George Bush has accepted Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation. While the new Defense Secretary nominee sounds like he could do a good job, the problem is what are the “definitions” of our mission.
For example when constructing a political poll you have to be careful what exactly is the question. When you hear generals saying we “don’t need more troops” you have to elicit what is the precise definition of “their mission”. If the “mission” is the successful occupation of a defeated nation using our occupations of Germany, Italy and Japan as role models then I believe the answers these generals would be giving us as regards to required troop strength and projected success with our current resources on the ground would be radically different.
But Bush and his fellow travellers first said “Mission Accomplished” then allowed militias to grow in the vacuum of post war Iraq. Now their “definition” of mission success is a holding action while a “Vietnamization” of the war takes place. Ooops wrong term or is it?
Can you imagine three years after the defeat of Nazi Germany and major cities reverting to enemy hands? Well that is the situation we find ourselves in today.
This is what is meant by “staying the course”. Because Rumsfeld got intoxicated by our superior “shock and awe” military superiority he forgot that this only works on the battle field not in the day to day occupation of a defeated nation.
Rumsfeld’s greatest blunder was to undermine our nation’s punitive threat to other rogue regiemes. The “Dear Leader” of North Korea does not worry so much about democracy being installed in his country by us as much as he fears his regime’s overthrow.
What follows after doesn’t mean anything to Kim il Sung only the continuation of his power! The same is true with Iran’s mullahs. Knowing and defining the enemy’s motivation is important. When our nation stared down the Soviets it was not simply the existence of our nuclear weapons but the perception by the Soviets that:
- We were willing to use our nuclear weapons if provoked.
- Our ability to withstand a first strike with enough reserve weapons to then retalliate.
Now consider how Rumsfeld and Bush have diminished the perceived threat capacity of the United States to rogue regimes. Since rogue regimes don’t care a krap for their own people but only the for their regimes continuation what would be the “THREAT POTENTIAL” of the United States under two separate scenarios:
- We invade and overthrow Sadamm Hussein, do a search of their nation for WMD then turn Iraq over to a new reformed military dictator. Sure we could have him pledge to be “more” democratic but the bottom line is just remove the bad guys. Then we leave over the horrizon. We leave CIA contacts and have the capacity to have a “veto” power over our puppet regime by doing what we do best “shock and awe” without extended occupation. We could always put a new general in power if the first does not behave by staying just over the horizon.
- We invade as in the first scenario but engage now in extensive nation building. “Victory” now is not simply defined as throwing out the bad guy but now we have to succede in a “social engineering experiment” by establishing a democray. This would take extensive troop levels and resources.
If we had stuck to the first scenario our willingness to repeat it with Iran or North Korea as our target would be very high. Further since the definition of victory under scenario #1 would have been far easier we would be “percieved” as a viable threat to other rogue regiemes. Since these rogue regimes “definition of defeat” is simply their regimes over throw they would be more likely to bow to our wishes rather than arouse our wrath!
Meanwhile Afghanistan is still holding Al Quaeda terrorists and exporting 92% of the worlds opium. With our open borders, ports and airports if we do not fight this threat in Afghanistan then we will fight the opium and the resulting drug terror in our streets. Yet Bush and his fellow travellers seem bent on allowing the new government to be no more than a Kabal City State. Since Afghanistan is where Al Qaeda’s homeland is perhaps it is there that our military action should be concentrated. Not to mention that North Korea has nukes and is developing ICBM’s. Yet we concern our nation more with small grade conventional katusa rockets going 25 miles into northern Israel rather than:
- North Korea with it’s nuclear weapons and their desire to test ICBM’s that can go thousands of miles to hit our homeland.
- Afghanistan with it’s terrorists roots and opium that could finance a dirty bomb in our cities since Bush has not closed our ports, borders and airports.
The time has come for the SILENT MAJORITY – America’s great Middle Class (and those who aspire to be) to take our nation back from these effete snobs of the Republican party. Lets hope that the new Congress will launch a extensive investagation as to why we engaged in this neo-con social engineering experiment while our borders are so insecure and opium and Al Qaeda are so secure still in Afghnaistan.