Tuesday, December 26, 2006


Revisiting the Iraqi Problem

A New Impetus is Needed

We must win. Retreat would be disastrous to our credibility and our security, and massively encouraging to the Islamic Fascists worldwide. Retreat would make a mockery of our efforts in Iraq, cast a bitter feeling of uselessness for our nearly 3,000 dead and 21,000 wounded, and render ineffective our financial commitments of over a half trillion dollars. No country could entertain trusting us after a pullout from Iraq. We would have demonstrated our unwillingness to win, despite having the means to do so.

We will incur another Vietnam-type of loss, because of the loud and unseeing passivism in America, not because of our military.

We do have the means to win. We have not used these means to their fullest. I will cite several examples. We have not prepared adequately in advance for a large-scale and long-term military presence in Iraq. There are a number of consequences of this failure. We do not have enough troops on the ground to pacify and retain control of the cities, even Baghdad, thus allowing nighttime placement of IEDs on the roadways. We do not have enough force in Iraq to close the borders effectively, and to interdict the stream of supplies, arms and money coming in from Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Worse, we do not have enough force to stand down Syria and Iran if they decide to enter the fight, and similarly, we do not have the resolve to threaten to attack supply bases in Syria, Iran, or Saudi Arabia unless they immediately halt support for Iraqi insurgents. Cutting off their supplies would rapidly reduce the insurgent’s ability to operate.

Our troops have been seriously inhibited by strict rules of engagement--ROE. In our zeal to be perfect warriors, we have not engaged groups that had interspersed themselves in the civilian population. We have held fire when there was a remote chance that those in front of us were not the enemy, thus allowing many insurgents to escape their just end. We have sent out patrols into areas where we knew there would have been IEDs planted the night before under the cover of darkness, and in the absence of sufficient night patrols to inhibit the planting.

We should be building up our forces to the point that both Syria and Iran would become quite intimidated, and we should be striking their supply points from the air, and interdicting their Iraqi supply routes in force. We should be inundating Baghdad with troops, sweeping and occupying it block by block. We should be very wary of giving Iraqi troops leeway without our leadership and numbers of our troops in the lead positions.

A draft is indicated. A draft that inducts and trains perhaps 500,000 troops a year, for service of at least two years, if not more. As I have proposed before, these draftees would replace our regular troops in garrison duties, not combat, thus releasing the regulars for combat. This would relieve the manpower strains on not only the regulars, but also the reserves and National Guard, while allowing us to do the job called for in Iraq.

We need the will to win!


Thursday, December 21, 2006


Minimum Wage

To Raise the Minimum Wage is Either Useless or Stupid, or Both

Most economists will agree that raising the minimum wage is a bad idea. Employers that must pay more per employee will simply hire fewer employees, either by not replacing those who leave, or by letting current employees go. Thus we will see greater unemployment. We will also see more employers violating the law by hiring Illegals at lower wages, hence again displacing current employees. Another point is that if the government forces employers to pay Illegals the higher wage, more Illegals will be on our streets without employment, since employers prefer to hire Americans if they can. Marginal companies with heavy dependence on cheap labor could well go out of business entirely, thus turning more of the labor class out on the street.

Once you begin to control the commodity labor, there is no end to government interference in our lives. President Bush has abandoned the conservative side completely on this matter. Now we must look to minimizing the damage he can do before leaving office.


Tuesday, December 19, 2006


Unions, Iraq and 2008 Elections

A Few Tuesday Notes

The Union Movement: The unions are still around, and still want pay and benefit increases that make them better paid than non-union workers. (The average weekly earnings of union workers are $781, while non-union workers earn $612.) Embedded and in control of today’s movements, particularly in John Sweeney’s AFL-CIO, and Andy Stern’s Service Employee’s International Union (SEIU), are radical socialists and communists who are dedicated to the principles of Marx. Fortunately, they represent fewer workers than in their heyday—a combined 15 million members now, all told, and perhaps about 11% of the US workforce. But they have made common cause with the leftwing Kool-Aid drinkers and financiers such as George Soros to pour money into leftist candidates for office around the nation.

These people bear watching.

More Troops for Iraq: There seems to be growing consensus that we should increase the troop levels in Iraq, especially in and around Baghdad, and in Anwar Province.However, the numbers mentioned are not really adequate. The rumor has it that the increase would be from 15 to 30 thousand troops, when what are needed are 150 to 300 thousand, in my opinion. When this augmentation shows up to be totally inadequate, what then? Will we have blown the chance to really “go long and hard?”

The 2008 Election: The only politician that makes sense to me is Newt Gingrich. He has the intellect, the understanding of politics, and the patriotism to carry the nation proudly through the early 21st century. Newt has stated that he will not announce his intentions until the Fall of 2008, but he has Fox News as his platform, from which to show his mettle.

He is worth listening to on most subjects you can name.

Labels: ,

Thursday, December 14, 2006


Illegals, Radical Muslims, and America Haters

The Word of the Day is: Tolerance

Our American society has been built around the idea of tolerance for our neighbors, other religions, and other people of the world. It has perhaps always been true that some of our citizens are disgruntled, discouraged, and downright furious at our government. It is fortunate that they are not so numerous that they can do serious harm to our society, whether they are from the right or left in their politics.

However, today, some from the left make themselves obnoxious and divisive by their incessant diatribes against the current policies in Iraq. They have that right. We must tolerate them. The worst of them, the loudest, the most virulent, should be simply ignored.

There is a huge groundswell of fear and hatred for Muslims in general in the nation, brought on by the Jihadists actions around the world, and by 9/11 here. Many of our citizens have taken the time to read the Koran. They come away with increased fear of Islam which they now see as a bloodthirsty and deadly enemy of Christians and Jews.

Muslims have the right to practice their religion in the US. We must be tolerant of them. That is, until they make a move to harm us.

We are faced with an unprecedented invasion of Illegals from Mexico and other countries. The number of Illegals is estimated to be around 15 million, and they come to work and send money back to their families in Mexico. We can be tolerant of them, except for one point: they come here illegally. Some come here to prey on the weak, to steal, and rape, and to deal in drugs. These we must not be tolerant of; rather, we should use the full force of the law against them, and should ensure that they are either imprisoned or shown the border, or both. It is symptomatic that 40% of the inmates in California jails are Illegals. For the rest of the Illegals, they must be subjected to regulation and tracking to ensure their compliance with our laws, or else they too must be deported.

Sometimes tolerance is hard to maintain in the face of hatred and irrationality.

Labels: ,

Friday, December 08, 2006


Islam Versus America

America wants to go back to sleep.

We are at war with Islam, with terrorists, with supporters of jihad, and with supporters of the objective of turning Western nations into sharia-controlled states. It is a top-to-bottom war, from the elemental police actions needed to control violence locally, to the all-out insurgencies of the Taliban in Afghanistan and various militias in Iraq on the Shia and Sunni sides, to the actions and rhetoric of the Muslims in the West (or their non-actions and non-rhetoric in America). This message has not penetrated to the ever-unconscious public in the US, or to those who live in a dream world filled with goodness and mercy, kindness and altruism.

What should we be doing? We should be building up our armed forces to the level of "two wars" as it was in the 60's. We should be closing our borders to illegals, and especially the Muslims. We should be deporting or interring Muslims, most particularly those who preach or support jihad and sharia. We should be gearing up for a direct confrontation with the Islamic nations that threaten our way of life and our citizens, and here I speak of Palestine, Iran and Syria up front as devil nations, and Saudi Arabia as the moneypot of terrorism and Islamic teaching around the world. We should get ready to remove the threat of a nuclear Iran thoroughly and deeply. I submit that had we done this earlier, we could have saved lives in Iraq, both of our troops and of Iraqi civilians, and not inconsequentially, saved untold billions of dollars in the process.

We should hold onto bases in Iraq in preparation for the conflicts with Iran and Syria. Thus it is in our interest as well to stabilize Iraq with massive troop power-- now. We should be gearing up diplomatically to force Islam onto the defensive worldwide. We should be willing to admit that oil in the hands of Islam is a weapon of great power, and that must be corrected by taking direct control of it in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran. We may have a window of about two or three years to do all of this without nuclear retaliation from Iran or its jihadists.

I feel just as I did in 1938, when my Father explained to me the silliness of Chamberlin and his "peace in our time". I was afraid. Soon (it was in 1940), my Father joined Hap Arnold's staff to help plan the massive expansion of the Army Air Corps in WWII, and, suddenly, one Sunday, the war was on! Many military men had seen it coming, but it took the Pearl Harbor disaster to get America on the right track. It appears that we need yet another reminder of what evil people can do to us when we complacently go about our business and our private lives, with our collective heads in the sand with respect to foreign threats.

Must we lose New York, or Washington, or San Francisco, or Chicago or Los Angeles, or all of them, before we wake up to the reality of the Islamic threat? How utterly stupid!


Thursday, December 07, 2006


The Iraq Study Group—Initial Reactions

Nix Nieuws, as the Dutch Say (Nothing New!)

From what has been released so far, I do not see anything that hasn’t been debated before, put into action, or rejected for sufficient cause. The very act of publishing this for the world is a grave disservice to the Cause, in my opinion. It blatantly announces to the insurgents that they are winning here at home, and merely need to keep up the pressure to force us out, and give them free reign in Iraq. The very idea of trying to talk seriously with the Iranians or Syrians is foolish at the least, and dishonest to the American people at the worst, for many Americans believe in talk-talk as the “civilized” way to resolve differences. They will be misled by any talks, in that they will be expecting something positive to occur.

Most Americans do not understand Islam, do not realize that they are not playing fair, that they will lie, cheat, and steal from infidels at every turn to obtain their objectives. Talking is useless without a strong military position from which to begin.

The idea that we should beef up our embedded troops with Iraqi troops by some 20,000 men might be a reasonable thing to do, except that this draws down our own forces and our ability, therefore, to respond to crises by as much as an entire US division. If the Iraqi Army becomes paralyzed by its indigenous Sunni or Shiite members, we have lost our division to any immediate action, and perhaps put them at risk for being shot in the back by their “fellow” soldiers.

This entire suggestion by the ISG will, in my opinion, have the effect of further weakening the current Iraqi government, and will embolden the insurgents to more and more IED bombings. We are trying to put the entire onus for success on this weak government, and its current misled army. While that could be corrected to some degree by our increased participation, this ignores the realities of how the insurgents exercise power over the army.

Every man in the Iraqi army can potentially be coerced into disobedience, defection, spying, and sabotage to defeat the goals of its leadership. The insurgents merely have to know the soldiers name, and they can go to his family with threats of death for them all unless the soldier does their bidding. So, the Iraqi Army, as it now stands, is not reliable.

It is still my opinion that “going long and strong” is the only way to ultimate success. That we are being told we don’t have the manpower in the Army to do this speaks to serious weakness in our ability to defend ourselves at all. We are led into this situation by the draconian reductions of force executed during the Clinton administration, and not corrected by Bush.


Monday, December 04, 2006


Do Iraq Right!

Real Military People Say: “Use Overwhelming Force”

At the outset of the Iraq War, I posted my opinion that we needed 500,000 foot soldiers on the ground to pacify the country, dig out all of the arms stores, disarm all of the militias, patrol the streets, occupy the cities, and seal the borders as well as possible. Later on, I became more specific as to where the main problem was, Baghdad, and how to bring it under control.

We played “nice guy” in Baghdad, permitting the citizens wide freedom of movement, the use of all kinds of vehicles, and relatively few serious searches for illegal arms, as well as setting hard rules of engagement for our troops that have been, in my opinion, ridiculous. What was needed from the start was martial law, shooting of armed men on sight, restricted use of vehicles, day and night control of all streets, and instant reaction to attacks.

Liberators we were, in fact, but Occupiers we should have been, but with a plan and schedule for creating a new government that everyone knew about. Anyone getting out of line anywhere should have been grabbed and imprisoned, if not shot. Force, naked force, should have been up front and clear to all of the 30 or more tribes in the country. But all of this is simply passé now. Or is it?

The problem with this approach was simple. We didn’t have the guts to commit that number of troops to Iraq, because the rest of our troop obligations would suffer drastically. So we fudged the situation and not only defeated the Iraqi Army with a half to a third of the troops I thought needed, but also overthrew Saddam and his odious sons. But, the rest of the task we couldn’t follow through on properly for lack of troop power. We could not be at all of the right places at the right times to stop IED bombings, to search everywhere thoroughly for arms, to have a presence in force all over the place, and to react to attacks with lethal force.

Further, I had asked a question: “Why are we paying for a full overhaul and upgrade of the Iraqi infrastructure?” This still puzzles me. I can see where Iraqi oil production should be helped back on line. That would give them the ability to help pay for our expenses and for their own reconstruction. To foot the entire reconstruction bill by the US taxpayer seems wrong to me. The powers that be decided that if we touched the oil, we would be accused of starting the war for that reason. In my book, we were starting the war at least in part because of oil, and we should not have tried to duck the issue at enormous cost to our taxpayers. I suppose that is why our leaders get the both the cheers and boos of the public, and now a Democratic (read liberal) Congress come January.

The military seems to have booted it also, in that their reassessment of either “Go short, go long, or get out,” fizzled with a politically-nuanced “go longer but shorter” concept, which helped nothing. Or was it, “go shorter but longer”? I forget which, but it doesn’t seem to have mattered, yet, anyway.

What I believe is that we have been far too humane to win. We coddled our troops with relatively rapid rotations back home; we coddled the Iraqi’s by allowing too much freedom of action too soon; and we coddled the insurgent terrorists by not being able to pursue them and kill them at every turn; all because of lack of troop power on the ground.

We coddled the American people too, by not bringing them into the battle directly in some manner; instead, going for both guns and butter at the same time. We also coddled the Muslims by not demonstrating their bloodthirsty ways and their religious fervor for conquest of the West. I wonder to this day whether our US population of something like 6 million Muslims affected our political or military decisions in any way. We may never know.

Could we go back to the “Go Long” strategy and beef up our forces to execute the really tough approach I alluded to earlier? We could. It is within our power and our resources to do so, if we seriously wanted to win.

Our ground forces must be increased overall by three to five divisions, mainly equipped for heavy firepower, rapid deployment, and movement, and sufficient armor to protect our men as well as possible from increasingly powerful IEDs and RPGs. Participation by the general public should be realized by instituting a universal draft, designed to replace the volunteers sent to Iraq once trained. Thus no combat would be in a draftee’s future, unless he volunteered for it. These steps would cure the troop deficiencies in rapid order, and without destroying the all-volunteer nature of our combat troops short of all-out world war.

We need to cleanse Iraq effectively, and we have such a chance now. I am virtually certain that we will not take this opportunity, to our great discredit and eventual regret.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?