Unity08. A people's movement to take our country back.

Iraq – What Now?

I include My Updated Plan for Iraq at the end of this thread just to make sure my personal point of view is clearly understood. I, of course, have no insight beyond what all the rest of us see, read, and hear. But I do have a point of view and have been sending it since last September. The most important content here is The Iraq Thread!

In looking for an anchor to my opinions I reached out to some friends for their thoughts. They are each men who have lived for years in the Arab world; and two have served in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are now continuing to serve on contract assignments in Afghanistan after retiring from their decorated military careers,

I hope my quest for information will also be of value to others who want a more clear understanding of what we are faced with. The Iraq Thread! begins with comments from Lt. Colonel Asad Khan USMC (Ret) who is well acknowledged for having led some of the most effective combat operations in Afghanistan. His comments can only be understood in the context of what follows immediately below.

There is a lot here -- I know that. But this is the turning point of our world. I have no illusions but I do hope this makes some contribution somewhere!
--
PUT AMERICA FIRST!
Semper Fidelis
Bob Rohrer
www.BobRohrer.com

This article is what drives Colonel Khan's comments in The Iraq thread!

2007-08-04 19:42:41 -

BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraq's electricity grid could collapse any day because of insurgent sabotage, rising demand, fuel shortages and provincial officials who are unplugging local power stations from the national system, electricity officials said on Saturday.

U.S. President George W. Bush, meanwhile, was busy on the phone, calling Vice president Adel Abdel-Mahdi and President Jalal Talabani, urging political unity in the country, where the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is under a stiff challenge.

Abdel-Mahdi, a Shiite, and Talabani, a Kurd, provided few details of the conversations in statements released by their offices. But both men have been involved in trying to solve a government crisis after Iraq's largest bloc of Sunni political parties ordered its ministers to quit the government.

For many Iraqi citizens, however, trying to stay cool or find sufficient drinking water was a more urgent problem. The Baghdad water supply already has been severely affected by power blackouts and cuts that have affected pumping and filtration stations.

And now water mains have gone dry in the Shiite holy city of Karbala, where the whole province south of Baghdad has been without power for three days. Power supplies in Baghdad have been sporadic all summer and now are down to just a few hours a day, if that.

We no longer need to television documentaries about the stone age. We are actually living in it. We are in constant danger because of the filthy water and rotten food we are having,» said Hazim Obeid, who sells clothing at a stall in the Karbala market.

Aziz al-Shimari, the Electricity Ministry spokesman in Baghdad, said power generation nationally was only half of demand and that there had been four nationwide blackouts over the past two days.

Many southern provinces, such as Basra, Diwaniyah, Nassiriyah, Babil have disconnected their power plants from the national grid. Northern provinces, including Kurdistan, are doing the same,» al-Shimari said.

He complained that the central government was unable to do anything about that or the fact that some provinces were failing to take themselves off the supply grid once they had consumed their daily ration of electricity.

Najaf province spokesman Ahmed Deibel confirmed to The Associated Press Sunday that the gas turbine generator there was removed from the national grid. He said the plant produced 50 megawatts while the province needed at least 200.

What we produce is not enough even for us. We disconnected it from the national grid three days ago because the people in Baghdad were getting too much, leaving little electricity for Najaf,» he said.

Which confirmed al-Shimari's charge that «we have absolutely no control over some areas in the south.

The conflict over electricity is a perennial problem in Iraq, which ironically sits atop one of the world's largest crude oil reserves. The system became decrepit under Saddam Hussein whose regime was under a U.N. sanctions regime after the Gulf War and had trouble buying spare parts or the equipment to upgrade the system.

Al-Shimari said the electricity shortages now were the worst since the summer of 2024, shortly after the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam.

And what makes Baghdad the worst place in the country is that most of the lines leading into the capital have been destroyed. That is compounded by the fact that Baghdad has limited generating capacity.

He said that there are 17 high-tension lines running into Baghdad but only two were operational. The rest had been sabotaged.

When we fix a line, the insurgents attack it the next day,» al-Shimari said.

In Karbala, provincial spokesman Ghalib al-Daami said a 50 megawatt power station there was shut down for lack of fuel and the whole province had been without water and electricity for past three days.

He said almost half the provincial capital had sewage seeping above ground because pump trucks to clean septic tanks were unable to operate for lack of gasoline. The health threat to citizens was also contaminating crops in the region.

Many people who normally would rely on small home generators can't afford to buy fuel. Gasoline has shot up to nearly $5 a gallon Karbala residents say, a price that puts the fuel out of range for all but the wealthy.

The cost of living in Karbala is less than half that in Baghdad, but wages are equally low. A taxi driver in Karbala can bring in nearly $9 a day, while the same job in Baghdad, on average, earns a driver about $30 daily.

The lack of electricity is particularly accute at this time of year when average daily temperatures reach between 110 and 120 Fahrenheit (43 and 49 Celsius).

We wait for the sunset to enjoy some coolness,» said Qassim Hussein, a 31-year-old day laborer in Karbala. «The people are fed-up. There is no water, no electricity, there is nothing, but death. I've even had more trouble with my wife these last three days. Everybody is on edge.

Elsewhere, the U.S. military announced the death of a Marine during combat Thursday in Iraq's western Anbar province. That brings to at least 3,664 the number of U.S. military personnel who have died in Iraq since the war started in March 2024, according to an Associated Press count. The figure includes seven military civilians.

The U.S. force also issued a statement saying its forces killed four suspects and captured 33 others Saturday in raids in northern Iraq and along the Tigris River Valley.

And details emerged Saturday about the killing of five brothers kidnapped earlier in the week by gunmen in the northern city of Kirkuk. The five men were painters and were seized as they were on their way to paint a police station in the Rashad area, about 45 kilometers (30 miles) southwest of Kirkuk, said Brig. Gen. Sarhat Qadir said.

Police found a small boy _ the men's younger brother _ alive near the bodies. The boy, who was unhurt, apparently was brought along to help his brothers, Qadir said.The boy's father said his sons were killed after he could not pay a ransom of US$100,000.

If you don't have money, you must come and take their dead bodies (from the morgue), Mahmoud Wakaa al-Jibouri said the captors told him by telephone.

He and his family had fled from Mosul only months ago to settle in Kirkuk, believing it was safer.I will kill myself. I have no meaning in life after you,» al-Jibouri cried, standing at the gate of a morgue awaiting his sons' bodies. He kissed each of them before their coffins were closed.

Kirkuk, 290 kilometers (180 miles) north of Baghdad, has faced rising ethnic tensions as Arabs and ethnic Turks oppose Kurdish efforts to incorporate the oil-rich city into their nearby autonomous zone.
AP writer Sameer N. Yacoub contributed to this report.

The Iraq Thread!

In my view Frank Stolz and Dick Culver, as well as Al West and Asad Kahn, are the most expert I know on this topic -- so I asked them to improve my own perspective!

Newt says…

These are excellent points…BUT!

As you know I am absolutely opposed to leaving Iraq. Albeit I do not believe we should be policing their cities for them. Especially when the government is on vacation and the Sunni have now withdrawn from government participation.

Remember the slogan: As the Iraqi stand up, we will stand down! My primary question would be: If and when the Iraqi "stand up" and we "Stand down" just exactly who is going to kill all these millions. Is our mission now to keep them FROM standing up so they don't accelerate their genocide? Somebody better understand this!

In South Vietnam it was the NVA along with the remaining VC who did the killing. Other Communists carried out similar atrocities in Laos and Cambodia. However, I am not sure who Newt thinks the killing force would be in Iraq. Is Newt suggesting the Shia majority killing Sunni with the help of al Sadr, al Maliki and Iran? The Sunni killing Shia with the help of Saudi Arabia? Both Sunni and Shia killing Kurds with help from Turkey? Will all the Iraqi Muslims just be killing Iraqi Christians like the Muslims are in Darfur? Are Newt's millions our friends and supporters or are they just internal enemies of each other over which we have little control? Some have ventured to call the latter a "Civil War". Of course, my plan is specifically aimed at preventing any outside invasion or any outside support of an uprising in the country.

My plan is, again, attached so no one is confused on my stand! I am not taking issue with Newt and I am unalterably opposed to the liberal ideas of what has been referred to as a "cut and run". But I also think someone has to think this through! What are we doing? What exactly is our strategy? Who are we going to unalterably support?

In closing, I found it most interesting that POTUS aspirant Obama has no concern for these problems in Iraq (29 million) other than to leave. And while the America he wants to lead is now a "Deer in the headlights" over the problem in Iran (71 million), Commander Obama sees no problem attacking Pakistan (160 million), a country with nuclear weapons – which, of course, Obama says HE would not use on them.

And neophyte this idiot is the number two contender in the Democratic field with more than a small chance of actually being their candidate!
--
PUT AMERICA FIRST!
Semper Fidelis
Bob Rohrer
www.BobRohrer.com

From Lt. Colonel Asad Khan USMC (Ret). The Colonel is a combat veteran of the Afghan war and is currently in Dubai on a contract assignment.

Tragedy of Biblical proportions in the making and we were told that the surge will work – what nonsense. I just met with several Iraqi refugees and to the family each said that they were better off under Saddam – at least they had security, healthcare and education. Everyone knew the rules. Democracy has brought chaos. For us, if Iraq spills over we are screwed.

Perhaps it is not a bad idea to sell more arms to the Saudi’s. Hopefully we are selling the right kinds – F-16’s and fancy radars don’t work well against insurgents.

We can analyze this and keep peeling the onion until our eyes water – time to move on from pointing fingers. This is not a Republican or Democrat mess. It is turning into a world mess.

If we were to include, the slippery slope in Afghanistan and Pakistan, I pray to God that this game goes into over-time and we get a penalty kick to bring peace and security to this region – for everyone, not just a select few.

From Lt. Colonel Al West AUS (Ret) a combat veteran of the Iraq war and currently in Afghanistan as an advisor to the Afghan National Army.

Sir, excellent points, and here is my take. We were drawn into this state deliberately by Zaquawi and Al Qaeda in Iraq to tie us down and slow bleed US. We should have never reacted to sectarian conflict in Iraq and let them go at it as they wished. Our objective after the taking out of Saddam should have been external cordon of Iraq and allow THEM to build their government and Country.

The problem right now is that we have become terrain oriented and not enemy oriented, terrorist groups, denying them sanctuary and any foothold in Iraq. And that means executing short duration cross border strike operations to keep this enemy in disarray.

We have reacted just as they figured and lost the initiative to them, only now are we retaking that in sorts. The development of the Iraqi government and infrastructure is not a military mission, that is a State Dept, international community mission. The military mission is one of interdicting external influencers and developing an Iraqi security force, that is it. The US military is not a police force.

Now with that being said, can we turn from Iraq now, no we cannot, can we redefine our ground mission there, certainly. Get out of urban centers and do what the US military does best, maneuver and strike. This is like a boxing match and all we need do is keep a good jab going against this enemy. And when occasion presents itself bring in a hard right. We have to disrupt his decision cycle and reduce his ability to support; $$$$, manpower, arms, materiel, and other resourcing, like training.

Now this may be an unpopular thought, but we must protect the Christian community in Iraq, it is historical and demands we respect it. That should be a part of measures of effectiveness for the Iraqi people and funding tied to it. I also believe we should examine the viability of an independent Kurdistan, was promised back after WW I and today represents the only semblance of success and hope there. That must be tied to a condition of eliminating the PKK, and I mean the Kurds doing it themselves.

This may sound callous but I mean it, my concern is about the destruction of terrorist capability, wherever it may be and denial of any sanctuary. As long as we have a basic strike force capability in Iraq that can be achieved. If Iraqis want to kill themselves that is not my concern, and I can bet that if they believe that expressed intent, they will curtail the violence, right now they feel we are there to remedy everything, not my sentiment. They must take responsibility and accountability, as with much of the Islamic world who only chide at the West because they truly realize their failures.

There is no need of looking back, we must look ahead and develop the viable courses of action which enable us to defeat the enemy, and not lose ground. The future of Iraq is up to the Iraqi people, the future of Islamic terrorism should be our focus, their complete demise.
S/F, ATW Sir, Al

From Major Frank Stolz USMC (Ret). After military retirement the Major worked for ARAMCO in Saudi Arabia for decade and has years of additional experience in the Middle East. He is also an accomplished author – see WWW,WMDTerror.com

Response 1

I have concluded that we missed the boat by a wide margin at the commencement of the War in Iraq. I am always astonished at the number of people with such unique and admirable academic credentials as well as having had many years of government work experience can remain so naive and lacking in common sense. These scholarly gifted individuals appear to be in awe of one another, as well as with the latest in modeling scenario techniques and theories in war gaming. Perhaps, the best example of this is none other than Don Rumsfeld, who stated in a TV interview on Iraq and while nearing the end of his appointment as Secretary of Defense: "We didn't understand their religion, or their culture, or their people." Well no excreta! How in the heck can anyone attempt a war without knowing the above, that is, unless the purpose was simply to nuke them out of existence, and so the above would not matter?

The initial execution of the battle plan was executed to perfection, that is, with the Iraqi Army succumbing to the onslaught and so they simply melted away from the major areas of conflict and in short order. Unfortunately, our forces by-passed large areas and even major cities brimming with hostile insurgents to include former military personnel, and so by not attacking these by-passed areas and cities we failed to subjugate the entire nation. This in turn caused many Iraqis and others to believe that while they had lost some battles they had not lost the war. And so they intended to fight on in a guerrilla or insurgent form of warfare. To make things even more ridiculous, we allowed roving bands of well-armed unknowns to roam the cities and countryside unimpeded, as though they would soon come around to helping build the new democratic country of Iraq.

Because we listened to the PhD's, lawyers, and others with questionable credentials or qualifications on warfare, we accepted the UN and European Rules of Land Warfare and Rules of Engagement, which in turn impeded our fighting and caused an initially planned War to turn almost overnight into a "Police Action." And all this, in order to prevent collateral damage and to appease our European and UN Allies.

In addition to the above insanity, we then almost held a race as to who first could build the new bases, rebuild the infrastructure, form a new government, allow for the first democratically held election. And all the while attempting to initiate people to people programs and trying to get Muslim religious sectarian factions to cooperate with one another, when in fact they had been killing one another for centuries, and our own troops on a daily basis.

Apparently, our gifted leaders (both civil and military) never thought to see how McArthur and Eisenhower subjugated and controlled their respective defeated nations at the end of WWII. Had they done so they would have found the magic formula of how to invade a country and control it's population, until they were prepared for a democratic form of governing and which took 5 years of a military dictatorship for both Germany and Japan before that occurred.

That said, now what are we to do in Iraq now?

Response 2
I think what you are hinting at is the $64 trillion dollar question. In other words what is the best solution to the Iraq question and if your solution a viable one. The truth to me, is that there is no one that I know of who could provide you with that answer. The reason is many fold, but include the fact that our government appears incapable of understanding whether they are fighting a war, a police action, or an insurgency.

That in turn, leads to the political issues of whether our government is attempting form a democratically formed overall governing body; or supporting a friendlier majority Shiite ruling body; or returning the minority Sunni's to power, with the assistance of Saudi Arabia and other supposedly allied majority Sunni populated nations; or finding a leader (perhaps a dictator) along the lines of Saddam who can control the various factions and stem sectarian violence through the ruthless use of military and police powers.

Not being sure of which of the above options we care to support or will support, leads us to how to deal with the two nations providing financial support, various forms of weaponry, as well as trained and untrained personnel to support to the present insurgency. All of this leads into the multi-Billion dollar contracts with companies like Halliburton, as well as Infrastructure and Security companies, which are attempting to rebuild the nation while often times under fire. Or else while having new construction destroyed via insurgent or sectarian explosives once the project is completed.

Since our government continues to wavier with it's ever changing goals, this affects all other elements of what we are doing or trying to do in that country, and so we cause a lot of the confusion with our own changing policies and goals.

To top off the above, our congress is threatening to cut of funding for the war, or police action, or insurgency (take your pick). So our military is trying to plan for both a surge as well as a pull-out, which should keep military planners in a chaotic state while trying to solve these opposing forms of military planning.

Should they be planning for how best to utilize the surge troops and their accompanying weaponry, or should they be planning on how best to extract all of our troops and equipment in Iraq? Keep in mind the most likely methods of exiting the country is down the same roads used at the onset starting from Kuwait.

If the Iraqi Army and police decide to join in with the insurgents and if we decide to simply leave, then exiting the country down those two major roadways can become a very hazardous undertaking to say the least. Think of the 503rd Maintenance Company- (Jessica Lynch), as the roads can easily be mined and piecemeal attacks can occur all the way to Kuwait. And particularly so since we most likely cannot use the country Turkey to remove our troops and equipment from the northern regions of Iraq as occurred at the start of the war.

If our government and administration had some policy or plans that were understood, then people like me and Al and others, might be able to provide a better analysis (in my case armchair) as to our options and most the most likely decisions to be made.

However, with the surge barely underway and the unknown intentions of congress to support whatever progress might be made with this new strategy. I believe it is difficult, for even our senior leadership, to make viable and realistic predictions as to the near term strategies that will be undertaken under such iffy conditions.

Whether taking the troops away from city centers is a viable alternative to the present disastrous tactics and strategies used thus far is to a great extent dependent on how the surge is perceived both here and abroad. And whether congress will allow for a continuation of the attempts to form an Iraqi government or else opt for a pull- out.

If the latter, it would take around 6 months or more to accomplish and even then much of our equipment would have to be left behind and either destroyed or turned over to the remaining Iraqi forces (a not so great idea). - VRS-

-Stolz Sends-
www.WMDTERROR.com

From Major Dick Culver, USMC (Ret). The Major has trained the Saudi Marine Corps, has had to slink through the night in Bosnia as a war corespondent for Soldier of Fortune Magazine, and so many other things I just refer you to http://www.bobrohrer.com./jouster_tales.html

Iraq! Are we in the middle of a Civil War?

What really worries me is that our political (and most military) leaders have no concept on (or about) how to clean things up in Iraq. Actually it's pretty simple, first you must prevent 'em from installing a "Theocracy" using Sharia law (right, and my name’s Mickey Mouse)!

Abdul Aziz al Saud had the right idea when he formed Saudi Arabia by uniting the various tribes on the Arabian Peninsula! He claimed Saudi Arabia was a Muslim Theocracy, but nothing could have been further from the truth! Ol’ Abdul knew that using his approach was the only way to unite the various tribes, claiming that such a country was all for the good of Islam. The Saud family had been traditional Wahabbi adherents (the most hardcore of practicing Muslims), for many years, Abdul Aziz however was a realist, and accomplishment of the mission came first!

Regardless of Abdul Aziz’s rhetoric, what he created was a Monarchy pure and simple. He always gave the Mullahs their say, and then (cleverly) found ways to stick it where the sun didn't shine! This is a long story, but Abdul was one clever SOB! When no longer under any obligation to the Brits (about 1924), Abdul Aziz started to unify the Arabian Peninsula, promising each tribe that joining together would allow them to form the perfect Muslim Country, having control of the two holiest shrines in Islam (Mecca and Medina) not to mention having control of the annual Muslim Pilgrimage (the Hajj). Abdul had to promise each Bedouin Leader what amounted to autonomy within their own tribes to get them to “sign on”, but the country was coming together. In 1933, Abdul Aziz waved his hand over the result and blushingly named the new country for his own tribe, i.e. Saudi Arabia!

Saudi Arabia however is NOT Iraq!

What we have going on in Iraq is nothing short of a three-sided civil war (or at least the potential of a civil war), with the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds disliking (or at least not trusting) each other intensely! Is it a true case of hate? Not actually, but no (power?) “group” wants a “rival group” in charge where Sharia Law is the law of the land! The possibility of flagrant abuse is simply too great! While I’m not comparing the Mullahs to the SS in Nazi Germany, you may rest assured that no one living in Nazi Germany complained about the Gestapo or SS (at least not more than once)!

Human beings in power enjoy power, and will not relinquish it readily, nor apply it gently! – don’t forget, it’s for GAWD! Ee-tye! The Sunnis are not the majority in Iraq, but have held sway due to the machinations of Saddam Hussein for decades, making sure that the Shiites were kept under his not so gentle thumb. Now that we're trying to put things to a democratic vote, the Sunnis are not about to let the Shiites get in a position of authority! The Shiites in Iraq see an opportunity to take control and reap long dreamed of sweet revenge against those who've kept control of the government for many years. This has the makings of a genuine disaster. The Sunnis aren't about to let that happen if they can find a way to prevent it!

Preventing one group from usurping power and exerting it over another simply because of greater numbers is the reason we have a bill of rights in (but written separately from) our Constitution! Never forget there aren’t any provision for a bill of rights under the Sharia Law – and don’t forget, Mohammed didn’t make any mistakes! Just ask a gent whose head is rolling down the gutter!

The Relationship of Saudi Arabia and Iraq:

Saudi Arabia of course was always a supporter of Iraq (at least during my tenure), since Saudi Arabia is mainly run and controlled by Sunnis! During the late war between Iraq and Iran, we watched convoy after convoy of war goods headed for Iraq to make sure the Shiites in Iran didn't win! The Saudis lived in horror of Iraq being taken over by a Shiite controlled majority! They knew they weren't capable of handling things militarily (don't forget I used to train the "Camelnecks" and am aware of their awesome capabilities... Hummm...).

Why do you think Saudi Arabia was so anxious to find a way for the United States to bail 'em out during the first Gulf War?? We shot ourselves in the foot however, compliments of Gloria Steinem and her "Femi-Nazis" of “NOW” (National Organization for Women) demanding that the girls get their share of the military glory; and insisted on rubbing the Saudi's noses in the fact that OUR girls could thumb their noses at Muslim tradition and Sharia Law! NOW's machinations irritated many of the lil' old Muslims who had nothing to lose and sat in back alleys in such places as Jeddah, plotting a way to get revenge on "The Great Satan"... Only the Royal Family really got the full benefits of our military intervention, and “The Monarchy” had traditionally kept the price of oil down (by leaning on OPEC) to keep the United States in their hip pocket if the unthinkable should happen!

Others who had gotten rich without dipping into the Royal Oil fortune, began to consider... Enter Osama bin Laden who had always been on the outs even within his own rather large family! He saw a way to run the Infidels off, and become a hero within the Muslim world! Guess what?

Make no mistake, Saddam WAS planning on invading Saudi Arabia – not for the oil, but rather for control of Mecca and Medina (and of course, the Hajj)! These two holy shrines have a much greater significance to the Muslim World than we can imagine! Several groups (even in recent times) have tried to “take over” the Kabba (the Big Black Rock) in Mecca during “Hajj” when all Muslims MUST be allowed access to satisfy Muhammad’s instructions transcribed in the Koran! All Muslims must make this pilgrimage at least once during their lifetime if they are physically and financially able! The Muslim Country that has control of Mecca is the big fish in the pond, make no mistake!

The significance of the Holy Mosque in Mecca is beyond the concept of the average Westerner, or any individual not of the Muslim Faith! The closest parallel in Christianity that comes to mind are the Crusades mounted out with the blessings of the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages to retake the “Holy Land” from the Muslim Saracens. Among other things, besides occupying the traditional home of Christianity, during this occupation, the Muslims had done the “unthinkable” and built a Mosque over (Jewish) King Solomon’s Temple! The 1st Crusade successfully took back Jerusalem in 1099 after a long and time-consuming march (years actually). The Christians were eventually thrown out once again, but came back two more times.

Most of those who are not students of history fail to realize that the Christians were just as bloody as the Muslims had been. When quarried as to know which individuals were fair game (Infidel vs. Christian) while marching towards and conquering the City of Jerusalem, the Pope is reputed to have said, “kill them all, God will know his own!”

Such “carte blanche” permission to kill anyone thwarting Christian efforts essentially meant that anyone in the way became fair game for the Crusader’s sword! As a result of the Pope’s tender guidance, the initial re-conquering of Jerusalem became a blood-bath. Some historical accounts actually speak of the “Holy Conquerors” wading ankle deep in the blood and entrails of their victims! Most of those who died during the short siege had done nothing more evil than being born in and having lived in the city.

Back to the current Problem – Is a Civil War being fought
(or in danger of being fought) in Iraq?

 Putting it in another perspective, think of it this way:

Consider our own civil war (Late War of Northern Aggression, heh, heh, heh...).

What if, just what if, the Brits had noticed that their supply of cotton, essential to the (then new) Industrial Revolution, was being threatened by the North's attempts to gain control of the cotton supply (the North too was in need of the South's cotton supply since the Industrial Revolution was in full swing on both sides of the Atlantic). The South was selling their cotton to the highest bidder (i.e. the Brits), and weren't willing to take less from the North.

The North thought that the cotton should be sold to brethren in our own country (the United States), and of course they took umbrage at having to meet the maximum available market price! The North of course was outraged that the South was able to produce the much desired cotton cheaper due to the "cotton pickers" (both slaves and poor white farmers) working for less money. The Civil War then raging was interrupting the Brit's cotton supply, and the damned colonials were fighting among themselves, thus screwing up the shipping of cotton with their blockade.

Say that finally the Brits decided to break up this squabble (in the humanitarian guise of saving lives by keeping the colonials from killing each other of course!). No mention is made of personal British gain of cheap and available cotton to keep their mills at full production of course. The squabbling colonials wouldn't have been able to fend off an invasion since all of their war making resources were being squandered trying to come out on top in the raging war at home!

The Brits decide to step in, stop the war, and kept everyone at bay. Initially, the two sides would have resisted, but now having to fight on two fronts (the Brits and the South, AND/OR conversely, the Brits and the North - although the South might have seen the advantage of having their main market place purchasers on THEIR side). The war would have subsided, although some individual acts of aggression against the Brits might well have been manifested against Mother England due to a long memory of previous wars against "Queen/King and Country"... Together (the North combined with the South) they might well have been able to kick out the Brits since fighting an overseas war requiring constant sea power and resupply problems would have been a bit vexing. This wasn't going to happen however, as the squabbling between the Yanks and the Rebs would have prevented a concerted effort necessary to get rid of the now unwelcome presence of their old enemy.

However, the taxation of the citizens of the British Empire to keep “Red Coats” on foreign soil might well have started to turn the people of Mother England against such a continuing and expensive endeavor even though it may well have ensured the temporary supply of relatively cheap cotton!

Politics would have entered the picture, and there would have been a scream to bring the troops home - after all what would happen if the Frogs noted the military efforts of the Brits on another continent might well give them a military advantage and they decided to flex their "froggie muscles"... The Brits would have withdrawn from the colonial's bickering (after extracting promises to supply them [the Brits] with cotton at reasonable prices). ...And after a small respite in their previous hostilities, guess what would have happened? If one were to substitute "oil" for "cotton" one with a vivid imagination might begin to see something of a parallel?

A British solution to the “unpopular American problem” circa 1863?

How about installing a "Strong Man" (closely controlled by Mother England of course) to oversee the unruly former colonies, and act as an arbitrator in any future squabbling with a promise to let North America return to managing their own affairs sometime in an unspecified future? Hummm...

***********************************
Back to our problems in Iraq...

Those politicians (currently) in our own government need some sage advice! I wonder how you go about getting a job like that? Am I bored? Yep, that I am, but the government thinks they have the solution worked out! Yeah, right! Hell, I'm available, and I couldn't give 'em any worse advice than what they already have!

We had the right idea in Iran with the Shah (a strong man essentially controlled by the United States), but Jimmy (the Wimp) Carter screwed that up big time, and set the stage on which we are still arm-wrestling almost 30-years later. They brought in the Ayatollah (safely stashed in France - are we our own worst enemies?) and established a Theocracy (GREAT move Jimmy!) and allowed the “bearded-one” to hold our Embassy (along with our people) hostage for over a year! Arrrgggg... The Iranians (had) loved the freedom to act and function like westerners under the Shah, but rapidly caved to the Ayatollah and his successors when the penalty for disobeying the Sharia Law (reinstituted by the Ayatollah) was death (everything from stoning to beheading)! There are just too many crazies in the Muslim society to prevent this from happening - after all, they're doing this for Gawd! Egad! With a western controlled strong-man with his hand firmly around the Mullah’s necks, a semblance of freedom can be maintained, but if you let the religious crazies run the asylum you are in deep doo-doo! Saddam Hussein would have been the perfect answer if we could have kept that douche-bag under (our) control... We need a Western controlled Mad-Man in charge! Heh, heh, heh...

Remember:

"Keep your nose in the wind, and your eyes on the skyline Pilgrim! You've done well to keep so much hair when so many wanted it!"

Gray Rebel Hotel Six… Out!

End Notes:

If you have ever wondered about why our forefathers were adamant about the separation of church and state, I recommend a bit or research on Sharia Law. In the case of Sharia Law, there is a lack of preciseness that acts to prevent an evenhanded approach to punishment, or for that matter, what constitutes legal satisfaction of the law. Even when a Muslim Community exists within a Democratic Society, the Imams of the Muslim Community wish to superimpose their religious laws over any secular jurisprudence. Without making a book out of this aspect of the problems of Iraq, if we are going to demand a Democratic Legal System, believe me when I tell you, such a system will last as long as someone has a dagger at their throats! When the United States and the Coalition troops clear Iraq air space, a Theocracy WILL be imposed under Sharia Law… Simply put, it is THEIR way and the Imams will ensure that it occurs and stays that way – the sword is sometimes mightier than the pen! The only thing that will prevent this is the imposition of a strongman (much as the former Shah of Iran, or even a benign Saddam Hussein). Unfortunately we (the United States) feel that the entire World is foaming at the mouth to embrace Democracy (most especially a Democratic Republic). We are about to make the same mistake in the Mid-East we made in Vietnam, that is, the imposition of a Democratic Society on a culture that has no Democratic cultural background. The RVN types (simply stated), were rice farmers, their Great Grandfathers had been rice farmers, their Grandfathers had been rice farmers, their Fathers had been rice farmers, they were rice farmers, and their children were rice farmers, ad nauseum! Just because Democracy has been our heritage, you cannot assume that the entire world will embrace it because WE are the “enlightened ones”! We did well deposing Saddam, but when the Shiites who had been an oppressed majority, were now in a position of “ruling over” a Sunni minority, an attempt at retribution is bound to occur – trust me on this one!

2 The Bedouins are the desert tribes on the Arabian Peninsula, and are fiercely independent. In order to get the Bedouins to cooperate, Abdul Aziz had to be grant the Bedouin tribes special privileges, specifically instant access to the King (Abdul Aziz), and their women would be allowed to be “less protected” i.e. without the constant wearing of “discrete” clothing at the direction of the tribal elders. These tribes still have special privileges in Saudi. One morning we came to work on the Naval Base in Jeddah only to find that a Bedouin tribe had moved aboard the base within our training area, and essentially had free access to anything they desired, and they could not be controlled by the Naval Personnel. The Saudis take great pride in having a Bedouin in their background (much as many Americans claim an Indian ancestor). The Bedouins usually have less formal education, but take great pride in their hunting skills, with the elders often “flying” hawks, and using the traditional Saudi Hunting Dogs (more “civilized” Saudis consider dogs to be “unclean” although not forbidden in the manner of porcine animals). Some of the less “politically correct” observers consider the Bedouins to be “Arabic Hillbillies”, but as in any society a bit of cultural jealously might be present in this assessment.

3 When dealing with any group that considers themselves to be doing the will of GAWD (or whoever they perceive to be GAWD or his prophet), true rational thought often is put aside in favor religious fervor. How would you like to have some of our more “enlightened” religious leaders put in charge of political machinations in this country (for instance some of those who “handle snakes” to prove their faith that “the Almighty” would not allow a true believer to be harmed, scary, huh…)?

My Updated Plan for Iraq!

By Robert L. Rohrer
Original September 2024 – Updated July 2, 2024

Just “Staying the course” – Was a Bad idea!

The Surge is an American National Police Force!

Liberal Left “Cut and Run” – is a Catastrophic idea!

The very first thing we need to get over are these “all or nothing” ideas that we either continue what we have been doing for the last five years or totally leave Iraq. The fact is we CAN NOT leave Iraq any more than we left Japan, Germany, or South Korea! The public can’t handle the truth, but we will need a military presence in Iraq for, most likely, the next 50 years -- that’s the situation!

Leaving Vietnam was most unfortunate and did precipitate a domino effect, into Laos and Cambodia as well. Millions were killed! Where were the left minded human rights folks then? Where are they now? The Communists are still killing the Hmong and Montagnards. As bad as our Vietnam decision was for them, we better recognize leaving Iraq would be far worse for us!

The reason for going into Iraq in the first place was to protect our National interests. We ostensibly postured our action as Liberation but make no mistake it was a war! You cannot fight a war with a liberation mentality and then end up as occupiers. There is no good news in this approach, except for the enemy.

The original military objective was to depose Saddam and ensure Iraq did not have WMD in advanced development. Further, we needed to ensure they could not interdict the oil supply the free world is more than willing to pay for. Those who say we went there to take the oil have missed the simple point that we have always paid for our Middle East oil. They have also missed the fact that while we have been busy acting as the Iraqi National Police Force it is the Chinese Communists who are moving in to cement a flow of Iraqi oil for their own Communist State development!

The reality is the American people and Congress will not let this war continue, as it is, past a September/October 2024 time frame. Following our present course will only precipitate a forced Vietnam style withdrawal and we can’t let that happen in the Middle East!

A forced withdrawal will ensure a "domino effect" with Iran pushing over the stack. This would plunge the world into an oil crisis, precipitate an economic crisis, and most likely a much wider war! Preventing this should be America’s main objective! But at the same time we cannot continue to function as the Iraqi National Police Force. That must become an Iraqi responsibility. Civil order! Not civil war! Iraq has an elected National Government – it is now time for them to govern and that also means police!

Years ago (after the war was well underway) I sent an email wherein I said something to the effect "What if someday we learn it really took a Saddam to control these people." It’s too bad Saddam and his sons were psychopaths, but I am back to that thought! Now, more than ever, we need to re-deploy to perimeters and demand the Iraqi people clean up their own cities. We don't need to be riding around urban areas with our vehicles being blown up daily by IED's. Iraq once had an army that fought Iran to a standstill, and now they want us to believe they can't mount a police force! They don’t have to as long as we will do it for them!

Bush got his election! The Iranian sympathetic Shiah won. The al Qaeda sympathetic Sunni stayed home to build bombs! This Sunni/Shiah conundrum can only be resolved by a pure Hegelian style dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. They will become what they are destined to be and we cannot make them anything other than that – Period! As long as they don’t threaten beyond their borders we need to allow them to be what they will.

Thanks to Viceroy L. Paul Bremer we lost the mantel of Liberators. At the very outset our mission should have been clearly defined to Liberate and step back; or defeat an enemy and control their country with Martial Law. We never committed a sufficient force to accomplish the latter, while betting on the former. We ended up with a mishmash of both, exacerbated by a continuing flow of half-hearted attempts to stem a mounting insurgence, the best examples being our initial tentative approaches to Fallujah and Ar Ramadi. As a result of our timidity we lost control.

Like it or not, there is no way to go back and do it over correctly. What we need now are Rules of Engagement (ROE) to win with a re-deployment of force to control the country from incursion not police the cities. And this would include both tactical and strategic air power. We cannot allow ourselves to be forced into a shameful capitulation. The repercussions would be devastating. We also need to warn Muqtada al-Sadr, and others, that we are no longer going to hold back like we did the first time in Fallujah. If he starts more trouble with his Imam Mehdi Army we should annihilate all of them and anyone that has chosen to be near them!

In implementing this strategy we must also use a FULL array of air power to enforce a "no mans land" along the Syrian and Iranian borders! Other than at checkpoints, the ROE would be to interdict any and all movement into Iraq across those borders!

We are dealing with an enemy that ONLY understands FORCE and our politically correct, hearts and minds, compassionate conservative approach is only seen as weakness. It is way past time to ignore the UN and our own home grown Communist Left! Yes, that is what our Left has morphed into. Listen to them. And as for the rest of the world, all they want is more dead Americans. How long are we going to kowtow to this?

And given worldwide terrorism, “Priority 1” must be the protection of America. And yet our secular, moral relativist, liberal leftists; and our tentative, politically correct, NeoCon compassionate conservative rightists are both leading America down a wrong path. We need a traditional conservative approach to save America – another Reagan!

In the 1940's just two men saved the world -- FDR and Winston Churchill. Yes, they had their faults and I am sure could be nit-picked apart but the fact remains they stood in the breach and saved the Western world. WHO will do that now?
--
PUT AMERICA FIRST!
Semper Fi
www.BobRohrer.com

Bermuda Run, NC
336 998 3998