Response To a General

So here be the rantings of a crazy General whose support for all things Bush are very amusing.  My rebuttal follows his letter, so ahve fun reading.

BY: JIM CASH, Brig. Gen., USAF, Ret.

I recently wrote about the war in Iraq and the larger war against radical Islam, eliciting a number of responses. Let me try and put this conflict in proper perspective.

Understand, the current battle we are engaged in is much bigger than just Iraq . What happens in the next year will affect this country and how our kids and grandkids live throughout their lifetime, and beyond. Radical Islam has been attacking the West since the seventh century. They have been defeated in the past and decimated t o the point of taking hundreds of years to recover. But they can never be totally defeated.
Their birth rates are so far beyond civilized world rates that in time they recover and attempt to dominate again.

There are eight terror-sponsoring countries that make up the grand threat to the West. Two, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, just need firm pressure from the West to make major reforms. They need to decide who they are really going to support and commit to that
support. That answer is simple. They both will support who they think will hang in there until the end, and win. We are not sending very good signals in that
direction right now, thanks to the Democrats.

The other six, Afghanistan, I raq, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya will require regime change or a major policy shift. Now, let’s look more closely.

Afghanistan and Iraq have both had regime changes, but are being fueled by outsiders from Syria and Iran. We have scared Qaddafi’s pants off, and he has given up his quest for nuclear we apons, so I don’t think Libya is now a threat.

North Korea (the non-Islamic threat) can be handled diplomatically by buying them off. They are starving. That leaves Syria and Iran. Syria is like a frightened puppy. Without the support of Iran they will join the stronger side. So where does that leave us? Sooner or later, we are going to be forced to confront Iran , and it better be before they gain nuclear capability.

In 1989 I served as a Command Director inside the Cheyenne Mountain complex located in Colorado Springs, Colorado for almost three years. My job there was to
observe (through classified means) every missile shot anywhere in the world and assess if it was a threat to the US or Canada . If any shot was threatening to
either nation I had only minutes to advise the President, as he had only minutes to respond.

I watched Iran and Iraq shoot missiles at each other every day, and all day, for months. They killed hundreds of thousands of their people. Know why? They were fighting for control of the Middle East and that enormous oil supply.

At that time, they were preoccupied with their internal problems and could care less about toppling the west. Oil prices were fairly stable and we could not see an immediate threat. Well, the worst part of what we have done as a nation in Iraq is to do away with the military capability of one of those nations. Now, Iran has a clear field to dominate the Middle East, since Iraq is no longer a threat to them. They have turned their attention to the only other threat to their dominance, they are convinced they will win, because the US is so divided, and the Democrats (who now control Congress and may control the Presidency in 200 have openly said we are pulling out.

Do you have any idea what will happen if the entire Middle East turns their support to Iran , which they will obviously do if we pull out? It is not the price of oil we will have to worry about. Oil WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE to this country at any price. I personally
would vote for any presidential candidate who did what JFK did with the space program; dec lare a goal to bring this country to total energy independence in a decade.

Yes, it is about oil. The economy in this country will totally die if that Middle East supply is cut off right now. It will not be a recession. It will be a depression that will make 1929 look like the “good-old-days”. The bottom line here is simple. If Iran is forced to fall in line, the fighting in Iraq will end over night, and the nightmare will be over.

One way or another, Iran must be forced to join modern times and the global community. It may mean a real war - if so, now is the time, before we face a nuclear Iran with the capacity to destroy Israel and begin a new ice age.

I urge you to read the book “END GAME” by two of our best Middle East experts, true American patriots and retired military generals, Paul Vallely and Tom McInerney. They are our finest, and totally honest in their assessment of why victory in the Middle East is so important, and how it can be won. Proceeds for the book go directly to memorial fund for our fallen soldiers who served the country during the war on terror. You can find that book by going to the internet through Stand-up America at www.ospreyradio.us or www.rightalk.com.

On the other hand, we have several very angry retired generals today, who evidently have not achieved their lofty goals, and insist on ranting and raving about the war. They are wrong, and doing the country great harm by giving a certain political party reason to use them as experts to back their anti-war claims.

You may be one of those who believe nothing could ever be terrible enough to support our going to war. If that is the case I should stop here, as th at level of thinking approaches mental disability in this day and age. It is right up there with alien abductions and high altitude seeding through government aircraft contrails. I helped produced those contrails for almost 30 years, and I can assure you we were not
seeding the atmosphere. The human race is a war-like population, and if a country is not willing to protect itself, it deserves the consequences. Nuff-said!!!

Now, my last comments will get to the nerve. They will be on politics. I am not a Republican. And, George Bush has made enough mistakes as President to insure my feelings about that for the rest of my life. However, the Democratic Party has moved so far left, they have made me support those farther to the right. I am a conservative who totally supports the Constitution of this country. The only difference between the United States and the S outh American, third world, dictator infested and ever-changing South
American governments, is our US Constitution.

This Republic (note I did not say Democracy) is the longest standing the world has ever known, but it is vulnerable. It would take so little to change it through economic upheaval. There was a time when politicians could disagree, but still work together.
We are past that time, and that is the initial step toward the downfall of our form of government. I think that many view Bush-hating as payback time. The Republicans hated the Clinton ’s and now the Democrats hate Bush. So, both parties are putting their hate toward willingness to do anything for political dominance to include lying and always taking the opposite stand just for the sake of being opposed.

JUST HOW GOOD IS THAT FOR OUR COUNTRY?
In my lifetime, after serving in uniform for Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Ca rter, Reagan, and Bush I have a pretty good feel for which party supported our military, and what military life was like under each of their terms. And, let me assure you that times were best under the Republicans.

Service under Jimmy Carter was devastating for all branches of the military. And, Ronald Regan was truly a salvation. You can choose to listen to enriched newscasters, and foolish people like John Murtha (he is no war hero), Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Michael Moore, Jane Fonda , Harry Reid, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and on-and-on to include the true fools in Hollywood if you like. If you do, your conclusions will be totall y wrong.

The reason that I write, appear on radio talk shows, and do everything I can to denounce those people is simple. THEY ARE PUTTING THEIR THIRST FOR POLITICAL POWER AND QUEST FOR VICTORY IN 2008 ABOVE WHAT IS BEST FOR THIS COUNTRY. I cannot abide that. Pelosi clearly defied the Logan Act by going to Syria , which should have lead to imprisonment of three years and a heavy fine.

Jane Fonda did more to prolong the Vietnam war longer than any other human being (as acknowledged by Ho Chi Minh in his writing before he died). She truly should
have been indicted for treason, along with her radical husband, Tom Hayden, and forced to pay the consequences.

This country has started to soften by not enforcing its laws, which is another indication of a Republic about to fall. All Democrats, al ong with the Hollywood elite, are sending us headlong into a total defeat in the Middle East, which will finally give Iran total dominance in the region. A lack of oil in the near future will be the final straw that dooms this Republic. However, if we refuse to let this happen and really get serious about an energy self-sufficiency program, this can be avoided. I am afraid, however, that we are going in the opposite direction.

If we elect Hillary Clinton and a Democrat-controlled congress, and they carry through with allowing Iran to take control of the Middle East, continue to refuse development of nuclear energy, refuse to allow drilling for new oil, and continue to do nothing but oppose everything Bush, it will be over in terms of what we view as the good life in the USA.

Now, do I think that all who do not support the war are un-American … of course not. They just do not understand the importance of total victory in that region.

Another failure of George Bush is his inability to explain to the American people why we are there, and why we MUST win. By the way, it is not a war. It is martial law that is under attack by Iranian and Syrian outside influences, and there is a difference.

So, what do I believe? What is the bottom line? I will simply say that the Democratic Party has fielded the foulest, power hungry, anti-country, self absorbed group of individuals that I have observed in my lifetime. Our educational system is partially to blame for allowing the mass of America to be taken in by this group.

To win wars, you must put boots on the ground. When you put boots on the ground, soldiers are going to die. A President must make the war decision wisely, and insure that the cause is right before using his last political option.

However, CONTROLLING IRAN AND DEMOCRATIZING THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE ONLY CHOICE IF WE ARE HELL- BENT ON DEPENDING ON THEM FOR OUR FUTURE ENERGY NEEDS.

-Rebuttal-

The fact that this Gen. now resides in Montana offers a clue to his being out of touch. However his criticism of the Democratic Party is largely misplaced. The dynamic that was existent within the Middle East was that Iraq was the check upon the natural hegemony that Iran is within the region. The area is called the “Persian” Gulf rather than the “Arabic” Gulf for a reason.

While he is correct in the assessment that the war on terror is larger than Iraq it was the neo-cons that decided that settling an old score against an old enemy was more important than the country’s self interest. The build-up to the war was filled with talk of how short the war would have been, and the memories of the immense success in Dessert Storm was very much fresh in the mind of the American people.

It was easier to strike at an enemy that we knew was located, rather than looking for a true threat. This was the political gamble the Bush Administration took, hoping to give Bush the second term his father never received. The proper respect and did not consider unintended consequences. This would include the actions that Iran’s government would take with the United States having a field army in both countries that border Iran.

That would of course be to use their influence within the Shia’ population in Iraq, in order to bog down the US army having to deal with insurgent attacks, which were what the Viet-Con used to great effect in the Vietnam War. This would also consist of the Israeli Military taking preventive against Hezbollah in Lebanon, leading to the current situation where civil war is boiling over once again in Lebanon. Not to mention the “alliance” between North Korea and the Syrian government taking the shape of a Nuclear Facility in Syria.

The war in Iraq has weakened our position because of the damage to both our credibility to the danger that Fundamental Islam does represent to the World. It has also given the Iranian government the benefit of getting rid of a rival that they have faced since the Islamic Republic was founded, and hopes that they may institute such a government in Iraq, and the Middle East.

This was a problem that both parties had a share of, the Republicans for pushing for such an arrogant and misinformed plan, and the Democrats who did nothing to oppose it.

As for “Democrats getting even” so far as hating Bush, it was the Republicans that likened Max Cleland, a man that lost three limbs while serving in Vietnam, to Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, by a man that never served in the military.

The deficiency of the Republican Party, has been their desire to claim Lincoln, but not follow his words, “Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it”. Rather the Neo-Con ideology is that because we are the Super Power we are able to do as we wish.

The situation we face is because of the lack of diligence of the Bush Administration to craft a workable policy, and the weakness of the Republican Members of Congress, who cared more of preserving Republican Unity rather than the Balance of Power that was mandated by the Constitution they claim to wish to preserve.

The Democrats, as seen by Clinton having more legislation passed with a Republican Congress, are much less built for party unity as they are representative of the various diversity that is the United States. It was the Bush Administration’s duty to make not only the case for war, but to make sure the American People would be supportive despite casualties.

Fade to Black

It strikes me that people in the Media, and Presidential Campaigns say how “complicated” the situation is in Iraq.  Perhaps this is because they believe the American people are so stupid that they cannot handle plot lines that are more complicated than Heroes, but then the ratings for that craptastic show are better than voter turnout now isn’t it?

The best way to understand Iraq is to understand the motives of the players involved.  Then we can formulate a plan to either fix the problems, or get the hell out of there and let countries deal with their own problems, its not like the oil prices will go down no matter what we do - and the oil profits seem to be rising as well guess they need more subsidies.

What follows are the motivations behind where we are now-

The United States - the Prime motivation for invading Iraq was to get George W. Bush a second term as President of the United States.  American’s are very hesitant to switch horses mid stream in a war no matter how how poorly things are going initially.  Reference Abe Lincoln and FDR, even LBJ perhaps would have received a new term, but decided not to run.

The secondary motivation was for the US to look tough.  The terrorist attacks shocked and were a decidedly large PR hit to the vulnerability to the lone Hegemon -Greek word meaning ultimate badass- on the globe.  Knocking out Afghanistan wasn’t all that impressive cause nobody knew where it was.  Even knowing that the Soviet Union couldn’t do what we did was no longer impressive because as it turns out nobody is impressed with what a dead empire did 30 years ago.

The last motivation was to make all the Arabs play nice and bring peace to an are of the world that has either been at war with itself, or war with the outside world, since God kicked Adam out of the garden of Eden.  Then it turned out that not all Arabs are the same and there are different dialects, ethnicities, religions, and we have a huge pile of mess with burning oil on the side.  The goal then became to stabilize it enough to go after Iran.

Great Britain-  Great Britai’s motivations fall squarely on the shoulders of one Tony Blair.  Prime Minister Blair has at his core the fundamental belief that International Organizations such as NATO, and the UN, can only be effective as organizations if they carry the credibility of force should mandates not be followed.  This point can be directly seen as to the British forces involvement in the military strikes against Serbia during the Clinton Administration.

US forces, namely politicians, were not interested in the least of having another Somalia situation where the death of 29 soldiers by combat related incidents caused huge uproars and demands that our forces be pulled - ironic now that in Iraq that total has topped 4,000- and the Republican Party criticized our forces even being present in Serbia because -meddling in other countries affairs is not the role of the United States- As such US forces were relegated to backup positions and air support.

It was the British forces that took the responsibility to carry out front line  operations and suffer the casualties that were inevitable.  So that the teeth of NATO could be seen in order to strengthen the resolve of the newly formed Countries caused by the fall of the Soviet Union.

Iraq -  The motivations that got Iraq invaded was Saddam Hussein making the right decisions, but at the wrong time.  Invading Kuwait was the correct decision, given the circumstances presented at the time.  The current President of the United States was the Vice President to Ronald Reagan- who had given aid to Iraq in its war with Iran due to the hostage situation that embarrassed the United States.  The same Ronald Reagan who was President when a terrorist organization in Lebanan- Hezbollah - attacked a Marine Barracks killing 241 American Service Men- and responded with complete withdrawal.  Ronald Reagan the Cold Warrior - became a cut and runner.

We must also place into context  that Kuwait was one of the only Arabic states who was pro-Soviet Union rather than pro-America during the Cold War.  Thus, one would assume that the United States would not be terribly beholden to keep said country form being invaded.  Combined with the US Ambassador April Glaspie, who told Saddam in a conversation, “We have no opinion in Arab-Arab conflicts”and “the Kuwait issue is not associated with America” -both of which come from transcripts published by the New York Times September 23rd 1990 issue-

This was an almost clear green light, and the tanks rolled and the world was shocked.  Saddam got his tail whipped, but still clung to power through intimidation of force and WMD.  That was his only card in keeping power in an area where assassinations, and coups are not all uncommon.  But Republicans who wanted to conquer the land of Babylon, Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz- were determined to finish what they started.

Iran -  Iran’s motivations are actually quite simple.  They are the third Axis of Evil, and they have on either side of their border a country that was invaded and still holds large numbers of US military personnel.  Having the possession of neither Chemical, Biological, or Nuclear weapons that would deter a US invasion, it is in their best interest to keep Iraq an utter disaster to literally keep the US occupied and unable to advance on Iranian soil.

The trick is that it would be devastating to Iran should Iraq fall apart for a variety of reasons.  The first of which is, nobody likes large number of immigrants and a dissolved Iraq would bring thousands to the door step of Tehran.  Second, Iran has a large Kurdish population that borders Iraq’s own Kurd population and would be deeply concerned the two would attempt a merger, and that would be unacceptable.  The third reason is that since the Iranian Revolution, the Mullahs have seen Iraq as the Gateway to export their Islamic Republic system throughout the Middle East, for it to disintegrate would be a fundamental blow for that goal.

Saudi Arabia - As the self seen leader of the Middle East because of the possession of the 2nd and 3rd most holy cities in all of Islam - Mecca and Medina, Saudi Arabia seeks to be the champion of the Sunni Islam.  They also realize that with the Saudi family’s close relationship with the United States, they would be a prime target for the Export of an Islamic Republic form of government should Iraq fall.  Thus to keep that from happening they too try to keep the flames of unrest burning, while not seeking to break the balance of power so the country dissolves.  This turns Iraq into a proxy war in much the same way Africa and Asia was between the United States and the Soviet Union during the cold war.

Shia-  the European way of doing things was to put the minority population in charge of the majority through the giving of advanced weaponry money and placing certain rules on who can and cannot do something.  Apartheid was an extreme form of this legacy and was why the Sunni population was in control in Iraq.  The problem becomes that when you have no job, responsibility, money- the only thing to do is have babies, and then that majority becomes a lot bigger, and a lot more bitter.

Fast forward through the brutal nature that Saddam held onto power with, and you have a population itching to get some level of payback for all the past humiliation and the like.  It would be like giving Reverend Jeremiah Wright and a bunch of his friends truck loads of guns and saying, “work out your aggression now”.  They now want a piece of the pie and want to make up for the years of being ostracized and give the Sunni a taste of their own medicine.

Sunni -  Having just read that, the Sunni want to keep from being subjected to the same level of degradation they heaped on the Shia counterparts.  They don’t have the numbers to outright win a civil war, but do have the level of sophistication to make it very bloody and drawn out, almost to make the Shia believe they could win.  Power is a wonderful thing, and the Sunni have been at the front of the line gulping it down for a while, so they of course want to hold on to at least enough to make sure they still get a large oil money check.

Kurds - The Kurds want what it seems every ethnic group wants these days, to be an independent country.  The problem they face however is that such a country is not always viable, they were conquered at some point for a reason after all, and will need the assurances of the United States protection to even have a chance.  Having a longstanding terrorist group dedicated to unifying land that currently belongs to Turkey, doesn’t aid their cause.  So they seek to be the good soldiers waiting patiently and helping when they can to show they had intentions of making it work, and thus deserve a legitimate shot of independence.

Turkey - Once known as the Ottoman Empire that controlled all of the Middle East and was a rival to the great Empires of Europe, Turkey has drawn a line in the sand that no more territory will be stripped from their control.  This makes the statement Iraqi Kurds have said they are a part of “Southern Kurdistan” raised the question of where they think northern Kurdistan would be since that territory is Turkish.  Thus they are adamant that the Kurds remain a part of Iraq, as well as attempting to quell their own Kurdish independence problem.

There you go, the motivations and characters involved in Iraq.  I tried to use small words that even our President could use, so I will now…Fade to Black

Lead U.S. Not…

It is a seemingly simple question, “What makes a good leader?” It is a question that, in a vacuum, can have a nearly endless supply of answers. What escapes us many times is that it is the circumstances that we find ourselves often dictate the actions our leaders take. The truly great ones are able to understand the dynamic time in which they live and make their decisions accordingly.

While we may learn from the policies that past leaders ultimately implemented, we sell ourselves and these great men short by not understanding the thought process that was involved when these decisions were made. Superimposing a strategy that was successful from the past and simply implementing it without a thought to the changes in global dynamics of our modern age is not only lazy, its bad policy.

When George Washington assumed the Presidency, he understood that the United States was a weak power, in a world of the strong. Therefore an isolationist policy that allowed trade to everyone, but military ties to no one; was the best available option to navigate the dangerous times of a Democracy in its infancy. While the minutemen may have been victorious against the might of the English Empire once, due to the help of all people the French, Washington was aware that to tempt fate again would not be wise.

We see this strategy, without its recognition of the changing dynamic that is the international community, superimposed after World War I. The United States decided to turn in on itself without the acknowledgment that it had become one of, if not the dominate, powers on the international scene. This after implementing a peace agreement that would only serve to antagonize a Germany that had aspirations of regional hegemony, and leaving those unable to enforce such an agreement in charge. For if the combined efforts of the French and British could not stop German aggression during the war, what made US officials believe they could win the peace? This inability for the leadership of the United States to make their constituents realize these dangers, or even more damning, to recognizing themselves is what lead to the second World War.

So the incompetence of not being able to hold public opinion appears to again lead to a lazy policy approach. Preventing terrorist attacks is hard, tracking the number of splinting groups from a violent ideology is hard, while it is much easier to start rattling off names of those enemies we are familiar with. *cough* Iraq *cough* Easier still is to evoke a strategy from a supposed prophet of wisdom *cough* Reagan *cough* by calling for measures to be taken against “Evil Empires, or Axis of Evil”.

This without understanding the fundamental reasoning behind such a strategy. That those who believe they will eventually win, and have something to lose, are in fact deterable enemies. Men who are willing to sacrifice themselves in the name of their God, because of faith and the knowledge that this life has nothing better to offer them, are not deterable. Therefore to challenge them to a do or die scenario means if fact nothing to them, that our own drive to attack them turns the deaths of innocent bystanders into sanitized terms like, “collateral damage”.

Such actions merely give sympathy to the majority of the Muslim World that do not advocate terrorist activities but remain silent because they are glad to see a United States they see as corrupt with power taken down a notch.

It is a simple truth, that only after you understand your enemy, can you then kill him. A cold war policy that maintained our, “moral superiority” was the vast lengths the United States went to make sure that it was not the aggressor. Willing to accept the first strike, though would reciprocate without mercy, was the functional policy from which Reagan expanded upon. Though the defense budget has increased many fold, as well as a new government agency, the knowledge of root cause to the creation of Islamic Fundamentalists is no higher now than before 9-11.

The talk of Democratic principles within a vacuum has created the most volatile and gravest dangers to the United States, that as of yet goes unnoticed by this Administration. That the government of Musharraf could be toppled by radical Islamic forces that supported the Taliban in Afghanistan will come into the possession of Nuclear weapons. It is in the face of this true crisis that we need leadership that is based on the correct understanding of the world around us. Unfortunately we have to wait until January 2009 for that type of leadership, for the current Administration has made it abundantly clear that they would lead us not…