My Plan on How to Fight the Next Middle East War

Frank J. offers some pearls of wisdom on what to do the next time (and there will be a next time) America decides to take down a villainous Middle East dictator.

We sure keep getting into wars in the Middle East, don’t we? There are just so many people there in dire need of a good bombing — terrorists, nutso leaders, camels who look at us cross-eyed — that it’s hard to choose whom to even focus on. But instead of the rah-rah “Let’s kill those bastards!” you’d expect from Americans, we’re now in more of a long, drawn-out-sigh, “Not another war” mood. And remember that this is from people like me who have nothing at all to do with the military action over there — we’re not even required to find the countries on a map, much less be engaged in combat. I guess we’re just tired of hearing about the wars.

War is hell … if you’re in the war. For everyone else, it’s the whining that gets to us. The constant calls of “quagmire” and how everyone is dying for nothing and that we’re only making things worse and how we’re wasting money (yeah, the left used to pretend to care about that) really wear on us. I don’t know how our troops are doing with all the deployments, but all the civilians seem worn out from only hearing about war. We’re all war weary — despite most of us not being directly affected by any of the combat. Maybe our troops can handle getting shot at and going on multiple deployments just fine, but we can’t deal with the civilians complaining about it all the time.

So what’s the solution? Don’t get into any more wars? Well, President Obama has pretty much proven that’s not a possibility. I mean, he was the stereotypical liberal peacenik, denouncing President Bush as vehemently as possible as an awful, awful man for even contemplating getting us into a conflict with a country that was no direct threat to us, and even he couldn’t help but start another war in the Middle East (I mean, “kinetic military action in the Middle East,” wink wink). It’s like the dictators there exist just for the purpose of being villains. If you accurately portrayed them in a movie, critics would call them unrealistic for being too one-dimensionally evil and crazy. And when you see people that terrible and also so much weaker than us militarily — the U.S. fighting them outright on a battlefield would be like the NFL versus a peewee league team — no one has the willpower to not smack them around.

Obviously avoiding wars in the Middle East is not a realistic option, and I’m sure we’ll get involved in plenty more in the future. So how can we do that and avoid the constant whining of dumb hippies and having all those useless countries in Europe call us warmongers? Well, think back to the Iraq War and when people really started to viciously complain about it. We had broad support going in, and people were still pretty up on it during the initial bombing campaign and even once we got to the point of pulling down the Saddam statue. People truly started getting angry, and the “Bush=Hitler” signs came out in full force, when we stayed and tried to help.

Bombing a country is nothing, but hanging around the country afterward, helping it rebuild and establish a system of government where the citizens don’t get bossed around by a homicidal dictator, gets us into trouble. And it is pretty difficult for the troops; it requires them to stand out there exposed among the populace instead of just running around in tanks and exploding stuff. Plus it takes a long time, during which there will be constant whining about it, especially if there are Republicans in office to blame. The left basically collaborated with the insurgents in Iraq, saying, “Hey, if you kill more troops, then we will scream even louder about how awful this war is and hopefully get Bush out of office. So help us out here!”

They didn’t mean anything by it, but it’s useful to understand that no matter how much the left screamed about the Iraq War in those protests, 95% of that was partisan silliness and, at most, 4% actual deeply held belief (and possibly 1% brain parasite). That’s pretty evident when you consider how relatively quiet they are with Obama — pretending to care about civilians being killed today won’t help defeat Republicans, so why bother? That’s the big problem now — there’s no longer a separation of war and politics. And our staying in a country and trying to help people means the war goes on longer, which gives it more time to be exploited politically while our troops are in constant peril. Plus, everyone else grows tired of hearing about it. So I ask: Why should we even stay and help a country after we’ve bombed it?

Think about it. When President Bush gave that famous speech on the aircraft carrier in front of the “Mission Accomplished” banner, we could have just left the war then and said we won, and who could have argued with us? If you can go to a country, blow stuff up, and leave unscathed, that sounds like success. If someone came and burned your house and walked away, you wouldn’t say you won because the guy left. So why shouldn’t we in a future conflict in a Middle Eastern country just blow up stuff, declare victory, and leave?

I know of a few objections to that. One is that we might not get the results we want, such as toppling the dictator. Like if we had left Iraq after the Shock and Awe, Saddam could have regained his control of the country. Or someone else even worse could have come into power. Well, guess what? We could have just gone back in and bombed again. Lather, rinse, repeat until we have what we want. It’s extremely easy for us to blow stuff up in these countries — especially from the air. We can just keep doing it over and over, and they can’t stop us or even really threaten us. We have stealth bombers, and I’m not even sure all those countries have radar to detect our regular bombers. And we could literally hit a button and obliterate any of those countries anytime we want. We wouldn’t, because that would be super mean — but it wouldn’t hurt to remind people we have the ability.

Would people get angry about us just bombing a country and then heading back home? Sure they would. They’d scream at us for leaving these countries in shambles and for all the harm we’d be causing the civilians. The UN would probably pass an impotent resolution against the U.S. But the military operation would be over, and attention spans are short. Yes, the left would screech about our awful warmongering for a little while after one of these strikes, but then Glenn Beck would say something, and they’d obsess over that like it was the worst thing ever and forget all about the now ended war. So really, devastating a populace will in the end cause a lot less complaining than staying and trying to help.

Yes, this new policy would be awful for the people living in those countries, but currently those people are being brutalized by dictators, so getting brutalized by us is really just a lateral move. I know we’d like to help, but it’s too hard and too risky. Plus the left will never stop screeching about it while we’re there, and we just can’t take that anymore. Remember that dumb “Bush lied, people died” slogan? Well how about “Hippies whined, so… we don’t help people no more”? Okay, I’m not a filthy hippie, so I can’t make a good rhyme. I’m a conservative, so I’m only good at saying things that are both coherent and true.

___________________________________________________________________

Here’s what I wrote on the subject of Iran, Iraq & Afghanistan a while back.

To: NormsRevenge
We SHOULD withdraw from Iraq — via Tehran.

Here’s how I think we should “pull out of Iraq.” Add one more front to the scenario below, which would be a classic amphibious beach landing from the south in Iran, and it becomes a “strategic withdrawal” from Iraq. And I think the guy who would pull it off is Duncan Hunter.

How to Stand Up to Iran

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1...osts?page=36#36
Posted by Kevmo to TomasUSMC
On News/Activism 03/28/2007 7:11:08 PM PDT • 36 of 36

Split Iraq up and get out
***The bold military move would be to mobilize FROM Iraq into Iran through Kurdistan and then sweep downward, meeting up with the forces that we pull FROM Afghanistan in a 2-pronged offensive. We would be destroying nuke facilities and building concrete fences along geo-political lines, separating warring tribes physically. At the end, we take our boys into Kurdistan, set up a couple of big military bases and stay awhile. We could invite the French, Swiss, Italians, Mozambiqans, Argentinians, Koreans, whoever is willing to be the police forces for the regions that we move through, and if the area gets too hot for these peacekeeper weenies we send in military units. Basically, it would be learning the lesson of Iraq and applying it.

15 rules for understanding the Middle East
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1774248/posts

Rule 8: Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas — like liberalism vs. communism. They are about which tribe gets to rule. So, yes, Iraq is having a civil war as we once did. But there is no Abe Lincoln in this war. It’s the South vs. the South.

Rule 10: Mideast civil wars end in one of three ways: a) like the U.S. civil war, with one side vanquishing the other; like the Cyprus civil war, with a hard partition and a wall dividing the parties; or c) like the Lebanon civil war, with a soft partition under an iron fist (Syria) that keeps everyone in line. Saddam used to be the iron fist in Iraq. Now it is us. If we don’t want to play that role, Iraq’s civil war will end with A or B.

Let’s say my scenario above is what happens. Would that military mobilization qualify as a “withdrawal” from Iraq as well as Afghanistan? Then, when we’re all done and we set up bases in Kurdistan, it wouldn’t really be Iraq, would it? It would be Kurdistan.

.
.

I have posted in the past that I think the key to the strategy in the middle east is to start with an independent Kurdistan. If we engaged Iran in such a manner we might earn back the support of these windvane politicians and wussie voters who don’t mind seeing a quick & victorious fight but hate seeing endless police action battles that don’t secure a country.

I thought it would be cool for us to set up security for the Kurds on their southern border with Iraq, rewarding them for their bravery in defying Saddam Hussein. We put in some military bases there for, say, 20 years as part of the occupation of Iraq in their transition to democracy. We guarantee the autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan as long as they don’t engage with Turkey. But that doesn’t say anything about engaging with Iranian Kurdistan. Within those 20 years the Kurds could have a secure and independent nation with expanding borders into Iran. After we close down the US bases, Kurdistan is on her own. But at least Kurdistan would be an independent nation with about half its territory carved out of Persia. If Turkey doesn’t relinquish her claim on Turkish Kurdistan after that, it isn’t our problem, it’s 2 of our allies fighting each other, one for independence and the other for regional primacy. I support democratic independence over a bullying arrogant minority.

The kurds are the closest thing we have to friends in that area. They fought against Saddam (got nerve-gassed), they’re fighting against Iran, they squabble with our so-called ally Turkey (who didn’t allow Americans to operate in the north of Iraq this time around).

It’s time for them to have their own country. They deserve it. They carve Kurdistan out of northern Iraq, northern Iran, and try to achieve some kind of autonomy in eastern Turkey. If Turkey gets angry, we let them know that there are consequences to turning your back on your “friend” when they need you. If the Turks want trouble, they can invade the Iraqi or Persian state of Kurdistan and kill americans to make their point. It wouldn’t be a wise move for them, they’d get their backsides handed to them and have eastern Turkey carved out of their country as a result.

If such an act of betrayal to an ally means they get a thorn in their side, I would be happy with it. It’s time for people who call themselves our allies to put up or shut up. The Kurds have been putting up and deserve to be rewarded with an autonomous and sovereign Kurdistan, borne out of the blood of their own patriots.

Should Turkey decide to make trouble with their Kurdish population, we would stay out of it, other than to guarantee sovereignty in the formerly Iranian and Iraqi portions of Kurdistan. When one of our allies wants to fight another of our allies, it’s a messy situation. If Turkey goes “into the war on Iran’s side” then they ain’t really our allies and that’s the end of that.

I agree that it’s hard on troops and their families. We won the war 4 years ago. This aftermath is the nation builders and peacekeeper weenies realizing that they need to understand things like the “15 rules for understanding the Middle East”

This was the strategic error that GWB committed. It was another brilliant military campaign but the followup should have been 4X as big. All those countries that don’t agree with sending troups to fight a war should have been willing to send in policemen and nurses to set up infrastructure and repair the country.

What do you think we should do with Iraq?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1752311/posts

Posted by Kevmo to Blue Scourge
On News/Activism 12/12/2006 9:17:33 AM PST • 23 of 105

My original contention was that we should have approached the reluctant “allies” like the French to send in Police forces for the occupation after battle, since they were so unwilling to engage in the fighting. It was easy to see that we’d need as many folks in police and nurse’s uniforms as we would in US Army unitorms in order to establish a democracy in the middle east. But, since we didn’t follow that line of approach, we now have a civil war on our hands. If we were to set our sights again on the police/nurse approach, we might still be able to pull this one off. I think we won the war in Iraq; we just haven’t won the peace.

I also think we should simply divide the country. The Kurds deserve their own country, they’ve proven to be good allies. We could work with them to carve out a section of Iraq, set their sights on carving some territory out of Iran, and then when they’re done with that, we can help “negotiate” with our other “allies”, the Turks, to secure Kurdish autonomy in what presently eastern Turkey.

That leaves the Sunnis and Shiites to divide up what’s left. We would occupy the areas between the two warring factions. Also, the UN/US should occupy the oil-producing regions and parcel out the revenue according to whatever plan they come up with. That gives all the sides something to argue about rather than shooting at us.

38 posted on Thursday, July 12, 2007 3:55:19 PM by Kevmo (We need to get away from the Kennedy Wing of the Republican Party ~Duncan Hunter)

___________________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.