Proud To Be A Delegate -

Monday, January 22, 2007

Assault on the American Culture

A recent article from Australia. These are Muslims, but the lesson applies to America with regard to the Mexican Diaspora.

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia and her Queen at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his Ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown. Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state, and its laws were made by parliament. "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you", he said on National Television.

"I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia: one the Australian law and another Islamic law that is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option", Costello said.

Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off. Basically people who don't want to be Australians, and who don't want, to live by Australian values and understand them, well then, they can basically clear off", he said.

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques.

Quote: "IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians."

"However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the 'politically correct' crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia .." "However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand." "This idea of Australia being a multi-cultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. And as Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle."

"This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom"

"We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, Learn the language!"

"Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture."

"We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us."

"If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like "A Fair Go", then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. By all means, keep your culture, but do not force it on others.

"This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom,


"If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted."

My friend L said “Personally, I don't really want to adopt Australian culture. Can't we stick with the founding principles of the United States of America?

The right question but the answer is in doubt. We can if we are willing to protect our borders and society. American values as you say are more than words on paper. They are the beliefs of the citizens. Those citizens used to be Americans. But we now have an invasion underway that will take your rights away from you depending on where you live. The model has already been established in small towns in Texas. "Legal Mexicans, either real or with fake IDs" move in until they become the majority of the population. They become the legal government by block voting. They declare Spanish the official language of the town and change the laws to suit their culture.

Three active Mexican "groups" have openly declared they intend to take back all the land we stole from them in the Mexican war. The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA) and the National Council of La Raza (La Raza) – not only share a revolutionary agenda of conquering America's southwest, but they also share common funding sources, notably the Ford and Rockefeller foundations? ''California is going to be a Hispanic state," said Mario Obeldo, former head of MALDEF. "Anyone who does not like it should leave." And MEChA's goal is even more radical: an independent ''Aztlan,'' the collective name this organization gives to the seven states of the U.S. Southwest – Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas and Utah. They even have a name for this new "land" it is called Azlan.

This is a numbers game. This Democratic congress supported by many Republicans has vowed to declare amnesty to all the illegals. Bush would eagerly sign the bill. That is 12M. Based on the last amnesty, the Simpson Mazolli act, after the dust settles 3 times the illegal population ends up being legal. That is 36M. Clearly, based on the numbers Texas, New Mexico and California will go Mexican in the next 5 years. Give them 5 more years to become politically savvy and cities; town, counties and state governments will be Mexican. This will be hastened by White and Black flight.

What happens when they take over? Form a new country? Of course not. They would be stupid, and they are not. They know how to game the American laws to their advantage. They already have free education, emergency room health care and aid to dependent children. Remember they become American citizens. After amnesty they will get welfare, food stamps and Earned Income Credit, Social Security, and free breakfast and lunch programs. These programs are taxpayer funded but administered locally by the new Mexican state and local governments.

If you want to know what the new culture will be like look at Mexico today. Mexico excels at corruption, poverty, high crime rates, teen birth, high school drop outs gangs and kidnapping. Who are running across our borders, the Rich, professionals, middle class? No. It is the poorest of the poor bringing with them all the ills I just described.

This is a very short statement. There is tons of backup, but that requires another blog. I will leave you with some recent quotes from the LA Times

1. 40% of all workers in L. A. County (L. A. County has 10 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This was because they are predominantly illegal immigrants, working without a green card.

2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.

3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.

4. Over 2/3's of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers.

5. Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.

6. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.

7. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.

8. 21 radio stations in L. A. are Spanish speaking.

9. In L. A. County 5.1 million people speak English. 3.9 million speak Spanish (10.2 million people in L. A. County).

Mexico is run like a dictatoship. The police routinely kill the poor. Their laws strongly favor the rich. What will happen when this poverty diaspora is governed by soft American law?

Liberty or Death

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Update to “Time to Reassess the War on Terror”

Based on comments, I obviously needed to do a better job explaining why I wrote a 2002 plan in 2007. The major difficulty with participating in the dialogue with any president is that he has significantly better intelligence than you do. But eventually the facts come out. I am guessing that the intelligence we know in 2007 is as good as Bush knew in 2002. Pick your dates but we are always behind the latest classified intel. My second purpose was to establish a baseline for discussion. If you disagree with the assumptions no dialogue can be useful.

With regard to Bush's surge plan, it will accomplish the goal defined, pacifying the mixed neighborhoods (1.5M people). Nothing else before November. We are sending 5 brigades starting in Feb and 1 a month there after. Full compliment in 6 months. 3 months of fighting at full strength. Not going to accomplish anything additional by November. The question is will accomplishment of this goal advance our cause in the bigger war (eliminating threats to America.). We have eliminated the threat to America from Iraqi WMD and Saddam. The relevant question in November 2007 is whether a pro American democracy is achievable, and at what price in time and treasure. This choice should not be made in a vacuum, but always against the metric of reducing the threat to America. The two greatest threats to America are disruption of oil and major attacks on the civilian population or infrastructure. How will a stable Iraq advance our goals? I submit that a stable Iraq will make things worse. We have enticed the enemy to make Iraq a decisive battleground. This is a very good thing. No threat to the US mainland and no threat to the oil.

If Iraq remains unstable what is the worst-case scenario? Shia killing Sunnis and vice versa. Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iran getting involved on both sides. And this is bad because? It is not the moderates killing moderates. It is hot heads killing hot heads and moderates. Fewer hot heads is a good thing. Eventually the moderates will say enough is enough and take up arms against the hot heads. This is a very good thing. Our primary goal should be to get the hot heads to focus on Iraq; it is of very little strategic value.

Our second goal should be to minimize the enemy's strength, unconventional warfare and to maximize our strength conventional warfare. I chose a defensive perimeter in the open, but you can offer other suggestions, the how is not important. But we need to remain close to the action so that if events are not going our way we can intervene.

One of the assumptions that no one questions is that a stable democracy in Iraq will be pro US. What proof of this is there? The Iraqis and all Middle Easterners are inherently against us because we are infidels. They will use us until they no longer need us. In the long term we will have achieved nothing for a trillion dollars.

Do I think my 2002 plan is still valid? Absolutely. First and foremost is eliminating our dependency on Middle East oil. No serious military action can take place till this happens. Second goal is to keep the fighting in the Middle East and out of the US. 3rd goal is to kill all the hot heads. I believe this has to be done by the moderates. We can surgically remove the hot heads without a 30-year unconventional war. Totally unacceptable. Better to nuke them all, equally unacceptable.

In summary, the Bush plan will succeed, but accomplish nothing. If it is incredibly successful the hot heads will choose another place to fight. Is there another place you would prefer to fight the hot heads? I can't think of one.

Liberty or Death

Monday, January 15, 2007

Time to Reassess the War on Terror

It has been 5 years since the President’s state of the Union address in Jan 2002. The US and the World were waiting to hear how the US would respond to a major attack on US citizens in the US. We know now as much intelligence today as Bush did in 2001. In Bush’s speech 11 Jan. 2007, he admitted to some small mistakes and resolved to prosecute a new plan. Today we can all be as informed as the President, and go back to Jan 2002 and assess his actions with the same intelligence that he had. I will only talk about the significant players, but there are many more. I have presented what I would have done based on the same intelligence and capabilities that Bush had in Jan 2002.

Intelligence Assessment

US – Clinton left Bush with a severely depleted military. 500,000 less troops. Significant shortages of material. Forces deployed all over the world. Navy down to 300 ships. 12 carrier groups vice 15. Economy very dependent on middle east oil.

The American people had no clue who the enemy was. Had no understanding of the Middle East culture, strategic goals and capabilities. Al-Qaeda was not a household name. Many had heard of Osama.

Congress and the American people were looking to our commander in chief to inform us and to lay out a plan of action. They would support anything required to win.

UN – Corrupt, do nothing, hostile to the US. Adverse to any military action. US pouring Billions a year in dues and receiving nothing for our investment.

Afghanistan – Very hostile to the US. Islamist Taliban harboring major Al-Qaeda camps and leaders.

Iraq – Defying all UN resolutions, shooting at Americans. Thought to have WMD and prepared to provide them to our enemies, leading to another attack in the US.

Iran – At war with the US since 1979. Very hostile. Weak economy. Major supplier of arms and money to our enemies. Has Syria as a surrogate. Has Hezbollah as a military action arm. Has billions in oil revenue to fund their goal for ever increasing dominance of the Persian Gulf region and all of it’s oil. Very motivated. Government hostile. People angry at its own government.

Palestinians – The trailer trash of the Middle East. Millions of young frustrated males with no future and ready to follow any cause that would allow them to lash out at those responsible for their condition, Israel and the US. Several armed militant organizations, Fatah and Hamas being the 2 largest. Hostile to the US. People hate us.

Saudi Arabia - Lots of money and rich citizens. Weak government that will provide some support to the US. People split into two camps, moderates and Islamists. Very hostile clerics. Biggest purveyors of hate against the US. Run Madras schools all over the world teaching hate for America to kids 6-18. Rich citizens funding hate and arming radicals all over the Middle East.

Lebanon – War torn, divided country dominated by Hezbollah. Very weak government. Under control of Syria and therefore Iran.

Pakistan – Nuclear power. People hate us. Fragile government, led by a military dictator. Country divided into moderates and Islamists who would like to see their dictator dead. Exporter of nuclear technology.

– Nuclear power. Resurgent nationalism and imperial ambitions. Run by defacto dictator oppressing freedom and exporting arms and technology to our enemies. Weak economy. Organized crime. Cannot account for 1000 nuclear weapons. Army, but no navy. Covertly hostile to the US.

China – Nuclear Power. Imperialistic. Covertly hostile to the US. Weak economy, very dependent on US to fund their economy. Exporter of arms and technology to our enemies.

Balance of the Persian Gulf Oil Countries – Weak governments that will support the US. Populations split into moderates and Islamists. Lots of foreign workers with no rights that form a dangerous threat to the indigenous people and governments. Not a serious threat to the US.

Vulnerabilities and Capabilities Analysis

– A medium size Army, undefendable boarders, economy highly dependent on imported oil, ethics limit scope of action, fractious political system. Superb, mobile military, strong economy, limited world political influence.

UN – Totally dependent on member dues, action can be vetoed.

Afghanistan – Weak conventional army, weak economy, undefendable boarders. Land locked. Very determined fighters, fanatics. No ethics limitations. Significant source of trained an armed unconventional forces.

Iraq – Large but poor quality army, oil based economy, sectarian population, modest dependency on imported food, determined fighters. WMD. Supports terrorists. No ethics limitations.

– Poor medium size army, very large palace guards, oil-based economy, highly dependent on food imports, medium dependency on technology imports. Sectarian but compliant population, palace guards are fanatical fighters, strong Middle East political network. Supports Middle East violence. Fanatical Government, no ethical limitations.

Palestinians – Weak government, militia armies, no economy, fractious political system, fanatical fighters, suicide bombers, dependent on foreign money, and food imports, no ethical limitations.

Saudi Arabia - Oil based economy, large private wealth, weak government, modest army, politically fractious, politically well connected in Middle East, dependent on food imports, mix of ethics.

Lebanon – Very weak government. Sectarian but compliant population, very weak army, weak economy, occupied by highly skilled foreign controlled militia, mix of ethics.

Pakistan – Nuclear power, strong but fragile government, medium size army, missiles, sustainable economy, sectarian population. No ethical limitations, fanatical fighters.

– Nuclear power. Weak economy. Strong army, missiles, Strong government, dependent on food imports, sectarian population. No ethical limitations. Strong world political connections.

China – Nuclear Power, sustainable economy, very dependent on US trade. Large army, strong government, compliant population, no ethical limitations, overpopulated, growing water shortage. Strong world political connections.

Balance of the Persian Gulf Oil Countries – Weak governments, small armies, oil based economies, compliant population, fanatical fighters, dependent on food imports.

US Threat Analysis Homeland undefendable to unconventional attacks. Al-Qaeda determined to kill us. Iran determined to kill us, Iraq source of WMD to unconventional forces to use against us, Russia and China actively supporting our enemies, Wealthy Saudi Arabian nationals funding our unconventional enemies, purveyors of Islamist hate, Madras schools exporting hate for America. Russia and China providing technology to our enemies, blocking our political goals. Middle East oil very vulnerable to conventional and unconventional and political disruption. Sudden loss of oil would destroy the economy. Islamists in all Middle Eastern countries serious unconventional threat when financed, armed and trained. Islamists cannot be separated from moderates. Islamist clerics motivators of hate.

2001 capabilities. Undefeatable conventional and nuclear forces, limited army size. No practical financial limits. Very mobile conventional forces. Small allied support.

My 2001 Action Plan. Based on intelligence, threats and capabilities eliminate foreign oil dependency by 2007. Add 500,000 additional ground troops by 2005. Since defense is very limited, go on continuous offense. Long term goal, eliminate financed, armed and trained Islamists, by killing the Islamists and eliminating funding, arms and training. Continuously educate and motivate the American people by clearly identify enemies, identify seriousness of the threat, stress that we must be prepared to go it alone, stress victory will be long term, but winning will be continuous, warn that other attacks like 9 –11 are unstoppable in the near term. Massive funding and unwavering by-partisan public support is essential. Provide monthly national addresses to report progress and identify obstacles, launch massive propaganda campaign to bolster American resolve and weaken our enemies. Eliminate all Middle Eastern immigrants and remove all Middle Eastern nationals from the country.

Near term goals, begin significant expansion of domestic oil and parallel alternative fuels, bio, coal and shale degasification, nuclear power. Advise allies to do the same. Stop all UN funding. Attack Al-Qaeda to get cheap victory and bolster public support. When militarily ready eliminate Iraq WMD capability and put American military presence in the center of the Middle East. When achieved, move military out of populated areas. Build strong defensive position in the open with a port and airfields. Remove all nationals from inside our perimeter. Build airfields if necessary. Bulldoze a 5-mile flat kill zone around our perimeter.

When oil independence is achieved, instability in the Middle East is a good thing. Use military to control flow of Middle Eastern Oil. Use military to control movement of food into the Middle East. Demand that Middle Eastern nations kill their Islamists, kill Islamist clerics. Eliminate Islamist funding, arms and training. Eliminate Madras schools. Do it or face economic ruin and starvation. If still uncooperative foment instability, by funding and equipping 5th columns, especially in Iran. Play off of tribal, sectarian and religious hatreds to provoke internecine violence. Get our enemies to kill our enemies. If still uncooperative, threaten Muslim holy sites. This will encourage them to attack us in our open prepared defenses with no unconventional advantages. Reward cooperation with food and oil. Punish resistance by stopping same.

Use economic threats and if necessary boycotts to get Russia and China to stop aiding our enemies.

Liberty or Death

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Military Analysis of the New Bush Iraq Plan

Below is a quick analysis of the military aspects of the President’s new plan. More to come as details of the operations are briefed to congress. I have listed the pertinent pieces in three groups, Assumptions, the Iraq Plan and the regional Plan. Bush’s words are in bold, my comments are not. I have changed the order of the paragraphs to make them easier to understand since Bush mixed his thoughts. If you listened carefully you will have noticed that what he spoke is different from the written text. The speechwriters must have been apoplectic. For example, early in the speech he again used the phase “War on Terror.” Bush should fire his speechwriters and himself. This speech was a disaster. Listen to it again. Pretend you are Joe six pack in the American Heartland. More importantly pretend you are the Iraqi people listening to the one last vision of this President. This speech was not written for them. It was written for a college-educated audience. Did this inspire anyone? It was delivered in a monotone voice like a college professor coupled with a child who just came from a beating behind the woodshed. The feeling I took away was that he was not comfortable and by no means is he enthusiastic about this plan.


Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship. But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world — a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them — and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.

Victory still equals a functioning democracy that can provide it’s own security.

The most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy — by advancing liberty across a troubled region. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom — and to help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East.

“Provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy”,

The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.

True. He should have thought of that before going into Iraq. Iraq provided stability in the region by provided a significant buffer to Iran and keeping a large Shia population in check. He destroyed that stability, and has determined to replace it with a democracy supported by all Iraqis living side by side in peace. A risky goal because the Americans do not have control of the outcome. It depends on the Iraqi people and government.

We will use America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf States need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists — and a strategic threat to their survival.

They know that already. This sounds more like a plea for help that he won’t get. The Saudis are not going to stop funding the insurgents and Al-Qaeda. There security rests with a viable and rich Sunnis population in Iraq.

From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian Territories, millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence, and want a future of peace.

True, but they are being crushed to silence by the Jihadists.

Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace — and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.

What proof of this has he seen that we have not? Has anyone heard one shred of evidence to support this claim?

Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.

True, but Iraqi plans are just words. Their actions have always been quite different.

Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents.

True then and true with this plan.

And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.

True. Why did he say this so weakly? Who did he convince with this statement? “Unnamed commanders report”. Has all the passion of a weather report.

Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al-Qaeda leaders — and they are protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al-Qaeda. And as a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists.

Have begun to show a willingness???? Success depends on the Iraqis and this is the evidence that they are willing to step up to the challenge???

The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty% of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital.

True for the moment. The bad guys have a right to change where they fight if we get tuff in Baghdad.

Bush's Iraq Plan

There will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort — along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations — conducting patrols, and setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.

So I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them — five brigades — will be deployed to Baghdad.

This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods — and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

For a while. The Iraqi government needs to play along for a while. But November will be here in a heart beat.

To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws — and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution.

Not a chance. Increase the Baathist share of the government??? These are the same guys that are harboring the insurgents and funding their own militias. What assurance does Bush have from the Baathists that they will give up a winning military strategy for a minority piece of the shaky government? What do the Baathists tell the insurgents, go home we are going to become peaceful??? The die is cast. Even Bush does not believe this.

So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops.

1 Stryker brigade is supposed to inspire the local tribal leaders to risk their lives and power.???? What if all the Baghdad bad guys move to An Bar? Will the 60 Baghdad brigades follow. Or will they hold what they have in accordance with the plan.

After the speech, a Fox military analyst outlined the plan for Baghdad. 55 Iraqi brigades and 5 American brigades. He circled the mixed Shia and Sunnis neighborhoods on a map of Baghdad where 1.5M people live in constant fear of death squads. When asked if this is enough troops, the general stated that it exactly fits the 1 to 50 ratio the Gen Petraeus wrote in his counter insurgency manual. Of course this requires the Jihadists to stay and fight to the death in these neighborhoods. Hello, does anyone believe the Jihadists are that stupid? The Jihadists can move freely throughout Western Baghdad and An-Bar province. Does this plan address the Rich Baathists in Western Baghdad and An-Bar? Does it stop them from funding death squads or harboring insurgents?

Regional Plan

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity — and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing — and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.

This is the most important part of the speech. It is Bush’s first public statement that he is going to attack the Iranian logistics lines to Iraq. He is going to kick the hornet’s nest and finally challenge the Iranians. We now know the purpose of the 3 carrier battle groups and why Admiral Fallon.


Did this speech inspire anyone? Are Iraqis now eager to charge into the streets, or do they even have a clue what Bush said. If I were an Iraqi citizen and heard that weak speech delivered by an unenthusiastic president I would be scared to death. When we desperately needed a Patton speech we got a Yale commencement address.

The American military will do their part. Will Maliki do his part? If he were enthusiastic, Bush would not have had to publicly give him an ultimatum of November.

What was Bush’s message to the bad guys and the Shia death squads? Lay low, go elsewhere, be patient until November. Maliki play along until November. Sadr, go to ground and be a good boy.

Will the Bush Baghdad plan succeed? Absolutely. Will it in the end make the slightest difference in establishing a peaceful democracy? Not a chance. Will Maliki swear off supporting Shia death squads after November? Will he arrest and hang Sadr? He may put him under house arrest until November, but that is it. Bush laid out a plan that will succeed by November. He will declare victory. But this success will be meaningless in the big picture of Iraq. It also is clearly not Maliki’s plan. Maliki knows it is the Baathists who are the source of all the trouble in Iraq. The Bush plan is to give them more political power! And that will do what? After November Maliki will do the correct thing and go after the Baathists and the insurgents. Bush is giving safe harbor and more power to the one group that is causing 95% of all the violence.

This plan would work if the Americans had the forces to do the job themselves. The American military could clean up Iraq with 500,000 troops. But we don’t have close to that number. We are totally dependent on 150,000 Iraqi troops and police for success. Our objectives are extremely limited and therefore, success will contribute nothing to the final outcome in Iraq.

The only ray of hope is that Bush will finally get us in a shooting war with the real threat, Iran. Bush will deploy Patriot Missile Systems to counter the significant Iranian Silkworms and Scuds. This war at sea will require an entire Blog post of its own. But let me leave you with these thoughts. Iranians do not require missiles or ships to wreak havoc on the oil tankers. The greatest American navy weakness has always been mine sweeping. It is a mission the Navy has fought since I was there in 1969. That is why you see an increase in British and Australian ships. Flood the Persian Gulf with cheap mines like Saddam did in 1991 when he almost sunk one of our carriers that hit 2 mines and broke the keel. This in spite of mine sweeping helos leading the way. Additionally, speedboats and wooden fishing boats carrying hand held missiles will do nicely.

All the oil stops, including the Iranian oil and half of the Saudi oil. Iran will engage the West in an economic game of chicken. Whose economy will collapse first, theirs or ours?

Liberty or Death

Monday, January 08, 2007

The Solution for Baghdad

The key to pacification of Iraq, if that is your goal, and it is certainly Bush’s goal before he leaves office is Baghdad. With 6.5 million people and a mix of Sunni and Shia neighborhoods it is the key to breaking the will of the insurgents. Who are the insurgents? They are a mix of Sunni Baathists and foreign volunteers, nominally run by Al-Qaeda. When the war ended, the Baathist civilian population was left in tact. Moreover the disbanding of the army returned unemployed Baathist leaders and unemployed privates back to their Sunni Baathist neighborhoods. The Baathists had 30 years of experience in terrorizing the local population. After the war it was business as usual except for killing Americans. What the Baathists had at the end of the war were weapons and money. Remember they were the rich. Rich, experienced, armed out of work Baathists are able to use money, intimidation and kidnapping to create a very capable guerilla operation. James Dunnigan sums it up very well in his article on Baathists. “However, the only Iraqi Islamic radicals that support al Qaeda are the Sunni Arab ones, and these are a minority of the Sunni Arab (20 percent of the population) minority. Moreover, most of the muscle, and money, for anti-government violence comes from Sunni Arab supporters of the Baath Party.” The Baathists with the aid of the foreign insurgents, Al-Qaeda types, are the backbone of the insurgency. Well armed, well led, experienced and well financed. A formidable enemy. The Baathists supply the ambushes and the Al-Qaeda supply suicide bombers. An outstanding force when you through in the hysterical American media.

The war can be broken into 2 parts that have radically different tactics. One is defense. Keeping the good guys alive and reacting to ambushes, IEDs and the latest tactic, snipers. The other part is offensive, going out and rooting out the bad guys where they live. Most Americans picture our guys fighting it out on the streets with armed bands of bad guys. Nothing can be further from the truth. That may be what you see in the drive by media, but the real work is being done house to house. An article written by Marine non coms gives you an in depth understanding of how the Marine Corps accomplishes pacification. It is a must read for everyone. A critical insight is that the Baathists shoot and scoot while the foreigners don’t care if they die.

Last we have George Will weighing in today on expectation of what the surge will look like. It is not very optimistic, mostly concentrating on why it won’t work. He sums it up with,” Baghdad today is what Wayne White -- for 26 years with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, now with the Middle East Institute -- calls ``a Shiite-Sunni Stalingrad.'' Imagine a third nation's army operating between -- and against -- both the German and Russian forces in Stalingrad. That might be akin to the mission of troops sent in any surge.”

I propose a solution to win. First, I agree with the Bush administration that they made a big mistake clearing out a section of a city and moving on. The shoot and scoot Baathists just move back in. Baghdad is 6.5 million people. A rough guess is that means 4.5 million Sunnis a minority of which are Baathists. Lets assume a high number of 1 million Baathists.

The key to any war, including an insurgency is money. The Baathists have a bunch. The insurgents are externally funded. We also have a good prediction of how the bad guys will react to a surge. The Baathists will shoot and scoot and the foreigners will fight to the death. Lets forget that Bushes latest number of 20,000 troops against 4.5M, 1M of whom are hostile is a joke. But we have the help of the Iraqi Army. We don’t need them to fight; we just need them to occupy the sections we clear, block by block. We leave the Shia blocks alone. We tell Sadr to take a holiday. All we want from him is local advisors to separate the Shia from the Sunni in the mixed neighborhoods. Second you have to provide separation between the Sunnis and Shiites. You create an uninhabited DMZ, bulldozing all the buildings and adding land mines. See how below. Have monitored checkpoints to allow some commerce to flow.

If all we do is shoot at those who shoot at us, the Baathists will melt away taking their money and weapons with them. Our first goal will be to remove all the Baathists, men, women and children. How do you tell if they are Baathists? Former Saddam records, Shia informers and everyday Sunnis. You pack the Baathists in their cars or army trucks, take their money and send them packing to Syria. You lean on the commoner Sunnis to finger all the Bathists in their block. If they don’t cooperate, they also go on the trucks. They will quickly get the picture. Next you round up all the unemployed Sunni males of fighting age. This will be a bunch because unemployment is very high. They go on the trucks. Any household of “means” and the well to do neighborhoods, you round them all up. The key is to get the Baathist money out of Iraq, that is what is buying the fighters from the ranks of the unemployed. Of course, you kill all of the foreigners. The common Sunnis have to finger them as well. It is very simple to identify the foreigners because Iraq was a police state based on the Russian model. Everyone was required to carry extensive identification. No identification, you go on the trucks. If they are foreigners, you shoot them.

How will Syria react? Syria is run by the Baathists. They will gladly take in the Baathists and they all will have cars and will disperse into the Syrian society. What about the common Sunnis? Syria will balk at taking them. Use an armored division to clear out 20 miles of space and set up a tent city for 2.5M people. Provide food, water, medicine and shelter. We are already doing this now. Give Syria 3 months to take over maintenance of the camps. Seal the borders? How? A combination of Iraqi troops and landmines. Did you say landmines! Yep, take a lesson from the Pakistanis who are mining their border with Afghanistan. But we would do the humanitarian thing to string 2 barbwire fences, enclosing the mines, with warning signs every 10 feet. When we finish with Syria, we mine the boarder with Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iran, the major sources of foreign insurgents. Time required, one year. Move on to other Sunni cites and repeat the process in the second year.

Liberty or Death

Thursday, January 04, 2007

Iraq, a Solution by Col. Tom Snodgrass
and comments by Liberty or Death

Col. Tom Snodgrass posted an article on the Free Republic web site that provides, so far the best analysis of our situation in Iraq and offers his version of a military solution, sorta. I say sorta because he ends the article by basically saying it is too hard. Read his article before reading the rest of my piece.

I would disagree with several of the Colonel's points. His quoting from Clausewitz is appropriate. In my words, "will and capabilities". He proceeds to discuss conventional military solutions to the current asymmetric guerilla warfare by militarily attacking the conventional components of insurgents; that is supply of war material. This sounds like an offense, and it is at the tactical level but at the strategic level it is defensive, that is removing the enemy's war material.

I submit that this is containment not winning. The enemy still exists, his will is untouched, he can still wait patiently for American loss of resolve to recall our troops and they are back in business.

He sites Vietnam as an analogy. It's a poor fit but lets discuss his points. He states that we lost in part because we failed to disrupt the resupply of the North Vietnamese. He talks about the asymmetry of the enemy's tactics but goes on to talk about our capabilities in conventional terms. Those that have read any of my posts know that I am a fanatic adherent on asymmetric warfare. Winning in Vietnam or Iraq didn't/will not happen by applying overwhelming force to the resupply capabilities of either North Vietnam or Iraq. He even mentioned bombing the sources of supply in Iraq's neighboring countries, as if they were maintaining supply dumps like we do. That is not the case in Iraq. Asymetric but not realistic. It was the case in Vietnam only because we let them get away with it. Had we bombed their supply dumps, they would have dispersed them. Lets take the Colonel's thought to the extreme. Assume we could have eliminated 90% of the North Vietnamese resupply; war over? Nope. A significantly reduced capability, but not zero. More importantly Uncle Ho was never attempting to defeat us militarily. He correctly reasoned our will could be defeated in time with propaganda. Same is true in Iraq. The enemy is attacking our will to fight with propaganda and time.

We will always lose the propaganda war for the foreseeable future because of the leftist control of the "image" media. Conservatives can control 100% of talk radio and win every written argument, but will fail to win over a single open minded person because our culture is one of images and sound bites.

Ultimately time and winning are the critical variables. Fight too long without clear images that we are winning and the left will wear the American resolve down to dust.

So, any American Commander in Chief needs to take these two variables into account before committing troops to any endeavor. Any president automatically gets about six months to do anything he wants before the forces of the left get mobilized and their message gains traction with the American people. This time limit can only be extended by a clear perception that we are wining. Schwartzkopf was a master at controlling images. Daily he flooded the American people with images of our forces winning. He was more charismatic than all the CNN repoters.

The American people insist that we not only win, but that we are constantly winning. Scwarzkoph gave the American people what the wanted to see. CNN whining from Baghdad was ignored, we were clearly winning. Vietnam and Iraq were/are not losses but did evolve from winning to containment, which to the American people is a stalemate. Americans hate stalemates worse than losing. Just as in Vietnam, they prefer packing up our marbles and going home to a stalemate.

Surprisingly, even as a super hawk, I agree with that sentiment. Stalemates are more hateful than pulling out. Pulling out is not a loss in the mind of Americans; it means we just don't want to play anymore.

But what about asymmetry? I didn't forget. Never fight by the enemy's rules. He wants to pit his guerrillas against our foot soldiers. He eliminates our tech advantage by hiding amongst the so-called friendly people. He knows our culture won't allow us to bomb western Baghdad and its entire people into dust. So how does one employ asymmetry? Don't play on his field or by his rules. Attack his will not his means. How do you do that? You can't just snuff out the will of anyone to fight. Recall what it took in WW II. So what do you do? You give him a problem that he cannot ignore and that will accomplish two things simultaneously. One, it will refocus his war fighting capability to solving the more urgent problem and two it undermines his will to fight.

What could possible cause the Iraqi bad guys to change focus? The Sunni people. What you say? The Sunni people are the center of gravity for the insurgents. They harbor the remaining Bathists and 95% of the insurgents. They feed the fighters and tend to their wounded. Get rid of them. What! You can't just kill them. Of course not, but you can do something even more effective. Drive them out of Iraq and into Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan and Kuwait. If they refuse to go, load them on trucks and drive them to the border. Give these four countries a major migraine of millions of Sunni refugees. Along with the Sunnis, you also drive out the Bathists and insurgents. Seal the borders. All 4 countries are Sunni and they will be forced to spend their war fighting capability caring for their displaced brothers.

But they will starve or get sick on the trip, unacceptable! Drop them food, water and medicine till they are over the border. Once there, not our problem. Do not let any Iraqis enter the void. Keep it void so that anyone in the void is automatically an enemy combatant.

Do not let any American food supplies reach the Sunnis directly or indirectly through the UN. Make China, Russia and Iran feed them. They are aiding and abetting the Sunnis anyway. There are a lot of Sunnis. You can be certain that this method will cause incredible hardship on these 4 countries for years, the same way the Palestinians overwhelmed Jordan after the Arab Israeli wars.

Liberty or Death

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

Previous Posts
What the Economy Could be The economy will be wor...
Global Warming Creditability Crisis As Al Gore g...
The Coming Oil Crisis Below is a dialogue I had y...
How to get Democrats to open fossil fuel mining Wh...
National ID card, a good thing or bad thing? A la...
The Current US System of Government is Fatally Fl...
A New Vision for the Governance of Iraq Backgroun...
Help; is anyone out there a fair tax expert? What...
A CEO’S VIEW OF IRAQ First let me say that I am a...
IEDs and Iraq a losing game Most of you probably ...