Posted on 04/11/2003 5:12:08 AM PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park
Ron Smith's "Something to Say" Commentary
Weekdays at 6:50AM | rsmith@wbal.com | Ron Smith Show Page
The Start of Something B ig
April 10, 2003 Ron Smith's Something to Say
The fall of Baghdad marks the start of something big, of that there is no doubt. The question is whether this begins the fulfillment of the neocon’s grandiose scheme of remaking the world to their satisfaction, or whether the consequences will be something other than that; perhaps a bite of something too big even for the world’s “sole superpower” to digest.
There was never a doubt as to the outcome of the military battle for control of Iraq. As one e-mailer commented:
“With the exceptions of Hussein and Shahaf (the indefatigable Iraqi [dis] Information Minister), I cannot think of even one person against this war who didn’t think Iraq would lose in short order. The New York Yankees have defeated the worst team in the Dundalk Little League.”
Virtually everyone, even the designers of this war, acknowledge that the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the toppling of the brutal Hussein regime mark not the end, but the opening of a far wider campaign; one designed to intimidate any government that refuses to do Washington’s bidding, to give the U.S. direct control over the vital Arabian oil supply, and to eventually remake Arab political culture into something more amenable to American (and Israeli) interests.
As columnist William Pfaff writes in the International Herald Tribune:
“Quick victory is taken for granted in Washington, and the debate has moved on to two other matters: who will govern a conquered Iraq, and which country will be the next American target.”
Many Americans who are quite gung-ho about the event so far cling to the belief that there is no “next American target.” Others buy the War Party propaganda totally, believing that even the most ambitious Imperial view is not only doable but also justified.
We have decided to follow the Wolfowitz plan for a New American Century, a plan of unprecedented boldness that seeks to make the United States the unchallenged World Hegemon. We have dispensed with the heretofore-successful geo-political strategy of wide alliances and announced to the world that we reserve the unilateral right to wage war against anyone we deem to be a threat to us, now or in the future.
The military strategist von Clausewitz said the essence of war strategy is to have as many allies as possible. To the people running our foreign policy and the Pentagon in this time, allies are to be dispensed with unless in total lockstep with our plans. History says this is dangerous. Some people wonder why we would possibly care about the lessons of history. After all, this is a new time, a new America, a New World Order.
Interesting events await.
THIS article at WBAL - AM - Radio - 1090 - Baltimore/A>
Guys, Ron uses the word to describe those "conservatives" who would have the U.S. of A. extend it's power worldwide through military intervention. It's been done before to the downfall of all who tried. Generally due in much part to mercenary, "volunteer{?}", forces whose alegiances are for their own well-being rather than a country. The larger the forces get, the more this tends to be so. And, in the end, GUNS RULE!! This has been a major contributor toward the downfall of all would be world conquerers through recorded history {and probably before} to date.
I don't think{?} Ron differentiates between "right" and "left" and or religion or anything else in this, but in those individuals who have embraced that concept known as the "NWO" or "The Third Way", or any BIG centralized government.
In other words, those "conservatives" who have adopted the "left's" {communism, socialism, Republic; as in Plato's} forms of government that WILL include ALL peoples of the earth. Peace and love, George.
If he wrote that the key to successful war is to have as many allies as possible, then I'd guess he was the source for much of the strategy which led to that wonderful example of Europe at its best, the First World War. Millions killed over four years of stalemate, but boy, both sides certainly included lots of allies.
Sun Tzu didn't much address the politics of war, I think because he considered that a side issue. He wrote about how to win a war in the quickest and least costly manner. Three guesses which of the two authors is most avidly read by our current military leaders.
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.