By Joe Ramen | Tuesday, September 4th, 2007 at 12:12 am
The bottom line is this. If the US withdraws from Iraq, the rest of the world is to be put on notice, the message being the following: “We will no longer interfere in any foreign affairs, so there should be no reason to attack us. If one attack occurs on US soil, and we get even a whiff of the nationality of the perpetrators, the response will be swift and final. Your nation will be a smoking hole in the ground that will glow for a thousand years. Govern yourselves accordingly, and sleep tight.”
As promised, here is Part II. In Part I we discussed what is wrong with the situation in Iraq, namely the completely lopsided Rules of Engagement (ROE) that are imposed on our men. I should have also touched on the fact that, despite the US having the mightiest air power on the planet (including, but certainly not limited to, the Air Force), air power has been seriously lacking in its presence. Why send guys door-to-door, unnecessarily risking their lives, when a simple air strike could do it more cheaply and effectively?
Take, for instance, the August 2004 battle in Najaf between coalition forces (primarily US Marines) and the al Mahdi militia of radical Shia cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, which was holed up in the Imam Ali Mosque, one of the holiest places for muslims. (Note: It seems that every out-house commode is “one of the holiest places” for the religion of “peace.”) These militant muslims, so quick to condemn any assault on one of their “holy places,” have no problem using one as a fortress and armory, which is exactly what they were doing with this mosque in Najaf, and not wanting to offend the sensibilities of muslims, we jerked around in a traditional gun battle with these fuedal low-lifes of another millenium. A Hellfire missile or two from an AH-1W Cobra helicopter would have reduced it – and everything in it – to rubble in a matter of seconds and spared the lives of any of our boys in the process. So it would have agitated the poor muzzies? I would hope so. Drive them insane with bloodlust which would make them act emotionally and fly off the handle, making it easier to kill more of them. And you bleeding hearts spare me the civilian casualty line. We didn’t give a rat’s posterior (nor should we have) about bombing Berlin, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki. That’s war, folks, and it is exactly what Chesty Puller would have done.
Another point I should have made was that the combined Special Ops guys should have assassinated every known or suspected radical mullah and imam in Iraq, including al-Sadr, who now has a seat at the table of the current “government” in Iraq. The bottom line is that we have been our own worst enemy in Iraq through mis-management and pathetically negligent strategic planning. The attitude that should have been taken is exemplified in this quote from legendary US Army General George Patton: “A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week.”
Now, what to do? As I stated in Part I, the Iraqis, like the Vietnamese prior, would rather live than live free, and I am tired of our men and women dying for their supposed freedom. If the majority of Iraqis would rather be “safe” and not put themselves at risk, so be it. It would seem that the only group of Iraqis that seem to care enough to actually put a foot forward and forge a productive, positive future for themselves and their children are the Kurds, and if we are going to go out on a limb for any Iraqis, it would have to be them for a few reasons. First, the US let them down severely after Gulf War I and they were subsequently slaughtered in chem attacks by Saddam to the tune of roughly 100,000 people. Second, despite that, to this day the Kurds stand relatively firm with the US (certainly with more resolve than their Shia and Sunni counterparts to the south). There’s some loyalty that needs to be rewarded there. Third, since most of the oil is in the Kurdish north, it should be a no-brainer, in conjunction with the above-mentioned reasons, as to whom we should support. So, if we are resolved to “stay the course,” let’s modify the plan: Pull back to Kurdistan and set up a perimeter. Pump our money and efforts into nation building there, and help them get as much oil out of the ground as possible; and to hell with the rest of them to the south. Let ‘em kill each other, and if they mess with the Kurds, nuke the Shia and the Sunni back to the stone age (wait – that’s where they are already; silly me).
OK, that’s one option. Option number two amounts to a return to an isolationist policy that was more pronounced prior to US engagement into World Wars I and II. I again refer to the Farewell Address given to the American people by our first President, George Washington. If you read Part I of this series and did not read the farewell address, I urge you to do so now. It is a bit long-winded using some archaic language, but it is really worth the read. Why isolationism? I can hear the protestations now: In this complex, global economy, it is absurd, impractical, blah, blah, blah. Nonsense. What has this global interdependence gotten us? The US is the largest single nation donor of foreign aid, and most of the rest of the world still hates us as a nation. Oh, they gladly cash the checks, but then moan and whine about imperialism and global domination. And never mind when we engage in military operations; nobody likes that at all. Basically, it’s a catch 22 — damned if we do, damned if we don’t. So I propose the following plan.
The US will cease all military operations around the globe — Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, all of them. All foreign bases — Germany, Japan, So. Korea, all of them — will be closed and the troops stationed in those places brought home. Where to put them? New bases in the US could be built, existing ones expanded, and formerly closed bases re-opened with the money saved in closing these foreign ventures; and a good portion of them to be built/expanded along the southern border with Mexico where 50,000 troops minimum — with orders to shoot to kill anybody crossing illegally — would be stationed to patrol the border with that festering latrine of corruption. I guarantee the flow of third world indentured slaves from Mexico (and the drug trade from the cartels) would dry up within weeks. After a few thousand are shot trying to call our bluff, their bodies left to rot in the desert as a reminder to those who still think we’re bluffing, it will stop.
The US will cease all foreign aid. This includes US withdrawal of funding and membership from the UN and expulsion of that ridiculous organization from our shores. Since what we do is never enough, it seems, they are all on their own. No more 15 billion dollar checks for AIDS relief for Africa; no more propping-up tin-pot dictators who are friendly to US business interests. US-based businesses will no longer be able to call on favors from their pals in DC for military intervention to protect their foreign interests (think Guatemala and the United Fruit Co., 1920′s-50′s). If they have a problem, they can hire private armies to do their bidding. No more bribing despots to not develop nuclear weapons by promising them food aid (think the Clinton and Bush administrations’ dealings with North Korea). What kind of position of strength does that kind of “diplomacy” project? All of it is to be stopped. Nada. Zilch. Nothing. We will, however, offer free trade agreements (like we have with Australia) to our traditional NATO allies and anybody else on a case-by-case basis who wants to get on-board with no strings attached except for one: No moaning and whining. The US will not tell you what to do, and you do the same.
I can hear the rumblings now. “But how will this work given our dependence on foreign oil? Surely the Saudis will not like our new policies.” Yeah, and your point is what?. Let ‘em sell to the EU and the Chinese. Being that the US gets roughly the same amount of oil from Canada (about 19% of imported oil comes from them) as it does from Saudi, this shouldn’t be a problem for a few reasons. First, since Venezuela’s Marxist poster-boy, Hugo Chavez, nationalized all the oil fields and refineries (including those of Citgo and Exxon-Mobil) in May of this year and threw them all out (the oil companies should have blown-up all the rigs on their way out, by the way, since it was their $$$$ that built them), we owe nobody anything. Second, if Mexico gets their tacos in a twist about our new policies regarding their illegal immigrants, we can easily annex that nation in about 48 hours and start pumping the black stuff like Guinness from a tap — they have a lot of it (which is, along with NAFTA and the proposed NAU, one of the main reasons the US government puts up with the flow of illegals from Mexico in the first place). Or the US can offer Mexico the following proposal. I’ll use the conservative estimate of 12 million illegals in the US currently and suggest that Mexico give us 1 barrel of oil per day per illegal immigrant (idea credit: Michael Savage). Do the math. Third, I propose an indefinite suspension on US EPA prohibition of drilling for oil in the ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Reserve) via an Executive Order. With angle drilling technology, the drill rigs could be based in Alaska, minimizing contact with the caribou and polar bears. Besides, despite the dire predictions of the tree-hugger types regarding the existing Alaska pipeline, they were proved wrong. The caribou population thrived near the pipeline as they sought the warmth, and began to breed at a greater rate. Oh, and a certain portion of those troops previously stationed on foreign soil would guard this operation against any foreign or domestic would-be saboteurs/enviro-nazi whackos. Courts may interpret the law, but the president controls the military. Laws are only effective when backed by men with guns, and if those men with guns are backing opposition to activist judicial efforts, I know what wins every time; and it ain’t words on paper.
Of course, this would require a President with testicular fortitude acting on a mandate of the people, so it is likely to never happen. Dysfunctional intellectual leftwits/halfwits will say this vision is barbaric at worst, simplistic at best, but often (not always) the simple is also the logical, most direct and effective solution no matter how complex the problem. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that a solution needs to be more complex than it has to be, if only to satisfy our egos so we can say how smart we supposedly are. The bottom line is this. If the US withdraws from Iraq, the rest of the world is to be put on notice, the message being the following: “We will no longer interfere in any foreign affairs, so there should be no reason to attack us. If one attack occurs on US soil, and we get even a whiff of the nationality of the perpetrators, the response will be swift and final. Your nation will be a smoking hole in the ground that will glow for a thousand years. Govern yourselves accordingly, and sleep tight.”
Having completed active duty in the United States Marine Corps, Joe Ramen is currently a geotechnical engineer who has relocated to New Zealand. You can read more of his articles at his weblog A Yank in Kiwi Land. Joe also contributes to It’s a Matter of Opinion.
Comments: 9 Comments »»|
Send a link: Tell a friend about this.
Link to this post: Permalink
Send us your link: Trackback link
Filed under: Military, Politics|
Tags: foreign policy, Iraq, Iraq war, Military, National security, Politics, War in Iraq, War on terror