Jim Stillman
Randy InmanTerror, Iraq and the Future; How Do We Fight and Win? – Part II
July 28th 2007 12:21
In my previous post on this site, I suggested that the West was in a monumental struggle against fanatical Islamic terrorists who are determined to reject our values, our society, our freedoms, our diversity – in short, everything we hold dear.
Moreover, unlike historical past threats, as Germany’s desire to take over Europe, Great Britain and, perhaps, eventually the rest of the freedom-loving world, in the 1930’s, this time the threat is brought to our homes and shores. Terrorist attacks have been successful in the United States, Great Britain and Indonesia, seemingly at will, and thwarted at the last moment in Canada and elsewhere.
We have struggled against these threats in a totally ineffective manner. The United States, when confronted by the attack on 9/11, perpetrated by followers of al Qaeda then centered and protected in Afghanistan, by individuals were nationals of Saudi Arabia, a country known by a friendly U.S. Administration to be a supporter of schools of Wahhabism known to encourage fanaticism and terror, took a half-hearted effort against Afghanistan in the Taliban and then went full bore into Iraq.
I can’t imagine what motivated the neo-conservatives and President Bush to decide that invading Iraq was a suitable response to terrorism. That country constituted no immediate (or perhaps even remote) threat to the United States. To some extent, the ever-shifting rationales are irrelevant, but remain illustrative – if for no other reason than to prevent travelling this road again.
The president has, indeed, shifted and restated his rationale for invading Iraq. Originally, we commenced war against the Iraqi regime in retaliation for the attacks on the United States in September, 2001. The assertion was made (and still is made by the Vice-President) that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were confederates of Saddam Hussein, in spite of the history of hostility between the leader of Iraq and bin Laden. The latter had been an enemy of Saddam's regime due to its secular aspects and, in addition, to the close ties that Hussein had had with Bush (41).
Next, aggression was justified by the "weapons of mass destruction" held by the Iraqi dictator. This expression came to be such a cliché that the words themselves lost meaning; they became a bumper-sticker slogan. Among these weapons, which have yet to be discovered, were said to be vast depositories of nerve gas agents. From where did Hussein originally acquire these weapons, including nerve gas and other toxins? In the Reagan and first Bush presidencies, the United States and its allies willingly armed Saddam; he was "our guy" because he was at war with Iran. (Iran, by the way, under the Shaw was our friend until that despotic leader was overthrown. Oh what a web we weave...)
Next rationale for invasion and aggressive war against a country that posed no immediate threat to the United States was the issue of "yellow cake" from Niger from which enriched uranium could be extracted and, thereafter be made into a nuclear weapon. This, too, has been disclosed to have been an, "Oops, sorry".
Finally, the stated justification was that Saddam was an evil person who had committed atrocities against his own countrymen and, therefore, needed to be removed. None of this is untrue, but the United States has a long history of doing business and maintaining friendly, if cool, relations with some very bad people: Augusto Pinochet in Chile, Manuel Noriega in Panama, Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia and the Saudi ruling family, the country that spawned bin Laden, the home land of the terrorists who destroyed the World Twin Towers, who finance Islamic fanatics and, oh yes, the rulers who control a whole bunch of oil.
Forget how or why we became embroiled in Iraq. There are two questions that must be addressed and answered.
First, what to do immediately in Iraq, a country which we threw into chaos, a country in which we destroyed the infrastructure, a country which has become a breeding ground for those who would destroy us? The answer is to get out! As I have stated before, we must choose the lesser of the two unfortunate results. That would be to leave Iraq to its own fate. If the present Iraqi government cannot prevent civil war and create a peaceful society that has to be its problem. The only unity in Iraq now is the near-universal hatred of America!
The second question to be addressed is how may world-wide terrorism be fought?
The answer to that question is that we must face up to the fact that we are in a war, that every American must play a role in a mobilization with sacrifice, that our leaders lead by being honest and by refusing to pretend that this all can be done without effort or pain.
Right now we have placed the burden of fighting our enemies on the poor, and the children of the less affluent. The President and his administration have, just as Lyndon Johnson attempted in Vietnam, tried to fight the war “on the cheap” trying to provide “guns and butter”.
The last two major conflicts in which the United States was a combatant ended (or will end) poorly because shared and universal sacrifice was not demanded (or even suggested) by the government.
I was six years old when the United States was attacked by Japan on December 7th, 1941. On the following day, pursuant to a treaty between Germany and Japan, the former declared war against this country. World War II differed from the Vietnam conflict or the two wars in Iraq in that our country was attacked and clearly forced into war. It was not an elective conflict or a preemptive war; we were attacked, our citizens were killed by a foreign nation and it was absolutely clear to the American public that going to war was necessary. Those people who, on December 6th were isolationist or had doubts about becoming involved in what was, to many, a European conflict or a south-east Asian matter, rushed to enlist in the armed services and in other ways resolved to do his or her part in safeguarding our freedoms.
The president spoke often of the need for sacrifice by everyone. With able-bodied men entering the service, jobs that were previously performed by men were taken by women. Rosie the Riveter was born. Women were enlisting in the Women's Arms Corp (WAC), Women Accepted for Voluntary Emergency Service (WAVES) and a greatly expanded Nurse Corp.
In the United States during World War I, the use of an allotment system for food and supplies was mostly voluntary. However, World War II was another matter. The federal government set up the system of rationing used to assure American soldiers and citizens both received a fair distribution of goods. Rubber, which was first conserved voluntarily, became scarce due to Japan's successful invasion of Malaya and the Dutch East Indies. President Roosevelt instituted a "scrap drive." He asked the American people to turn in "old tires, old rubber raincoats, old garden hose, rubber shoes, bathing caps, gloves," etc. at local gas stations. The stations paid the public one cent per pound for the items and then were reimbursed by the government. This campaign instilled patriotism but did not forestall rationing. It was instituted early in 1942.
Gasoline was the next rationing target. May 14, 1942, a direct result of German U-boat attacks in the Atlantic Ocean, marked the day motorists in seventeen Eastern states had their gas usage restricted. It was expanded to the rest of the nation in December, 1942. Ration stamps were issued and pasted to an automobile windshield. A person's gasoline allotment was determined by the class of stamp displayed. Class of stamp was determined by the primary use of the car. There were four classes to begin. Class A received the least amount of gas because the car usage was deemed "nonessential"; Class B cars belonged to people who needed them for work (traveling salesman); Class C cars usually belonged to doctors and law enforcement persons; my father had a "B" sticker on the lower left corner of the windshield and a ration book with stamps to be exchanged for gasoline.
Food prices were monitored by the Office of Price Administration (OPA). About one third of civilian food items were rationed during a majority of the war. The OPA issued "ration books." These books were administered at the local level by volunteer rationing boards. Registration began in April of 1942. Each family had ration books for each member of the family. Meat, dairy products, nearly everything on sale had a price in money and another price in coupon points. In addition to these measures, people planted "Victory Gardens" to supplement fresh vegetables and to can or preserve for colder months. Those living in rural areas kept chickens both for eggs and meat. And lucky was the family in possession of a cow or goat!
Taxes were increased to meet the cost of war. And people accepted this as a shared sacrifice with the troops in the European and Pacific theaters of war. The president did not pretend that less than a complete and universal effort could succeed.
Compare this approach to that of President Johnson pursuing the Vietnam War in the 1960's and the similar approach of President Bush in Iraq.
When President Johnson made the war in Vietnam an American war in 1965, he worried about the impact of his policies on the home front. He could have rallied support for his decisions to bomb North Vietnam and assume the dominant ground combat role by telling the nation that it faced a crisis vital to its national security. However, he used the Vietnam War as the prototype for future limited wars that would have to be fought without arousing public passion. However, by underselling the war, the president presented an opening to critics who asked why he was expending so much human and material treasure in such a remote conflict.
Escalating by stealth in Vietnam, Johnson was able to have "guns and butter" without increasing taxes to pay for both projects. This irresponsible decision had a profound impact on the American economy. Budget deficits, a creeping inflation (that would be addressed by Johnson's successor) and a deterioration of the American economic standing followed. All because President Johnson was determined to minimize "his" war, and avoid calling upon the American people to sacrifice. The anti-war movement kept growing and, in the end, Johnson's ploy to be popular by not calling for national sacrifice did him no good.
As Thomas Friedman, writing in the New York Times, has stated, President Bush has made the same mistake. By catering to his coterie of affluent supporters and corporations by reducing taxes, he has taken the mutually exclusive paths of asserting that "victory" in Iraq or, at least, the creation of stability in the Middle East is of vital importance to the United States and risking popularity by suggesting that sacrifice by the Unites States need not be universal and can be made wholly by the men and women serving in the armed forces and their families. President Bush has stated that removing shoes at airports is sufficient sacrifice! He has asserted that fear of another attack is sufficient sacrifice!
We need to engage all Americans in the effort to bring stability to the Middle East. Each and every one of us. And that means taking some positive, and potentially, politically unpopular steps, now.
First, we need to announce that, as of a specific date, if the Iraqi government has not a firm hold on internal security and has not disarmed all of the militia groups (including those allied with the Prime Minister) we will leave. Period and end of story. What will happen? There will be a period of intra-Iraqi conflict that may take a decade or so to be resolved. There will be either a Kurd, Sunni, Shia federation or three different countries, but this will be the Iraqi's making the choice. The price of oil may jump to $80 a barrel or more, but, in the long run, that's not all together bad. It just might spur development of non-petroleum based fuels. There will be many Iraqis who will be in harm's way due to prior cooperation with the United States; we owe these people entry into our country since we have made certain that they cannot remain in theirs.
Next, stop all of the talk about reducing taxes. The Administration needs to be honest and explain to the country that more money is necessary. For what purpose? For one thing, to better equip our troops and increase the size of the armed forces. We have spread ourselves so thin, between Iraq, Afghanistan and Korea that we could not participate in humanitarian efforts to control genocide and violence, for example in Africa. One idea for an additional tax would be to impose a large tax on gasoline. If gasoline cost $5 or $6 per gallon, auto manufacturers would find a diminished market for SUVs and an increased demand for economical vehicles. Really, does one need an eight-passenger SUV, with off-road capabilities, to trek two miles to a supermarket?
A tax increase could provide funding for mass transit in major cities throughout the country. Trolleys, light rail, buses, all depending on specific local needs could be utilized.
What else would we use with additional tax revenues? Establish a coherent energy policy, develop alternative fuels, insist on fuel-efficient vehicles and develop them if the major automobile companies are so wed to petroleum products to participate. At this time, one of our "closest friends", or at least the Bushs' closest friends, is the Saudi family and government. The Saudis control much of the oil reserves and unimaginable wealth. How is this wealth utilized? To create and support Islamic schools teaching a particular and isolationist brand of Islamic thought: Wahhabism, which teaches that only followers of that sect will be accepted in Heaven and are superior to all others, Christian, Jew and, indeed, other Muslims. The Saudi family is the main funding source for radical Muslims, including those who were participants in the September 11th attack on the United States. If it were possible to eliminate the Saudi's reliance on oil revenue, then perhaps they could address the needs of their nation and others in the region, introduce secular and scientific education. The average person needs to be empowered and as long as the only issue for the royals is where to drill next, other needs will not be addressed.
Will the American people accept sacrifice? If it were explained clearly and without political jargon, I would hope so, But first the government must re-establish credibility, something that has been squandered, by partisan name-calling, lack of mutual respect between members of varying political thought. This establishment of trust may be the most difficult task of all.
In the third part of this post, I posit the way we can win the war on terrorism and, in so doing, lose everything.
Moreover, unlike historical past threats, as Germany’s desire to take over Europe, Great Britain and, perhaps, eventually the rest of the freedom-loving world, in the 1930’s, this time the threat is brought to our homes and shores. Terrorist attacks have been successful in the United States, Great Britain and Indonesia, seemingly at will, and thwarted at the last moment in Canada and elsewhere.
We have struggled against these threats in a totally ineffective manner. The United States, when confronted by the attack on 9/11, perpetrated by followers of al Qaeda then centered and protected in Afghanistan, by individuals were nationals of Saudi Arabia, a country known by a friendly U.S. Administration to be a supporter of schools of Wahhabism known to encourage fanaticism and terror, took a half-hearted effort against Afghanistan in the Taliban and then went full bore into Iraq.
I can’t imagine what motivated the neo-conservatives and President Bush to decide that invading Iraq was a suitable response to terrorism. That country constituted no immediate (or perhaps even remote) threat to the United States. To some extent, the ever-shifting rationales are irrelevant, but remain illustrative – if for no other reason than to prevent travelling this road again.
The president has, indeed, shifted and restated his rationale for invading Iraq. Originally, we commenced war against the Iraqi regime in retaliation for the attacks on the United States in September, 2001. The assertion was made (and still is made by the Vice-President) that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were confederates of Saddam Hussein, in spite of the history of hostility between the leader of Iraq and bin Laden. The latter had been an enemy of Saddam's regime due to its secular aspects and, in addition, to the close ties that Hussein had had with Bush (41).
Next, aggression was justified by the "weapons of mass destruction" held by the Iraqi dictator. This expression came to be such a cliché that the words themselves lost meaning; they became a bumper-sticker slogan. Among these weapons, which have yet to be discovered, were said to be vast depositories of nerve gas agents. From where did Hussein originally acquire these weapons, including nerve gas and other toxins? In the Reagan and first Bush presidencies, the United States and its allies willingly armed Saddam; he was "our guy" because he was at war with Iran. (Iran, by the way, under the Shaw was our friend until that despotic leader was overthrown. Oh what a web we weave...)
Next rationale for invasion and aggressive war against a country that posed no immediate threat to the United States was the issue of "yellow cake" from Niger from which enriched uranium could be extracted and, thereafter be made into a nuclear weapon. This, too, has been disclosed to have been an, "Oops, sorry".
Finally, the stated justification was that Saddam was an evil person who had committed atrocities against his own countrymen and, therefore, needed to be removed. None of this is untrue, but the United States has a long history of doing business and maintaining friendly, if cool, relations with some very bad people: Augusto Pinochet in Chile, Manuel Noriega in Panama, Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia and the Saudi ruling family, the country that spawned bin Laden, the home land of the terrorists who destroyed the World Twin Towers, who finance Islamic fanatics and, oh yes, the rulers who control a whole bunch of oil.
Forget how or why we became embroiled in Iraq. There are two questions that must be addressed and answered.
First, what to do immediately in Iraq, a country which we threw into chaos, a country in which we destroyed the infrastructure, a country which has become a breeding ground for those who would destroy us? The answer is to get out! As I have stated before, we must choose the lesser of the two unfortunate results. That would be to leave Iraq to its own fate. If the present Iraqi government cannot prevent civil war and create a peaceful society that has to be its problem. The only unity in Iraq now is the near-universal hatred of America!
The second question to be addressed is how may world-wide terrorism be fought?
The answer to that question is that we must face up to the fact that we are in a war, that every American must play a role in a mobilization with sacrifice, that our leaders lead by being honest and by refusing to pretend that this all can be done without effort or pain.
Right now we have placed the burden of fighting our enemies on the poor, and the children of the less affluent. The President and his administration have, just as Lyndon Johnson attempted in Vietnam, tried to fight the war “on the cheap” trying to provide “guns and butter”.
The last two major conflicts in which the United States was a combatant ended (or will end) poorly because shared and universal sacrifice was not demanded (or even suggested) by the government.
I was six years old when the United States was attacked by Japan on December 7th, 1941. On the following day, pursuant to a treaty between Germany and Japan, the former declared war against this country. World War II differed from the Vietnam conflict or the two wars in Iraq in that our country was attacked and clearly forced into war. It was not an elective conflict or a preemptive war; we were attacked, our citizens were killed by a foreign nation and it was absolutely clear to the American public that going to war was necessary. Those people who, on December 6th were isolationist or had doubts about becoming involved in what was, to many, a European conflict or a south-east Asian matter, rushed to enlist in the armed services and in other ways resolved to do his or her part in safeguarding our freedoms.
The president spoke often of the need for sacrifice by everyone. With able-bodied men entering the service, jobs that were previously performed by men were taken by women. Rosie the Riveter was born. Women were enlisting in the Women's Arms Corp (WAC), Women Accepted for Voluntary Emergency Service (WAVES) and a greatly expanded Nurse Corp.
In the United States during World War I, the use of an allotment system for food and supplies was mostly voluntary. However, World War II was another matter. The federal government set up the system of rationing used to assure American soldiers and citizens both received a fair distribution of goods. Rubber, which was first conserved voluntarily, became scarce due to Japan's successful invasion of Malaya and the Dutch East Indies. President Roosevelt instituted a "scrap drive." He asked the American people to turn in "old tires, old rubber raincoats, old garden hose, rubber shoes, bathing caps, gloves," etc. at local gas stations. The stations paid the public one cent per pound for the items and then were reimbursed by the government. This campaign instilled patriotism but did not forestall rationing. It was instituted early in 1942.
Gasoline was the next rationing target. May 14, 1942, a direct result of German U-boat attacks in the Atlantic Ocean, marked the day motorists in seventeen Eastern states had their gas usage restricted. It was expanded to the rest of the nation in December, 1942. Ration stamps were issued and pasted to an automobile windshield. A person's gasoline allotment was determined by the class of stamp displayed. Class of stamp was determined by the primary use of the car. There were four classes to begin. Class A received the least amount of gas because the car usage was deemed "nonessential"; Class B cars belonged to people who needed them for work (traveling salesman); Class C cars usually belonged to doctors and law enforcement persons; my father had a "B" sticker on the lower left corner of the windshield and a ration book with stamps to be exchanged for gasoline.
Food prices were monitored by the Office of Price Administration (OPA). About one third of civilian food items were rationed during a majority of the war. The OPA issued "ration books." These books were administered at the local level by volunteer rationing boards. Registration began in April of 1942. Each family had ration books for each member of the family. Meat, dairy products, nearly everything on sale had a price in money and another price in coupon points. In addition to these measures, people planted "Victory Gardens" to supplement fresh vegetables and to can or preserve for colder months. Those living in rural areas kept chickens both for eggs and meat. And lucky was the family in possession of a cow or goat!
Taxes were increased to meet the cost of war. And people accepted this as a shared sacrifice with the troops in the European and Pacific theaters of war. The president did not pretend that less than a complete and universal effort could succeed.
Compare this approach to that of President Johnson pursuing the Vietnam War in the 1960's and the similar approach of President Bush in Iraq.
When President Johnson made the war in Vietnam an American war in 1965, he worried about the impact of his policies on the home front. He could have rallied support for his decisions to bomb North Vietnam and assume the dominant ground combat role by telling the nation that it faced a crisis vital to its national security. However, he used the Vietnam War as the prototype for future limited wars that would have to be fought without arousing public passion. However, by underselling the war, the president presented an opening to critics who asked why he was expending so much human and material treasure in such a remote conflict.
Escalating by stealth in Vietnam, Johnson was able to have "guns and butter" without increasing taxes to pay for both projects. This irresponsible decision had a profound impact on the American economy. Budget deficits, a creeping inflation (that would be addressed by Johnson's successor) and a deterioration of the American economic standing followed. All because President Johnson was determined to minimize "his" war, and avoid calling upon the American people to sacrifice. The anti-war movement kept growing and, in the end, Johnson's ploy to be popular by not calling for national sacrifice did him no good.
As Thomas Friedman, writing in the New York Times, has stated, President Bush has made the same mistake. By catering to his coterie of affluent supporters and corporations by reducing taxes, he has taken the mutually exclusive paths of asserting that "victory" in Iraq or, at least, the creation of stability in the Middle East is of vital importance to the United States and risking popularity by suggesting that sacrifice by the Unites States need not be universal and can be made wholly by the men and women serving in the armed forces and their families. President Bush has stated that removing shoes at airports is sufficient sacrifice! He has asserted that fear of another attack is sufficient sacrifice!
We need to engage all Americans in the effort to bring stability to the Middle East. Each and every one of us. And that means taking some positive, and potentially, politically unpopular steps, now.
First, we need to announce that, as of a specific date, if the Iraqi government has not a firm hold on internal security and has not disarmed all of the militia groups (including those allied with the Prime Minister) we will leave. Period and end of story. What will happen? There will be a period of intra-Iraqi conflict that may take a decade or so to be resolved. There will be either a Kurd, Sunni, Shia federation or three different countries, but this will be the Iraqi's making the choice. The price of oil may jump to $80 a barrel or more, but, in the long run, that's not all together bad. It just might spur development of non-petroleum based fuels. There will be many Iraqis who will be in harm's way due to prior cooperation with the United States; we owe these people entry into our country since we have made certain that they cannot remain in theirs.
Next, stop all of the talk about reducing taxes. The Administration needs to be honest and explain to the country that more money is necessary. For what purpose? For one thing, to better equip our troops and increase the size of the armed forces. We have spread ourselves so thin, between Iraq, Afghanistan and Korea that we could not participate in humanitarian efforts to control genocide and violence, for example in Africa. One idea for an additional tax would be to impose a large tax on gasoline. If gasoline cost $5 or $6 per gallon, auto manufacturers would find a diminished market for SUVs and an increased demand for economical vehicles. Really, does one need an eight-passenger SUV, with off-road capabilities, to trek two miles to a supermarket?
A tax increase could provide funding for mass transit in major cities throughout the country. Trolleys, light rail, buses, all depending on specific local needs could be utilized.
What else would we use with additional tax revenues? Establish a coherent energy policy, develop alternative fuels, insist on fuel-efficient vehicles and develop them if the major automobile companies are so wed to petroleum products to participate. At this time, one of our "closest friends", or at least the Bushs' closest friends, is the Saudi family and government. The Saudis control much of the oil reserves and unimaginable wealth. How is this wealth utilized? To create and support Islamic schools teaching a particular and isolationist brand of Islamic thought: Wahhabism, which teaches that only followers of that sect will be accepted in Heaven and are superior to all others, Christian, Jew and, indeed, other Muslims. The Saudi family is the main funding source for radical Muslims, including those who were participants in the September 11th attack on the United States. If it were possible to eliminate the Saudi's reliance on oil revenue, then perhaps they could address the needs of their nation and others in the region, introduce secular and scientific education. The average person needs to be empowered and as long as the only issue for the royals is where to drill next, other needs will not be addressed.
Will the American people accept sacrifice? If it were explained clearly and without political jargon, I would hope so, But first the government must re-establish credibility, something that has been squandered, by partisan name-calling, lack of mutual respect between members of varying political thought. This establishment of trust may be the most difficult task of all.
In the third part of this post, I posit the way we can win the war on terrorism and, in so doing, lose everything.
| 29 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
