Rightwords... Prudent Conservatism

Labels: Iraq, Islam, Islamofascists, Terrorists

Labels: hypocrisy, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Liberalism, Pacifism

Labels: Guns, GWOT, Iran, Iraq, UN, World Opinion

Lessons from Military History

What can History contribute to our issues and conflicts of today? This question has bothered me since I have observed many of my favorite bloggers struggling to make comparisons between a current situation and one from the past—sometimes from the very far past.

Almost from the start of any discussion today, the argument turns from the situation at hand and what to do about it, to an argument about whether some past situation is a proper analogy from which to draw lessons. A cogent example is the attempts to compare our situation in Iraq with that of Vietnam in the latter part of that war. All immediacy is quickly lost in the fuzzy memories of an old conflict, spiced by the over 30-odd years of not so well-honed points of view and biases of the participants in the discussion.

Meanwhile, we are at war, and need to make many hard decisions about where we are going, what we are willing to do, and how to go about it. I get the feeling that some people had much rather win the argument about the analogy than to win the real war going on under their noses, especially if their main conclusion quite obviously fits their preconceived notions of the answer.

Misuse of historical analogies is a game anyone can play if they have the evil motives and unprincipled mindset of charlatans. Ignoring inconvenient facts is often used, for instance, to make a shady point. Again, the example of Vietnam: many claim we were defeated militarily in Nam, when by all accounts, we were extraordinarily successful militarily, to the point that later on Minh admitted that they were considering disengagement and suing for peace just at the time we announced our withdrawal. Political defeatism by our people and our elected leaders snatched the victory from us in the nick of time for the North Vietnamese.

Still, there must be value in perusing history for its relevance to today. Why should we repeat the mistakes of the past if by realizing that the past situation is sufficiently analogous that we must heed that lesson from history? The answer lies in accounting for the constants and variables in each situation, together with the strength of the general inferences and conclusions that can be drawn from the current and past situations.

Constants include: human nature; geography; topology; terrain and vegetation; population centers; road and rail system; general or average (expected?) weather conditions; types of warfare, including classic opposition of forces, and asymmetrical warfare;

Variables include: Existing political situations; actual weather conditions; current dispositions of forces; morale; will to win of the troops and of the civilian populations; relative strength of forces; quality of leadership; weapon and equipment advantages and disadvantages; logistics; strategy and tactics; mobility and speed; training and experience; command and control; communications; computers; intelligence; attack versus defense; the fog of war; adherence to the rules of war; and just plain luck.

Inferences and conclusions: In this maze of constants and variables, it is easy to abstract the wrong inference or conclusion from a situation.

Again, Vietnam is the prime example. We withdrew from Nam after building up the ARVN forces massively. The withdrawal was a politically-driven decision because of the publics view that we had lost, which in turn was driven by the mainstream media's biased portrayal of the war. We had promised the SV government that we would supply them until they had gotten well on their feet. However, our Congress refused to give them any support whatsoever, so when the NV attacked two years later, the SV quickly ran out of critical ammunition, fuel, and other ordnance items, and were overrun by the well-supplied NV. We did not lose militarily. In fact, we weren’t there! Those who say that we did lose militarily are charlatans looking to make a leftist point. This is a war that we won militarily and lost at home politically.

The inference I draw from all of this is that one must beware of loose inferences from history that are without substantial factual backup. Then too, is the effort to properly substantiate the analogy really worth the effort, as opposed to simply applying intelligence, common sense, and experience to the situation?

Labels: hypocrisy, Iraq, politics, Vietnam

OPINION

(Update from post on June 27, 07)

We have an overweening moral obligation to stay the course now and give the Iraqi a further chance.

Any idea that we were morally wrong to invade Iraq is simply and completely superseded by the subsequent decisions, events, and commitments of the US to Iraq and its people. (“If you break it, you own it.” Colin Powell.)

The very simplest solution is to stay where we are, consolidate our strategic and tactical gains, and do something constructive with our capabilities and assets.

We are not going to leave any time soon. There is far too much going on in the region to bring our forces home, only to find that we must reinsert them a few months later.

We are not going to admit defeat.

We are not going to give the Islamic terrorist insurgents a victory.

We are not going to let the current government down because of our commitments to them. We must help them to reach an effective government, which is, in the end, up to them.

We gave back sovereignty to the Iraqi, and claimed that we would withdraw if asked to do so by the government. Will such a request signal to the world that our mission is over and successful, and that we can peacefully wind down the effort? Can we promote that thought?

We may well support a sectarian partition of Iraq, subject to the solution to the oil revenue question. Divide and conquer is a tried and true tactic.

We are not going to let the 27 million Iraqi people down by leaving them entirely to their own devices, after promising them to stay the course. On the other hand, we should not misplace our confidence in Iraqi sects, tribes, and foreigners in the country to remain friendly to us. Thus, we must watch our backs at all times.

We are not going to let Iran and Syria move into Iraq and take over.

We are not going to let Iraqi oil be used against us, although this was one of the great mistakes of the war up to now to let the Iraqi decide how to manage their oil. We regret this decision now, so it may change. Perhaps we can play “honest broker” to ensure fair distribution of oil revenue directly to the tribes and to the government. There must be a portion of the revenue allocated for us to defray some of our costs.

We are not going to let the Kurds be massacred by Iran or Turkey or the Sunnis from Iraq, or all three.

We are not going to stand by and watch the Sunnis and Shiites massacre each other.

We are not going to turn our backs on our soldiers who sacrificed to help give Iraq a chance, over 3,500 of whom did not return alive, and over 20 thousand have been wounded, and many maimed for life.

We must disengage insofar as possible, while executing the surge in Baghdad, guarding the borders with Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia, keeping an eye on Turkey, guarding the oil infrastructure, and ensuring our supply lines.

We are not going to turn our backs on an investment of hundreds of billions of dollars to help Iraq out of its troubles.

We have a national interest in keeping a substantial force in this highly strategic area of the Middle East, next to Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.

We will have a substantial force in Iraq and Kuwait for a decade or more. We must plan for a long-term presence.

This force will be useful in many ways in the near future. It will be augmented again soon now. Another 30 thousand troops may be on their way shortly, along with substantial air and naval forces, including the increase of carriers to four off the coast.

We must be ready for any eventualities resulting from the Iranian conflict, and possible Palestinian and Lebanese flare ups. Israel may well be the pivotal nation, especially if they decide to attack Iranian nuclear facilities.

We are not going to substantially change the situation if the Democrats win in 2008, unless it is along these lines or something similar. There may be a draw down of forces, but it will be more symbolic than substantial, and more like down to Kuwait than to Okinawa.

Labels: Iran, Iraq

Starting Over is the Way!

Since the current government of Iraq is incapable of initiating the reforms necessary for stability, it is up to us to fix the problems. The alternative is a bloodbath between Sunni and Shiite when we look the other way or depart. In this sense we have grabbed the tar baby with both arms. So, what needs doing?

We should force the current government to give us control of oil and revenue sharing as the impartial force in the land. This would remove oil matters from the table for the present, and perhaps allow other issues to be decided by the Iraqi government.

We should ensure that all Iraqi forces and police enforce the law impartially, or else.

We should redeploy our troops to seal the borders, protect the oil infrastructure, protect our forces from attack, and be prepared to engage Iranian or Syrian forces.

We should continue the clear and hold actions in Baghdad and surrounds, and in other major cities, such as Basra, and where the Iraqi have decided to support us.

We should ensure our lines of supply.

We should support the semi-autonomy approach to the Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdistan areas. This may well require building walls in some areas.

We should not continue to reconstruct the Iraqi infrastructure using US funds, but rather, the Iraqi should use Iraqi oil revenue. We have no obligation to fix what we didn’t break.

We should exact an ample fee for our efforts from the oil revenue, to help alleviate our costs.

We should continue to train and weed out the Iraqi forces and police from partisanship and allegiances to tribal leaders.

We should destroy the local militias.

A military assessment of these objectives would undoubtedly conclude that we need more troops in Iraq. When the possibility of war with Iran is taken into account, it becomes obvious that our current strength is far too low to cope adequately against Iranian incursions or full-scale invasion of Iraq.

Our armed forces in general are too low in troop power and their supporting bomb-resistant vehicles, armor, and massed-fire weapons. This should be fixed, preferably by increased authorizations and funding from congress, and recruitment of volunteers. However, a draft should be considered as well. Five or six new divisions should be authorized, funded, and built up. Increases in the air force, navy and marines should also be authorized.

We should ask why we are bending over backwards to rotate our troops so often. In other wars, we were not so concerned about the idea of frequent rotations. Men were in for the duration, period, and were given R&R after time in combat, usually in the theater, not all the way home, and it was up to their commanders as to the policy, not congress. Emergency leaves were used to cover home events of a serious nature. The “guns and butter” approach can work only if the basic resources are there to provide the continuous combat strength needed.

We need, most of all, the will to win.

Labels: Iraq

Labels: History, Immigration, Iran, Iraq, politics

A few hard facts and suppositions drawn from my posts elsewhere

I see little hope for diplomacy in the area. We are in a kill or be killed situation, where money will not buy our way out, and all of the other sides of the table are rogues of renown. We seem to insist on treating Muslim fanatics as reasoned individuals, when they are cutthroats and dervishes that should be eliminated. The situation reminds me of the cold war “negotiations”. The other side took whatever concessions we offered and kept asking for more, while yielding nothing in return. If you don’t want to be taken to the cleaners, stay away from the negotiating table. The prescription for this situation is the application of unyielding force.

There is no known test for the honesty, trustworthiness, and humanity of a Muslim, be he fanatic or not. We cannot tell. We have no way to reach common ground with them in the end, since they are tied to Islam, which allows them in their minds absolute free reign over infidels like you and me. Their Qur’an states that it is just fine to lie, cheat, steal, and kill infidels, those who do not believe in Islam.

Thus, the practical steps of the situation are to garrison the capital, borders and the oil areas to prevent their falling into unfriendly hands, and to isolate the Muslims from any travel to the West for an indefinite period.

The US should not allow Muslims into our country, and those that are already here should be "encouraged" to leave. There are some exceptions to this, of course, such as diplomatic and business travelers with our approval.

Let the oil pay for our occupation and a goodly profit for us, with the rest of the money being shoveled to the Iraqi in shares to each family head and a large share to the government, say 10%. On this matter, we will have to return the oil infrastructure to our control, since we did give that control to the Iraqi earlier. They are not dealing with this issue properly, nor are we at the moment.

There should be no reconstruction program funded by the American taxpayer. Let oil money do its thing. We should keep hands off the internal machinations of the Iraqi government, unless their actions threaten us. We should give humanitarian aid where needed in a carefully managed manner.

Other than that, let them find their own way. We should immediately drop the facade of having to "win hearts and minds" of Muslims. That will never happen. What they will appreciate is security and a decent flow of revenue to all provinces, backed up by force.

For those who believe we should cut and run from Iraq, you cannot un-crack an egg. Iraq is a cracked egg, and we have helped to crack it, although for the best of intentions. Perhaps a better analogy is a whole carton of cracked eggs, one for each of the major parties to the crackup. By my reckoning there is at least: Sunni, Shiite, Kurd, Iraqi politicians, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Palestine, Lebanon, and the US in the carton! There is therefore no moral lift whatsoever for us to abandon what we helped to undo. You cannot fix what is wrong in Iraq by running from it.

We need to assist in some ways to create a dozen new eggs: 1) help to protect the carton; 2) help to create new eggs by mainly commercial means; and, 3) in our own interest, to maintain substantial forces and well-organized bases next to Iran and Syria.

However, we cannot change the Muslim mind, the Muslim tribal loyalties, or the Muslim traditions of the various tribes, of which there are well over a hundred. Thus, we must stand aside, and let them solve their own internal problems and conflicts.

If they manage to build a sane government, we can help them further at their request. If they decide to split the nation into regions of Sunni, Shiite and Kurd influence, we can still help by sitting on the key element of their economic future--the oil--and doling out the revenue fairly. If they attack our bases, that would be a huge problem for them, since they would be drawn out into the open where our superior forces would prevail.

The major results of this proposal would be several fold: 1) disengagement and reduction in our losses; 2)defense of the infant government while it tries to find its way; 3)allowing (or even forcing) the various sects and tribes to seek their own solutions to both their ancient their and modern conflicts and problems of governance; 4)taking the question of fair distribution of oil profits off the table by fiat; and, finally, 5) providing for a US springboard in the event of escalation of Iranian and Syrian confrontations.

It is not incidental that we should control the oil revenue, since it would be a major resource for the Iraqi to use in rebuilding their military forces further than we would want.

Should massive genocide break out between the sects after our repositioning, we would be able to react quickly to help quell the bloodlettings--by both denial of oil revenue and by force.

US troops would be in Iraq still, and quite able to help in the event of sectarian violence should we be called upon by the Iraqi government.

We are not responsible for the ancient conflicts of the Muslims, nor should we even try to be. Nor are we responsible to try to fix them now and never have been. We can still support the current government as a power of last resort should serious sectarian violence break out.

The oil is the correct economic lever for us to control to ensure fair distribution of profits (less our expenses and profit!). Oil shares would likewise be a lever to control planned violence--more terror, less revenue.

Since I believe we will soon be fighting Iran, the feelings of the Islamic world about the Iraqi situation we would create will become a quaint backwater. The reaction to the devastation of Iran and the eventual takeover of their oil will be on page one everywhere. After Iran is neutralized, who is to take us on from the Islamic world?

Regarding oil production in Iraq, if we cannot protect it, modernize it, and ensure it gets to market, I submit that neither can the Iraqi. This is due to the deterioration of the infrastructure, the lack of trained mechanics, and the dearth of replacement parts, virtually all of which came from foreign sources. Thus, if we do not take this role, someone else will, such as Russia or China. Do you want the second largest proven reserves in the world under their aegis? I think not. Oil is the key to a stable Iraq, and a more stable world, if it can be developed to work as projected, and it should be in our interest and our objective to see it realized.

The only reason that one makes a claim that we cannot put massive troop power into Iraq is purely political. Without the will to win here, all is simply empty words, heralding a full retreat sooner or later. This notion of abject retreat I reject, and so does the American people if given a clear chance to express their opinion, which they haven‘t yet had. Do not draw the inference that the American people reject going for a win in Iraq from the results of the 2006 elections or recent polls.

If we need more troops, we can get them, that is reality, but only if the people and the government want them. So the simple question is, do we want to carry out a policy that has a real chance of ending to our satisfaction, or not? I see no other satisfactory option. My previous post covered the reasons for us to stay the course.

Unfortunately, we may well need the troop power increase very soon in any event, because of Iran, which would trump this Iraqi question without a doubt.

If one searches back five years, there are very many people that were on record then for a massive troop invasion of Iraq, including me. What, besides will to win, stops us now?

Nothing!

Labels: hypocrisy, Iraq, Muslims

Labels: hypocrisy, Iran, Iraq

Americans are not afraid of Iraqi

The American citizen is simply not concerned with the Iraqi situation, nor is it particularly afraid of the Iraqi people, so long as they are in Iraq! This makes it rather hard to drum up much enthusiasm for the drawn out war over there, especially when there are horrid US casualties to mourn every day. We are still haunted by the Vietnam War too, and many of the protesting voices against the war come from the ranks of Vietnam protesters who are repeating their saga of so many years ago.

As the memory of 9/11 recedes into limbo, and AQ is downgraded by the press and the Left, we are losing the way in Iraq politically. We have just sent a huge signal to the Iraq government that we are not going to stick it out, and we may well renege on many of our sacred promises to them. History is poised to repeat itself from Congress, by letting the Iraqi sort things out for themselves before they are ready and able.

The American public is not being fully informed about the situation, the plans, and the progress to date, so their inclination is to forgedaboudit. Let’s get out of there!

This would be a very grave mistake.

Labels: GWOT, Iraq, Politics and Iraq

It is a long process at best, but it is the only way

Because of the tribal and Sectarian nature of Iraqi loyalties, it is apparent that a direct approach to “winning hearts and minds” is an exercise in futility. They do not think as we do, and any pretensions that they do are simply wrong.

A few examples will illustrate the point clearly:

1) death is to be welcomed by the faithful—to die in the service of Allah guarantees heaven;

2) an infidel---a non-Islamic person—is not human, and can be lied to, cheated, beaten or be killed without penalty in an Islamic nation.

3) Islam is the only religion, and it must conquer the world, install Sharia or Islamic Law, and subjugate the infidels to dhimmitude status; it is every Muslim’s duty to fight—jihad—for dominance of Islam.

Since Islam is both a religion and a way of governing, it is apparent that installing and operating a secularist government will have a hard time in Iraq. Thus Iraqi “democracy” will not resemble ours in shape or form. We see that daily when the Iraqi parliament cannot move forward on key issues because of the opposition of various sects and tribes.

What is the way forward then? How can we break through these thought patterns of a lifetime and a history that is remembered back through the centuries? How can we bring tribal leaders to the point where they flip their support to us? It can be done and is being done in An Bar Province now.

A quote from Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky;

“I remember the precepts dinned into me as an organizer in some of the darker places of Martial Law Philippines which I have never forgotten. When I think about Iraq and what happened in Anbar, the memories all come back.

1. Create the base organizations first and then confederations later. Any organization built in the capital city without a grassroots foundation is nothing but an eroding sandpile;

2. Go and live among the people. The only people who can organize the "masses" from headquarters are Communist intellectuals and academics.

3. In organizing the people, start from their level. Work from their immediate problems to the more systemic. Begin with the concrete before you talk about the abstract. As a people's organization must develop the capability to solve the water supply problem for itself before it can presume to tackle drafting a constitution.

4. Real leaders are forged in action. Most of the leaders pointed out to you by academics ain't worth shit. Leaders discover they are leaders. Sometimes they don't know.

5. Nothing liberates the people's consciousness so much as the experience of facing down an invincible enemy and finding they aren't so invincible.

6. You know that you have done a good job as an organizer when one day nobody misses you.”

This quote was brought to my attention by Wretchard at The Belmont Club. Much of the answer to our need for a way ahead is here in this quote. The caution is, however, that this takes a lot of time and sustained effort to succeed—time measured in years, not months. It takes trained men that can gain the confidence of the people and the tribal leaders. It takes funds to support projects. Finally, it takes a trigger level of security and confidence that support is around the corner if needed.

We are trying to establish the level of security now, but with too few troops, I believe, as I have stated many times. Perhaps it is also true that the special men needed to win over the people, one family or one tribe at a time, are simply not there in sufficient numbers to make a difference.

Labels: GWOT, Iraq, Muslims

One Feeds the Other

It is time to be realistic about the Iranians and their significant role in destabilizing Iraq. Sophisticated weaponry, IEDs, guns, RPGs and ammo, as well as trained fighters, pour across the border from Iran to Iraq, bolstering the Shiites in their war against the Sunni. They may as well be supporting AQ in their efforts in the Sunni triangle, thus playing on both sides in the attempt to keep Iraq in turmoil. The long border between these two nations is not easy to close, especially with the few troops we have now.

Then, too, there is a porous border with Syria which should be closed, but again cannot be for lack of sufficient troops on the ground. Fighters feed into Iraq here also, and bring with them cash to pay for the insurgency, arms and ammo. Our half-hearted attempts to interdict the traffic have been far less successful than they should be if we are to win in Iraq.

When you add up what is needed to close and monitor both borders, the number of troops is high—on the order of 150 thousand over and above the current 150 thousand we now have.

On top of this, we may face a serious challenge by Iran in the next months on the ground, if we pursue an air attack on Iranian nuclear sites, or if Israel does. This would draw us into the attack, thus activating the Iranians to retaliate across the Iraqi borders. Our current force of 150 thousand would then face a major force from Iran, perhaps 500 thousand or more troops out of the Iranian army of 2 million men, and another 200 thousand from Syria if they choose to come into the fray. Sheer numbers of enemy troops on two sides of Iraq would cause us serious concerns for the safety of our troops, and if the initial engagements are not fully successful for us, we would be forced to withdraw precipitously, or risk losing the lot.

Were we, however, to add yet another 150 to 200 thousand troops to our force, thus reaching 450 to 500 thousand men all told, the situation would be far more manageable. This size of force might well forestall the Iranian-Syrian ground attacks altogether, which would amount to saving many thousands of lives on both sides.

If we do attack Iranian assets, it will have to be a thorough suppression of their command and control facilities, their air defenses, their airfields, and their communications installations, before going after the estimated 700 to 1,000 nuclear sites. These targets are all located in populous areas, which would mean significant collateral casualties in Iran, which, in turn, would force Iran to respond militarily in a meaningful way. They would most likely declare war on the US.

Hence I claim that the need exists to reinforce our forces in Iraq (and Kuwait) massively rather soon now.

Labels: GWOT, Iran, Iraq, The Threat

A few comments

Iraq

There is little reason to expect the surge to have a truly measurable effect by September of 07. Perhaps by September of 08 there will be good things to report, but the surge has not even been completed. My thinking now is that the President is playing possum, and has his eyes on Iran.

Illegal Immigration Agreement

What I have read so far seems to be a reasonable agreement, but I will await the full text before I deliver a definitive opinion. There seems to be more to the idea of Z Cards than mere amnesty. But I need to see the full text. I also wonder what will happen when a majority of Illegals stay away from applying for legal status.

Labels: Comments on the day, Illegals, Iraq

1. 
   

   -To withdraw into enclaves is to surrender.
   -To watch the slaughter of Iraqi and do nothing is not on!
   -To act as a catch basin for refugees is also not on if genocide begins, for the Muslims will go for them through our little forces.
   -So we will be forced to go back in to stop the genocide, having achieved zero by withdrawing in this manner. We will be in a precarious situation, since we are weak on the ground, and will have lost the confidence of the population.
   -If full revolution begins, we have inadequate forces on hand to stop it.
   -If adjacent nations join in, we are going to lose our inadequate forces.
   -Total withdrawal is not on either. That will signal the beginning of the slaughter.
   -We are left with the option of building up our forces and going for a win.
   -This would involve a draft in all probability. Use the conscripts to free up volunteers for duty in the combat zone.

2. 34
   mannning Said:
   12:35 pm
   

   Some further thoughts:

3. 
   -Diplomacy from weakness is hardly going to do any good. Not against Islamics. This route in not to be relied on for a solution.
   -They talk about catch basins for refugees. What a fine target for rockets, of which there seems to be an enormous supply. The refugees will be considered to be traitors to the cause, and deserving of being slaughtered.
   -Putting the catch basins on the border is a wonderful idea. I hope they don’t mean within 20 or 30km of any border; in other words, out of artillery range for Iranian and Syrian batteries. Not that this distance matters if Iran and Syria join in the fight, except to our exposed troops, and the refugees we are supposedly protecting.
   -Brookings people seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouths in that report. You can read into it my conclusion subtly presented: victory is the only real way out, but they don’t want to come right out and say that for political reasons.

Labels: hypocrisy, Iraq, Liberalism

mannning Said:
3:27 pm

This Islamophobe is weary of rehashing the whys and wherefores of our most excellent yet flawed Iraqi enterprise. It is boring to enumerate the mistakes we have made from the beginning, just to once again tar Bush with the outcome.

Suppose, however, we stepped back and looked at the situation with fresh eyes with the idea of winning this fight at as little cost in lives and treasure as possible.

We should have a roadmap of all the tribes, their names, locations, and roles available to use. We should know how they are positioned politically and in the government. Not just Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd, but all of the factions should be highly visible to us and their views, pictures, and actions publicized. Let there be light on the factions; know thy friends and thy enemies.

We should publicly award our friends with significant largess, and deny our enemies. Those that by their words and actions show their hostility should not be rewarded.

We are not going to win their hearts and minds until they are desperate, out of ammo, being denied safe havens, and see the rewards they are missing, if ever.

We need to disarm Iraq, starting with our enemies, but progressing through all of the provinces eventually.

We need to occupy Iraq completely; every corner and every street should be under surveillance and able to be responded to when insurgents show. We need to seal the borders effectively, and shoot all that try to enter without permission. We need to shoot every man that has a weapon in his possession, who is not uniformed and authorized to have one.

Martial Law should be declared, and curfews instituted such that night wanderers can be shot on sight. The central part of the cities should be auto-free zones, except for official vehicles. In other words, to cut down on this potentially long list of shoulds, we should clamp down hard and stay that way for a while.

All of this takes troop power, lots of it, and lots of the new armored vehicles too, that are better able to survive the IED. It would take lots of airborne equipment to keep key areas of this large land under surveillance 24/7, and able to open up with heavy firepower on any group that shows up illegally.

We should ourselves take control of the oil in Iraq, with the purpose of eventually distributing the revenues equitably, and meanwhile to use these assets to help pay expenses all around and provide rewards of a tangible nature to those who support us.

All of this would take perhaps a total of 500 thousand troops and support people, with a similar Iraqi force sharing the load.

What a pity we don’t have that kind of troop power. Perhaps we should draft and train men and let them take over stateside slots, thus freeing up volunteers for combat.

So far, it has been guns and butter, with no sacrifice asked of the people beyond the casualties we have suffered. I believe that the US citizen wants victory in Iraq, and would respond favorably to an all out push.

But then we have the Democrats in control of Congress, who have shown their passive approach very clearly, never mind the true feelings of the public. We won’t be allowed to “Go Heavy”, as we should have done up front.

When the Islamofacists start actions here on our home soil, they will face some very determined opposition, since we are an armed nation. I hope the lessons of the impending UK and European submergence into partial Sharia will be warning enough, but I doubt even that.

For those who speak of armchair soldiers, etc., willing to let others fight, the answer is yes, that is so. I fought my war overseas, now it is time for others to fight their war. What a shameful way to portray veterans of our wars; true armchair warriors, unable physically to endure combat yet

mannning Said:
10:24 pm

There was a time when we had sufficient manpower to fight two wars simultaneously on different continents and have a reserve for a third smaller conflict, as well as a home force sufficient to discourage attacks here. This sized force was not a particular strain on our economy and wouldn’t be so now. It would have given us the means, however, to saturate Iraq for long enough to set up a more stable situation in the four years we have been there.

But, we were thinking about starting over, rethinking the strategy and tactics, and trying to find a way forward. What I missed, of course, was someone taking the Go High approach, instead of any of the lesser routes to appeasement and defeat, which is the course we are on, it seems.

Everyone appears to be trying hard to back away from Go High, or at least denigrating the idea out of hand, possibly because they have convinced themselves that the public and Congress won’t support it, so they don’t either. Really prescient thinking! Or, perhaps it is the sheer complexity of the conflict and the number of parties to the brawl that make it so hard to see a way through this mess. So I am from the old school that has a few maxims to go by:

1. You start a brawl, you finish it.
2. If you have the power, use it.
3. Use overbearing power if you go in at all. War on the cheap will not win.
4. Always fight to win, not to send signals or other nuanced behaviors some leaders have been fond of.
5. The only good enemy is a totally defeated enemy, so go for the total win by knocking out every possible enemy combatant.
6. Forget about this hearts and minds stuff until after victory has been achieved. Time enough to mend and reconstruct when the shooting and bombing is over. Why reconstruct in the midst of bombings?
7. Maintain control of the entire situation until it is stable (in this current case, regain control). Might be five or ten years.
8. Isolate the area from outside interference as far as possible. Use your power to ensure this. Block the borders.
9. Go after a bite at a time (defeat in detail), use reward and punishment to convince groups of their best choice. Continue to expand the area of control and acceptance. control the power supply, water, and food sources. Good guys get the goods; bad guys don’t.
10. Take and hold the ground. Use troop power to deny the enemy his strongholds, and go after the leaders particularly.
11. Flatten any resistance, any militias, and build up some large concentration camps for the captured terrorists.
12. Always deal from strength when facing Islamics.
13. Be prepared to govern the nation from the grassroots up for some number of years.
14. Turn out thousands of men trained in the languages of importance.

...................
Oh well! This could go on and on, but the idea is to Dominate, and only then show the velvet glove. Today, this means a Supersurge within some months from now, or perhaps a year. It also means a draft, and a number of years of deployments.

Otherwise…you have earned a mess, so deal with it as best you can.
You want to fold, then fold, and take what comes after. I, for one, will feel far less secure about Islamofascists in America if we do fold.

mannning Said:
1:45 pm

Drongo; For your info, our census shows that there are over 6 million Muslims in the US. Care to guess how many of those can be radicalized instantly by the right approach? The 10,000 mosques here are hotbeds of shouting that the US should go Sharia, Muslims should have separate facilities, etc. etc, and our FBI states that more than 10% of them are fully indoctrinated into Islamofascism right now. We have a massive internal Muslim problem today, and it is only growing worse. All the same signs as the UK has been having are here, but somewhat more muted for the moment. Nothing good can come of this—nothing.

Our lovely MSM tries mightily to keep the lid on the events that can be linked to Islamic vengeance and terror so as not to alarm the masses. But the number of killings in the US that are indeed linked to Muslims is growing in every state.

I am all for using brains when solving problems. Somehow the wrong brains use the wrong philosophy when speaking of Islam and the West. They refuse to accept the fact that we are at war with Islam, not terror, per se. They refuse to believe that Muslims are serious about conquering the world by hook or crook, and they take a long view of how to do this. Thus, some people simply refuse to believe that the Iraqi situation is critically important to the battle against Islam, when it is actually the chief engagement.

Here we have a religious sect that believes in their ultimate victory against the infidel, they believe the infidels are beneath human and can be dealt with as they please when they have the power to do so, as we have seen often on TV. The 1.5 billion Muslims in the world can become a potent force for a new Islamic Caliphate.

Are we not using our heads today to see this threat in all of its manifestations? Are we not concerned as we watch Europe being Muslimed to death, one bite at a time?

I think most people are assuming the posture of an ostrich regarding the threat, and definitely not using their brains. Demographics in Europe are frighteningly in favor of a Muslin dominance by mid-century, and no one over there is doing a thing to stop it; they are all hung up on the liberty and freedom of deadly enemies to subvert the government and reorganize the state to their liking.

Some brainpower in Europe! Perhaps they should spend less time on their vaunted cultural pursuits and more time looking around them as the place crumbles.

mannning Said:
1:02 pm

‘Though I have to admit the general regional war is a very possible scenario as well. We’re all guessing here really”—Drango

An understatement of classic proportions! If we are guessing, then I will take the current situation, where we are running the Insurgents out of ammo, our nation is not being attacked directly, and there is some hope of controlling Iraq, and putting Iran on notice that we aren’t far away with a goodly force and airbases. Withdraw and it is indeed anyone’s guess as to the ultimate outcome. Reinforce our troops and it makes things a lot more difficult for the insurgents all around. Further, I like the idea of having a strong force next to Syria, just in case they get ambitious in the near term. I also like the idea of putting it to the Iraqi by saying you can have your government and your oil, but only if you comply fully with our agreements. Otherwise we will indeed turn things around into a full occupation and seize the oil fields.

Benevolence does not work with Islamists, but force does. I agree that the current Islamist government is playing a friendly charade with us, just waiting till they can gain sufficient power to throw us out. We should disabuse them of this notion by declaring that we will be in Iraq until we deem it fit for us to leave, so you have the choice of insurrection or full cooperation; take your pick. We put a delay in their sovereignty for our purposes, not theirs.

The whole strategic idea is to split the ME Islamic nations geographically, isolate Iran, and kill as many Islamofascists as show up for the war—over there—and with Iraqi help. The terrorists should have to battle their way into Iraq, not stream through the porous borders with Syria and Iran. As someone said, insurgents get tired of war, their base dwindles, and their opposition grows, given enough time. We need a few years with the illusion strongly built that we can stay as long as necessary.

Obviously, the nation needs to get behind this push, or it will not succeed. We, as a people, have not been put to the question properly, but I believe it could happen, if not right now, then after the 2008 elections. The people do not know what the real stakes are in Iraq, nor do they remember the commitments we have made to the Iraqi.

Perhaps it is true that only one of two things could mobilize the nation behind the war: 1) another attack of serious proportions in the US; or an Iranian adventure that becomes a cause for war, like their attempt to capture some of our troops once more.

There is a third possibility, which has many ramifications. We suddenly attack Iran’s air defenses and communications/command and control points, and then their nuclear facilities from the air. This has been expected by some, including me, in early 2008. The “Surge” fits that pattern closely, as more and more troops are eased into Iraq under that rubric, not only to further subdue Iraq, to cover for the loss of Brits in Basra, but also to face Iran with significant additional forces.

Given that Iran retaliates, we are launched into yet another, much larger, phase of the ME war. We then must look to our backs in Iraq!

That is one reason for not executing this attack until 08. We need the time to build up our forces, both at home and in Iraq, with stocks of weapons, vehicles, and the training of new troops. There might be an urgent campaign this Summer/Fall to prepare the public for this new phase of the war, as well as a call for mobilization of reserves and a draft.

The other reason to wait might be to give the opposition in Iran a year or so to do something significant.

This would present the new President, from whichever party, with an on-going war, but after major damage to the Iranian’s nuclear capability has been accomplished. The Bush saga ends there.

So I am guessing too!

Labels: GWOT, Iran, Iraq

Word of the day

Definition: 1. a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not.

Now where have I experienced this trait in people before? Oh yes! I remember now. Just about every Democratic politician in Congress has demonstrated hypocrisy just this week! Starting with the leaders, and going all the way down, they voted to force the withdrawal from Iraq on a schedule, and thus the surrender of the US effort to the insurgents. Took a RINO to put it over the top in the Senate—Chuck Hegel—I am happy he doesn’t represent my state.

They have swallowed their own stories, and now believe as one, so long as they get their pork out of the bill—some 20 Billion dollars’ worth! Since President Bush will definitely veto the bill, its real effect is delay funding for the armed forces while we are at war. How utterly hypocritical these so-called representatives of the people are.

Labels: hypocrisy, Iraq

Labels: Dimdems, Iraq, The Leftwing

Labels: Iraq

Labels: Iraq, Pelosi

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!

Labels: Iraq