A Change of Heart, Part II
The bottom line is this. If the US withdraws from Iraq, the rest of the world is to be put on notice, the message being the following:
"We will no longer interfere in any foreign affairs, so there should be no reason to fuck with us. If one attack occurs on US soil, and we get even a whiff of the nationality of the perpetrators, the response will be swift and final. Your nation will be a smoking hole in the ground that will glow for a thousand years. Govern yourselves accordingly, and sleep tight."
As promised, here is Part II (better late than never.) In Part I we discussed what is wrong with the situation in Iraq, namely the completely lop-sided Rules of Engagement (ROE) that are imposed on our men. I should have also touched on the fact that, despite the US having the mightiest air power on the planet (including, but certainly not limited to, the Air Force), air power has been seriously lacking in its presence. Why send guys door-to-door, unnecessarily risking their lives, when a simple air strike could do it cheaper and more effectively?
Take, for instance, the August, 2004 battle in Najaf between coalition forces (primarily US Marines) and the al Mahdi militia of radical Shia cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, which was holed-up in the Imam Ali Mosque, one of the holiest places for muslims (Note: It seems that every out-house commode is "one of the holiest places" for the goat fornicators in the religion of piss; "Salam alechem," "Aloha snack bar," or whatever the fuck they say). These rag-heads, so quick to condemn any assault on one of their "holy places," have no problem using one as a fortress and armory, which is exactly what they were doing with this mosque in Najaf, and not wanting to offend the sensibilities of muslims, we jerked around in a traditional gun battle with these piss-ants. A Hellfire missile or two from an AH-1W Cobra helicopter would have reduced it - and everything in it - to rubble in a matter of seconds and spared the lives of any of our boys in the process. So it would have pissed-off the muzzies? I would hope so. Drive them insane with bloodlust which would have made them act emotionally and fly off the handle, making it easier to kill more of them. And you bleeding hearts spare me the civilian casualty crap. We didn't give a rat's ass (nor should we have) about bombing Berlin, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki. That's war, folks, and it is exactly what Chesty Puller would have done.
Another point I should have made was that the combined Special Ops guys should have assassinated every known or suspected radical shit-stirrer in Iraq, including al-Sadr, who now has a seat at the table of the current "government" in Iraq. The bottom line is that we have been our own worst enemy in Iraq through mis-management and piss-poor, negligent strategic planning. The attitude that should have been taken is exemplified in this quote from legendary US Army General George Patton: "A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week."
Now, what to do? As I stated in Part I, the Iraqis, like the Vietnamese prior, would rather live than live free, and I am tired of our men and women dying for their supposed freedom. If the majority of Iraqis would rather be "safe" and not put themselves at risk, fuck 'em. It would seem that the only group of Iraqis that seem to give a shit are the Kurds, and if we are going to go out on a limb for any Iraqis, it would have to be them for a few reasons. First, the US let them down severely after Gulf War I and they were subsequently slaughtered in chem attacks by Saddam to the tune of roughly 100,000 people. Second, despite that, to this day the Kurds stand relatively firm with the US (certainly with more resolve than their Shia and Sunni counterparts to the south). There's some loyalty that needs to be rewarded there. Third, since most of the oil is in the Kurdish north, it should be a no-brainer, in conjunction with the above-mentioned reasons, as to who we should support. So, if we are resolved to "stay the course," let's modify the plan: Pull back to Kurdistan and set-up a perimeter. Pump our money and efforts into nation building there, and help them get as much oil out of the ground as possible; and fuck the rest of them to the south. Let 'em kill each other, and if they fuck with the Kurds, nuke the Shia and the Sunni bastards back to the stone age (wait - that's where they are already; silly me).
OK, that's one option. Option number two amounts to a return to an isolationist policy that was more pronounced prior to US engagement into WWI and II. I again refer to the Farewell Address given to the American people by our first President, George Washington. If you read Part I of this series and did not read the farewell address, I urge you to do so now. It is a bit long-winded using some archaic language, but it is really worth the read.
Why isolationism? I can hear the protestations now: In this complex, global economy, it is absurd, impractical, blah, blah, blah. Bullshit. What has this global interdependence gotten us? The US is the largest single nation donor of foreign aid, and most of the rest of the world still hates us as a nation. Oh, they gladly cash the checks, but then bitch and whine about imperialism and global domination. And never mind when we engage in military operations; nobody likes that at all. Basically, it's a catch 22 - damned if we do, damned if we don't. So I propose the following plan.
The US will cease all military operations around the globe - Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, all of them. All foreign bases - Germany, Japan, So. Korea, all of them - will be closed and the troops stationed in those places brought home. Where to put them? New bases in the US will be built and existing ones expanded with the money saved in closing these foreign ventures, and a good portion of them to be built/expanded along the southern border with Mexico where 50,000 troops minimum - with orders to shoot to kill anybody crossing illegally - would be stationed to patrol the border with that shithole. I guarantee the flow of third world indentured slaves from Mexico (and the drug trade from the cartels) would dry-up within weeks. After a few thousand are shot trying to call our bluff, their bodies left to rot in the dessert as a reminder to those who think we're still bullshitting, it will stop.
The US will cease all foreign aid. This includes US withdrawal of funding and membership from the UN and expulsion of that ridiculous organization from our shores. Since what we do is never enough, it seems, you are all on your own. No more 15 billion dollar checks for AIDS relief for Africa; no more propping-up tin-pot dictators who are friendly to US business interests. US-based businesses will no longer be able to call on favors from their pals in DC for military intervention to protect their foreign interests (think Guatemala and the United Fruit Co., 1920's-50's). If they have a problem, they can hire private armies to do their bidding. No more bribing despots not to develop nuclear weapons by promising them food aid (think the Clinton and Bush administrations' dealings with No. Korea). All of it is to be stopped. Nada. Zilch. Nothing. We will, however, offer free trade agreements (like we have with Australia) to our traditional NATO allies and anybody else on a case-by-case basis who wants to get on-board with no strings attached except for one: No bitching and whinging. The US will not tell you what to do, and you do the same.
I can hear the rumblings now. "But how will this work given our dependence on foreign oil? Surely the Saudis will not like our new policies." Fuck 'em. Let 'em sell to the EU and the Chinese. Being that the US gets roughly the same amount of oil from Canada (about 19% of imported oil comes from them) as it does from Saudi, this shouldn't be a problem for a few reasons.
First, since Venezuela's Marxist fuck-boy, Hugo Chavez, nationalized all the oil fields and refineries (including those of Citgo and Exxon-Mobil) last month and threw them all out (the oil companies should have blown-up all the rigs on their way out, since it was their $$$$ that built them), we owe nobody anything. Second, if Mexico gets pissy about our new policies regarding their illegal immigrants, we can easily annex that nation in about 48 hours and start pumping the black stuff like Guinness from a tap - they have a lot of it (which is, along with NAFTA, one of the main reasons the US government puts-up with the flow of illegals from Mexico in the first place). Or the US can offer Mexico the following proposal. I'll use the conservative figure of 12 million illegals in the US currently, and suggest that Mexico give us 1 barrel of oil per day per illegal immigrant (idea credit: Michael Savage). Do the math. Third, I propose an indefinite suspension on US EPA prohibition of drilling for oil in the ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Reserve) via an Executive Order. With angle drilling technology, the drill rigs could be based in Alaska, minimizing contact with the penguins, caribou, and polar bears. Besides, despite the dire predictions of the tree-hugger types regarding the existing Alaska pipeline, they were proved wrong. The caribou population thrived near the pipeline as they sought the warmth, and began to breed at a greater rate. Oh, and a certain portion of those troops previously stationed on foreign soil would guard this operation against any foreign or domestic would-be saboteurs/enviro-nazi whackos. Courts may interpret the law, but the president controls the military. Laws are only effective when backed by men with guns, and if those men with guns are backing opposition to activist judicial efforts, I know what wins every time; and it ain't words on paper.
Of course, this would require a President with balls acting on a mandate of the people, so it is likely to never happen. Dysfunctional intellectual leftwits/halfwits will say this vision is barbaric at worst, simplistic at best, but often (not always) the simple is the logical, most direct and effective solution no matter how complex the problem. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that a solution needs to be more complex than it has to be, if only to satisfy our egos so we can say how smart we are.
The bottom line is this. If the US withdraws from Iraq, the rest of the world is to be put on notice, the message being the following:
"We will no longer interfere in any foreign affairs, so there should be no reason to fuck with us. If one attack occurs on US soil, and we get even a whiff of the nationality of the perpetrators, the response will be swift and final. Your nation will be a smoking hole in the ground that will glow for a thousand years. Govern yourselves accordingly, and sleep tight."
"We will no longer interfere in any foreign affairs, so there should be no reason to fuck with us. If one attack occurs on US soil, and we get even a whiff of the nationality of the perpetrators, the response will be swift and final. Your nation will be a smoking hole in the ground that will glow for a thousand years. Govern yourselves accordingly, and sleep tight."
As promised, here is Part II (better late than never.) In Part I we discussed what is wrong with the situation in Iraq, namely the completely lop-sided Rules of Engagement (ROE) that are imposed on our men. I should have also touched on the fact that, despite the US having the mightiest air power on the planet (including, but certainly not limited to, the Air Force), air power has been seriously lacking in its presence. Why send guys door-to-door, unnecessarily risking their lives, when a simple air strike could do it cheaper and more effectively?
Take, for instance, the August, 2004 battle in Najaf between coalition forces (primarily US Marines) and the al Mahdi militia of radical Shia cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, which was holed-up in the Imam Ali Mosque, one of the holiest places for muslims (Note: It seems that every out-house commode is "one of the holiest places" for the goat fornicators in the religion of piss; "Salam alechem," "Aloha snack bar," or whatever the fuck they say). These rag-heads, so quick to condemn any assault on one of their "holy places," have no problem using one as a fortress and armory, which is exactly what they were doing with this mosque in Najaf, and not wanting to offend the sensibilities of muslims, we jerked around in a traditional gun battle with these piss-ants. A Hellfire missile or two from an AH-1W Cobra helicopter would have reduced it - and everything in it - to rubble in a matter of seconds and spared the lives of any of our boys in the process. So it would have pissed-off the muzzies? I would hope so. Drive them insane with bloodlust which would have made them act emotionally and fly off the handle, making it easier to kill more of them. And you bleeding hearts spare me the civilian casualty crap. We didn't give a rat's ass (nor should we have) about bombing Berlin, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki. That's war, folks, and it is exactly what Chesty Puller would have done.
Another point I should have made was that the combined Special Ops guys should have assassinated every known or suspected radical shit-stirrer in Iraq, including al-Sadr, who now has a seat at the table of the current "government" in Iraq. The bottom line is that we have been our own worst enemy in Iraq through mis-management and piss-poor, negligent strategic planning. The attitude that should have been taken is exemplified in this quote from legendary US Army General George Patton: "A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week."
Now, what to do? As I stated in Part I, the Iraqis, like the Vietnamese prior, would rather live than live free, and I am tired of our men and women dying for their supposed freedom. If the majority of Iraqis would rather be "safe" and not put themselves at risk, fuck 'em. It would seem that the only group of Iraqis that seem to give a shit are the Kurds, and if we are going to go out on a limb for any Iraqis, it would have to be them for a few reasons. First, the US let them down severely after Gulf War I and they were subsequently slaughtered in chem attacks by Saddam to the tune of roughly 100,000 people. Second, despite that, to this day the Kurds stand relatively firm with the US (certainly with more resolve than their Shia and Sunni counterparts to the south). There's some loyalty that needs to be rewarded there. Third, since most of the oil is in the Kurdish north, it should be a no-brainer, in conjunction with the above-mentioned reasons, as to who we should support. So, if we are resolved to "stay the course," let's modify the plan: Pull back to Kurdistan and set-up a perimeter. Pump our money and efforts into nation building there, and help them get as much oil out of the ground as possible; and fuck the rest of them to the south. Let 'em kill each other, and if they fuck with the Kurds, nuke the Shia and the Sunni bastards back to the stone age (wait - that's where they are already; silly me).
OK, that's one option. Option number two amounts to a return to an isolationist policy that was more pronounced prior to US engagement into WWI and II. I again refer to the Farewell Address given to the American people by our first President, George Washington. If you read Part I of this series and did not read the farewell address, I urge you to do so now. It is a bit long-winded using some archaic language, but it is really worth the read.
Why isolationism? I can hear the protestations now: In this complex, global economy, it is absurd, impractical, blah, blah, blah. Bullshit. What has this global interdependence gotten us? The US is the largest single nation donor of foreign aid, and most of the rest of the world still hates us as a nation. Oh, they gladly cash the checks, but then bitch and whine about imperialism and global domination. And never mind when we engage in military operations; nobody likes that at all. Basically, it's a catch 22 - damned if we do, damned if we don't. So I propose the following plan.
The US will cease all military operations around the globe - Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, all of them. All foreign bases - Germany, Japan, So. Korea, all of them - will be closed and the troops stationed in those places brought home. Where to put them? New bases in the US will be built and existing ones expanded with the money saved in closing these foreign ventures, and a good portion of them to be built/expanded along the southern border with Mexico where 50,000 troops minimum - with orders to shoot to kill anybody crossing illegally - would be stationed to patrol the border with that shithole. I guarantee the flow of third world indentured slaves from Mexico (and the drug trade from the cartels) would dry-up within weeks. After a few thousand are shot trying to call our bluff, their bodies left to rot in the dessert as a reminder to those who think we're still bullshitting, it will stop.
The US will cease all foreign aid. This includes US withdrawal of funding and membership from the UN and expulsion of that ridiculous organization from our shores. Since what we do is never enough, it seems, you are all on your own. No more 15 billion dollar checks for AIDS relief for Africa; no more propping-up tin-pot dictators who are friendly to US business interests. US-based businesses will no longer be able to call on favors from their pals in DC for military intervention to protect their foreign interests (think Guatemala and the United Fruit Co., 1920's-50's). If they have a problem, they can hire private armies to do their bidding. No more bribing despots not to develop nuclear weapons by promising them food aid (think the Clinton and Bush administrations' dealings with No. Korea). All of it is to be stopped. Nada. Zilch. Nothing. We will, however, offer free trade agreements (like we have with Australia) to our traditional NATO allies and anybody else on a case-by-case basis who wants to get on-board with no strings attached except for one: No bitching and whinging. The US will not tell you what to do, and you do the same.
I can hear the rumblings now. "But how will this work given our dependence on foreign oil? Surely the Saudis will not like our new policies." Fuck 'em. Let 'em sell to the EU and the Chinese. Being that the US gets roughly the same amount of oil from Canada (about 19% of imported oil comes from them) as it does from Saudi, this shouldn't be a problem for a few reasons.
First, since Venezuela's Marxist fuck-boy, Hugo Chavez, nationalized all the oil fields and refineries (including those of Citgo and Exxon-Mobil) last month and threw them all out (the oil companies should have blown-up all the rigs on their way out, since it was their $$$$ that built them), we owe nobody anything. Second, if Mexico gets pissy about our new policies regarding their illegal immigrants, we can easily annex that nation in about 48 hours and start pumping the black stuff like Guinness from a tap - they have a lot of it (which is, along with NAFTA, one of the main reasons the US government puts-up with the flow of illegals from Mexico in the first place). Or the US can offer Mexico the following proposal. I'll use the conservative figure of 12 million illegals in the US currently, and suggest that Mexico give us 1 barrel of oil per day per illegal immigrant (idea credit: Michael Savage). Do the math. Third, I propose an indefinite suspension on US EPA prohibition of drilling for oil in the ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Reserve) via an Executive Order. With angle drilling technology, the drill rigs could be based in Alaska, minimizing contact with the penguins, caribou, and polar bears. Besides, despite the dire predictions of the tree-hugger types regarding the existing Alaska pipeline, they were proved wrong. The caribou population thrived near the pipeline as they sought the warmth, and began to breed at a greater rate. Oh, and a certain portion of those troops previously stationed on foreign soil would guard this operation against any foreign or domestic would-be saboteurs/enviro-nazi whackos. Courts may interpret the law, but the president controls the military. Laws are only effective when backed by men with guns, and if those men with guns are backing opposition to activist judicial efforts, I know what wins every time; and it ain't words on paper.
Of course, this would require a President with balls acting on a mandate of the people, so it is likely to never happen. Dysfunctional intellectual leftwits/halfwits will say this vision is barbaric at worst, simplistic at best, but often (not always) the simple is the logical, most direct and effective solution no matter how complex the problem. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that a solution needs to be more complex than it has to be, if only to satisfy our egos so we can say how smart we are.
The bottom line is this. If the US withdraws from Iraq, the rest of the world is to be put on notice, the message being the following:
"We will no longer interfere in any foreign affairs, so there should be no reason to fuck with us. If one attack occurs on US soil, and we get even a whiff of the nationality of the perpetrators, the response will be swift and final. Your nation will be a smoking hole in the ground that will glow for a thousand years. Govern yourselves accordingly, and sleep tight."
posted by Joe Ramen at 3:01 PM
10 Comments:
Joe, I wouldn't call this a change of heart but rather, Doing It Right. What you write about the war, ROE, use of Air Power, etc is what I've believed in since this thing started.
My hope back in 2000 was that Bush would bring back some Isolationism but, alas, he's just like his daddy, a one-worlder.
One thing though, no need to build new bases, we have plenty of bases around the country sitting around idle thanks to the BRAC. Millions in construction were dumped into Air Force bases prior to the BRAC closing them.
The Kurds are hated by the rest of the Arabs and Muslims. I think the reason is because they're an industrious people who don't wait around for everyone to get it done for them. Then make the rest of them look bad. I saw a news report on TV that their cities in Northern Iraq are thriving and the people are prospering.
Excellent post Joe!
The only area I disagree on is oil. We need to find another source of energy besides oil, so that it ultimately becomes worthless. I've read that we have enough coal to last us 500 years.
That way, these Arab rogue states and Mexico cannot dictate our foreign policy in the M.E. or our stance on illegal immigration.
After all, if we are to exit Iraq, I don't see the point of annexing Mexico just for their oil. Let them eat their oil!
Excellent!
I remember commenting on BMEWS a year or so ago
about isolationism of sorts---and got booed!!
My premise was that since WE can get (attack) anywhere in the world pretty damn fast, why have bases all over the world!
We have enough problems internally, to keep us busy for a long time--the least of which is to SECURE our borders.
And I need not comment on my feeling about BUSH.
OCM, we know how much of a Bush fan you are.
Lisa, another source of energy for oil sounds great but I don't think it's going to happen. We can use alternate sources to heat our houses, and produce electricity but finding an alternate to oil for automobiles won't happen in our lifetimes. Without the internal combustion engine, we would grind to a halt real fast. So far, petroleum is the only thing that can efficiently operate these engines.
OIL?
I often wonder how many "inventions" have been bought and locked up tight by the oil companies?
OCM, probably quite a few, and I can't blame them for it. I think I know where you may be going with this, but ask the question in a different way: "I wonder how many inventions have been sold by their inventors to the oil companies? If there is a moral premise to the question, why were these inventions sold if the inventor cared so much about the environment or whatever?
The point I am trying to make is that, while I am no apologist for oil companies, I am a staunch defender of free-market capitalism because there is no other system out there that permits free-will like capitalism does. Something is worth what somebody is willing to pay for it. If somebody, say a potential seller like our hypothetical inventor above, were a person of true character and conviction, no amount of money in the world could convince him to sell under any conditions. Now, if somebody is holding a gun to your head, saying, "Sell or die," that is a different story, and it is no longer "free market" laissez faire capitalism, but, rather, something more akin to "The Godfather" or what happens in third world despot nations that operate under some type of socialist or Marxist system. Hugo Chavez is a good example of that.
I saw a interview with a military honcho in Iraq
and he said if WE pull out now it will create quite a MESS in Iraq.
WTF does he think it is now??
Let Iraq deal with the MESS and save our troops!
I saw this AM (071407) that Iraq's Prime Minister said "they were ready".....ok fine---GO FOR IT without US!
Since most Iraqi's want us to leave anyway, what are we waiting for? Unless the US Govt has an ulterior motive for wanting to stay there?
nadnecoudgere [url=http://wiki.openqa.org/display/~buy-flomax-without-no-prescription-online]Buy Flomax without no prescription online[/url] [url=https://launchpad.net/~codeine-tuco]Buy Codeine no prescription[/url]
Post a Comment
<< Home