fear. They got into the Soviet’s brains by attacking them at night, withdrawing and disappearing quickly, showing up where least expected, fighting with terrorist tactics and avoiding head on engagements. The psychological impact of this tactic repeated successfully time and again can become a frightening scenario.

The Afghans wore the Soviets out. They finally delivered the knock out punch when they used the stinger missile to take out the soviet attack helicopter.

In the final analysis the Afghan rebels showed the world that a bunch of farmers and city folks working together with a cause and a fearless attitude can defeat a super power.

Let me ask you, does this very recent event hold any historical lessons for the United States of America?

The End Game

...the end game in the conflict in Iraq is a troublesome...

In a recent speech, I mentioned that the end game in the conflict in Iraq is a troublesome, elusive phenomenon. It has not been identified, quantified or described and apparently no one knows what it is. My question is how do we win---or maybe my question should be how do we lose? What does it mean to win? What does it look like to win?

The last time I talked about this issue I said, WWII ended with the signing of a declaration of unconditional surrender by the Emperor of Japan on the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay. I want to know---what terrorist will sign a document of surrender for all terrorists? Does anyone beside me see a problem here?

Interestingly, the President mentioned the USS Missouri and the WWII ending ceremony in his speech but he gave it no further attention. I have some advice for the President and his administration. Find out what it means to win in Iraq. Outline it to the people of this country. Then set out with all Americans to get the job done---the job you and the public agree to. That is the one and only way we will get out of this mess.

If you choose to avoid defining success and describing victory then again I must ask, Sir, how does this war end---can 21,500 additional troops, and a few tactical changes, and deeper involvement with the Iraqi government end it? The answer is a resounding, "No", because we don’t know what ending it means. We don’t know what victory looks like in this very peculiar war we are involved in. Please, Mr. President, find the definition of success and go for it and let’s be done with this mess in no more then six months to a year.

The Iraqis claim to have eighteen brigade equivalents of police and military trained and ready to go.

The President’s idea is to have the Iraqis appoint a new powerful Iraqi general who will run the war. The Iraqis claim to have eighteen brigade equivalents of police and military trained and ready to go. I doubt it. Next the plan involves turning over the combat to the Iraqi military and police, embed US Forces with them and go into the neighborhoods and roust out the terrorists. Do I believe that the Sunni military are going to kill Sunni terrorists---no!

Next we are to stay in those neighborhoods and make certain the residents remain calm. I wonder how many years we will devote to neighborhood watch. I say let the Iraqis keep the peace in their neighborhoods.

And are we planning to meet with the most contentious regimes in the area...

The President also said this is not only a military offensive but a diplomatic and economic offensive as well. We are to meet with powers in the region and work out some of the diplomatic issues. Really? And why have we not done this before now? And are we planning to meet with the most contentious regimes in the area---Syria and Iran? If not, why not? And if we don’t have the guts to meet with them, how will we ever fix this crazy region of the world.

What about some of the economic plans mentioned by the President. I recently commented about the Alaska oil model of dividing oil revenues in that state between all the citizens of Alaska. The President mentioned that it is now planned that all Iraqi citizens will share in the oil revenues. Just a few short months ago this initiative was tabled by the Iraqi government. I wonder---was the Alaska oil model a bargaining chip to insure the deployment of the additional US troops? Of course, it was!

My concern is in six months to a year how many more troops will it take to get some real action from the Iraqis with regard to oil revenue sharing? Another 20,000? When will we require a final determination? Will it take all the infighting between the tribes to stop before a decision is made to share oil money? So, is the end game to take place in this century or the next?

The President also said that the Iraqi government will commence a massive infrastructure development program. That is an interesting idea and why was it not pushed earlier?

Now let me get to what is really bugging me

Now let me get to what is really bugging me. Let me tell you there is a second reason why we cannot win in Iraq. It is a reason that no diplomat can utter because it is, heaven forbid, politically incorrect. But someone needs to say it and here it comes.

To deploy 21,500 additional troops to Iraq will make absolutely no difference to the situation. The reason is that the President’s plan places new, difficult and heavy responsibilities on the Iraqi government. And I do not believe the Iraqi government will perform. The problem is, the duly elected government of Iraq is not prepared to take on these burdens. They are inept. Furthermore they have been cheating and scheming behind our backs, undermining our activities and actually restricting our operations in the capital and in the countryside.

Mark my words---the Iraqi government is not our friend and this will not change. They are not to be trusted.

How about this as a test? Let’s watch the clock and count the days as they pass by without any infrastructure development in Iraq by the government. Also, let us watch time tick away while the Iraqis try to figure out how to pay every citizen an oil related stipend. It will not happen and that will be the test that tells us the Iraqis are blowing smoke up through the Washington Monument.

...did I hear the President say he was going to find more troops?

And last but not least---did I hear the President say he was going to find more troops? If he said it, is he on the brink of reinstating the draft? Now that would be a political bomb that would end the war—because the American public would come to life in total rebellion against a draft.

I don’t purport to know what the final answer is to this mess, but what we are now about to do "ain’t gonna work".

Iraqi Oil

According to Steve Forbes...

In the November 13, 2006 issue of the Forbes magazine Steve Forbes, the Editor In Chief, has offered a very sensible “Fact and Comment” article concerning Iraq. In part he said, “In September Iraq’s political leaders agreed to postpone until 2008 any moves to “carve up” the country into autonomous states. The principal reason for the delay was the ever divisive question of who would control the country’s immense oil wealth. Most of the oilfields fall in Kurdish and Shiite areas. The Sunnis are afraid that regional autonomy will mean they will be bereft of their share of the black gold.”

Mr. Forbes goes on discussing the Alaska solution: “About a quarter of Alaska’s oil and gas royalties goes into an entity called the Permanent Fund, the assets of which are managed by investment professionals. About half the revenue stream is distributed to the state’s citizens each year; the remainder is reinvested. The Alaska approach has two powerful advantages. Virtually the entire Iraq population would have a stake in making sure insurgents didn’t disrupt oil production, and almost every Iraqi would have an incentive to have a bona fide address at which to collect the checks. This would be a great boon to security.”

He went on to say, “Our patience with Iraq is not infinite. The Iraqi government's recent statement that it won't crack down on local militias, and its reluctance to clean out the multiplying death squads infesting its police forces, are the latest examples of a regime failing to acknowledge that we are not going to be there forever.”

But I believe there are some underlying factors that contribute to the civil war currently in progress

Mr. Forbes' comments make perfectly good sense to me. All Iraqis are concerned about how they will live if and when things settle down (i.e. the civil war ends). But I believe there are some underlying factors that contribute to the civil war currently in progress. The real question is---who will come out on top? Who will be privileged? Who will become wealthy and who will suffer?

If there is a way to generate cash for everyone, it could possibly stop the civil war and be the exact solution needed. Everyone will have a hand in it and be motivated to protect the oil production fields and its infrastructure, so it could work.

...the ongoing struggle in Iraq (the civil war) is all about who will eventually rise to the top

Native American tribes that have developed successful casinos have a system of sharing profits and proceeds with members of the tribe. It is working for the greater benefit so why not try this system with Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds? Let me tell you why---the ongoing struggle in Iraq (the civil war) is all about who will eventually rise to the top. It is about several aspiring despots testing the waters, shoving, pushing looking for weak spots in their opponent’s armor with the ultimate goal of taking over everything. Someone will make it to the top and the “in place government” will be gone.

However, let us get “out of the box” and think this one through at a slightly deeper level. Is it possible that the in-place government is also involved (silently) in the civil war? If not, then why did that very same government set aside a perfectly good solution, the so called divisive issue of carving up the country into autonomous regions? Why did they not go to the people and tell them of this option? Why did they not consider a referendum on this issue? Tell me America, who is the duly elected government siding with, and who is siding with the government and more importantly to what end?

The fly in the ointment might be the Kurds

Below all the issues of the ongoing civil war lies the foundational reason, the bottom line rationale for the war. And that underlying issue is greed and control. Those are the factors that are driving the war---selfish greed and an insatiable need for the power to control the entire nation and its oil reserves.

The fly in the ointment might be the Kurds. They continue to gain economic strength, enjoy relative peace and calm in their region and slow but sure control of their oilfields. Might they become so powerful that they will set the model for Iraq? That model would be something like the Alaska model that Mr. Forbes has so eloquently described. The progress of the Kurds could be very positive.

Goodbye Saddam and hello to the development of autonomous regions and the division of oil revenues to the people

As a private citizen and an observer of events, I believe the US Government must push the Alaska/Kurd model. I don’t mean give the Iraqi government another boring power point briefing about what the Alaska idea can do for them. What I am talking about is a set of tough, saber tooth lined, demands that this idea be implemented within six months and if not we are leaving town. And while the government is being educated we must also bring the solution to the attention of the general population. Turn on the public information system and let them know that such a solution does exist so they can get involved. It is time for Uncle Sam to kick some behind.

This solution involves real living people with something at stake---their piece of the oil revenues. This total involvement will enhance security and we will see if the Iraqi man on the street can impact his world if given the opportunity. If he cannot change his world, no outsider (American) can do it for him.

Goodbye Saddam and hello to the development of autonomous regions and the division of oil revenues to the people.