Replies

>> I have always believed that the primary reasons we went into Iraq were to lay a public smackdown on a muslim terrorist nation ("pour encourager les autres", if that's the phrase), and to establish major bases right in the middle of the Islamic world.

I have to agree with your analysis. As a little exercise, how does the United States military project the most power in the middle east? Pick a spot, any spot. Add to the equation, what country do we know we can easily kick their butts without incurring heavy casualties. Add to the equation, after taking Afghanistan, what strategic move best accomplishes putting heavy pressure on Iran. What also puts you next door to Jordan, Syria, and Saudi Arabia? The answer is Iraq.

I'm only thinking from a military perspective. I hope from a political perspective that our forces will not leave Iraq anytime soon. There better be a deal as part of the hand off of political power to Iraq, that US forces remain in Iraq for peacekeeping purposes, or what every want to call it. But, it should not be for peacekeeping purposes. I do not want our troops keeping peace. Our military should two things - kill and break things and practice killing and breaking things.

Send one division to the border of Syria. Reinforce that division with a fresh division from the states. Send another division to border of Iran, and let internal pressures come to heads to overthrow the government there. Send another division to border of Saudi. Then apply heavy pressure on Saudi, and make them pump oil - lots of oil. Give Saudi a chance to reform - I say, about 1 year of a lack of response will give us enought time to roll over Saudi.

Back on the Syrian front, simply destroy Syria - learn from mistakes in Iraq, and this time ramp up the violence so there is no question what our intent is. My intent, and I only wish it was our government's intent, is simple. All the people of nations such as Iraq, Iran, Saudi, Jordan, Syria, Libya, Eqypt, etc. will no long submit to Islam. They will submit to the US. It is brutal violence that will force them to submit to the US. Syria will serve as an example to the world that we have changed our policy. We are no longer in the nation building business, we are in the domination business. Leave them in rubble, scared, and in pain. Let it be known for a dozen generations the horror that occurs when you do nothing as a people within a nation that supports terrorism.

This addresses the heart of the matter. Iraq is a perfect example. The people of Iraq do not have a tradition, culture, understanding, or the will to be free. There basis of existence has been submission. Until there comes a day that these people are willing to 1.) recognize evil, 2.) fight evil and 3.) choose freedom over submission, this problem will continue. Personally, I don't think these people are able to any of the above three. Thus, submission to the United States solves our problem, and in the long run it will solve their problems as well.

that US forces remain in Iraq for peacekeeping purposes

I think that is exactly what is planned. Someone from the administration recently described the situation after 6/30 to be Iraqi's in charge politically with a strong US military presence.

That kind of situation makes sense, as it would be chaos otherwise. That approach is also consistent with what Bush has said and his commitment to see that our troops have not fought in vain. I see this as not like our exit from Vietnam, but more like our continuing presence in S. Korea.

In your plan, you've got 1 division going to Syria's border (along with a fresh division from the States), one to Iran's border and one to Saudi's border. Since we only have the following forces recently deployed in Iraq, or on the way:

1st Marine Division
1st INF Division: deploy Iraq 3/2004 +plus NG Bde (from Vilseck, Ger.)
1st CAV Division: deploy Iraq 5/2004 (relieve 1st Armored Div., 2nd ACR) (from Ft Hood, TX)

And these Brigade-sized units:

82nd Airborne Div 1st Bde: deploy Iraq 1/2004 (4-6 month deployment)
25th Inf Div: 2nd Bde Strykers deploy Iraq 1-2/2004
2d INF Div: 3rd Bde Strykers deploy Iraq 3-4/204 (to Mosul)

I think we're too light to do something like you've outlined, unless Iraq gets REAL peaceful real soon.

Here are the units that are leaving Iraq:

1st Armor Div: Iraq Return U.S. 4/2004 Relieved by 1st CAV
4th Inf Div: Iraq Return U.S. 4/2004 relieved by 1st INF
2d ACR: Iraq Return U.S. 3-4/2004 relieved by 1st CAV
3d ACR: Iraq. Return U.S. 3-4/2004 relieved by Strykers
173d Airborne Brigade: Iraq Return Italy 4/2004

Not sure which units might be kept in Iraq a little longer to deal with this uprising. I'm pretty sure NONE of them will be kept there to be placed on the borders of Iraq's neighbors as a threat to them. "No (NEW) war in '04" seems to be Karl Rove's goal. Could the Iranians and Syrians be taking advantage of that? Probably.