State or non-state entities
It is easier for a State to fight another State than to fight non-State entities such as terrorists or insurgents. This is what the US is finding in Iraq, as many others have found in the past, including the British in Burma, Kenya and Ireland (the result of having many colonies), and as Israel has found in fighting the Palestinian terrorist groups and Hizbollah. Even though the US had a terrible time in Vietnam, when push came to shove, Kissinger advised Nixon to bomb Hanoi harbor, because that's where all their arms were being shipped through and this was what brought N. Vietnam to the negotiating table.
Now, with the advice from the "Iraq Study Group" being the news flavor of the month, everyone is saying that the US should talk to Syria and Iran, and this will help the Iraq situation. I think this is an incredible error, this is equivalent to saying "let's negotiate with Hitler, he's an honorable man," or "Good Old Joe Stalin, he's our loyal ally." Not only that, but in his remarks before the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday, new Secty of Defense Gates stated categorically that using force against Syria and Iran would be only a "last resort." At least he didn't rule it out altogether.
It should be clear by now that the neo-conservatives, who by no means are all Jews and for all their supposed power as a cabal "controlling" Washington, lost out to the Democrats, who received nearly 80% of the Jewish vote. I am afraid of being labelled an Israeli who would fight to the last American, so I am not exactly representative of the views of my American Jewish cousins. But, I think they would all agree that if you have a choice between fighting a war against non-state entities in Iraq, or fighting a state like Syria, the latter would be the easier choice. After all isn't the US supposed to be the greatest power the world has ever seen, so what's with all the mickey mousing around in Iraq.
Every State has infrastructure - roads, bridges, railways, TV stations, etc. etc. that it does not want to lose. This was the basis for the NATO bombing of Serbia, that caused the Serbian Government to capitulate on Kossovo, and for the Israeli bombing of Lebanese infrastructure that caused Lebanon to cry "halt" in the recent war with Hizbollah. This is especially true once their arms depots and resupply lines were disrupted. So in the long run it would be easier to fight Syria than the Syrian supported terrorists in Iraq and ditto for Iran. Now that we know the Iranina nuclear threat is real, althouhg not imminent, we must watch that situation very carefully and be prepared to act in our essential defence.
I heard a British businessman in Iraq interviewed on the BBC. He said some interesting things, such as that the man in charge of disbursing contracts in southern Iraq, the Shia area, was not Iraqi and spoke Farsi (in other words he was Iranian), and as long as you kept to the contract terms there was no problem with terrorists. And giving gifts and jobs to the local boys kept them out of your hair. He also said that in his estimate things would quiet down in Iraq, and not get worse if the US withdrew its forces either completely or away from the battle areas. It might be that Baghdad is a special case because there all the ethnic groups come together, but in the main Sunni and Shia areas, the local militias are now in charge and there will be no change if the US leaves. So continuing to fight in Iraq is somewhat superfluous, but to hit at the State supporters of international terrorism, such as Syria and Iran, "the axis of evil" (remember them), now that's a different matter altogether.
Now, with the advice from the "Iraq Study Group" being the news flavor of the month, everyone is saying that the US should talk to Syria and Iran, and this will help the Iraq situation. I think this is an incredible error, this is equivalent to saying "let's negotiate with Hitler, he's an honorable man," or "Good Old Joe Stalin, he's our loyal ally." Not only that, but in his remarks before the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday, new Secty of Defense Gates stated categorically that using force against Syria and Iran would be only a "last resort." At least he didn't rule it out altogether.
It should be clear by now that the neo-conservatives, who by no means are all Jews and for all their supposed power as a cabal "controlling" Washington, lost out to the Democrats, who received nearly 80% of the Jewish vote. I am afraid of being labelled an Israeli who would fight to the last American, so I am not exactly representative of the views of my American Jewish cousins. But, I think they would all agree that if you have a choice between fighting a war against non-state entities in Iraq, or fighting a state like Syria, the latter would be the easier choice. After all isn't the US supposed to be the greatest power the world has ever seen, so what's with all the mickey mousing around in Iraq.
Every State has infrastructure - roads, bridges, railways, TV stations, etc. etc. that it does not want to lose. This was the basis for the NATO bombing of Serbia, that caused the Serbian Government to capitulate on Kossovo, and for the Israeli bombing of Lebanese infrastructure that caused Lebanon to cry "halt" in the recent war with Hizbollah. This is especially true once their arms depots and resupply lines were disrupted. So in the long run it would be easier to fight Syria than the Syrian supported terrorists in Iraq and ditto for Iran. Now that we know the Iranina nuclear threat is real, althouhg not imminent, we must watch that situation very carefully and be prepared to act in our essential defence.
I heard a British businessman in Iraq interviewed on the BBC. He said some interesting things, such as that the man in charge of disbursing contracts in southern Iraq, the Shia area, was not Iraqi and spoke Farsi (in other words he was Iranian), and as long as you kept to the contract terms there was no problem with terrorists. And giving gifts and jobs to the local boys kept them out of your hair. He also said that in his estimate things would quiet down in Iraq, and not get worse if the US withdrew its forces either completely or away from the battle areas. It might be that Baghdad is a special case because there all the ethnic groups come together, but in the main Sunni and Shia areas, the local militias are now in charge and there will be no change if the US leaves. So continuing to fight in Iraq is somewhat superfluous, but to hit at the State supporters of international terrorism, such as Syria and Iran, "the axis of evil" (remember them), now that's a different matter altogether.
posted by Jack Cohen at 2:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home