Interesting Theory-Not Rumsfeld's Fault, Moreso Powell's

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Annie, May 16, 2004.

  1. Annie

    Annie Diamond Member

    Nov 22, 2003
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Work from the bottom up-too busy to invert it.

    May 13- Part Four-

    The final curtain call needs to focus on the following elements:

    1. Strengthen the moderate voices within the Iraqi community.

    2. Seal off the borders with Iraq and Iran as well as Syria.

    3. Expand the war into Iran by supporting those interested in overthrowing the present mullahs.

    Why number three? Simple, it is the Iranian governmental policy regardless if so-called moderate clerics run Iran or the more hard line to push the United States out of the Middle East and establish a radical fundamentalist regime in the Middle East controlled by Tehran. Is that so hard to understand? Obviously it is. We cannot negotiate with these guys and there are indigenous forces waiting for our help in their liberation. Let’s do it.

    The final point to remember. While many have doubted that we can transplant our value system to a Muslim country consider this. What is the largest democracy in the world? Which country will have the highest English-speaking people in it at the end of this decade? Which country has seen a parliamentary government that has existed as long as the present German or Japanese System? If you guess India to all of these, you are right.

    India, a Hindu nation, has been a functioning democracy under some of the extreme pressure of economic idiocy and poverty (much of which caused by economic idiocy) since 1948. The present German government was formed in 1949 and the present Japanese government roots goes back to 1951. So is it possible to have a Islamic democratic state? Who knows but who would have guessed a democratic South Korea, a democratic Japan, Italy, or Germany formed out of the ruins of a disastrous war and decades of fascism and Nazism? Even today, Russia is struggling to form a democratic state out of the ruin of seven decades of communism. So why not? History will tell if I am too optimistic.

    May 12-Part Three

    As we speak, Sadr is looking for a way out. While many have criticized the recent handling of the uprising and some of us (myself included) have wondered why didn’t we just kick ass in particular in Fallujah and strike at Sadr own army? But now Marines have essentially surrounded the Sunni’s terrorist in Fallujah and while at the present, old Iraqi’s generals are “helping” Marines patrol the area, the Marines are still in position to march in and finish the job.

    As for Sadr, there was no massive Shite uprising and many Shiites are more concern about possible Sunni’s gaining the upper hand in any future government as result of Sadr rebellion. So many of these clerics have made it clear to Sadr- find a way out or die. We will not stand with you on the day of reckoning. So as the Newspapers yell disaster on the headline, the reality is that the Sadr militia is slowly wilting away by attrition and Sadr is hoping to negotiate his way out of his present situation before it all come crashing down.

    Of course, all of this maneuvering may have a future price as one pundit recently and correctly noted that we may have strengthen the hand of local leaders, some of whom are thugs, at the expense of the new government in Iraq. In the meantime, we did not engineer a bloodbath and little patience shown has produced the results of mowing down the opposition before the June 30th deadline. There are more struggles left but this has hardly been a military debacle but a military success. Only if it was reported that way.

    May 11-Part Two

    While Rumsfeld feet is being held to the fire, I will defend the embattled Secretary of Defense. Quite frankly, Rumsfeld has been blamed far too much and others such as Secretary of State Colin Powell far too little.

    From Barbara Lerner in National Review Online on Rumsfeld strategy post Iraq War- “ Rumsfeld's plan was to train and equip — and then transport to Iraq — some 10,000 Shia and Sunni freedom fighters led by Shia exile leader Ahmed Chalabi and his cohorts in the INC, the multi-ethnic anti-Saddam coalition he created. There, they would have joined with thousands of experienced Kurdish freedom fighters, ably led, politically and militarily, by Jalal Talabani and Massoud Barzani. Working with our special forces, this trio would have sprung into action at the start of the war, striking from the north, helping to drive Baathist thugs from power, and joining Coalition forces in the liberation of Baghdad. That would have put a proud, victorious, multi-ethnic Iraqi face on the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and it would have given enormous prestige to three stubbornly independent and unashamedly pro-American Iraqi freedom fighters: Chalabi, Talabani, and Barzani.”

    This plan was shelved by those within the State department, who failed to give Chalabi much help and in some quarters, declaring war on the one Iraqi- who was our biggest supporter. Instead of an Iraqi liberation army of 10,000 plus, we ended up with an army of hundreds. Thus weakening the power base of the incoming Iraqi government.

    Lerner continued, “Jay Garner, the retired American general Rumsfeld chose to head the civilian administration of the new Iraq, planned to capitalize on that prestige immediately by appointing all three, along with six others, to head up Iraq's new transitional government. He planned to cede power to them in a matter of weeks — not months or years — and was confident that they would work with him, not against him, because two of them already had. General Garner, after all, is the man who headed the successful humanitarian rescue mission that saved the Kurds in the disastrous aftermath of Gulf War I, after the State Department-CIA crowd and like thinkers in the first Bush administration betrayed them. Kurds are not a small minority — and they remember.”

    Again, this was not done and many in the State Department opposed this as well. We may have had a stronger central Iraqi government at this point to turn over on June 30th.

    Lerner finally noted, “Finally, Secretary Rumsfeld wanted to cut way down on the infiltration of Syrian and Iranian agents and their foreign terrorist recruits, not just by trying to catch them at the border — a losing game, given the length of those borders — but by pursuing them across the border into Syria to strike hard at both the terrorists and their Syrian sponsors, a move that would have forced Iran as well as Syria to reconsider the price of trying to sabotage the reconstruction of Iraq. “

    We have now slapped sanctions on Syria and we know that Iran is supplying millions of dollars into Iraq to destabilize the new government. One year later.

    While Rumsfeld has been blamed for not enough troops in Iraq to the recent jailed debacle, the reality is that if his plan had been in effect- we would be further along in victory than we are now present. Bottom line- Rumsfeld strategy would have decreased the need for MORE troops; allowed for a development of core Iraqi army and we would have been in stronger position to deal with the uprising. Rumsfeld gets far too much blame and Powell or CIA director Tenet not enough. I will add that we are still winning the war but only more slowly and things are turning our way. (Look for Part Three tomorrow.)

    May 6th

    This is the first of four parts. The first deals with the Bush dilemma and his lack of popularity in a time that the economy is roaring and we are actually winning the war on terror. At this moment, the average America believes that the economy is in a recession or on the verge of collapse and the recent news from Iraq protrays a different picture that what is actually is happening.

    The real dilemma of George Bush is that he is a man who is engineering radical changes in the foreign affairs that may moving faster than the American people is ready for. While most Americans realize that the world is a different place after 9/11, Bush has committed the American people and the world to a new and difficult struggle.

    This is not the cold war between classic powers with nuclear war. We had only two sides to keep track of and we know the stakes. In the new war of terror, we are still figuring out the enemy and most Americans have yet to understand what is at stake.

    What is at stake is the nature of our future civilization and that of the world. After the cold war, the United States was the leading military power but more importantly, our values were also the dominant but for many nations around the world, a world dominanted by our values was unacceptable.

    Here are the objection to Bush's policy:

    Many believe that Moslems are incapable of democracy. But then, did we not transplant our values to the Japanese and South Korea? Yes.
    Many in Europe and in the United States are uncomfortable with a confident and free market oriented America as the dominant superstar for such a America threatens the spread of a marxism. There are those who still believe.
    Many in the academic setting in Europe and America who simply hate America. The old radical views are alive and well among the intelligenisia in both Europe and America. The radical left is no longer capable of governing but they have undue influence among the Democratic Party including John Kerry.
    Most American policymakers including many on the right still are following a foreign policy from the previous century.
    Bush is thinking outside the square and when Presidents propose radical changes before the American people may be ready, then the opposition will be intense. Bush is challenging the thinking that has pervaded nearly 60 years of history and forcing America to realize its role.

Share This Page