America's Stategic Fix and Our New Decision Points

If you read the author info he is a LTC in the Army.

This is a pretty straightforward view of the state of the Army, the war, and our national security 'status' 5 years into the war on terror.

I tend to agree with the idea of a draft but it won't happen which tends to support the argument about political choices.

Think he is right about the Courts and judicial intervention in the war, the Courts have done more to hamstring Bush than they did prior to 9-11 to hamstring terrorists.

Once the next administration comes into power and quits talking about a war on terror will the American public notice a difference?

I don't think so.

Lots of people here won't like this article, but there is a lot there that should be taken to heart.

There is a very simple military maxim that we have been violating for some time now: better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

Since domestic terrorism is devolving into a police matter we are left with fighting insurgencies overseas. No army is any good at that. We need allies, not military adventures.

The political division in the country make his good suggestions almost impossible to implement. Any attempt to get more serious about the war will lead to instant criticism from the Dems, and the MSM, and could lead to the Dems taking over Congress, which then leads to even more resistance to what we are NOW doing, much less any increase in the future. Until the Dems are so reduced in power that they are now longer a threat to take over (and filibuster), we are very limited in what we can do (on many issues: WOT, illegal immigration, Social Security, etc.

"Our allies meanwhile have been cutting their defense budgets reducing their military capabilities to the level of constabulary forces while enjoying 10 weeks of vacation every year, with the French sandbagging us at every turn."

They are 'allies', they are free riders on Pax Americana.

Did you see Pelosi on Brit Hume's show? She basically said there will be no working with the party the Dems are trying to put out of power. Not SS talks, nothing. No more miss nice dyke.

Sorry "they are NOT allies" is what I meant to say ...

Also,
"Congress must support the Administration with both its intelligence programs and terrorist detainees and pass laws that give the President the capability to prosecute this war, get the criminologists and apologists out of the way, and put the Supreme Court back in its box."

I believe that this is the NUMBER ONE issue. Military spending is not of great importance if the threat is one that cant be defeated by conventional arms.
The threat requires an intelligence-oriented response.

There is much wisdom in this article. I remember my grandparents talking about WWII: Public urinals were adorned with decals of the axis leaders, rationing was in force and many consumer items were not only costly; they were not available. Contrast that to today where a petulant group of baby boomers whine incessantly about the costs of gas and how it will affect their 401K's.

And forget a draft. You'll hear people on here decry that (please spare me the petty insults and assumptions--I spent 20 years in the armed forces). I'm pointing out observations I've gathered from reading other posts. The statement is neither negative nor positive.

The Alliance of Life vs. The Axis of Death

How mankind’s latest challenge is going to turn out we don't know yet, that it is going to be a long war is already clear. It reminds me of the Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times". Which of us thought it would be us living those interesting times. It was only recently that some bozo was declaring the end of history, yea right! And let’s get rid of the patent office as well.

What follows is an idea that I have been posting everywhere. I believe this is the campaign the Allies of Life should chose to fight next, in what many are now calling World War IV.

It is said that Captains should study Tactics, and Generals should study Logistics.

Most of the Terrorists are being paid to fight, if this pay, training, and supply was interdicted, many Terrorists would have to go find work. At the present time, Iran is the largest funding source in the world for Terrorists, contributing as much as $1 billion in money, arms, and training every year.

I believe the following would significantly improve our strategic position in the War on Terror.

We should destroy the Iranian oil industry. By Bombing all oil transportation facilities, pipelines, storage tanks, tanker trucks, rolling stock, refinery’s etc… we can cripple the funding of numerous terrorist organizations, Hezbollah, Hama’s, Sadr’s militia, Syria, as well as make it more difficult for Iran to buy missiles and such from North Korea, China, and Russia.
It would remove Iran’s threat that if we attack they will shut off the oil. Making the threat ridiculous and demonstrating that they are a single product state and without oil, and no other product that the world wants, they are nothing. Additionally, by declaring that we will destroy any reconstituting oil industry as long as the Mullacracy remains in charge, we can focus the Iranian’s blame for the situation, on the Theocracy and their support of Terrorism.
This will also bring home to all the other oil producing countries like Venezuela, Libya, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, etc… that they are very vulnerable to the same tactic, and they better start to cooperate, or else.
In addition, this will gain us time for the Iraqi’s to stand on their own, and free up troops we would need if we have to go into Iran, North Korea or somewhere else. (At the moment I don't think we could, or should put boots on the ground in Iran)
Sure the price of gas will rise, but this will also demonstrate to the world that the USA is not in Iraq for the Oil, and the onus can be shifted on to the Democrats for not allowing more domestic production.
“It’s not the control of the spice but the power to destroy the spice that is the real power. [From Dune]”

It has recently been said that the nuclear production facilities in Iran are so deep underground that we can’t reach them with conventional weapons. Perhaps so, but maybe we can starve those facilities of funds. Nuclear weapons are terribly expensive to build, and if Iran now needs all its money to repair vital life supporting infrastructure, it may have to slow or stop its attempt to build an atomic bomb.
Finally, Iran is a state sponsor of Terrorists, it must be punished, and it must be seen to be punished. Iran’s continued sponsorship of terror is a slap in America’s and President Bush’s face, and it must be answered.

The following was written in response to an objection I received about having to pay more for fuel if this strategy was followed.

I think you are overly concerned about the economic considerations, and not concerned enough about the need to prosecute the War on Terror to the utmost.
1. The US has a full Strategic Petroleum Reserve of 700 million Barrels, and we aren't the only nation with an SPR. What good is it if you never use it? The average price paid on that 700 million barrels was $27, so the nation would actually make a profit selling it now.
2. The only reason the US isn't energy independent now is because of political factors. We have 2 Trillion Barrels of oil trapped in oil shale (see www.oiltechinc.com). A technique now exists to turn any organic matter into fuel (see www.powerenergy.com). The US would and should be using much more nuclear power, (if it wasn't for the Ecofreaks we would be now). There are also many areas in the US that are now off limits to drilling. All it takes is the political will to develop all of these. Higher fuel prices will provide that political pressure.
3. Iran is using diplomatic processes, just like the Nazi's before them. So talking to them is a waste of our time, and just gives them time to develop nukes.
4. Iran subsidizes gas at $.10 a gallon, so by destroying the Iranian oil industry not only do we instantly remove 20% of their GDP. We put them all on foot, and in the dark.
5. The mullahs want to take their world back to the 7th century, we should assist them. By going medieval on Iran, we would serve notice on every Authoritarian regime whose only support is oil, that their days are numbered.
6. My recommended solution for American energy independence: a combination of tax breaks, loan guarantees (all energy development is capital intensive), and the government purchase of the patents held by Oil-Tech, and Power Energy, and making them open source.

The following further expands on the idea.

Iran exports 2.5 million barrels of oil a day, Iranian as well as the rest of the Persian Gulf oil producers, produce what is called heavy sour crude which typically sells for ~20% less than the benchmark sweet light crude quoted on the spot markets. So, with that understanding we can roughly calculate the gross income Iran’s economy generates from oil exports. At a price of $75 Barrel Iran will get 80% of that price for its low grade crude, or $60. $60 x $2.5 million barrels x 365 days = $54.75 billion. Now from the CIA world fact book we can see that Iran has a GNP of $564 billion. So by destroying Iran’s oil industry their GDP is cut by 10% just from the lost exports. But, the damage is much deeper than that, Iran subsidizes gasoline at $.10 a gallon and Iran consumes 1.425 million barrels of oil a day. With the oil industry destroyed the cars, trucks, trains, and power plants no longer run. That means no machinery, no electricity, and no modern economy. I can’t estimate what Iran’s GDP would decline to, but even the poorest nation on earth still has running cars and electricity. I think much of the population would either revolt or start walking for the boarders. They couldn’t import oil because we would destroy tankers, pipelines, and rolling stock. They couldn’t attack us in Iraq either, because with out gas they can’t logistically supply an attacking army. We on the other hand could perform a ground attack anywhere and they would be incapable of maneuvering in response. Not that I think we should do a ground attack, I don’t, but we would be well positioned if we needed to (airborne assaults on nuclear facilities).

"Will the U.S. be willing to take unilateral action of this magnitude? At this stage, I don’t believe that the EU will be supporting it. Nor will China or Russia."

You are right of course; the US will have to do this alone. We are the only ones with the Air Forces necessary to accomplish it. All it will take is the President ordering it done, the bombing will take less than 30 days and cost far less than the $50 billion it is going to cost the Iranians in direct loss of export dollars.

"The U.S. would need to ensure that there are contingency plans, prior to any action, in terms of the impact that such action would have on the price of oil and public opinion in the U.S., etc. Also, how long would it take to devise and implement such contingency plans?"

The US has a strategic petroleum reserve that is full (700 million barrels) and while we are using that we can do a crash program of developing oil shale, alcohol, and domestic drilling off shore and in Alaska where politics has prevented development before. As far as public opinion goes, much of Bush's loss of political support is due to his failure to prosecute the War on Terror to the utmost. Americans believe that if you have to go to war you must fight with everything you've got and get it over as soon as possible. Bush has not been doing this, he knows Iran, and Syria are both supporting terrorists and has done nothing. So if Bush just went to war with Iran and Syria his support will most likely rebound back up above 50%.

"I think the U.S. is and will be very capable of destroying major oil fields, pipelines, tankers, etc. as required. But I also think the U.S. will need to have a next step(s) after air strikes. These next steps include, for example, ensuring damage control within Iran, law and order issues within Iran, minimizing potential terrorist attacks that these air strikes will potentially lead to, and ensuring that there will be an interim government to take over from the mullahs immediately after they are toppled and so on… IMO, these must be planned out in detail before any military action. Bearing in mind that what happens in Iran will most definitely have a significant impact on the region and the world."

I believe that the mullacracy will take awhile to collapse. So at the same time America starts the war it announces that a New Iranian Army will be trained, Paid, and equipped in Iraq to take over Iran as soon as it is ready and Iranians are encouraged to apply. If we did this US Army forces may never be needed in Iran, or if they are just for a few Thunder Runs to topple the Mullahs, with the New Iranian Army mopping up and taking over. Done this way we could write the Iranian constitution and have the new army swear to it before they are allowed to join, this would make starting a new government much quicker.

"Lastly, will the current U.S. Administration be willing to embark on such major initiative as per your proposal before November or even whilst the current administration is in office?"

This I don't know, but I think it is at least possible. Bush has stepped so far away from the Bush Doctrine, by that I mean he still talks the talk, but no longer walks the walk. Some have said that he is just giving the EU and Iran enough rope to hang themselves, if so Iran's announcement that economic incentives wouldn't stop them from enriching Uranium may have been the sound of the trap door dropping. We will see in the days ahead.

It means we had more soldiers in Saudi Arabia in Gulf War 1 than we have in the entire Army today.

Now that is a scary, statistic. Downright terrifying actually.

The cutbacks started under Bush 41, but they were supposed to stop after a few years, instead they've continued, right on through the Clinton regime, and continue today. Oh the Army and Marines are holding steady, more or less, but the Navy and Air Force are being cut back. The Army is really undergoing cuts in the "tail", which sounds good, until you realize that the "tail" ultimately supports the "teeth". Little things like posts not being able to pay their utility bills. Offices no longer having cleaning services, meaning high paid engineers, logisticians and analysts do the work of low wage cleaning ladies. (legal Korean immigrants in the case I'm intimately familiar with) Latrines only being cleaned and replenished once a week, whether they need it or not (Believe Me, they need it!). Little things. Training being put off for lack of funds to send the trainees. Equipment not being tested for lack of soldiers and equipment to conduct the tests. Lots of little things.

Nuclear weapons are terribly expensive to build,

Not really. Or rather, compared to what?. You don't need to use centrifuges to separate large amounts of weapons grade uranium, rather you can make reactor grade, which is much easier, and then use the reactor to "make" plutonium. Plutonium, being chemically different from uranium, is *relatively* easy to separate from the remaining Uranium.

So you have to build a nuclear power plant, and processing facilities for the extraction of Plutonium which is so deadly even tiny amounts can kill you, the Plutonium then must be formed into the proper shape with machine tools. And all of this requires highly trained people to do and they don't come cheap. So how expensive is a nuclear power plant? And if the Iranian economy is no more, since without their oil wealth Iran has no economy, how are they even going to pay their bloated government.