Replies

Above is another positive take on the Iraqi situation from Strategy Page. I however, am going back to thinking about what I was thinking about before.

Unless the Iraqi army and police reach the point where they can pretty much control most of the territory inside of Iraq themselves by 11/2008, it is very likely that a Democrat will be elected President. This would mean all American troops out of Iraq by 6/2009 and an Iraqi government primarily controlled by Iran.

Consider that our enemy in Iraq, is the same enemy that we have here in United States: the worldwide organized hard left (WOHL). Consider the origins of the factions fighting against us in Iraq. One faction is Sunni Baathists who formally served Saddam Hussein. Saddam's Iraq was a client state of the Soviet Union. Their weapons were Soviet weapons. Baathism is essentially Communism without the atheism---a form of communism developed for the Arab world, where standard communism was unacceptable due to the population's strong Islamic beliefs.

Another major force arrayed against us inside Iraq, is the Iranians. They are providing arms, weapons, and fighters to the struggle against the Iraqi government and the Coalition. Iran is a major ally of Russia. Russia has built a nuclear reactor for Iran and and is planning to build more. Russia has provided major help to Iran's long-term project to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the US. (see Iran's Nuclear Option, L. J. Venter, 2005.) The Russian government, currently controlled by Vladimir Putin, has denied providing this help, but admitted that the FSB might have done so without the government's authorization. Ironically, during the period in question (around 1997 if memory serves correctly), I believe Putin was in charge of the FSB! Hamas is, I believe, active inside Iraq---a group created by the Iranians.

Finally, while there is no proof of Russian links to Al Qaeda, it is suspicious that the Soviet Union was the primary creator of modern terror, which arose in the 20th century. After the demise of the Soviet Union, garden-variety modern terror, diminished all over the world. This "makes sense" because the Soviet Union was a major supporter of 20th-century terror, and when they broke up, Russia, supposedly got out of the terror business.

Nonetheless, it is suspicious that at virtually the same moment that the Soviet Union broke up and ordinary 20th-century terror diminished, Islamic terror appeared as a major force in the world.

Palestinian terror, which started under the basically nonreligious, Yasir Arafat, who was run by the Romanian KGB, (see the book Red Horizons, Ion Pacepa, 1987),seems to be evolving and shifting to be under new leadership---Hamas. Non-sectarian (Communist-related) terrorism, used by the Soviet Union to intimidate the world, shifts to religious-based terrorism, which weakened Russia claims to have nothing to do with,and even to be plagued by. Yet there are repeated claims that suppose the Chechen bombs have actually been set by the FSB. Golitzen did a scathing analysis of the first Chechen war---denouncing it as largely fake.

If you can accept the fact that the WOHL is our enemy in Iraq, you will realize that the greatest strength of our enemy is its abilities in the area of subversion. This means that, logically speaking, their main point of attack will be within the Iraqi armed forces.

It has already been reported by Strategy Page that the Iraqi Armed Forces and police have a tendency to allow men to join who were known participants in the insurgency. Even if this would be or has been corrected however, infiltrating enemies of the Iraqi government, into the Iraqi army and police force would be quite easy---especially for people guided by professionals from the FSB and GRU, as I suspect is happening.

If my assumptions are correct, this would now be the critical point of conflict in Iraq. The Iraqi government, in conjunction with assets provided by the coalition forces, must find a way to limit the effects of this subversion. Otherwise, it would be impossible for them to succeed.

Baathism is essentially Communism without the atheism---a form of communism developed for the Arab world, where standard communism was unacceptable due to the population's strong Islamic beliefs.

This is incorrect.

Baathism is essentially fascism or more precisely Nazism, with the master race as Arab rather than Aryan.

An essential feature of Commmunism is its internationalist character, with the proletariat throughout the world united against their oppressors. Baathism very specifically is intended to unite racial Arabs (Muslim and Christian) against all other peoples.

It is fascinating that for five years the mass media has managed to constantly talk about the Baath party without ever mentioning its actual ideology. This is probably because they don't want the obvious parallels to Nazism to become apparent. Perhaps conservatives should start referring to the Baath party as the "Arab Nazi" party.

The high turnout in two elections and the clear approval of a new constitution in Iraq should be sending shock waves throughout the Middle East and particularly in the Muslim theocracies. Those purple fingers proudly being waved by Iraqis are a stab in the eye for the Muslim fascists.

While the US and EU MSM almost ignores these elections, they are as important in a new order of global politics as the fall of the Berlin Wall. Bush is right, the Iraqi people are hungry for the freedom long denied by Saddam's dictatorship or that would be taken away by the Islamofacists.

Wow! You're making way, way, way too damn much sense this early in the morning. LOL.

While I agree with your EXCELLENT analysis . . . not that it does any good to the leftist liberals . . . I try to always remind my fellow Americans what was entailed in our own struggle for independence.

Reasonable folks can disagree about when our own struggle started but most agree it started in 1764 -- when the Sugar Act was passed by the English Parliament to pay for the French and Indian War.

We all know we declared our Independence in 1776 but how many know our own Military Officers nearly rebelled against the authority of Congress in 1783 because of financial promises not kept . . . only to be dissuaded by George Washington?

Or that Rhode Island voted AGAINST the Constitution? Seems Senator Chafee's RINO roots go back a long ways, huh? LOL.

Or that the Constitution wasn't ruled to be "in effect" until 1788?

Or that George Washington wasn't sworn in as our First President until April 30, 1789?

And that we had another little tussle with Great Britain in 1812?

So . . . from AT LEAST 1764 to 1812 . . . we struggled for our own Independence. If my math is correct, that's 48 years. Yet we're now impatient with the Iraqis who have lived under tyranny for hundreds of years.

The new constitution was approved by 78 percent of the ten million Iraqis who voted. It took nearly two weeks to count all the votes. Most of the 22 percent who rejected it were Sunni Arabs, who turned out in large numbers. The Sunni Arabs indicate that they will turn out in large numbers again in December for the parliamentary elections.

Strategy Page is good site.

When I saw the headline I knew what the source wouldn't be.