Beginning To Build Relationships

Bush is quoted from his TV speech of last night as saying that "We are ready to begin building that relationship... [supposedly the enduring one allegedly asked for by Iraqi leaders]" Pray tell, what has our government been doing for the past 4-1/2 years, if we have now just begun? Whatever.

It's Still the Oil

Bush, in his Iraqi policy speech to the nation last night, described his intention to keep troops in Iraq for the long term. General Patreaus, in a CNN interview, described a national security objective in Iraq as securing long-term military bases. Bush claimed that "Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America…" Show me the names of the Iraqi leaders who made this request, and I'll show you fresh targets for assassination attempts. In the McClatchy Newspapers report that I read, Bush went on to say, "And we are ready to begin building that relationship, in a way that protects our interests in the region." The only national security interest we have in that "region" is the oil reserves. So, don't give me that crap about building democracy. It's still the oil.

Bases in Iraq

I heard General Petraeus, in an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, say that a national security objective of the U.S. was a more-or-less permanent military presence in Iraq. Will someone please explain to me why we need military bases in Iraq once we extricate ourselves from this quagmire of civil war and sectarian violence. Watch out, it sounds like an attack on Iran is part of the Pentagon's plan.

Retired General Abizaid, in an AP interview, said the United States has done a poor job of fighting Islamic extremism. Quoting Abizaid, "I don't blame it on any people. I just blame it on a bureaucratic system that has been unresponsive thus far to the challenges of the 21st century. We need to change that as a matter of national priority."

Bureaucracy can be overcome by citizen initiatives. A national convention should be convened, bringing together our foremost experts on the Middle East, counter-terrorism, religious fundamentalism, colonial transgressions, economic development, and any other pertinent subject. The purpose of these deliberations would be to develop a plan to fight Islamic extremism through economic, educational, political, diplomatic, social, and other means. It's going to be up to the citizens.

Military Response to Terrorism

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, an immediate response by the United States was not only expected, it was virtually demanded by a nation that would not allow this criminal act go unpunished. The target of our response was also predictable. Afghanistan harbored Osama bin Laden, the perpetrator of the attack. The Taliban, a paramilitary force was in control of Afghanistan. Clearly, combat soldiers were the appropriate response. However, a belated attack on Iraq in response to 9/11 was unexpected, at least by me.

With military operations in Aghanistan winding down, but not successfully concluded by the capture of Osama bin Laden, his lieutenants, and top Taliban leaders, the Bush administration began a publicity campaign to justify a military invasion of Iraq. Basically, Bush's line was that al-Qaida had conspired with Saddam Hussein in planning the 9/11 attack. Bush insisted that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop nuclear weapons. Bush claimed that, because Saddam hated the USA, these weapons would fall into the hands of al-Qaida, who wouldn't hesitate to use them against us or at least try to do that. I won't quibble with that possibility, but surely there were options besides an armed invasion to prevent it.

The military invasion of Iraq was carried out with shock and awe, resulting in "Mission Accomplished". Saddam's army dissolved into the neighborhoods of Iraq's cities, as our forces advanced. The U.S. military stayed in place to pacify the population, but ended up embroiled in fighting against guerrilla insurgents, including fighters associated with al-Qaida. As Iraqi security spiraled out of control, our troops were caught in the middle of a civil war between Sunni and Shia religious factions. Although the possibility that our armed forces are embroiled in a quagmire is denied by the Bush administration, they have accepted the premise that our military success will be equated to a lack of participation by opposition Iraqi elements. So, we went from fighting terrorists in Afghanistan to fighting Iraqi's in Iraq with some terrorists (who were there because we were) thrown into the mix, without an exit plan. The war has become a open-ended commitment where victory is illusive and will not be determined by our actions, but rather by the inaction of our adversaries.

The problems with continuation of the Bush military response in Iraq to a successful conclusion are manifold. The Iraq War has caused grievous casualties without commensurate gain. It has squandered national resources without a future return on investment. It has divided our society. Persons who were not for a preemptory attack on a sovereign nation are not in favor of continuing the effort, styled now as an effort to bring democracy to a Middle East country. Some who supported the attack on Iraq originally, now oppose it. But, a minority is still steadfastly thirsting for victory, including the architect, George Bush.

I oppose the Iraq invasion, at its inception and now, because I don't think the war on terror is amenable to a military response. The terrorist cells are composed not of soldiers, rather they consist of idealistic malcontents who hate America. Their hatred is a response to several conditions and perceptions of oppression, to religious dogma that has stifled the cultural and economic development of their homeland and other causes, real and imagined.

Terrorism constitutes unconventional war and bedevils conventional military tactics. A new paradigm is needed to counter terrorism. I don't have a magic formula with the answer, but I suspect it involves curing the ills of their society from inside by supporting change, but not initiating it. The less we are directly and overtly involved in the solution, the more likely it is to succeed. Since conventional warfare is not working, I hope our esteemed leaders would apply the best minds available to a new plan of action.

More on Bush in Iraq - Be Afraid

To quote Bush, as reported by the New York Times, "…when we begin to draw down troops from Iraq, it will be from a position of strength and success, not from a position of fear and failure. To do otherwise would embolden our enemies and make it more likely that they would attack us at home."

One could conclude that this position of strength and success that Bush postulates is possible only due to the surge of troops added to the Iraq mission. Or perhaps, it was due to a change in tactics that only the surge of troops could implement. Or perhaps, the success is more hype than reality. In any case, regardless of what produces success, the lack of it supposedly will embolden our enemies and make it more likely that they would attack us at home. Will someone please explain to me how that works? A lack of success in Iraq somehow reduces our ability to maintain internal security. How? A lack of success somehow improves the ability of al-Qaida in Iraq to obtain the logistical resources to attack the U.S. mainland, or Hawaii or Alaska or Puerto Rico. How? In other words, we are supposed to believe that al-Qaida's strength is inversely proportional to ours. If we are stronger, they are weaker. If we are weaker, they are stronger. This type of relationship between them and us is nonsense, just as the idea that withdrawal from Iraq will make us less secure at home. It's the same old story, drive a wedge of fear between our common sense and our critical-thinking ability so they don't work together. Of course, the success may be illusory, just as Bush's fear-mongering is an attempt to create an illusion of al-Qaida prowess. Be wary of those who would confuse you. By the way, wouldn't drawing down troop levels, weaken our position and embolden the enemy. Sounds like quagmire to me.

Bush in Iraq

Labor Day, normally a slow news day, was enlivened by President Bush's visit to Iraq. By my estimation, this trip by Shrub was nothing more than a media event. It was Bubba's chance to assert that security had improved throughout Iraq, undoubtedly due to the "surge". Well, if the surge worked, why did it take 4 years or so to figure it out. What's wrong with the brainpower in the defense establishment, including the White House. Do we lay all the blame on Rumsfeld? Is that realistic? Was Rummie the only one with a brain, even though his doesn't appear to have worked that well. Of course, others in the Bush administration and the upper levels of the Pentagon had a shot at solving the Iraq problem, but none had, the surge to the contrary notwithstanding. So, here we are being told by Bush that the surge is working. Sounds like he knows what is in the report that General Petraeus is to deliver on September 11th. Wanna bet?

War on Terror Myth Debunked

Defenders of the invasion of Iraq assert that Iraq is a better battlefield than Mainstreet, USA or, in other words, that fighting terrorists in Iraq is preferable to fighting them in the United States. Supporters of the war in Iraq accept either assertion as self-evident, on the assumption that our civilian population and infrastructure are out of harm's way. Using the terms "battlefield" or "fighting" also assumes that the USA is avoiding a military engagement on our soil by taking the fight to the "enemy". The assertion is also an indirect criticism of our armed forces by suggesting that they could not prevent our shores from being assailed by an enemy capable of waging war on our soil.

What features does Iraq have that makes it a better battlefield for the War on Terror?
What advantages do American armed forces have over the terrorists in Iraq? I cannot think of any reason that would make Iraq a better place to fight terrorists than the good old USA. All of the advantages in Iraq are with the terrorists. I can think of several reasons why the USA would make a better battlefield to engage the terrorists.

The Middle Eastern terrorists who may be in hiding in America waiting to commit a terrorist act are not going to fight with rifles, self-propelled grenades and roadside bombs in the USA. They have no means of sustaining guerilla warfare in the USA. They cannot blend in with the indigenous population like they do in Iraq. They could not obtain supplies to sustain armed combat like their logistical network in Iraq obviously provides them. They would be out-numbered in our country, as our soldiers are in Iraq. They cannot invade the USA en masse anyway without an air force or navy, and they could not breach our defenses. We simply have no need to fear or even postulate the possibility of "fighting" terrorists on American soil.

But, Americans are not out of harm's way. Individuals performing acts of terror against Americans are not proscribed by our military presence in Iraq. Rather, it is likely our presence there that gives them the opportunity to win the hearts and minds of Muslims without attacking on our soil. Rather than go against our military power, terrorists fight asymmetrically, using weapons such as improvised explosive devices, car or truck bombs, and explosive vests detonated by the wearer, and tactics such as raids, ambushes, kidnappings and murder. These are weapons and tactics not easily countered by military action. The best weapon to fight terrorism is vigilance, which takes many forms, including intelligence, threat detection, border security, surveillance, etc. The military is best suited to countering overt armed action, not covert threats.

It is inane to suggest that fighting in Iraq is better than fighting here. Our military is not keeping America out of harms' way. Our civilian law enforcement and intelligence agencies have that responsibility, but not even their best efforts can guarantee success.