A perspective on peace

PEACE IS UPON US!

While serving on the U.S. Army Staff at the Pentagon during the Cold War several years ago, it was calculated that there were approximately 75 insurgencies, revolutions, tribal battles and other violent disruptions occurring on a daily basis across the globe. It was clearly a very violent world; a world at that time where all manner of mayhem was practiced and thousands were killed every week.

FAREED ZAKARIA

Fareed Zakaria, a writer for Newsweek, has published a fascinating book titled “The Post American World”.

In his book he suggests that the world today may look very dangerous but, in fact, it is peaceful and calm. He goes on to say that Fred Burr and a team of scholars at the University of Maryland have tracked the data of violence very carefully and have come to this conclusion:

“The general magnitude of global warfare has decreased by 60% since the mid-1980’s and at the end of 2004 fell to its lowest level since the 1950’s.”

Zakaria also points out that Harvard professor Steven Pinker argues that:

“Today we are probably living in the most peaceful time in the history of our species.”

The chances of dying of a consequence of organized violence of any kind are getting lower and lower. The data reveal a broad trend away from wars among major countries; the kind of conflict that produces heavy casualties.

Zakaria goes on to say---Islamic terror, which makes the headlines daily, is a large and persistent problem but one involving a small number of fanatics. It feeds on the dysfunction of the Muslim world, the sense of real and imagined humiliation at the hands of the West, and easy access to technologies of violence. And yet, it does not rank as a threat on the order of Germany’s drive for world domination or Soviet expansionism or Mao’s effort to foment war and revolution across the third world.

In view of man’s long standing proclivity for war, no one can say that the peace trend will continue. However, I am hopeful that mankind is beginning to see the absolute futility of war.

THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE

But since the statistics described above show a slow-down in constant and widespread murder and warfare, I ask does this breakout of peace have any effect on the run for the office of president? If we are moving toward a more peaceful world, is Senator McCain relevant today? Or is this just a temporary slow down in violence and will we ultimately need the Senator?

But hold it—wait a moment---because now we have the President of Iran mumbling about blockading the straits of Hormuz. This would send oil to $400.00 a barrel and gas to $12.00 a gallon. Would it also lead us to violence and war? I would imagine so. Does this kind of threatening talk make Obama irrelevant? Is he tough enough to face this tense and potentially violent situation? I hope so and I note that during his visit to Afghanistan, he said that 7,000 more soldiers are needed there to bring calm to the area. Was this a political statement to out flank Mc Cain or is he serious in making this tough and serious statement?

SAFETY AND SECURITY

Are we really moving toward a more peaceful world? Where does the truth lie? The concept of world wide warfare is now outdated and these conflicts, as well as countless insurgencies and revolutions, are relics of the past. They may have fallen victim to globalism.

As for peace, and for what it is worth, I see it this way: Statistically the world is getting safer, but in the details of every day life there is still much violence or potential violence to be concerned about. Oil is a precious commodity and we have fought and will fight to control it. We must have our gasoline and it must be cheap and our insatiability will continue to translate into violence, if need be. This sensitive area could be an impediment to peace.

If the recent trend of laying people off by the thousands every month continues, due to outsourcing and economic conditions, we could see a massive reaction in the form of riots here in the USA. The elitists, the senior politicians, the so-called “leaders” of America, are out of touch. They do not understand the impact of the rise in the cost of a quart of milk, a loaf of bread, a pound of beef and a gallon of gas. They must wake up to reality and begin to understand that the masses must be appeased or there will be trouble. The French Revolution is a good example of the people taking charge because of tough times. America’s leaders must examine and react to the possibility of this potential phenomenon and give Americans hope; especially economic hope.

There are still many forms of violence in our country and around the world. There are, for example, gangs and drugs and drug wars and mafia turf battles, which affect a small number of people but which are very violent and are not good for the general welfare of the public. There are other forms of terrorism and violence in our world also---forced prostitution, child prostitution and more. All of these factors are forms of violence and are hidden in the ugly under belly of daily events.

There are roadblocks to peace and those barriers are the violence we see today in relationships and families. If family members cannot live in peace—the world cannot live in peace. Also people will fight over that which they want---we need the oil, I need my job, this is my turf, I sell drugs here so get moving or I will shoot you. The potential for extreme violence (war) is just below the surface of man’s consciousness while other forms of violence and inhumanity are fully operational.

PEACE

..
I applaud the trend toward less violence and I am here to tell you that being in two wars is enough to make old warriors like me into peace believers. I want peace across the planet as well as right human relations.

Senator McCain Comments

“The 2013 date is not a timetable it is victory”

According to Glen Johnson, an AP writer, Senator McCain offered some unusual comments on May 15th about the world as he sees it. After reading what he said I would like to review some of his points.

In a Columbus, Ohio speech, the Senator indicated that by 2013 Osama Bin Laden will be dead or captured, Americans will have a choice of paying a Flat Tax, most servicemen and women will be back home, the Iraq war will have been won and the Iraqi government will be running Iraq. He qualified his comments by also saying “The 2013 date is not a timetable it is victory” and McCain went on to say, “I didn’t know when we were going to win WWII, I just knew we were going to win.”

This is a very interesting mix of comments by the Senator. Maybe we will have a flat tax by 2013---I hope it is not 60% of our earnings. If the war has been won and our troops are home that would be very good---but it is a long time from now. And Iraq will be run by the Iraqi government---I say it is about time.

OK, let’s say Osama is out of the way---natural causes or killed in a firefight---will it matter? He will go through some martyr recognition process by his followers---but how many are there? And if CNN and Fox give the demonstrations and funeral very little attention his passing will probably not be too significant---at least not as significant as the money we spent and the soldiers killed while looking for this mythic character.

By the way, how are you going to get the Congress to go along with this idea?

Flat tax you say---and just how does that fit into the rest of the conversation---I don’t know. Oh well, who cares----give me a flat tax Senator but let me review it before you impose it because it must be fair and the guys pulling in millions each month need to be flat taxed like all the rest of us lemmings---and no loop holes allowed. By the way, how are you going to get the Congress to go along with this idea? They are beholden to corporate America and their Washington jobs and support money often comes as a result of the tax breaks they legislate for the big boys?

Soldiers back home and the war won by 2013. That is a strange leap of faith---what happened during those intervening years---did you nuke the terrorists? Did you put the draft back into effect? How many of our folks were killed and how much more cash and political clout did we give up? During the time between now and 2013, did the Chinese economy pass ours up, did the dollar continue to decline, did gasoline go to $15.00 per gallon, did the world come to attention and give us one ounce of recognition and congratulations for our victory? Oh well, who cares; after all, we won. And the Iraqi mafia takes charge in Iraq---we deserve congratulations for that one also.

Can you say Pyrrhic?

How did you divine the year 2013?

How did you divine the year 2013? And you always knew we would win WWII but not exactly when--that is interesting.

Sir, it might have been possible to calculate the demise of the Nazi, Imperial Japanese and the Fascist Italian regime of WWII based on the decline of their industrial base. It was probably directly proportional to their war fighting capability. But to measure the potential for continued terrorist activities is a much more difficult metric to compute. So how exactly did you calculate the year of the end in Iraq as being 2013?

Have you heard about the drug cartels of Mexico?

Can you agree with me that terrorism is much bigger then Osama, Afghanistan, Iraq and the Middle East? If you do agree, Senator, please take a broader look at terrorism because it is at our front door in another form and 2013 is irrelevant. Have you heard about the drug cartels of Mexico?

Somewhere between 2,500 and 5,000 people have been killed in Mexico in the recent past. Cartel members, police, military and innocent civilians have been wiped out in the ongoing battle over drugs. And the cartel terrorists recently murdered the equivalent of the Mexican Director of the FBI. That is terrorism in action and my crystal ball says without our assistance in Mexico and with the continued demand for drugs in the USA, it is possible that these terrorists will topple the State of Mexico and penetrate up into Houston, San Diego, San Antonio, Tucson and Los Angeles.
..
I would be happy to send you my crystal ball so you can take a look at what I am seeing. In the meantime the terrorists are knocking on our southern door while millions of Americans continue to smoke crack.

Long term deployment in Iraq and other developments

The mission?

Apparently the White House has negotiated an agreement with the government of Iraq concerning long term US troop occupation and the discussions include location of military bases, troop strengths and missions to be accomplished by the occupying force. The mission? Well, that is easy: the President has decided to pledge to the Iraqi’s that the USA will protect the government in Baghdad from internal coup attempts and foreign enemies. In return the Iraqi’s have promised to “encourage the flow of foreign investments to Iraq--especially American investments--to contribute to the reconstruction and re-building of Iraq.” The promise will be a bonanza for American oil companies.

What is not clear is this: How long do we stay in Iraq? Do we continue the surge and in what form and in what intensity? I would suggest that a long term deployment of U.S. troops does not go hand-in-hand with a long term surge. Why? Because a long term surge is not sustainable.

…we have already carved out the enclaves we wanted…

Why is the Administration negotiating base locations? Given the construction that is underway or complete, it would seem that we have already carved out the enclaves we wanted without any assistance or approval from the Iraqis who happen to be the citizens of the country in question. We are the occupiers and we are building installations where we want them. Maybe the negotiation part of the plan is only propaganda for the American and Iraqi public. Also with the type of bases and installations we are building, I would say our troops might be in Iraq for forty years not four as Secretary Rumsfeld had suggested while still in office. Huge corporations such as Halliburton and KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton, in cooperation with the Army Corps of Engineers have installed massive installations in Iraq with modern conveniences suggesting we are in for the long haul.

Why is forty years or more a possibility? Because we have a penchant for over staying our welcome. For example, we have been in Europe since WWII ended in numbers in excess of 200,000 personnel. We are still in Japan today, and have manned the DMZ in Korea for over fifty years and we are to be found in numerous nations across the globe. Speaking of the DMZ, isn’t it ironic that probably less then 250 people have crossed the DMZ into South Korea in the last 50 years while 12 million plus have crossed our border in less then 50 years? Where are the priorities---South Korea is fully capable of taking care of its own border and we are a total failure along our southern frontier. It is time to leave Korea.

Do these expensive actions warrant the cost?

How do the planners view these deployments in Iraq? Do they see them as strategic enclaves in the event we have to project military forces into a neighboring area? Do they believe these expensive deployments to be part of our anti-terror program—fight ‘em anywhere but in our country? Do these expensive actions warrant the cost?

Also what does the citizenry of the occupied country feel about our presence? I would not want to wake up every morning to see a bunch of armed Iraqi GIs standing around on the street where I live. I would rebel against such an occupation. I predict that we will be very unwelcome in Iraq as time goes by and the festering unhappiness that will build is going to find American soldiers embroiled in trouble.

So, I suggest that we stop spending money to continue building enclaves, find a reasonable draw down schedule and begin to move the troops out leaving only a token force for training and liaison.

Let me tell you what is really happening

But wait! All that I have said so far is not important to the administration. Let me tell you what is really happening. This entire occupation has to do with OIL. The U.S. government would not be doing what it is doing in Iraq if Iraq were a country without OIL. The people of America have no say in this action; it is a White House edict. It is a payoff to big oil.

I can hear my opponents wailing in the background, “But Richard, we need oil to operate our automobiles. My answer: Go to new technology where fossil fuels have no role to play in auto engines. But big oil will not allow that to occur. They have us over a barrel and a barrel costs damn near $100.00. Wake up, America. You’re being taken to the cleaners and wait till you see the bill for occupying Iraq!

As an aside, the recent revelation offered by the National Intelligence Estimate concerning Iran’s nuclear program is good news and supports the need for a less pressurized environment in Iraq. However, we must be ever cognizant of the Iranian ability to buy nuclear devices from world-traveling and elusive gun runners; this activity is where the real danger lies. But, in the meantime, does reducing the numbers of U.S. military in Iraq seem like such a bad idea? It might even calm Iran and the rest of the Middle East. Couple a reduction of troops with a massive diplomacy effort to try and bring some measure of stability to the Middle East. It might be a softer, gentler way to bring calm in the region

Finally...

..

Finally, I see where Mr. Wolfowitz is returning to a high level position in the State Department. He had his turn and he didn’t do too well—he even screwed up the World Bank job. Can we please find someone with some new fresh ideas and solutions to our problems and let Mr. Wolfowitz go back to academia?

Some help for Uncle Sam?

Mistakes, blunders and miscalculations plague our democracy…

The current administration, well into its second term, is in trouble on many fronts. But this is nothing new because many administrations before this one suffered from comparable problems most of which surfaced due to policies and actions that were foolish and ill conceived. Mistakes, blunders and miscalculations plague our democracy and always will because we have mere “people” running the show.

I am not going to condemn the current administration and the President. He has taken us down the path we currently travel because he believed he was serving the nation. I believe he made a few errors along the way, but he still believes he was/is serving America.

The Democrats are now narrowly in power in congress and they are establishing blockades against the President’s programs. I am not going to condemn them because they also believe they are serving the nation’s best interests. But look at it this way---members from both sides of the aisle are only “people.” They have all the shortcomings found in the human species. They suffer from such human frailties as being arrogant, overbearing, egotistical, don’t tell me what to do, know it all, believe they are always right and act out their decisions with emotion and not necessarily with objectivity. We are all frail; even the so-called smart people---who can be dumb as a poker at times.

The electorate looks on with wonder and amazement at what comes from Washington daily

Both sides are making mistakes fighting the political battle while the electorate desires less corruption, more truth and honesty and good reasoned actions. The electorate looks on with wonder and amazement at what comes from Washington daily.

Why does this happen? Why are mistakes made time and again?

Do bad policy ideas and bad recommendations for action come from the bottom up i.e. from the bureaucracy to the decision maker? Does the decision maker do any thinking and pondering over a course of action and consider its implications before deciding? We know they ponder the issues but often only from a political point of view. For example, does this action fit into the Republican plan or does this action fit into the Democratic plan? The question should be does this action serve America?

Are government mistakes related to exhaustion? Do the leaders, the President, Vice President, the cabinet members and other key officials wear themselves out, especially in the second term, and become so exhausted that they begin to make errors in judgment?

Or could it be that some of our elected leaders are out of their intellectual depth and can’t comprehend situations, courses of action and resulting consequences? As a result they make mistakes.

Or could government mistakes have to do with legacy and the leaders want their place in history and a powerful legacy, which causes them to go over the top in certain situations. Does arrogance and ego kick in as the end of the election term nears and all the mopping up is accomplished?

Or could the corruption be so bad that as all the chits are called in for payment it is natural that actions and events go haywire. The immigration issue is a lingering mess and no one can come up with a clean, comprehensive, doable, fair solution to this problem. Why? Are there reasons strong and powerful that cause congress to move at a snail’s pace on this massive debacle. What chits are being paid off? Who is benefiting? How are they benefiting? What is the damage to our nation and to the people involved?

… I am at a loss in trying to figure out why government, loaded with these people, cannot get it right

Considering all the bright people we have on the planet, I am at a loss in trying to figure out why government, loaded with these people, cannot get it right. Could it be that the system no longer works, or the efficiency of the bureaucracy is in decline or there is no review process and maneuver room to correct errors. Who knows?

Maybe Uncle Sam’s people need help?

The media attacks the government---but gives very little help. The news people are generally adversarial and constantly complain about this or that or he said and she said and so they stir the pot and make the government defensive. When the government becomes defensive it hides facts, lies, schemes and begins to blunder. Yes, the media does uncover scandals and that is a way of keeping government honest---but the news people rarely come up with answers to questions and issues. They are off looking for the next blunder or scandal.

The political pundits constantly talk but offer very few suggestions for improvement. They tend to blow their own horn, look pure, clean, above the fray and so sanctimonious.
The pundits are the intellectuals, the university guys who write books, quote other professors and rarely get involved with the real world. The pundits are also the celebrities---movie stars, athletes and other well known personages. I believe they should have their opportunity to speak---but they rarely have answers—and since they are America’s idols and heroes they are role models and have the attention of millions of people. Why can’t they offer some positive suggestions? In the final analysis they offer little, except such sweeping generalizations as “we need to go into Darfur right now.” I agree, we probably do but give me a fully thought out, comprehensive and reasonable plan for such an action to include the military, political and economic dynamics of such an effort including the exit strategy.

The clearing house would be a whistle blower system

I have an idea about helping Uncle Sam. Let’s form a legitimate, sanctioned, clearing house. I can hear the politicians screaming in the background---it is not in the constitution. Wow—good reason to not try it out.

The clearing house would be a whistle blower system. If it is to work, the whistle blower system including its people must be absolutely untouchable. If whistle blowers are vulnerable to government harassment such as threats of violence or endless tax audits then it will fail.

Open up your mind and let us explore this possibility. The clearing house is an idea wherein a group of bright, concerned citizens are to work with the big boys. We might have 10 people monitoring the DoD and 10 watching State and 10 looking in on the White House etc, etc. The clearing house would permeate the government. It would become the conscience of the government.

How might the clearing house system operate?

Assume the President wants to go to war with Iran. The clearing house team monitors and demands answers on the entire operation and reports as an outside source to the people. No Democrat and no Republican nonsense---in other words no politics just down-the-middle American citizens asking all the right questions about going to war and informing America about the intelligence, the threat and the rationale for the decision. And the government, if it wants to be helped, will give this body of independent people all the facts concerning this proposed war. The clearing house then passes judgment on the government’s plan and tells the citizens how it feels about the President’s perceived need to go to war.

Imagine if Uncle Sam decides to not cooperate and the clearing house blows the whistle and makes known to the public the government’s non cooperative attitude. The public will react against the government immediately.

I can hear the political parties saying, “But that is the reason for the two party system and we are doing today what you want the clearing house to do.” My answer is---no you are not. You are playing politics on every issue and on every situation and action. That is a major reason that it takes months and years for action when action could be taken in days. Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill have failed and they continue to fail because they do not see the problems of America as problems that need to be solved for the greater good of the country.

The truth is that all politicians are biased and beholden to someone

The truth is that all politicians are biased and beholden to someone. Therefore they are not acting in the best and highest good of the people and the nation. They are acting for their own good or for a small number of Americans.

A clearing house, a whistle blower, a national conscience, it might work—especially if one adds this to the equation:

Should it be found that any member of government acted to mislead or occlude the clearing house, that member's personal immunity would have been pierced in so doing and he or she would be personally liable.

The Business of Intelligence

Rarely do outsiders recognize the hard work involved...

I am always surprised at how the word intelligence generates intrigue among people. Some folks see glamour, glory, an evil aura, sinister settings, sex, money and mystery in the term and all that it is and all that it means or suggests. Rarely do outsiders recognize the hard work involved in generating a first class, accurate and useful intelligence estimate. They see the final product as an aftermath, a conclusion, stark and cold detached from what they feel is all the glamour that went into its creation.

The intelligence business is not easy and is not especially glamorous. It consists of difficult work, constant review, comparison, inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, extrapolation, and correction. The analyst is constantly involved in updates and making sense out of the irrational and finally reaching a decision on the weight of the evidence.

We should not skimp in the budgeting process when it comes to intelligence organizations

The President of the United States has a far-flung intelligence empire at his finger tips. He relies on this mechanism--this structure--to give him the latest and best view of the capabilities of potential enemies of America. He asks for and gets details and ideas from his intelligence people. And from what they pass to him and from what he gleans from their material, he makes decisions that move the nation. He decides what short term actions to take, or what planning to set in motion or long term strategies to undertake. He signals the machinery of the government to get to action, new diplomatic initiatives, economic efforts to strengthen an alliance somewhere in the world and the very serious decision to go to war when we are threatened.

Intelligence tips the scale of the decision making process and so it is in our best interest, the citizens of this country, that the president has available to him the best intelligence possible to avoid tragic and costly mistakes. We should not skimp in the budgeting process when it comes to intelligence organizations. But we must also demand good solid management and cost effective policies to conserve assets and funds. And if such policies are not operative we should relieve those responsible for the failure.

I am amazed that we have an intelligence service as good as the one that currently exists

Since the intelligence business carries so much baggage---or at least rumors of dirty baggage---dirty tricks, assassinations, subversion, sabotage, insurgencies and more, it is a hot item for review. The people on Capital Hill in Washington want a piece of this thing called intelligence. They want to know what our collection agencies are doing, how they are doing it, when and where they are doing it and is whatever they are doing the right thing to be doing?

Under near constant scrutiny, how does the government run a secret agency that is victim of all the above plus the constant review and reporting of stories some true some totally false from the press? I am amazed that we have an intelligence service as good as the one that currently exists.

I want and every citizen should want the intelligence apparatus preserved. It should be highly effective, managed by professionals, in service to the nation, using every source of information to reach sound and accurate conclusions.

At the same time I want balance. I want an intelligence apparatus that serves the nation and is partnered with the people of America. I do not want an intelligence service that victimizes our citizens or the citizens of any nation. I want a service that is designed to protect our shores, that works and teams with other agencies of government, shares information with those agencies---not a stand alone, smug, elitist group of eastern establishment intellectuals. I want balance! And, finally I want an intelligence service that uses all the disciplines of the intelligence industry from the most sophisticated technology to the down and dirty spy who is paid for spying in order to make the United States of America a safe place. I want a service that can cleanse itself with counterintelligence measures and protective shields to root out and get rid of traitors in the system. I want a purity of purpose and a pride in performance---even when we use all the tools available to us---including the dirty tools. Why---because in this era of terrorism the game is clear---the enemy is ruthless, he cuts off heads. We are not playing a game here and we must use every asset we can find to protect ourselves.

Let us review

The state of the union speech suggested …

There has been a massive amount of activity within the government and the administration over the past several weeks and it is time for a review to determine if any progress has resulted. I am going to come at the situation with some commons sense ideas—and not as a democrat or a republican.

The state of the union speech suggested that the President is holding strong to the view of sending in another 20,000 troops to quell the factional warring in Iraq. In fact, the troops are now on station. The Commander and Chief has put congress in a tough spot—even though the democrats hint that they will withhold the funding to support this effort in the long term, they probably cannot really take such action. They fear that the American public would see them in a situation of non support of the troops. This is not a good place to be politically. So the funding will probably be there and the deployment will complete and we will lose more youngsters in the civil war in Iraq.

Is it apparent that politics and political agendas come before common sense and responsible action? Why do we continually lose sight of the goal? And the goal is to quell terrorism, but how?

Iraq and Terrorism in America

Does Iraq have anything to do with terrorism penetrating our shores? Five years ago it probably had very little if anything to do with terrorism in America. What about today? With the fire we have built in the Middle East through our actions in Iraq, I am afraid that we have stoked the embers of terrorism beyond even the expectation of the terrorist factions. The entire region could blow up leading to major issues and we may have caused such conditions to develop and exist through our irresponsible action by invading Iraq.

I have decided that I am going to stop complaining about the situation. I am simply going to state some ideas that I have offered before and that still seem legitimate to me.

Let us get to the bottom of this situation…

The situation in Iraq finds us caught in the midst of a civil war. It is true that some of the combatants are criminals and thugs but essentially it is Sunnis and Shiites battling each other for control.

Let us get to the bottom of this situation by asking---what is it that they are trying to control? Could it be that the warring factions are vying for position to take control of a “new government” beyond the one in place? Could it be that such control would allow the nationalization of the oil industry and the faction in power would benefit from the oil production? It makes common sense to me and so I am going to adopt the idea.


By inaction the government has marginalized every Iraqi citizen…

In an earlier writing I suggested that the Alaska model be imposed in Iraq---which means get the oil industry moving and pay every citizen a stipend from the oil revenues. But the current government either cannot or will not turn this solution to action. By inaction the government has marginalized every Iraqi citizen and said to them “no oil money for you.”

So what is likely to occur? Someone will rise to the top of the heap, and I have very little confidence that it will be the government currently in power---because I don’t believe they are in power at all. They show very little leadership and no solutions to existing problems. They have rigor mortis.

I believe that President Malaki and his colleagues are waiting for the “other shoe to drop.” The other shoe being “who will be the last man standing.” Once that is sorted out and a strong man is identified, they (Malaki and his people) will join with the victorious rebellious leader. But there is a danger in this scenario for the current government---the strongman may take out Malaki and his regime. In any case, once the real leader emerges and takes power the game will begin.

What is the game?

Oil is the game!

Oil will flow from the wells and cash will flow and the government in place will benefit and the common man will miss out on the entire show. It will be back to normal in Iraq and all of our attempts at rescuing this country and bringing democracy to it will fail. Why? The Iraqi’s are not culturally ready for democracy and all of its complex machinations. They don’t have the foggiest notion as to what it means, can’t get their arms around it, democracy is not culturally in tune with life in Iraq--plain and simple--it is a square peg in a round hole.

Why did the modern day whiz kids not see this coming—the big thinkers in Defense and State and the White House? They didn’t want to see it because their arrogance and righteousness caused them to believe that everyone loves the “American model” and that includes the Iraqis.

“Too pushy”

I recently traveled by cab from O’Hare airport to downtown Chicago and the taxi driver was from Jordon. He was a very articulate man and had earned a master’s degree from a prominent American University. He came off as a very bright man and he had an opinion about us Americans.

He simply said America is “Too pushy.” He said, “We Jordanians love the King of Jordon---we have loved him and his predecessors for many, many years. We don’t need democracy; we simply need a strong, just King.”

Sounds like the 1960s and Vietnam…

My call to the administration is---come home America they don’t want our help. Come home America and let us begin to solve our own problems. The administration’s answer to that is if we retreat from the Middle East we might find ourselves fighting terrorism at home. Sounds like the 1960s and Vietnam. The US Government and its whiz kids of that era had the fixation that if we abandoned Vietnam everything would come unglued. They insisted that if we left South East Asia that Cambodia, Laos, Thailand maybe even Indonesia would go communist.

Did it happen? No.

We are giving too much power and too much expertise to the international terrorists. They are simply not as good as we make them out to be. But, there is another problem and let me remind you folks in the administration that we already have terrorism at home. It is going on all around us primarily in our population centers. It is the gang phenomenon where gangs terrorize neighborhoods, fight for turf and the control of drug distribution systems. This form of terrorism is as bad as that found in troubled sectors of Baghdad. But the administration would prefer to fix Iraq rather than fix New York City, Los Angeles and Chicago.

The blogger and Uncle Sam

Let’s play a game for a moment and generate some questions and answers between the blogger and Uncle Sam.

First the blog writer:

How would the administration respond to the idea of it attacking and destroying terrorism in our streets idea?

The administration would say:

You don’t understand Mr. Blog Writer---we are talking about international 9-11 style terrorism.

I would say:

Come home and fight international terrorism from our shores through political, diplomatic, economic actions as well as vastly improved intelligence efforts.

Spend the next 94 billion dollars on re-building a worldwide human intelligence system and training a Special Forces team in the military that can defeat an enemy like those found in Iraq today.

The administration would say:

Get out of the Iraqi?

I would say:

Discover and shut down terrorist bank accounts. Discover who funds terrorism and don’t be too surprised when you find it to be a nation that acts friendly on the surface (they sell us a lot of oil) and behind our backs finance terrorists to kill us.

Uncle Sam’s response would be:

We can’t do that it would upset the international apple cart.

The blogger would immediately ask:

What international apple cart---is it the one full of oil? Are there under-the-table deals cooking that would be impacted if we would begin to tell the truth about our so called allies?


The Iraqi government is not our friend…

Remember just a few weeks ago that one single powerful general the Iraqi government appointed to finish off the war?

Have we ever heard of him again?

Was he appointed?

Did he and our new guy meet yet in Baghdad to develop a strategy?

Or did this newly appointed guy fade away?”

I go back to an earlier blog I wrote: “The Iraqi government is not our friend.” We are being strung out and they are holding on for dear life to benefit later from black gold.

Until we take some of the actions listed above, I will say to you again we are not at war with terrorism. We are playing a game and we are not serious about any of this business.”

We need to try common sense and see where it takes us.

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.

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