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

Back Again

It is amazing the various things that can alleviate the undercurrent of pent up frustration, and thus distract from the necessary angst to supply the information provided on this site.  Meeting an interesting Chick, finding all of the hidden skulls on HALO 3, killing Arabs/Russians on Call of Duty 4 and Army of Two.  A sense of serenity takes hold and the world doesn’t seem as stupid and pointless – then of course one hears about the ultimatum set by the Iraqi “government” and it all comes crashing down.

The interesting chick turns out to be, not all that interested- the quest to find all terminal locations on HALO 3 needs to be started, and eventually killing Arabs/Russians becomes not entertainment or self preservation, but more of a muddle some task- I was as surprised as Israel at this revelation.

To fully understand the futility of the meaningless …or else statement issued by Washington- I mean Baghdad to the Shia’ militias is to gain insight into the stereotypical views of Middle Eastern culture.  Arabic culture takes on the premise that if you talk a good game and look tough, you will avoid the inevitable ass whipping they will receive.

To prove this point, as it is still the Easter season, a parable is in order, possibly even two.  In the waining days of the ‘91 Persian Gulf War, which is to say a couple days after it started, their were pockets of Iraqi forces that were camped out – and were told by their US counter parts to “Leave the area without your weapons by 9am or at 9:05 we will come in there and kill you.”

The Arab generals of course puffed their chest and replied with great zeal, “We will leave when we are prepared no earlier than noon, with all of our equipment and at a pace of our choosing.” This made the US officials smile and gently laugh among one another.  The US general then reiterated, “No, you will leave by 9 or we will come in there and kill all of you by 9:30.”

The Arabs then looked at one another, conversed, and replied, “In that case we will be gone by 7.”

This is the major culture clash that exists between the Middle East and Western civilizations.   By and large when Western Nations speak about invasions, military actions they follow through.  Arabic governments do not.  The reason for this in my mind, is that Western nations can afford to have a functioning, equipped, and competent military without fear of them taking over the country in a coup.  Arab nations do not have that luxury- and thus have the most dysfunctional, underfunded, group of muppets as there armed services.

To demonstrate this let us examine the Israeli experience.  Jews that had migrated before WWII, or had survived the Holocaust, were defend not even half of the land they currently posses, against the combined forces of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, as well as a presence from Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.  To survive against such an alliance is to be impressed, but for the Israeli military to EXPAND the territory that would fly the star of David against such a force is a true accomplishment.

Surely the questions in your minds go something like this, “Oh great disperser of the true knowledge if this is the case – why are groups like Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, or Hamas so hard for Western Powers such as Israel and the United States to stamp out.  The answer is that these organizations are run like Western Armies, only the fanaticism in their cause is notched up a bit, and the moral qualms are diluted.

For example, the leadership of Al Qaeda is not worried that the fighters they train to become martyrs will take part in an insurrection against them and take over their positions by execution.  There is a hierarchy within these organizations, as well as an indoctrination program to get these people all thinking of the cause, and not the actual planning of these events.

These men fight for a cause greater than themselves, and are willing to sacrifice their lives in order to see that the job is done, and seek to destroy as much of the enemy as they can- such a definition could refer to any number of Hollywood action movie protagonists.  In a moral vacuum it could refer to the enemy that we fight so valiantly today.

The greatest failing of the Bush Administration and the likely McCain Administration, is the inability either by desire, understanding, arrogance, or contempt, of making the Islamic world know- and believe that this fight is not in a moral vacuum.  Killing civilians by design is not the moral equivalent of  killing civilians through collateral damage.  That merely saying one is following the “words” of Allah does not make it so.  To challenge the Islamic world to truly define the Nature of Allah as best as mere mortals can, whether it would be a being of understanding or hate.  To put the terrorists on the defensive not only on the battlefield, but ideologically as well.

Republicans often bemoan the fact that Reagan the God-King is no longer present in their party.  Perhaps they are lucky, for the inevitable question would be asked of the Iraqi’s “Are you better off now than you were five years ago?”  When the violence of Saddam Hussein was at least predictable and avoidable, as opposed to now, when the violence is unavoidable and unpredictable, and a proud people must look to an occupying force for safety.  I for one would think Reagan would be ashamed…

A Serious War on Terror

It has been termed as the defining moment in our Nation’s history.  A dark and deadly day that showed the dedication of our enemies, and the lengths they would go to in order to kill Americans.  The anger at such an atrocity was palpable, and no words were needed in order to voice them.

It was our Allies that came to the airwaves like England’s Prime Minister Tony Blair giving the moment texture and showed us who our friends truly were, “…our profound solidarity with the American people.  We were with you at the first.  We will stay with you to the last.”  Turkey rose and evoked the NATO bond that, “An attack upon one, is an attack upon all.”  While the French, who has had its ups and downs with the US said, “We are all Americans.”

We were left with the bumblings of George W Bush, who was more interested on how  event could be used for his personal, and political gain, and that of his party.  We righteously attacked Afghanistan and the Taliban Regime that gave Bin Laden and his followers sanctuary and a base of operations which such attacks could be planned and executed.

What then occurred was a man who was so deathly afraid to be compared to his father, that he sought to minimize and distance himself from the man.  Bush II along with his political advisors, who had never seen combat, ignored the one political adviser who had hands on experience in dealing with Iraq, and the plan to finish the job that Desert Storm started was launched.

While the cost of this error in judgment has cost Billions in treasury, thousands of lives, and the political careers of truly decent men such as Senator Max Cleland, the worst causality has been of justice itself.  For those who were ultimately responsible for the attacks upon our country were not to be held accountable for their actions.  This Administration put itself and the Republican Party’s lust for political power above the United States need for Justice.

W then came to say that it the goal of the international community to eradicate terrorists with a global reach, meaning those who are able to strike US targets.  In his Presidential Campaign, Senator John Kerry said it was necessary for the US to make it so that terrorists are limited to only attacking US targets on foreign soil.  We was ridiculed by the conservatives for accepting any terrorist attacks and therefore unfit to lead.  Somehow he did not live up to the very high standard of professionalism that our current President has set.

Bush held his hold on power and thus felt that he was above the Constitution that he swore an oath to “preserve protect and defend” to the very God he pretends to hold so dear.  Instead of holding ourselves to be the very best, as is the American Tradition, Bush authorized “interrogation” techniques that only appeal to the very worst of human nature.  He allowed his subordinates to use any means necessary to subvert those who criticized his policies, leaking the secret identity of a CIA agent, even if it may further weaken our country’s national defense.

Six years we have been in this war, and have only hollow spectacles of “Mission Accomplished”.  Six years and we have the execution of a man, who was evil, but in no way responsible for the tragic events of that day.  Six years and we have no true monument to defy those who see the incomplete skyline and can still feel they are victorious.  Six years that day is still being used as a slogan for political gain, rather than a reason for a political revolution.

Words have more meaning when they are used less often.  It is in that way they hold power that can make people stop their petty bickering and partisan politics.  Instead Bush and his cronies used words to sharpen those arguments and have Americans questioning their neighbors loyalty and patriotism if they did not agree with him.

What is loathsome to think is that it was that very outcome that the terrorists wanted.  For the US to be in omnipresent fear, shred the Constitution a little bit, and to lower the standard of human dignity.  If so then Bush played into their hands beautifully, and gave them two fronts from which our enemies can kill Americans.  The fact that this Administration still plays political gamesmanship with rhetoric meant to divide, show me that Bush and his party was never interested in A Serious War On Terror.

Beware of What You Ask…

Well now, it appears as if the leaders of Hamas are learning what African rebels learned a long time ago, blowing stuff up and killing people is a lot easier than actually running the place. Come to think of it maybe we should hope that the Republicans have learned the same thing.

For those of you not in the know, the Palestinian people, also known as the pawns that the rest of the Arabic world uses to attack Israel, have two I guess we have to call them “parties” in what they consider a government. You have to have a country to have a government, but I digress, these entities are called Hamas, started by some dude that was a terrorist and that killing innocent people is the best way to get what you want.

The other is Fatah which was started by a different terrorist but because he was the only thing the Palestinians had as a leader, some smuck gave him the Nobel Peace Prize. He was then stuck in a compound cause the Israeli army had him surrounded, and as we all know, Palestinians only feel brave when they kill women and children at a grocery store.

They do this because t feel that that the best way to show they deserve to be their own country is by killing so many women and children that they will have to be taken seriously. Problem is, and its just a formality really, if you keep using suicide bombers it is kinda hard to believe that once you get that country, you will be a peaceful neighbor.

What would probably happen is they get their own country, break the peace treaty and attack Israel in some foolish attempt to drive them into the sea, and then realize your army has sandstones as weapons and the Israeli’s have fully automatic uzi machine guns. Then you get your sandbox of a country taken over and holy hell we are back at square one.

Now it may seem to some that I have a dislike for the Palestinians in particular and the Arabs in general, you would be a racist, judging me by the things I say and do rather than who I am as an individual. The problem that i have with the Palestinian people is that they leave you with genocide being the only option. Most times people when they enter negotiations have at least an idea of what they want and, depending on who they are dealing with, an idea of what they can get.

Palestinians want the freken moon, mostly because their is no western influence upon their “culture” its only resource is rocks and dirt, and there are no Jews there. There was a deal offered to Arafat that would have given the Palestinians a country parts of Jerusalem, and allowed for the West Bank and Gaza to be unified under the same government. Obviously the deal was turned down because they wanted more.

More of what we don’t know, but maybe Arafat was wise enough to know that he was close enough to the end of his life and it is much better to be thought of as a Terrorist who won the Nobel Peace Prize than the guy who is criticized for not being able to balance a budget. So of course now they are merely killing themselves to see what impossible to understand train of thought they will use to get said country.

This of course brings out mixed feelings for our Israeli friends since they are happy the terrorists are killing themselves, yet don’t want to do anything to make them reunite for one last blast. (I know that was a bad pun but with the writers strike you have to work with what you got) So remember this one simple truth, especially if you think you may recieve it, to Beware of what you ask.

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…