America must be strong and not go wobbly in the war aginst Islamic Fascism

08-17-2006 | LYNN WYMAN

[Rhiannon]

The military won every battle in Vietnam. That war was not lost on the ground. It was lost due to the Anti War groups and the lack of rational for others, on why it was important to win. In other words, America lost the will to win.

The same forces are trying to lose the War against Islamic Fascism again. Part of those forces is the people who felt so powerful getting the country to turn against the Vietnam War. They lust for that same feeling of glory and power again, like it would make them young again.

The problem in the rational for war against Iraq is that it never clearly communicated the strategic interest in changing the country of Iraq from an enemy to a worthy ally in the Middle East. The most that the people in the US heard was the WMD argument. Even though that was only a portion of the reasons to go to war. As soon as President Bush pushed that line of argument, I thought Oh No! that if none were found that people would feel they were lied to. That loses support.

Many of the responses indicate that they agreed with the original idea of the Iraq war but want to know what we are trying to obtain now. The strategic aim is for a reliable US ally that is an Arabic nation that could increase the likelihood of the region to adopt a pro Western attitude. I knew that if we went into Iraq and disabled the Saddam regime that we would have to reconstitute the entire country into another form. The form was chosen was a democracy with all the chaos that implies. A viable democratic or republican form of government requires a populace that is united within them and have a similar philosophy. It requires western ideas of laws and justice and an absence of settling political scores. It would have been easier to set up a monarchy with one strong ruler. But the US government chose to try to set up a republican form of government. Unfortunately Iraq had many generations of one group, the Sunnis, in power over the Shiites, which is the majority in the southern areas where the oil is. Now the Shiites have taken the opportunity to try and rearrange the country to more their liking and settle old blood feuds. Now that they have an administration that can start to govern the Iraqi’s, they need to eliminate the sectarian violence and criminal kidnapping, extortion and intimidation. The administration has only been in power for 8 months.

The mistake was made earlier not to eliminate Sadr, which was very quickly seen as a problem. The US government had not decided whether it was better to kill, arrest or co-opt Sadr. The fear was that if they eliminated him that a Shiite uprising could have occurred and cut of the US supply route from Kuwait. The down side is his power base has grown and it was his people that got in the Interior Ministry that instigated on a large scale the punitive actions against the Sunnis. Heck, it was the US that went into the Interior Ministry to break out the prisoners that were held and tortured there.

Now the Iraqi government and the US have decided that more forceful action is required to get rid of the thugs and gun fighters that kidnap and intimidate the populace. Now they are going through Baghdad neighborhood by neighborhood and clearing out the criminal thugs and nascent warlords.

The upside is that the people of Baghdad only really trust the US Army in their midst since by our actions we do not try to be cruel or mean.

The extremely rare exception is actually investigated and prosecuted. That is a rarity in the Middle East and the normal folks do notice that.

The goal now is to instigate an orderly society where the current criminal lawless activity is a rarity rather than normal. I would estimate that that would take another year or so for the Iraqi's to reorganize their society in a more lawful and orderly society. A method for redress has to be set up to eliminate the blood feuds. That is what justice is supposed to eliminate to provide that redress, rather than the clans/families, which just perpetuates the unrest.

Setting up a new nation is a long-term undertaking and a moral obligation since we wrecked the last nation. Let's say 2 years to finish helping the Iraq government start on the road to a more western idea of justice and ideals.

We will have bases in Iraq for probably 10 years or so for the strategic interest of having a presence in the Middle East. With a US army in Iraq it also provides a launching ground for Iran or Syria, Bush listed both of these nations as evil nations. First was Iraq then the rest slowly.

The US would have preferred Iran to change it regime from internal means since the growing demographics showed the 50% of the population wanted to adopt more Western norms of society, But instead it got the new president who is quickly showing himself to be a Hitler like character and feels that the US is unlikely to have the will to oppose him. Regrettably he seems to feel a religious prophecy backing his actions, which instigates a new variable.

The downside of the success in the Anti US / Bush /war factions is that they have reduce the capacity of the US government to act against Iran. The diplomacy is only working in their favor and they shown by actions they intend to have nuclear weapons so then cannot be intimidated in the future. The statement by the President of Iran is that he intends to destroy Israel and reduce the US in political and military power. I think it quite likely he would use a nuclear bomb to make his point.

Iran already has missiles that supposedly can go 2000 km and they had advisors when North Korea launched their missiles. The probably have purchase a nuke from the Koreans already.

This is definitely going into a regional war and Iran has initiated it by having Hezbolla attack Israel and Israel has lost deterrence and prestige by it failure to reduce Hezbolla and being forced to this comical cease-fire.

What the liberals and anti war people don’t see is that this reduces our options to the nuclear option and the more likely that the only way to get rid of the potential threat that Iran poses is by a nuclear strike on their processing plants. I would hope that we have developed the deep penetrator bomb that would reach the sites but I have not heard we have that capability yet.

Myself, I see this as a clash between civilizations between the Western values against The Islamic Fascism. The enemy is not just Al Qada that so many presume. President Bush stated that early. The war is not against terrorism, which is just a tactic. But against those who profess a desire to change the world to a 7th century caliphate.

[Rameumptom]

I thank you for your service in the Viet Nam era.

IMO, if we used the military tactics that were used in WWII against Germany and Japan in Viet Nam we would have won. The Germans and Japanese didn't want us on their soil but we prevailed. We did this by ruthlessly bombing their cities (full of civilians) as well as military targets. In Viet Nam we never even used our heavy bombers. This increased our loss of planes and we never fully controlled the air. Fighting a limited war is nonsensical. I don't blame the morale of the soldiers but Politicians and Pinko Hippie Liberals for losing us the war.

Again, I'm speaking as someone who did not serve in that time period.