The Struggle for Iraq Continued – 4.28.2008

UPDATE: LINKS ADDED IN RED

I will break this post into four parts to address some thoughts that others left on my original post:

Jnb21:

With the massive accumulation of debt and the amount of lives claimed, do you believe the U.S. has the means to see this war through? It takes money and soldiers to keep a war going. The question isn’t should we do it, but can we do it? Can we risk the well-being of our country for another?

As the war has continued on, I have grown concerned about the sustainability of our operations there. However, I do believe that if the threat is deemed real enough, our political leaders will keep the taps flowing, as we did in World War II. Plus, there may be signs that the Oil Wealth that Iraq has been collecting will now be funneled into reconstruction and help remove the burden from the United States. That said, I keep my opinions about economics silent for the most part, since I have yet to take a financial literacy course. As for risking the well-being of our country for another; I believe that as long as the Iraqi’s are willing to die for their freedom, we should back them. Despite the recent desertions in Basra, the vast and overwhelming majority of the ISF stood and fought against the Iranian backed Mahdi Army and forced Al-Sadr to sue for a cease-fire. In Anbar province, ISF has assumed the majority of military operations.

Courtney:

this sucks. you need to come to my blog and read my article on the cost of war, and see why we shouldn’t be in it. try and find something wrong with it.

Do you have any critique of real value? Do you refute any of my points? It is true we have spent a massive amount of money in Iraq, but we spend massive amounts of money in Africa, with no way to secure any gains that have been made. Yet, the Left commonly views this aid as beyond criticism and that only “hard-hearted ring wing nut jobs” (a term used to describe me by one such person) could oppose African aid. Your weak dismissal of my opinion made me wonder if you actually read my work in its entirety.

However, I did read yours (excerpt below):

With that stated, one can easily determine that the war in Iraq is unjust. American involvement in this War on Terror has wasted a lot of money that this country could have put to better use.

America has spent billions of dollars on this war since its start in March of 2003. There are many other things that this country could have chosen to spend its money on. It could have been used to benefit children by putting money back into the education system, or youth-oriented organizations. Roads and highways across the country could be repaired to help provide a safer driving experience.

Your logic doesn’t follow from the very beginning. Stating that the Iraq War is unjust since it costs money is foolish and a sign of naivete. That same logic could be applied to every way that the United States has ever fought in. World War II was unjust because it cost too much money, etc. Secondly, the improved highways, schools, and youth programs won’t do us a damn, I repeat damn, bit of good if we are attacked on our soil with the methods that jihadists use in Iraq and Afghanistan. Take for example my scenario below:

A luxury yacht leaves a harbor somewhere in Venezuela. No thinks anything of it, since yachts leave the harbor every day. The yacht makes its way to remote area of coastline just past the border of Mexico, into Texas. 40 Muslim jihadists disembark, bringing with AK-47s, RPGs, suicide vests, small IEDs, ammunition, etc. They split up into four cells, and load the ger into two moving vans that have already been procured for them by a support cell. They head to an old farmhouse in a remote area of Texas, and begin planning and building. The farmhouse and vehicles had already been acquired by a sleeper cell already in place. The IEDs they brought with them were small, so now they need bgger ones. One by one, they buy up large amounts of fertilizer and begin constructing larger IEDs for bridges, hospitals, schools, buildings, and ports. When their work is completed, the four cells split up. Granted the Homeland now watches Ammonium nitrate purchases, the plan is adapted; to procurement process takes place over months, with each terrorist buying the necessary materials seperately, and at different stores. They also stock up on propane canisters, with make for effective IEDs.   

Over the next few weeks, terror attacks against American infrastructure dominate the news. A hospital here, a few bridges there. Hit and run style shootings. The police and first responders are stretched thin, too thin to respond effectively to deal with these guerrilla style attacks. The bridges that were hit cause gridlock, and commerce slows down. Armed gunmen burst into schools, shooting up a classroom or two before fading away. When these terrorists are cornered, they detonate their suicide vests, killing bystanders and police alike. Eventually all forty are killed, but that’s just the first wave. The sleeper support network, staying low during the entire ordeal, remains in place. Since all the terrorists are dead, little to no information is gleaned from them.

That is how a small, well trained force could cause all hell for mainland America. The goal would necessarily be to level a building (hospital or other such target), but rather place it out of commission for a time, sow mass panic and fear, and make American civilians bleed in way that hasn’t happened since the American Civil War. This scenario is doable, and I believe it will eventually happen if we are not vigilant in fighting our foes “over there”. The AK-47 uses a 7.62 mm round, and the ballistic vests that patrol officers use aren’t rated for that kind of rifle. They will withstand only handgun rounds, which puts the patrol officers at a severe  disadvantage. Also, jihadists are soldiers and trained for Military Operations in Urban Terrain and guerilla warfare. Police are not combat troops; they are not trained to function as a fire team and their armaments are typically limited to a handgun and shotgun.

Progression of Actual Terror Attacks:

1) Bridge (non-suicide)

2) Hospital (non-suicide)

3) Shopping Mall (possible suicide)

4) Mass Transit (either / or)

5) The remaining jihadists would use AK-47s and RPGs to cause as much damage and fear as possible before killing themselves in a suicide attack

I will address Richard’s and Hope Seton’s comments in my next post for the purpose of readability.

Hamas Will Stop Killing Jews…for 10 Years – 4.24.2008

Well, look what former U.S. President Jimmy Carter “accomplished” – he secured a half-ass 10 year truce from Hamas. As usual, the devil is in the details. The following are excerpts from this MSNBC article with my comments in bold:

“We have offered a truce if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, a truce of 10 years as a proof of recognition,”  Khaled Mashaal

In his comments Monday, Mashaal used the Arabic word “hudna,” meaning truce, which is more concrete than “tahdiya” — a period of calm — which Hamas often uses to describe a simple cease-fire.

And then what? Does the war continue on? With regards to the “hudna”, such truces are permitted in Jihad as long the “hudna” is beneficial for the Islamic army. Also, the “hudna” is typically temporary (check), isn’t meant to be permanent regardless of what an Islamist says (check), and is meant to give the Islamist breathing space to prepare for his next offensive (check). Of course I am completely ignoring the fact that Hamas’ “tahdiya” have never been calm anyway. They attack regardless.

“Mashaal said Hamas would accept a Palestinian state limited to the lands Israel seized in 1967 — that is, the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem. But he said the group would never outright formally recognize Israel.”

Doesn’t this contradict everything Khaled just told us?

“Earlier, Carter said that Hamas is prepared to accept the right of Israel to “live as a neighbor next door in peace.”

Carter said the group promised it wouldn’t undermine Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ efforts to reach a peace deal with Israel, as long as the Palestinian people approved it in a referendum. “

Not to sound immature, but can Jimmy Carter read in his old age? Does he still have the ability to reason and use logic? On top of that, Mahmoud Abbas has no real desire to see peace, since Fatah’s and Hamas’ goal (the destruction of Israel) remains the same. They only kill each other about who gets to do it. Do we have any reason to believe that the Palestinian people would approve a peace deal? They have been so open to the thought as of now, haven’t they?

“The problem is not that I met with Hamas in Syria,” he [Carter] said. “The problem is that Israel and the United States refuse to meet with someone who must be involved.”

“There’s no doubt that both the Arab world and Hamas will accept Israel’s right to exist in peace within 1967 borders,” he [Carter] said.

Ah yes, the old “Blame America and Israel for everything” routine. Why should we meet with someone who’s organization has no desire for peace until they have completely destroyed their enemy? Why would they back off of their aggression when we keep crawling to them saying “Let’s just talk things over, I’m sure we can work something out” ? This isn’t a relationship issue, it’s a kill-or-be-killed issue. The sooner we realize that, the better.

Mike Grant — Samnite Gladiator

North Korean and Syrian Cooperation – 4.24.2008

Tension and mystery is building once more over Israel’s air strike on September 6, 2007 on a suspected nuclear site in Syria. 

Quite through happenstance, I stumbled upon the following publications from the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS):

Dated: October 23, 2007

Dated: October 25, 2007

Dated: October 26, 2007

Dated: January 14, 2008

Dated: February 6, 2008

Dated: April 24, 2008

News Articles:

Congress gets details on alleged nuke facility – MSNBC

North Koreans taped at suspected Syrian rector? – Washington Post

My Analysis:

I highly encourage you to read through all the links (the PDFs aren’t that long) and especially study the photographs in the ISIS publications.

I do believe that Syria was attempting to build a nuclear reactor on the sly. It makes sense for them on several levels.

1) The International Community remains committed to doing nothing about Iran

2) The North Koreans have been getting away with it for years

3) Israel is a nuclear armed state

The behavior of the Syrian regime reminds me strongly of the actions of Pakistan, Libya, Iraq and Iran and their pursuit of nuclear technology. An excellent source of information about their exploits is documented in Shopping for Bombsby Gorden Corera, which was about A.Q. Khan and his proliferation network. It details how the above mentioned countries were able to keep their nuclear programs up and running despite the scrutiny of the International Community. Basically, the listed countries started small, expanded in clandestine fashion, and shocked the world when their weapons or attempts to procure weapons were finally brought to light.

Iran’s enrichment facility at Natanz :

“is a hardened Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP) covering 100,000 square meters that is built 8 meters underground and protected by a concrete wall 2.5 meters thick, itself protected by another concrete wall. In 2004, the roof was hardened with reinforced concrete and covered with 22 meters of earth. The complex consists of two 25,000 square meter halls and a number of administrative buildings. This once secret site was one of the two exposed by Alireza Jafarzadeh in 2002. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei visited the site on 21 February 2003 and reported that 160 centrifuges were complete and ready for operation, with 1000 more under construction at the site.”

ISIS

We can see the similarity between Natanz and this possible site in Syria; above-ground buildings masking larger facilities beneath. I have personally visited a former U.S. missile silo (now decommissioned used as a site for Personal Fitness Training for members of a local Police Department); at this site, there is only a small storage shed on top of an expanse of blacktop (which is now a parking lot). If I had gone down the steps into the place myself, I would have been none the wiser. Obviously, masking an enrichment and / or reactor facility is harder and far more complex, but it can be done. More importantly it has been proven to be done.

With regards to Syria, I would like readers to notice several important things about the Syrian site:

1) The pumping station remains and the “secondary structure” remain in place

2) Looking at the ISIS publication dated Oct. 26, 2007 – notice just how much dirt / rock / rubble has been spread over the former location of the building? That seems a lot to spread, with nothing to hide underneath, don’t you think?

3) Notice the proximity of and the pipes that seem to be connecting the water treatment plant and the new building constructed by Syria on the foundation of the old.

4) Both North Korea and China played large roles in the proliferation of both ballistic missile (NK)and nuclear technology (China) to Pakistan in the 1970s and 1980s. Some suspect that Pakistan returned the favor to North Korea by giving them nuclear technology.

Taking all this evidence into account, though some of it could be termed circumstantial, I remain convinced that Syria was attempting to acquire nuclear technology with the purpose of developing a weapons program. To the doubters, I have to say “Why wouldn’t they?” True, it may not be in what we define as their “rational self-interest”, but what we define as their rational self-interest doesn’t matter. What matters is how they define their rational self-interest.

Mike Grant — Samnite Gladiator

 

Jimmy Carter, Israel, and the Mainstream Media – 4.14.2008

Jimmy Carter is touring the Middle East again, once again on his quixotic quest for a lasting peace between Israel and Hamas. Never mind that this very article says that Hamas’ charter includes calling for Israel’s destruction. I have also included the following highlights, also from the Hamas Charter:

 

“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”

 

“The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement [sic] Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.”

 

“There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”

 

“After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.”

 

Former President Carter’s ignorance (I believe willful) is demonstrated in his statement below:

 

“I think there’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that if Israel is ever going to find peace with justice concerning the relationship with their next-door neighbors, the Palestinians, that Hamas will have to be included in the process,” Carter said. “I think someone should be meeting with Hamas to see what we can do to encourage them to be cooperative.”

 

Why do people continue to believe that peace between two warring factions can be made when one side explicitly denounces any peace? Obviously this is wishful thinking, but taken to such an extreme that it is dangerous. Unfortunately, the article also goes on to say that Israel continues to deal with Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the Palestinian Authority. Of course the common assumption is that the PA is the “moderate” version of Hamas. Nothing could be further from the truth. Below I have documented just a small amount of evidence regarding the Palestinian Authority’s Islamists trends and policies:

 

Note: Due to the setup of Palestinian Media Watche’s bulletin pages, some information showing Hamas’ violence is included on some pages. It is important for the reader to differentiate between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (Fatah). They are different organizations, but share the same goal. Also, some information is repeated and link several times. This isn’t to “stack the deck” in my favor, but that is simply the layout of PMW’s bulletins. Each page does contain unique information, though.

 

Link 1

 

Link 2

 

Link 3

 

Link 4 

 

And yet despite this evidence, the World Community, including the United States, continues to ask Israel to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority. This isn’t going to work. Hamas and Fatah are predators, and when they smell weakness they attack. When faced with strength they retreat or die.

 

Mike Grant – Samnite Gladiator 

The Struggle for Iraq – 4.03.2008

Iraq, how controversial…

Consider this opening note my disclaimer. I have not served, have not been shot, and have not seen my friends killed. That said I am someone who has studied the history of war in our world, watched documentaries, and read books, so I at least have some knowledge of what war demands of the men and women who fight it. Bottom line is that I feel qualified in my statements below.

Casualties:

No war has ever been won without blood being shed. War basically boils down to making the other guy bleed more than you do, as many of you know. For the purposes of this topic I will round out total U.S. casualties (dead and wounded) to 30,000. 30,000/5 = 6,000 per year, which is exceptionally low when compared to other major conflicts that the U.S. military has fought in. It is true that warfare has evolved, but the basic premise remains the same, as I have stated. War must always be weighted in the greater good. Such pacifistic statements such as “Even one death is too much” betrays great naiveté; if that attitude had held true in past conflicts, we would never have won, much less held a defensive line. Death is an inevitable part of any armed conflict and must be accepted before the conflict ever begins. The question about the Iraq War, of course, is whether or not the 30,000 casualties we thus far sustained have been worth the cost. For brevities sake, I will address the main points that I commonly deal with. I see validity to some points of view, which I will list below (forgive more generalizing, but its the best I can do in this situation):

Side A:

Due to the very nature of Iraq and watching the history of the entire Middle East, it is entirely possible that Iraq’s success may never be sustained, and that after a U.S. withdrawal the state of the country will deteriorate and revert to another dictator and / or greater religious motivated violence than already exists. This reversion would essentially render the lives of those who have died and been wounded wasted, seeing as their cause was not reached.

Side B:

Iraq is and was a perfectly justified cause. We commit no sin in bringing freedom and democracy to the country and it has been worth it.

My Take:

Though I supported the invasion (I was 13 at the time) and continue to support the occupation and the “surge”, I cannot deny the validity of Side A. Iraq is a country that had dormant sectarian leanings while ruled by Saddam. Of course these leanings were controlled by Saddam’s use of his military and intelligence services to brutally suppress all dissent, as we know. It is my personal belief that the moment the U.S. does withdraw, security conditions will deteriorate, which could spark a full scale civil war, or lead to another dictator assuming power. To prevent this, a sizeable U.S. force must be kept deployed, which raises the questions of countering other threats, sustainability, etc. As much as we may hate to admit it, a reversion would pretty much wipe out the accomplishments of those who had fought so hard and given so much to the cause. This causes discomfort because none of us likes to think of his / her life being wasted, much as that of a friend. However, I do believe that is a realistic and objective look at the situation. At the same time, Side B also has its validity, which I will expound upon below.

Wars of liberation aren’t wars that people think about a whole lot. People will go to where when they are threatened, but other than that, everything else is pretty much ignored. Here are several questions that I pose:

1) Germany never declares war on the United States in World War II. Would the U.S. have been justified declaring war on Germany? Technically, the cause of war would have been to liberate Europe, parts of the U.S.S.R, North Africa and possibly more from Nazi rule.

2) The U.S. Government is overthrown (pick a reason) and a dictatorship is established, suppressing the people and killing dissenters. However, this new “government” does not threaten any other nation. Would an invasion of the former United States be justified?

My answer to both these questions is yes. Even if the premise of Iraq was “Blood for Oil” (which I don’t believe), a result is the liberation of the Iraqi people. The “democracy at the point of a gun” has little validity for me for several reasons. One of which is the war of liberation argument, as described above. Also, seeing what democracy has done for this country, why wouldn’t we want to spread it? Those who would stand in its way would typically be dictators or warlord thugs who control a country (see Somalia). In my mind there is “good” Imperialism and “bad” Imperialism. Good Imperialism is the invading and conquering of countries with the result being evil and corrupt governments being overthrown and power being returned to the people. Bad Imperialism would be World War II Japan and Germany, among any other host of historical examples.

The Fight for Iraq – What Exactly is it?

This is another issue people have, and it is perfectly natural. People like to have the clear moral high ground, and not want to think that their death will be wasted. That said there is one huge factor, which in my opinion is never thoroughly explored in debates about Iraq. The theory of the Bush Administration during the run up to the Iraq War was that Iraq would be the easiest dictatorships to crack, among the Axis of Evil. Put the Fear of God, into the thugs of the world and they may think twice about taking you on. Of course the Bush Administration seriously miscalculated on the count of stabilizing and rebuilding the country, which we are now paying for. Another huge issue which has hampered the support for Iraq is communication of the mission. Most people are not aware of who we are fighting there, or why they fight us.

Jihad:

The proverbial gorilla in the room that few acknowledge, Iraq is a primary front in the misnamed War on Terror. We are not fighting a War on Terror, but rather a War on Islamic Jihad. Jihadists make the primary resistance in Iraq after the Sunni Awakening. Al Qaeda has a large branch present, Al Qaeda in Iraq, and there are numerous other Islamist organizations that have proclaimed Jihad against the West. Some may say that Jihad is proclaimed because of Western boots on Muslim soil, but it goes far, far deeper than that. I just finished reading Inside the Jihad: My Life with Al Qaeda by Omar Nasiri (a pseudonym). The Jihadist ideology has existed since the beginning of Islam, though it evolved from defensive to offensive during Mohammed’s lifetime. This destructive ideology has several key tenets, which all Jihadist groups and mujahidin themselves, hold.

1) The infidel (kuffar) has three choices: convert to Islam, live as a practical slave under Muslim Law (shar’ia), or die. This edict is for all kuffar and it is held to be part a religious duty of a good Muslim. This is not to say I believe that all Muslims are Jihadists, but I am merely explaining the mujahidin mindset.

2) This is a specific example from the training camps: “When one Muslim woman is raped in Bosnia, the entire Muslim world must rise and correct the injustice.”

3) All former Muslim land must be returned to Muslim rule for the establishment of Islamic Law and an Islamic Empire.

4) All oppressed Muslims must be liberated.

The kicker for number three is these maps:

Link One
Link Two

Anything green is formerly Muslim ruled land. A little frightening, yes? We are fighting mujahidin in Iraq. Islamists view Iraq as the main front to channel their men, resources, and propaganda. Their desire is to force us to withdraw, just like they did the Soviets in Afghanistan. This victory would be a tremendous recruiting and encouragement catalyst for the ages of Islamism. Not just twice, but now three times, have the mujahidin forced the kuffar to withdraw bloodied and beaten. Armed with IEDs, AKs, Suicide Bombers, and RPGs, they defeated a numerically superior force with inferior equipment. The legend of the mujahidin would only grow. Our involvement in Iraq was not bred Jihad. It has encouraged Jihadist aggression, but didn’t we encourage German and Japanese aggression by attacking them?

Iraq is a giant game of chicken, and of outlast. Mujahidin leaders have gone on record stating that they will win because the West values life and we (the mujahidin) do not. We have to show them that we will hold our ground. That we realize that now war has ever been bloodless except a capitulation. We have to show them that we will fight them to hell and back again and still take more. Those who participate in Jihad do not view their war as one against sovereign nations, but against all kuffar, no matter where they live. So we must fight them when we can and where we can. Iraq is one place on chessboard to them, a move as related to a grander, global strategy for conquest of land for the Muslim Empire. We cannot run from them. Additionally, in the mind of a mujahidin, an oppressed Muslim is one who lives as a minority in a non-Muslim land. That means they won’t stop with re-conquering former Muslim land, but will continue until all land is under their sway. We didn’t make this a Long War, but the mujahidin did. They will continue fighting even if we do not.

Taking all this into account, we have to ask ourselves if the blood of 30,000 casualties now has saved us from even worse bloodshed in the future.

“Those who don’t pay the cost of war upfront pay it with compound interest at the end.” – a paraphrasing of Ralph Peters

Mike Grant — Samnite Gladiator