IS THE IRAQI WAR A DANGER FOR US DEMOCRACY
L A May 8th, 2007
by Eric Lafayette
President Bush
and Vice President Cheney deliberately lied to the American People
about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and Saddam Hussein’s
support of Al Quaida in Iraq. Unfortunately IRAQ is now crucial
to the USA. As of today May 1, 2007 67% of Americans disapprove
of the way the President is conducting the war in Iraq.
IRAQ is now an important country for the American people, and studying
its history is crucial to understanding the predicament George Bush
the young has imposed on the American people.
However an
analytical study of Iraq encompassing the period before the advent
of the Muslim religion on to the present shows that in fact it is
a complex problem.
The dictatorial powers asked by Bush- Cheney and given to them through
the vastly illegal patriot act by the American people have greatly
curtailed Democracy in America. There are restriction on a right
to a fair and speedy trial as well as keeping telephone calls and
Emails private.
However a study of the actual war in Iaq shows
constant interventions of Iran in Iraq. Iran provides Arms and traioning
to kill Americans meant to attack and kill American or American
allies.
The study of the History of these two countries
that share a long border today but in the past were one country
will help understand the difficult situation the United States is
in.
Because the USA is in Iraq we will study the interactions between
IRAN and IRAQ as well as their religion from the point of view of
IRAQ. For ease of understanding we will use the term IRAQ to describe
the territory that is roughly modern IRAQ even though it had different
names in ancient times
The goal of
this analytical history of Iraq is to offer information to the American
People that can help them understand the war in Iraq. We will develop
in more detail the historical facts that are even today influencing
the situation in Iraq.
BEFORE WE ENTER
THE REALM OF HISTORY EVENTS IN IRAQ HAVE MADE US AWARE THAT:
FUNDAMENTALIST BELIEVERS IN THE MUSLIM RELIGION DO NOT WANT ANY
AMERICANS OR NON MUSLIMS IN THEIR REGION.
AND THAT IRAN IS BENT ON CONQUERING PART OF IRAQ OR THE WHOLE IRAQ.
We are going
to add Historical facts to the two elements that have defined Iraq
for numerous centuries and are a very important influence today.
PERSIANS AGAINST ARABS
SHIAS AGAINST SUNNIS
History of Iraq after 622 the date of the rise of the Muslim
faith
It is difficult
to forget that Iraq called “the cradle of civilization"
was known as Mesopotamia or: " the land between the two rivers"
which are the Tigris and the Euphrates. Iraq or Mesopotamia was
one of the rare lands in the region with plenty of water and rich
soil and could have been described as blessed by the Gods for its
riches and cursed by the Gods for the envy it has always triggered
from its neighbors. In addition modern Iraq has enormous wealth
because it has lot of oil.
One of the
most significant elements that underline the war in Iraq today is
the Muslim Religion.
The Muslim faith was born and established by the Prophet Mohammad
in 622 AD. The Muslim Calendar begins in 622 AD which marks the
emigration of Mohammad from Mecca to Medina known as the Hijira.
Of course the birth of one of the most important religions in the
world is significant, but even more significant to the USA which
is enmeshed in at war that involves the two main components of Islam
that are the most extreme: The Fundamentalist SHIAS and the Fundamentalist
SUNNIS.
The fact that
the Muslim Religion fractured into two different factions shortly
after the death of the Prophet Mohammad is important because when
these fundamentalist Muslims do not kill Americans they kill each
other by the hundreds each and every month in Iraq.
At the time of his death the Prophet Muhammad had conquered the
Arabian Peninsula and converted the inhabitants of the Arabian to
Islam. He was an Arab and almost all of his original followers were
Arabs.
His first successor
was Abu Bakr his father in law who was named a Caliph which is the
equivalent of a governor or king who has absolute power. It was
mostly a secular title that also included religious duties. The
Caliph was the ruler of all the lands they conquered and controlled.
The second Caliph was Umar who succeeded Abu Bakr and achieved the
conquest of Iraq which was at that time part of Iran. Iraq was inhabited
by Iranians composed of Christians and Jews. Christians were left
alone if they agreed to pay a special tax for non-believers.
In the Muslim
world but for very rare exceptions one will never know where secular
power begins and where religious power begins and which one will
dominate the other.
Believing that there was or is some sort of separation of religion
and state is one of the main mistakes Americans and Europeans have
made in attempting to understand and negotiate with Muslim Arab
States.
We enter now
a second phase of the Islamic evolution that reverberates today
in the massacres that are happening in Iraq between Shias and Sunnis.
The origin of the schism is purely and simply a family feud between
factions related to Mohammad vying for the power of the Caliphate
which controlled the riches and land they controlled. This feud
has been painted later with religious connotations but it was a
feudal power struggle of similar to the ones that happened in the
courts of many European kings.
When the third
Caliph Uthman was elected he was opposed by Ali the son of the Prophet
Mohammad's daughter. Poorly paid malcontents Bedouin soldiers found
a spokesman in the person of Ali. The Caliph Uthman made promises
to them that were not kept. Under Ali's guidance they besieged Medina
and killed Uthman. Ali then became Caliph.
Muawiya a kinsman of the slain caliph Uthman rebelled against Ali
and they clashed in a large battle. On the verge of defeat Muawiya
demanded arbitration and Ali accepted by. Part of Ali’s own
troops named the Kharajites rebelled against Ali because he had
accepted arbitration instead of continuing the battle; then Ali
asked them to reunite with him to fight. They refused and he massacred
them. This massacre angered most of his troops who deserted him.
The Caliphate was divided with Muawiya Caliph in Egypt and Ali Caliph
in Iraq.
Both tried to foment trouble for the other and Ali was assassinated
by a Kharajites in 661, and his son died soon after him. It took
only 30 years to tear apart the Muslim unity that Ali built.
Ali's death
insured his status as a Martyr and Shias means follower of Ali.
The Shia declaration of faith is: "There is no God but God;
Muhammad is his Prophet and Ali is the Saint of God."
Once Ali was
dead Muawiya was declared Caliph of all territories. Ali’s
second son Hussein rebelled against Muawiya's son Yazid. Karbala
became sacred land for the Shias when Hussein and a small contingent
were defeated and massacred. Hussein's head was brought to Yazid.
In 750 a new
dynasty the Caliphate of the Abbasids founded Bagdad. The Caliphate
was named after Abbas who came from the North and followed the Sunni
religion but had ancestral ties with the Shia believers in Baghdad.
Abbas’ successor A Mansour made Bagdad the capital and under
the rule of the six next Abbasid Caliphs the region was enormously
prosperous. One of the Caliphs, Haroun al Rashid, was portrayed
in the legend of the one thousand and one nights.
Culture and
science were developed in important ways.
The Abbasid Dynasty continued under seven Caliphs until 1250. Starting
with the death of Al Mamun in 833 the Caliphs began to lose power
and territory. They ended up being figureheads placed for convenience
by the Turks - Mameluks, then by Iranians Shias, then by Seljuk
Turks.
In 1258 Hulagu
Khan the grandson of Genghis Khan came to the Arab Peninsula with
his Mongol Army leaving a path of massacres and destruction. Another
Mongol Tamerlane continued to destroy and massacre finally devastating
the center of advanced culture and the riches that were Baghdad.
The prosperous country that was Iraq was transformed and was a collection
of poor tribes until 1500
Between 1534
and 1916 Iraq became the battleground between the Turkish Empire
and the Iranian Empire, many battles were fought in Iraq, and Iraq
and its capital Baghdad were occupied alternatively by the Sunni
Turks and by the Shias Iranians further exacerbating the rivalry
between the two religious sects.
However the Turks prevailed in the end and established a bureaucracy
whose example pervaded in ensuing years.
In 1917 the
Turks who were allied with Nazi Germany were defeated by the English
Army who conquered Baghdad. The English following a resolution of
the League of Nations established a protectorate or a governorship
of modern day Iraq.
There were many insurrections some of which were close to being
successful but none succeeded, and were repressed by the English.
Oil was discovered in Iraq.
Finally, in 1930 a treaty was signed that guaranteed independence
in Iraq.
Iraq actually gained its independence in 1933 and was governed by
King Faisal followed by King Ghazi. Then infant King Faisal II and
his regents ruled a country very much divided by the differing goals
of various sects, tribes and ethnicities.
However as
has always happened Iraq found a new unity against an old invader.
In order to thwart Iraq’s tendency to ally itself with German
in 1941 England invaded Iraq again and set up a monarch who was
only a figurehead.
Difficult years ensued but around 1950 oil revenues increased significantly.
However the oil revenues were diverted by the extremely corrupt
elite setting the stage for an uprising of the masses. Prime minister
Nuri Al Said who ruled for a long time become more and more oppressive.
In 1958 a coup
led by military commanders proclaimed a Republic. Brigadier Quasim
became the leader of Iraq. He was a man of humble origins who increasingly
turned to communism. He was killed in 1963, and a succession of
military coups and military regimes kept Iraq in a situation of
weakness and quasi anarchy.
From 1968 until
1979 we see a concurrent reinforcement of the Baath secular party
and the emergence of Saddam Hussein along with the usual tensions
in a Military Junta and a strong containment of the Kurds. However
Saddam Hussein developed the economy and improved Iraq’s regional
stature as well as working on an Iraq - Iran rapprochement.
In 1980 the IRAQI Shias more and more followed the tendencies of
the IRANIAN Shias government led by the Ayatollah Khomeini.
In 1980, afraid
to lose his dominance over the Shias population who outnumbered
his Sunni followers, Saddam declared war on IRAN. The war ended
in 1987 in a stalemate after generating more than two million casualties
and debilitating the economy.
It is interesting to note that the USSR was the main weapon provider
to Iran, but all major European nations and the USA supported Saddam
Hussein with money, trade and arms during this war. In the USA side,
one of the highest ranking american who went to Bahgdad to shake
hand with Saddam Hussein was Dick Cheney.
Not long after
in 1990 Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and was soundly beaten by
a real coalition of 28 allied nations led by the USA and fully backed
by the UN using the doctrine of overwhelming force designed by Colin
Powell. President Bush the elder wise man did not conquered Baghdad
or Iraq in its entirety but established a successful policy of containment
through the UN.
In 2003 without
the backing of the UN President Bush Junior lied to the American
People in order to lure them into supporting the invasion of Iraq
under the false pretense of Iraq’s possessing weapons of mass
destruction which they did not have.
President and Vice President Dick Cheney also made the case for
the war saying that Saddam Hussein supported Al Quaida terrorists
who destroyed New York’s World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.
This assumption was also proven to be absolutely false. To make
matters worse Bush invaded Iraq with 150,000 troops a force small
enough to make sure that the war would not be won which is the case
as of May 1, 2007. With more forces and a lot more diplomacy we
saw some improvement (*added Jully 2008)
Ancient
History of Iraq.
Below is a timeline for the History buff.
It outlines the Ancient History of Iraq or Mesopotamia as the cradle
of civilization.
This History of the most ancient civilisation has a couple of jewels
worth reading .
Mesopotamia,
modern day Iran means the land between two rivers which are the
Tigris and the Euphrates.
Mesopotamia is the cradle of civilization where historians believed
that human began to form what we call a civilization.
The origins of civilization are dated between 6000 BC and 5000 BC
the Sumerians a non- Semitic people began a form of written communication
that evolved into cuneiform texts around 2500 BC when the Epic of
Gilgamesh was written, a long poem describing the exploits of a
hero. The Sumerians also invented irrigation, the wheel, astronomy,
arithmetic, and organized religion. They established the first city
states and fought each other on a regular basis.
The AMORITES, a Semitic people, succeeded them from 2000 BC to 1600
BC but continued their culture.
One of their Kings Hammurabi established one of the most comprehensive
legal codes of his time and established a strong administration
that changed the prevailing organization of the city states.
The Hittites
reigned in the region from 1600 to 1200 BC by military conquest
but left no cultural or monumental imprint
From 1200 BC
to 600 BC the Assyrians a people perceived as accomplished but cruel
warriors conquered the region and founded Nineveh their capital
city.
Their rule was perceived as so cruel that after their demise all
their constructions were razed.
Around 539 BC Persians established their domination over ancient
Iraq. It was the reign of Cyrus the Great, then Darius then Xerxes
then Cyrus the young.
The Persian Empire was the greatest known until that time and Iraq
was a province.
The first emperor Cyrus the Great was a follower and promoter of
a religion called Zoroastrianism named after its founder Zarathustra.
It is an important religion because it is probably the foundation
of Christianity and Islam. Zoroastrianism religion has the god of
Evil opposing the god of good in an incessant fight and Cyrus the
Great saw that it was his mission to fight against evil, and he
was thus the first Crusader with a fierce will to disseminate his
religion around the known world.
In 330 the
Greek Alexander the Great defeated Darius III at Issus taking control
of the Persian Empire including Iraq. Alexander the Great did not
impose a harsh rule on his Iraqi subjects and let them follow their
religions and customs.
Following Alexander
one of his generals founded the Seleucid Dynasty a Persian Greek
dynasty that ruled Iran and Iraq from approximatively 312 BC to
247 AD regions of the Empire which were mostly inhabited by Persians
at this time.
After the Seleucides came the Parthians and as almost all their
archives were destroyed little is know beside the fact that they
were implacable warriors as well as feared rulers. They ruled from
247 BC until 228 AD
After the Parthians
came the Saasanides an Iranian Dynasty claiming that they were the
descendant od the great Persian Emperors such as Darius the Great.
Around these times in Iraq a prophet Mani created a religion which
blended Zorostrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Buddhism. The religion
was called Manichaeism and one of its fundamental principles is
the constant fight between good and evil but evidently the tolerance
of other religions, this new religion with a new concept became
very popular and temporarily revolutionozed the society until Conservatism
took over again..
200 years later during the same dynasty Another prophet Mazlak advocated
the abolition of private property, the division of wealth and non
violence.
Mazlak had invented socialism 1400 years before Karl Marx
One of their king King Anushiravan developed education, scientific
and medical research, and philosophy and literature.
They had a dynasty of thirty kings and it was the longest period
when almost all Iraq was ruled by Iranian.
The Sassanides conquered and ruled the region from 227 to 638 AD
If we put together the periods in ancient History and History when
Iraq was a province of the Iranian Empire or Iraq was dominated
by rulers from Iran we have more than 1000 years of Iranian domination
over Iraq.
THAT GIVES THE IRANIAN A STRONG CLAIM TO IRAQI TERRITORIES.
Then we have
the advent of Islam.
Eric Lafayette
DEMOCRATS ARE ALMOST RIGHT ON
IRAQ
2007, March 27th
A GOOD VICTORY IN CONGRESS.
One of the Hallmarks of the
Liberal - Democratic Constituency in the United States is that everybody
is entitled to and encouraged to use their brains to think which
creates a wealth of opinions. An expanding wealth of opinions and
creative solutions is the showcase of any functioning Democracy
even though it takes more effort and more time to organize.
In opposition many Republican voters are conditioned to listen only
to the loudspeaker of their party the extremely partisan Fox Tabloid
born group and to follow the dictates of their exceptionally corrupt
leaders like robots.
HERE ARE THE DIFFICULTIES IN SOLVING THE IRAQI WAR:
In the November elections American voters unequivocally STATED that
they trusted the Senators and the members of the House of Representatives
who supported a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. In addition among
the many polls taken in the last six months and most concurred.
many concurrent polls showed that about 67% of the People in the
USA wanted a withdrawal of the US troops from Iraq.
SO FAR IT IS VERY SIMPLE. WITHDRAW THE TROOPS.
However, THE PROBLEMS begin when we realize that ONLY the Commander
in Chief who was unequivocally given the authorization to go to
war against Iraq by the Congress CAN stop the war. President Bush
and his staff stated clearly that War will stop only when victory
is achieved. Nobody on his side or any side with the exception of
Iraqi Prime Minister Malachi sees a Victory during President Bush’s
term.
In addition President Bush and his staff have been redefining the
word VICTORY every other month since 2003.
THE PRESIDENT PROPOSITION IS: AMERICAN TROOPS WILL NOT BE WITHDRAWN
UNTIL I SAY SO.
THE CONGRESS DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ORDER THE WITHDRAWAL OF
THE TROOPS EVEN THOUGH AMERICAN VOTERS BEGGED THEM TO DO SO.
In order to force the hand of a very stubborn President the Congress
has only one tool: CUT THE FUNDS FOR THE WAR.
The occasion presented itself when the president asked the Congress
for more than ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS to continue to fund the
Iraqi war through what is called a supplemental bill.
Cutting the funding while leaving funds sufficient enough support
the troops and bring them home will force President Bush to bring
back the Troops.
The Democratic Congress did not have the necessary voices to pass
this option.
SIMPLE ENOUGH BUT NOT THE PATH CHOSEN BY LEADERS
OF THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS who chose instead to fund the war under
the condition that the troops will be withdrawn by August 2008.
Why?
----First they achieved one thing: NOW there is a date on record
for the troop withdrawal: 18 months from March 2007. It is not immediate
but 18 months in the giant system that is the Iraq War is not a
great deal of time.
---- Second they gave the general in charge, General Petraus, 18
months to show a real improvement and signs that could lead to victory.
In doing so they listened to the blue dog Democrats who argued that
the Senate confirmed General Petraus to conduct the war 98 to 2
and hence could not withdraw funding immediately.
---- THIRD they gave the American people a very important element
they were craving: a firm hope that this nightmare will end soon.
If you can tell any patient, and the USA is a sick patient experiencing
in enormous pain, that the end of pain is in sight then you the
Congress have achieved a decent goal. There is nothing more worrisome
than being left in limbo while your American brothers and sisters
are dying in a far away land.
IT WILL BE VETOED BY THE PRESIDENT.
However the closeness of the vote after much persuasion in the House
of Representatives lead by Nancy Pelosi showed that it was a compromise
not easily achieved but AT THIS TIME IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE WAR
IN IRAQ, IT IS THE BEST COMPROMISE THAT COULD BE ACHIEVED.
IT ALSO SHOWED SOMETHING
BARELY NOTICED AND IT IS THAT THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERS DID THINGS
THE DEMOCRATIC VOTERS WERE NOT ACCUSTOMED TO.
THEY WORKED EXTREMELY HARD AND IN AN INTELLIGENT WAY.
THEY WORKED EXTREMELY HARD TO FIND COMMON GROUND WITHOUT
GIVING UP THEIR ORIGINAL MANDATE WHICH WAS TO BRING THE TROOPS HOME.
IN THE NEW DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS THERE IS A NEW GROUP OF INTELLIGENT
AND DEDICATED LEADERS.
LET US GIVE THEM A CHANCE.
However we should not loose track of the fact that partition of
Iraq is the only solution and the sooner it is addressed, the less
casualties there will be in the region.
Eric Lafayette
Please take a look at our websites:
For Democracy meetup group: http://dfa.meetup.com/88/
For Democracy content website: http://www.fordemocracy.com
--------------------
Why are
Democrats wrong about Iraq?
L A, 2007/03/02
Here is the Democratic Leaders
new motto :
LET US DANCE AROUND
THE MAIN ISSUE WITHOUT ADDRESSING IT AND
SING MAGIC INCANTATIONS IN THE HOPE THAT THE WAR WILL STOP.
Why are Democrats often wrong
and the President always utterly wrong on the war in Iraq?
It is quite simple.
The President as the Commander in Chief enticed by his evil conscience
Vice President Cheney has made all the wrong decisions:
-Going to war against Iraq
when they had not engaged in aggression against the USA
-Not listening to the UN inspectors who were telling the President
and his advisors that there were no weapons of mass destruction
and kicking them out of Iraq for their comments
-Not listening to most of his traditional allies
-Lying to the American public to foster their support for an unjustified
war
-Not going into Iraq with enough troops.
-Resisting constant appeals to increase troop numbers in Iraq
-Engaging in a SURGE with insufficient troops.
-Humiliating Colin Powell, the only competent person in his administration
NOBODY ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE DENIES THE FACT THAT PRESIDENT
BUSH THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF IS ENORMOUSLY, UTTERLY INCOMPETENT,
AN OPINION SHARED BY MANY REPUBLICANS.
You would think that Democratic leaders would address the obvious
fact that if the war is going very badly it is due to
the Commander in Chief who is a man with very limited understanding
of anything. His incompetence is limitless.
INSTEAD THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERS HAVE ORGANIZED AN IDIOTIC BALLET
CALLED:
LET US DANCE AROUND THE MAIN ISSUE WITHOUT ADDRESSING IT
AND
SING MAGIC INCANTATIONS IN THE HOPE THAT THE WAR WILL STOP.
How misguided they are:
Their main error is trying to micromanage the war by focusing on
the recent SURGE instead on focusing on the overall war.
---Their first step, a NON BINDING resolution specifically asking
the President not to execute the SURGE, had no effect on the Surge.
----The second step, the Murtha step, block the money needed for
the SURGE by authorizing money for troop increases only after the
President has shown that the new troops are fully equipped with
protective armors on their vehicles which according to Representative
Murtha is a level of preparation that is impossible today. Consequently
the President will not be able to execute the SURGE.
This proposition is borderline crazy because almost impossible to
enforce and if errors are made in its implementation it could deprive
soldiers of much needed armor.
---The third step: Senator Biden makes more sense but still addresses
only some aspects of the war and wants to replace the blank check
given by the Senate in 2002 to President Bush with a limited authorization
that asks for the withdrawal of most Americans while directing that
some troops will stay for training the Iraqi army and police. This
is yet another authorization to wage a war by the worst Commander
in Chief in the world. These Democratic leaders are kidding us.
THE ONLY SOLUTION IS TO LEGALLY REMOVE THE COMMANDER IN
CHIEF PRESIDENT BUSH BY IMPEACHING HIM AS WELL AS IMPEACHING VICE
PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY.
Fooling around with half
baked resolutions has three major disadvantages:
First it shows that Democratic Leaders are cowards that refuse to
take meaningful action.
Second, it shows that Democratic leaders are idiots that cannot
understand the big problems but prefer to address the smallest part
of it, the SURGE.
Third it shows that Democratic leaders are UNPATRIOTIC because they
leave our beloved soldiers in harm's way under the worst Commander
in Chief the USA has experienced: President Bush.
I f
only for this one reason, to protect our troops, the Democratic
Leadership should impeach President Bush and his Vice President
Dick Cheney.
IT IS THE ONLY SOLUTION THAT MAKES SENSE.
IT IS TIME TO SEE THE BIG PICTURE.
IT IS TIME TO FREE OUR TROOPS FROM A TERRIBLE COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
Best regards
Eric Lafayette
Email Eric Lafayette
Our Group website
For Democracy Meetup group
Our content website:
www.fordemocracy.com
If you liked this article and want more articles to stay ahead of
the curve in Liberal Politic,Email us and ask to receive our free
News letter USA TOMORROW.
--------------------------
OVERWHELMING
FORCE
2007, February the 12
The policy of OVERWHELMING MILITARY FORCE was designed
by Colin Powell after the failure of the Viet Nam War, and it is now
the accepted but not official military doctrine. The soundness of
this doctrine was proved in the First Gulf War designed by Colin Powell,
an outstanding victory against Iraq in 1991. Today after the abysmal
failure of Donald Rumsfeld’s policies and strategies in the
second war against Iraq, this doctrine is even more interesting.
A Little Bit of Military History:
All of the great military commanders who won consistently
against their enemies who were their equals or their superiors in
numbers were not from democratic societies but from some form of
monarchy, totalitarian rule or dictatorship.
In the ancient world these commanders include Alexander the Great,
Hannibal, Julius Caesar and Genghis Khan. In more recent European
History, Napoleon began his career in a democracy and then transformed
France into a dictatorship in much the same fashion that Julius
Caesar changed Rome. For a time, General Robert E. Lee was the victorious
military leader of a rebellious non-democratic state, but he was
eventually defeated by the overwhelming force of a Democratic Nation.
The dictatorship in Vietnam won against the US in 1975 when General
Giap was the commander in charge
All of the great military Commanders in recent history who
were able to win a decisive victory on behalf of a Democracy won
thanks to overwhelming force.
The addition of fresh US troops and the unlimited reserves they
provided tipped the outcome of World War I into a victory managed
by French General Foch.
General Eisenhower, General Marshal, General Mac Arthur and President
Roosevelt won the Second World War thanks to an overwhelming force
in the European theater and the additional arms they were able to
supply to their allies in the USSR.
President Truman and his decision to use the first Atomic Bombs
against Japan constitute an example of another kind of extreme and
overwhelming force that led to the final victory in World War II.
The definition of OVERWHELMING FORCE is a force that is so strong
that the enemy is steamrollered.
This is a time for examples of overwhelming force and the results
it has produced:
The Atomic bomb against the Japanese was overwhelming force.
Millions of poorly armed Communist Chinese in Korea in 1953 defeated
better armed but vastly inferior numbers of US Marines.
The disparate proportion of 20 US tanks of mediocre quality against
one German tank of superior quality enabled the US victory in World
War II.
The overwhelming numbers of the Allied Army as well as their access
to larger supplies of hardware led to the defeat of the German Army
by the Allies in World War II.
In order to achieve a victory in guerilla warfare experts state
that a proportion of seven regular soldiers in opposition to one
guerilla soldier is necessary to achieve a successful victory.
In the last Official US Army Manual General Petraeus writes that
1 soldier per 20 "civilian inhabitants" is necessary to
control a neighborhood. If you do the math for Baghdad with more
than 5 million inhabitants you need at least 250,000 soldiers for
Baghdad alone.
Even if you add a good number of poorly trained Iraqi forces, the
20,000 US soldiers added for the surge DO NOT CONSTITUTE OVERWHELMING
FORCE.
We have seen now that OVERWHELMING FORCE can have many aspects.
THE KEY POINT:
WHY IS OVERWHELMING FORCE SPECIFICALLY WELL SUITED FOR A
LARGE DEMOCRACY?
As an example let us examine the current poor quality of the Commander
in Chief, the Secretary of Defense and their interaction with their
generals.
It was the case in Vietnam.
It is the case in IRAQ.
President Bush is an intellectually challenged Commander
in Chief who is incapable of understanding a war as well as incapable
of differentiating between good advisors and bad advisors. If President
Bush was not intellectually challenged he would have picked Colin
Powell’s advice over Donald Rumsfeld’s advice.
President Bush's first Secretary of Defense was Donald Rumsfeld,
and he was grossly incompetent. Unfortunately he achieved the only
thing he should have failed to achieve. He successfully scared the
generals into abject obedience and ousted Colin Powell the only
White House staffer who understood warfare.
Donald Rumsfeld of course destroyed the doctrine of OVERWHELMING
FORCE.
He was the advocate of a small force for the Iraqi campaign and
his criminal action was to deter any leaders who wanted a substantial
increase of force in Iraq. He ousted General Shinseki when he advocated
a vastly superior force in Iraq . In addition a continued lack of
selection of great generals compounded the failures.
As opposed to the stability of dictators, emperors and kings who
reign and control policy for life, the management of wars change
hands with periodic elections in a Democracy.
The final decisions are made by an elected President a civilian
who generally does not know much about warfare who is helped and
advised by a Secretary of Defense that he appointed who is also
not necessarily an expert in warfare. This is a very tall order
to overcome.
This is what happened in the Vietnam War, and it is what is happening
in the Iraqi war. (However the latest Secretary of Defense Mr. Gates
appears to be a very intelligent man with the correct knowledge
and experience. He could be facing the too little troop too late
challenge.)
If you have such an OVERWHELMING FORCE that even incompetent
leaders cannot drag it down into failure, you have the
quintessential war doctrine for a large Democracy
This overwhelming force balances the probable inferior quality of
civilian leadership in charge of the war .
In other words, overwhelming force in most cases can deliver
victory even if the Commander in Chief and the civilian leaders
are incompetent.
Additional important benefits of the Doctrine of Overwhelming Force
include limiting US casualties, instilling fear in the enemy as
well as future enemies.
Today the word Democracy is synonymous with rich developed countries;
their wealth should at least allow them access to overwhelming superiority
in quantity and quality of war equipment.
However the advantage of OVERWHELMING FORCE is shifting towards
countries like China and India where without discussion we can say
that their populations translate as potentially overwhelming numbers
and where they are also working hard at mastering technological
superiority.
It is extremely important that the USA, as a large Democracy, continues
to develop superior technology that will allow the USA when threatened
to use overwhelming force to defend itself.
European nations have so far shown no courage in standing
up against Ethnic Cleansing, Genocide and Dictatorship.
Although the might of the US military has been misused in the Iraqi
war, the USA is the only Democracy that will stand up against totalitarian
dictatorships, Rogue nation’s intent on mass massacres and
Extremist nation’s intent on Genocide.
Bottom line:
The Doctrine of OVERWHELMING FORCE was originally designed as a
pure military technique.
However the Recent disastrous experience in Iraq and the lessons
of History has shown us that OVERWHELMING FORCE is not only an important
military doctrine but the quintessential element of Governing a
Democracy in troubled times
Best regards
Eric Lafayette.
Our website about History of Democracy and News on Iraq is: http://www.fordemocracy.com
Our website about Environment and a path to the Iraqi war is: http://www.alltheperspectives.com
Our Meet up website is: http://dfa.meetup.com/88/?gj=sj5
E-mail address: ericlafayette@fordemocracy.com
------------------
DIPLOMACY AND DEMOCRACY
With so much talk about using Diplomacy in the Iraqi crisis we decided
to see in what way Diplomacy could help
January 25th 2007
Educated intelligent Leaders of the modern world should
engage in war only when it is part of their diplomatic startegy.
WAR IS A TOOL OF DIPLOMACY.
President Bush made a huge error when he made diplomacy
subservient to the hawks of war to the point of making diplomacy
non existent.
Although President Bush had Collin Powell, one of the Best Diplomatic
advisors in the world he chose instead to humiliate him out of office.
He chose instead to elevate war mongers to the level of overall
Leaders and diplomatic startegists: Vice President Cheney and Secretary
of Defense Ronald Rumseld
DIPLOMACY IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY IN SOLVING CRISES BETWEEN
COUNTRIES.
Diplomacy relies on important tools to solve crises whether they
are between countries, tribes, ethnic entities or religious entities.
HERE ARE THE NECESSARY TOOLS
-------- WAR:
War is the most common tool. It should only be used with high levels
of competent leadership to create a stronger position for negotiation.
The best diplomat in the world ever was King Louis XI of France
whose capacity in this area was not well known. He quintupled his
extremely small kingdom by only using war as an infrequent and highly
effective tool even though he had built a formidable army and was
a great Commander in Chief.
History nicknamed him “The Universal Spider" for his
talents at creating a net of allies and then nudging his enemies
into falling into the net.
In the world of WAR there must be VICTORY. Of course only a Victory
will help the diplomats in their negotiations.
A small but exemplary and decisive victory is one hundred times
better than a mediocre victory in a large scale battle.
There are only a few rare examples of diplomats who successfully
limited the damages of a huge defeats, and the best known is "Talleyrand,"
Napoleon’s Secretary of Foreign Affairs. Talleyrand kept France’s
territory intact and unoccupied after Napoleon’s first defeat.
.
-------- OLD WORLD INCENTIVES:
---- One of the most effective tools to defuse a crisis in a bloodless
way is BRIBING enemy spies and leaders. One problem in the current
situation is that FUNDAMENTALIST MUSLIMS SEEM TO BE IMPERVIOUS TO
BRIBERY.
---- There are other more subtle ways to mellow and defuse your
opponents.
-- A monarch or a dictator will give his daughter or sister in marriage
to his enemy in the hope of turning it into an ally
--Using another tool of mollifying France enemies,Talleyrand presents
himself again as an example. He had recruited the greatest chef
of his era "Antonin Careme," and in a beautiful hotel
Particulier: Place Vendome in Paris (the site of the American Embassy
in Paris today) he gave wonderful dinners accompanied by great wines
making in the process scores of admirers and allies.
He then took his chef, Antonin Careme, to the Congress of Vienna
where the future of France was to be decided. This planning and
strategy successfully mollified France’s opponents. The quality
of the delicious dinners and wines were not only successful diplomatically,
but Chef Careme’s cuisine so impressed the leadership of the
enemies of France that his haute cuisine was taken to countries
throughout Europe and eventually became known worldwide.
However this strategy of Haute Cuisine will not work for the USA
whose best known cuisine comes from McDonald’s.
Although not as much in fashion, these tools are still used and
very efficient: Bribery, arranged marriages among powerful families,
dazzling dinner are the norm, not the exception in Africa and South
America.
--
-------- NEW WORLD INCENTIVE
---- Building factories to bring jobs to other countries while fighting
corruption is another diplomatic strategy and it is the avowed strategy
of the USA, the European Union and some Asian countries. One exception
is CHINA which is building factories but at the same time happy
to turn a blind eye to bribes being paid to the leaders of underdeveloped
countries. China’s influence is growing very quickly, and
China is creating a net of client countries ready to vote for them
at the UN and support their worldwide goals. .
-------- LOANS AND FINANCING
With the explosions of population in the third world brought on
by better health care and additional food supplies these countries
are not even close to being self sufficient and are very eager to
receive loans from richer developed countries.
The country that loans the most money with little hope of reimbursement
is the country that will have the most friends in the world and
thus steer many countries in the directions it desires. China is
well positioned, but the USA is positioned poorly.
-------- OTHER VERY INTERESTING DIPLOMATIC TOOLS
---- NON VIOLENT PROTESTS
--Gandhi obtained the freedom of India, now a Country of over a
billion people, with peaceful non-violent protests.
-- Martin Luther King brought down the barriers of social discrimination
based on racism in the USA with non-violent protests.
-- Mandela demonstrated heroic behavior by spending 17 years in
prison and brought down apartheid in South Africa with non-violent
protests.
We can see that Diplomats
have a large array of tools to conduct their Diplomacy. Some tools
are frown upon by modern Democracy such as outright bribery but
used in a covert manner anyway.
In the USA the most powerful Democracy on earth The President should
see himself first and foremost as the DIPLOMAT IN CHIEF and of course
because war is one of his tools the Army will be under his direct
control. This simple change of Vocabulary and mindset which was
exactly what President Bush Senior exemplified and exactly what
President Bush Junior did not do quite accurately exemplifies which
qualities the next President of the USA should have.
Best regards
Eric Lafayette
Our wbsite is www.fordemocracy.com
Our website is www.fordemocracy.com
Our Newsletter is USA TOMORROW
Our Meet up group is: http://dfa.meetup.com/88/?gj=sj5
-----------------------
The
SEVEN GREATEST MILITARY COMMANDERS
IN HISTORY
2006
November 27th modified March 14th 2009, December 1st 2010
In the USA, among most people, but certainly among great businessmen
in our era, it is common knowledge that success in business and
in life is defined by the same set of rules that can be applied
to almost any field. Hence it should be possible to apply the same
rules again and again to any sort of business enterprises and achieve
success.
The following summary studies the extraordinary achievements of
five men who did not read road to success books, but who nonetheless
conquered huge areas of the worlds they lived in or won impossible
battles, against all odds even including supposedly superior enemies.
The fascinating element is that each of these commanders
in chief achieved their victories by using completely different
STRATEGIES. These military geniuses were without any argument the
Greatest Commanders in Chief in the World and they are:
ALEXANDER THE GREAT
HANNIBAL
JULIUS CAESAR
GENGHIS KHAN
NAPOLEON
GENERAL PETREAUS
SUN TZU
ALEXANDER THE GREAT ( 356-323 BC)
Alexander’s
signature strategy was charge and charge again. Charging like a
possessed man at the head of his elite troops was Alexander the
Great’s signature Strategy.
Alexander’s strategy was a direct result of his culture as
well as his personal bravery. He came from a cast of warriors whose
culture focused on heroism and absolute bravery.
It is very important to underline that Alexander the Great had formalized
into an ubber elite group his friends-soldiers that were officially
named " Companions". His group of companions all cavalry
were not only ready to die for him. but they had to show by relentless
attacks and acts of bravery that they were as brave as Alexander
and the bar was very very high because Alexander was the bravest.
Using the hyper
macho culture of his time Alexander had fashioned the most aggressive
talented, small elite attack troop.
In most cases
as in his most famous early battles: Granicus and Issus against
all odds he charged. He often had less soldiers and the terrain
was against him but he charged. He and his crack troops charged
continuously until there was a break in the opposing army’s
line. He then went directly for the commander of the opposing army.
His relentless attacks had always the goal to kill or capture the
head of the opposing army.
In fact Alexander
the Great had built a new weapon, a gigantic human arrow meant to
pierce enemy lines. This arrow was constructed of Alexander,and
his bravest and most trusted companions. This human arrow was powered
by sheer courage the predominating force in the culture of heroes.
Alexander’s
signature was:
A rush to pierce enemy lines in order to destroy the head of the
army based on absolute bravery and Heroic behavior, and this fearless
and indomitable rush is present in all of Alexander’s battles.
No other Great commander charged so relentlessly at the head of
his troops in each battle that was won.
None of the Leaders opposing him had one tenth of his bravery. In
term of pure analysis It was Alexander technical superiority,
Diplomacy:
Alexander the Great was very successful in occupying the countries
he vanquished. He HIMSELF integrated the customs, the Gods and the
garments of the countries or regions he occupied. He did it with
so much conviction that his Greeks soldiers rebelled against him
accusing him of having forgotten that he was Greek. To be fair,
Alexander reputation of extremely successful commander in Chief
was a big part of the equation.
He always went all out with all his forces and then integrated himself
into the culture of the country he invaded
HANNIBAL ( 286-183
BC )
Hannibal’s signature strategy was the open ambush.
Hannibal faced enemy armies with a regular front line.
Once engaged in combatin the Battle of Canae his Center made of
Infantry pretended weakness and began to withdraw but the aisles
did not withdraw.
As a consequence the enemy would continue to advance further and
further into Hannibal's army, pushing the center back. When the
enemy army had stretched itself inside the two aisles of Hannibal’s
army, his center would hold its ground, then Hannibal’s two
aisles would (the most important part of this maneuver) close from
the sides of the stretched and extended enemy army. In addition
and simultaneously, a group of hidden cavalry would close on the
rear of the enemy army cutting off their retreat and creating panic.
We can see that his cavalry was also an important element.
In frontal assault the Roman army was invincible so Hannibal took
the risk of organizing the loss of his Center to make the aisles
the decisive factor. Again way outside the envelopeIn many of his
other battles played with the weaknesses of some of his troops and
the strengh of the Roman army to draw the Roman army during the
battle in an open Ambush.
What made Hannibal’s
performance exceptional is that during the ten years he roamed Italy
he was never defeated in a major engagement by the Roman Army which
was considered the best army in the world before it encountered
Hannibal.
Diplomacy
Hannibal had very limited Diplomatic success and failed to take
Rome the key to the Roman Empire.
JULIUS
CAESAR (100-44 BC)
Julius Caesar
signature battle is its Victory at Alesia against the Gaul leader
Vercingetorix.
It was an amazing feat of intelligence, confidence and engineering:
Vercingetorix
retreated with his entire army on a large plateau named Alesia that
was towering above the countryside and very difficult to assault.
Julius Caesar a man whose intelligence allowed him to play with
and combine all strengths of the mighty Roman army, used his corps
of roman engineers by far the best in the world.
He asked his engineer to entrap the plateau by building a line of
fortification encircling completely the plateau.
This circular line of fortification was complete with ditches, palisades,
tower, traps. it was about 12 miles long
So far good work from the corp of engineer but nothing exceptional.
Then defying all military rules Caesar had a second circular line
of fortification of about 14 miles built around Alesia facing outside
thus entrapping willingly his Army between these two lines of fortifications.
One line of fortifications, the closest from Alesia was to maintain
a siege and prevent the Gaul from evading the plateau, then there
was Caesar army distributed around the first perimeter then the
second line of fortification facing outside which function was to
hold the other Gaul armies from coming to the rescue of Vercingetorix
the beloved and charismatic Gaul leader.
You need to have an enormous deal of self confidence in yourself
to entrap yourself between two armies.
Jules Caesar repealed the outside armies and starved to death Vercingetorix
and his army on the plateau and they surrendered. It was the quasi
end of the Gaul rebellion.
In many of
his battles Julius Caesar used his corp of engineers to built bridges
or fortification that were the key to the outcome of the battle.
Julius Caesar used the corp of engineers a lot more than any commander
of his time.
Again thinking outside the envelope by voluntarily trapping his
army between two palisades. In addition using fortifications renders
the strong Gaul enemy cavalry useless
Jules Caesar signature strategy was an extensive use of
his corp of engineers.
Diplomacy:
In Gaul Julius Caesar worked hard on gathering intelligence which
helped him to divide and conquer Gaul tribes.
It is estimated that one million Gauls were killed by Julius Cesar
Armies.
Julius Cesar carried a very big stick and a very little carrot.
However Roman civilization was so superior that after the first
revolt and then defeat Gauls became eager to adopt Roman culture.
In the end Gaul became part of the Roman Empire for centuries.
GENGHIS KHAN
(1162 - 1227)
Genghis Khan’s signature strategy was: flight to fight.
Running away was the signature strategy of Genghis Khan and his
faithful General Subotei. Genghis Khan is the only commander in
chief whose armies ran away again and again in front of their enemies
and yet easily won the battle in the end.
Because Genghis Khan’s armies where extremely mobile, 90 percent
of his armies were light cavalry on small horses and amazingly no
great historian ever pointed out how weak a cavalry it was, compared
to European heavier cavalry much bigger, much faster horses and
bigger lances.
There was only
one solution to destroy the opposing heavy cavalry and that was
to destroy it piece meal. Genghis Khan’s army would face the
other army; simulate a fight and then a flight. The opposing army
would of course pursue them and Genghis Khan’s army would
continue to flee. Their strategy was to not flee too fast being
careful to stay in sight of the enemy army. Among the pursuers the
fastest would begin to take the lead while the slower began to fall
a little bit behind and the slowest members of the opposition fell
even further behind so that the enemy army went from a formidable
frontal formation to an extended line of cavalry ready to be picked
off.
Genghis Khan’s
army then turned around, went on both sides of this extended line
and started unleashing a deadly volley of arrows from horseback.
Their archers were remarkable; every Mongol was simultaneously a
master rider and archer. What is absolutely fascinating is that
Genghis Khan and his favorite General used their signature strategy
over and over again, and on each occasion the same strategy and
the same tactic and won again and again.
Genghis khan from a major weakness - little weak horses - by thinking
out of the envelope and imagination had turned an army incapable
of holding its ground in an assault into a Conquering wonder.
Genghis Khan signature strategy was
Bait your opponent into pursuing you, extend their lines and pick
them up one at a time
Diplomacy
Genghis khan reorganized with a very strong bureaucracy the provinces
he conquered. Being accountable to him with precision and efficiency
was one of the Strength of his governmental skills.
NAPOLEON
(1769-1821)
Napoleon’s
signature strategy was mobility.
As Napoleon said, “I won more battles with the legs of my
soldiers than with my guns."
The Battle
of Rivoli one of the battles of the extraordinary campaign of Italy
is the arch example of the power of ultra mobility by an army as
well as Napoleon’s signature strategy and tactics. Massena
one of Napoleon’s Generals and his army walked 120 miles while
fighting three engagements. At the same time Napoleon walked another
fifty miles with another army while a couple of his other generals
walked a few dozen miles with more troops while fighting more engagements.
This means there was an army fighting all the time and STILL WALKING
more than 200 miles combined.
Most of the generals who opposed Napoleon had the tendency to find
a strong position and then from this strong position conduct an
offensive. They built large armies that were slow and stationary
to oppose the feared Napoleon.
Napoleon due to the mobility of his army was pleased to be able
to learn which direction the enemy army was moving because he knew
that in most cases he be able to go around them. He could then attack
parts of the enemy army that moved slowly and then move again and
finish off the rest of the enemy Army.
Napoleon never bothered to achieve the completion of a huge standing
army at one place. He preferred to influence the strategy of the
opposing army by moving his troops and then engaging in combat when
he judged that the trends were in his favor while more of his army
arrived on the battle field.
After Rivoli,
Austerlitz is another example of mobility versus mass. Napoleon
occupied the Praetzen Heights, the best strategic position, but
at dawn the day of the battle (December 2, 1805) Napoleon's troops
began to slowly withdraw from the Praetzen Heights, pretending weakness.
The opposing army then climbed the Praetzen Heights, and slowly
occupied it but exactly as Napoleon had predicted the enemy troops
could not prevent themselves to pursue the French then they continued
to follow the retreating French Army downhill, stretching this part
of their resources.
When the Austrians
and Russians occupied the Praetzen Heights and Napoleon's generals
were a bit anxious Napoleon joyously declared, not once but twice,
“Now we got them." He had sprung a trap that defied all
rules of warfare, and his army was on its way to victory.
Napoleon was short of men and the enemy push from the Praetzen Heights
was extremely menacing. And then a division that had walked 100
kilometers in 2 days arrived in extremis to reinforce Napoleon’s
Army at the bottom of the Praetzen Height. At the same time Napoleon
sent some of his cavalry to clean the Praetzen Heights.
Napoleon was a master of thinking outside the envelope: Instead
of holding the Praetzen plateau he left what is a must hold for
military experts. In many other battles when the enemy expected
him here he was already behind the enemy.
Austerlitz again demonstrates Napoleon’s use of mobility.
First when he withdrew his troops from the Praetzen Heights and
then when he started the battle while a crucial division was walking
its way towards the battle field. Napoleon was trusting the legs
of his soldiers
.Napoleon signature strategy was mobility:
For Napoleon war was a fluid element in constant movement or chaos.
The only way to win a war was to redirect a series of Streams and
not to built Dams.
Diplomacy:
Napoleon tried his hand at diplomacy and signed many treaties all
unsuccessful. His dictatorial style of government left France in
a sorry state.
General Petraeus
General
Petraeus is among the greatest military commander in history. More
precisely we have one of the greatest teams: General Petraeus and
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
Although
General Petraeus is the creator of the modern counter insurgency
strategy, Robert Gates with his extremely brilliant mind immediately
grasped how innovative, intelligent and efficient this doctrine
was, gave General Petraeus full support and has done everything
in his power to make General Petraeus’ difficult task a winning
strategy. In addition Secretary Gates is the proponent of using
unmanned vehicles some of them drones as much as possible. Thanks
to this amazing team the use of unmanned vehicles as spies and attackers
produced extremely good results and they have become indispensable
tools for American Forces. Although unmanned vehicles already existed,
previous commanders never understood how beneficial their use could
be.
General
Petraeus doctrine goes far beyond the extensive use of Special Forces
now a feature of mainstream military strategy.
In
a very conservative world General Petraeus in the same fashion his
great predecessors did thought outside the envelope and rewrote
the book on how to deal with counter insurgency
The
way his doctrine is worded is the first clue that it was written
by a very intelligent man. In addition the content of his doctrine
shows that his doctrine and ideas include planning and actions thought
to be the realm of civilian administrators. Here is a quotation
from the manual defining the old style but accurate doctrine of
counterinsurgency.
“Counterinsurgency
is those political, economic, military, paramilitary, psychological,
and civic actions taken by a government to defeat an insurgency”
Here is General Petraeus more broadly redefining counterinsurgency
with a greater focus on politics:
Political
power is the central issue in an insurgency, and each side has this
as its aim. The insurgent attempts to overthrow or subvert an established
government or authority; the counterinsurgent uses all of the instruments
of national power to support the government in restoring and enforcing
the rule of law. Counterinsurgency thus involves the controlled
application of national power in political, information, economic,
social, military, and diplomatic fields and disciplines. Its scale
and complexity should never be underestimated by leaders and planners;
indeed, the possible scale and complexity must be understood before
the beginning of any such operation.
In
fact the latest refinements to his doctrine turn the tables around.
From
being strictly an occupying force American Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan
are evolving into guerilla forces that disrupt the enemy. In addition
as everybody knows guerilla forces need the constant support of
the local population. General Petraeus not only minimized civilian
casualties to the extreme but also helped secure perimeters where
building schools and hospitals funded by the US is feasible thus
turning part of the civilian populations into allies.These multiple
daunting tasks necessitate weaving together many important strands
into a warfare strategy that would have made Sun Tzu very proud
of General Petraeus.
An example of what seems completely out of the American and European
book of warfare is what has been called “the night raids.”
Due to the technical superiority of “night goggles”
American Special Forces act on “intelligence” and engage
counterinsurgents at night creating extreme fear by killing or capturing
them at night. It is not the terrorists that sleep well at night
and keep the American awake and worried; it is the other way around.
It
is important to understand that it is not a couple of night raids
as it has been in the past by most armies to secure a precise strategic
objectives, but the constant repetition of these night raids as
well as the constant use of drones that constitute the strategy.
This very specific strategy is a testimony that thinking outside
the envelope should not have limits and is very beneficial.
Let’s
also give a word of praise for President Obama who although a pacifist
recognized General Petraeus’ intelligence and gave him the
tools for implementing a successful strategy.
General Petreaus signature strategy is: Put fear among terrorist
by constant invisible attacks but implement visible and constant
respect and care for civilians
SUN
TZU
The
reason I put Sun Tzu at the end is that if I had started with Sun
Tzu the reader will have inferred thanks to the wealth of warfare
concepts in Sun Tzu’s treaty: "the art of war" that
all other Great Commanders had read Sun Tzu and applied part of
his principles about warfare. In fact none of them with the exception
of General Petreaus had read Sun Tzu.
Only an extremely brilliant mind could have come with a treaty of
war so intelligent that it has stood the test of time, is perfectly
accurate and usable today. In fact General Petraus is applying 70%
of the principles of Sun Tzu treaty the art of war.
The
reason SunTzu is included among the great commanders is because
in addition of the writing of his treaty about war as a General
he lead an extremely challenging but victorious campaign against
an enemy ten times superior in numbers. His achievements are dated
around 500 BC in China
In a very concise way of seven points I am going to describe what
are the most important concepts of Sun Tzu treaty" The art
of war"" which is composed of thirteen chapters with many
points into each chapters. I will not use a logical order but will
prioritize the most original concepts that I believe are his most
important contribution to the art of warfare and are important today
in the conflicts the American army is fighting.
First:”
Know your enemy and know yourself and in 100 battles you will never
be in peril"
Although
many American commanders forgot to follow the first part of this
Sun Tzu principle about knowing your enemy what is even less obvious
is studying the weaknesses of your army. From SunTzu point of view
“know yourself “ applies first to the knowledge the
Commander of the army should have of himself, his strengths , fears
and weaknesses and then to the knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses
of his army.
As a parallel knowing your enemy mindset is essential as well as
knowing his strength and weakness. Spying by human spies or drones
is quintessential.
Second:
To win 100 battles is not the height of skills, to subdue the enemy
without fighting is.
All
wars are not avoidable especially when you have been attacked but
a show of force in combination with intelligent diplomacy will avoid
a war.
As a result of his philosophy Sun Tzu was very focused on achieving
victory with the minimum of losses and destruction.
Case
in point": General Petraeus extreme respect for minimizing
casualties among the Afghan population.
Case
in point: Saddam Hussein containment without a war worked very well
and we know know that going to war against Iraq was a huge mistake
that cost America his leadership.
Negative case in point: Hitler in his arrogance was a good judge
of the weakness of England and France. These countries showed extreme
weakness as well as unentelligent diplomacy by yieding to Hitler
constant illegal breach of treaty BEFORE world war II and letting
him invade two nations: Austria and Czechoslovakia without France
and England declaring war to Hitler. However Hitler not knowing
himself went one invasion too far ( Poland) and started World war
II a war that lead to 50 million deaths.
Third:"Avoid
what is strong attack what is weak"
This
principle is another statement that emphasizes Sun Tsu philosophy
Sun Tzu could have coined " Always think outside the envelop"
another more modern similar quote is “ always find the weakest
point in an armor”. It takes a lot of spying and thinking
to find the chink in the armor.
Negative case in point: One of the rare of General lee mistakes
when he send his army in relentless attack of a fortified hill at
Gettysburg, losing the battle in a blood bath which was a fatal
step leading to the loss of the war.
Fourth
"War is a matter of life and death"
Not
only because people die in battle but because nations and empire
die in battle. case in point Napoleon Empire won by war lost by
war
A
principle the greatest diplomat and a great military commander himself
French king Louis XI applyed all his life achieving the reconquest
of his kingdom fighting as few battles as he could.
For
SunTzu this principle has a deeper meaning that extoll the fact
that when warriors are put in a situation where only two choices
are offered or perceived: win and live or loose and die a warrior
and the army he is part of becomes invincible: Case in point: the
Vietnamese army encompassing citizens who lost 3 millions people
in comparison to the 60000 American deaths but won the war.
Case
in point: Hernan Cortes upon landing in Mexico burned its ships
signaling to his soldiers that there was only a win or die proposition
on the table. His tiny army of 600 soldiers conquered the Aztec
Empire a multi million population country with armies of ten of
thousand soldiers.
War should be avoided at all cost except when attacked and of the
risk of being annihilated. A great commander is able to win and
achieve its goals without going into combat
Fifth: “It is more important to outthink your enemy
than to outfight him”
Sun
Tzu was a master of bait and deceive. He designed the following
concept: if you offer a bait that is so tempting that the enemy
will not be able to resist pursuing it then you can lead him where
you want him to be on the terrain and time of your choice which
is the goal of any smart commander. Case in point Napoleon victory
at Austerlitz. Napoleon abandoned the high ground cherished by all
commanders in order to lure the enemy first on the plateau but then
as Napoleon has planned the enemy could not resist the bait of pursuing
Napoleons soldiers as they were walking down the plateau thus spreading
their lines on the plateau and on the slopes of the plateau. Napoleon
counterattacked with his cavalry who decimated the thinly spread
enemy on the plateau while his troops stopped and slaughtered the
enemy inferior in number that was pursuing them.
Sixth: “Energy may be likened to the bending of a
crossbow; decision, to the releasing of a trigger”
”The onset of troops is like the rush of a torrent which will
even roll stones along in its course.”
”The quality of decision is like the well-timed swoop of a
falcon which enables it to strike and destroy its victim. “
If
applied to the American armies of the 20 centuries it can be said
that Decision making was most of the time the weakest point of the
American campaigns.
Seventh: “The art of war recognizes nine varieties
of ground”
Sun Tzu wrote extensively on Terrain about the different sort of
ground as well as the different landscapes favorable and unfavorable
to an army.
He of course advises to use only favorable ground.
What
is striking is the arrogance of the American commanders in chief
and I am talking about the Presidents of the 20th century who at
each war relentlessly sent American soldiers into very hostile terrain:
World war 1, World war II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq only Afghanistan
is an acceptable terrain because there is no hindrance to our Drones..
Only the enormous advantage in hardware and or the Insane bravery
of the American soldiers gave us victory.
For
our modern warfare these seven concepts in Sun Tzu philosophy of
the art of war are absolutely crucial.
General
Petraeus and Robert Gates are employing all of them with the exception
of bait and deception an option they should use because it will
destroy a lot more enemies. Deception includes gifts and bribes.
Negative
case in point during the Bush administration.
The
Falludja siege; A mockery of how to conduct a war. The siege of
Falluja showcase the most stupid conduct of a battle in modern time
where instead of bait and deception the American army surrounded
the town in a very visible way they waited and allowed many inhabitants
to leave the siege in a very publicized way then allowed humanitarian
truck to enter the city and these trucks had hidden arms in them
and then without achieving any victory the US declared a cease fire.
That city in Iraq was taken later at a huge cost of lives for the
inhabitants and a partial destruction of a city.
One
crucial element is that for Sun Tzu war was only a mean to an end.
This end was achieved mostly by political actions.
THE
QUINTESSENTIAL OUTCOME OF THE ART OF WAR IS TO BREAK THE ENNEMY
WILL TO FIGHT.
That
previous sentence sum it all up. Winning a battle is not the most
important thing. The most important thing is to target the man or
the legislative body or the population that allows the continuation
of the war and to strike a blow that is unbearable. Case in point:
the USA never lost a battle in Vietnam but they lost the war because
the US population did not want to fight this war.
Case
in point; In the time of the kings and Emperors, Alexander the great
always rushed towards the king commanding the army to kill him in
order to break the will of an army now without its head.
In
addition of these Seven concepts there are many more instructions
in Sun Tzu art of war that includes the quality of the orders, the
quality of the generals and other principles but these seven concepts
not only are actual but they reflects a very brilliant mind who
gave to the world a book called the art of War but could have been
named : The art of a successful life”
The
way to use Sun Tzu art of war is to use ALL concepts together because
they work as the many strands of a rope that are individually not
unbreakable but when assembled in a rope are so strong as to be
unbreakable and thus insure victory.
I
personally believe that the Art of War by SunTzu can make any intelligent
person unbeatable in war as well as very successful in life
SunTzu signature Strategy is : Align all the ducks on your side
and disrupt all the ducks on the enemy side before engaging in a
battle.
BOTTOM
LINE
Although all these great Commanders in chief had their signature
Strategy, they never neglected their fundamentals and the most important
is having good intelligence on the enemy, choosing your main weapon
( mobility or corp of engineers) according to the strength of your
Army and be well trained in the kind of war you want to fight.
Without any doubts they had Great courage and great intelligence.
Best regards
Eric Lafayette
My website
is www.fordemocracy.com
My Newsletter is USA TOMORROW
-----------------------
Questions about Iraq
2006/11/21
My
website is www.fordemocracy.com
My Newsletter USA TOMORROW will help you stay way ahead of the curve
with this kind of quality articles.
You can receive our Free Newsletter USA TOMORROW by writing in the
subject line of an Email:
I WANT USA TOMORROW; click here
Email :ericlafayette@fordemocracy.com
Let us start
with a straight forward statement.
At last Henry Kissinger understands that he owes the truth not to
the Princes that he serves but to the American citizens who created
the country where he built a formidable career.
Here are his
words about success in Iraq:
“If
you mean by Military Victory an Iraqi government that can be stabilized
and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil
war under control in a time period that the Political process of
the Democracy will support, I don't believe that is possible.”
However he added that the USA should not withdraw precipitously
from Iraq because that would lead to complete chaos.
Lately, Henry
Kissinger has been advising President Bush. In his illustrious career
Kissinger became well known as the master of “Real Politic.”
He was
one of Richard Nixon’s influential advisors on foreign policy,
specifically during the War in Vietnam. Henry Kissinger received
the Noble Peace Prize for his contributions to end hostilities in
Vietnam. Henry Kissinger’s past is useful to us in the two
following ways
He managed to lose a war and withdraw from a country Vietnam as
a loser while at the same time making it look like almost a victory.
He brokered a piece agreement between Israel and its foes ending
a destabilizing war, the 1973 Yom Kippur war in the middle east
and created an environment for peace in the region.
However the Iraqi crisis looks a lot more like Vietnam than the
Israeli Egyptian conflict of the sixties
His most recent statement on the War in Iraq is formidable because
it is probably the first time he has been sincere with the American
people, and it will cost him the favor of the Prince. Kissinger’s
statement is extremely pessimistic.
These
are other solutions that could help the USA.
We will try to advocate these solutions as fairly as possible and
to show them in their best light without any criticism. This gives
you the reader the potential to evaluate and choose what could be
the best solution to improve the solution in Iraq..
1.
Phased Withdrawal of American Troops from Iraq ?
The phased withdrawal is meant to give a strong signal to the Iraqi
government by showing them that we are committed to leave and it
is their job, not the USA to bring stability and order to their
country. In addition it progressively lowers the number of Americans
troops in combat thus theoretically lowering the number of casualties
until there are none. A solution advocated by Democratic Senator
Carl Levine.
2. Redeployment of US Troops Around Iraq and in Neighboring
Countries ?
Kuwait is a possibility.
Once US troops are no longer in contact with Iraqi civilians they
will not stir up as much anger. Now American troops are viewed as
occupiers not liberators anymore.
Removing US troops from the battlefield should also theoretically
diminish the number of casualties until there are none. This solution
is advocated by Congressman Murtha and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
3. A Combination of parts of the Two Previous Plans ?
This plan minimizes contact with the enemy by taking the troops
away from the battle field and at the same time diminishes the number
of troops in Iraq which should lower the number of casualties all
the way to zero. Many Democratic leaders favor this option, some
part of it or a similar configuration.
4. Increasing the Number of Troops Significantly by 100,000
or More ?
For the last 16 months some US Generals and Senator John McCain
have strongly advocated an increase in troops. Arguing against the
notion that it could be too late to pursue this strategy and the
overwhelming rejection of this idea by the American people in recent
polls, (only 16% of Americans are in favor of sending more US troops)
Senator McCain continues to vehemently push for this solution.
He advocates that not winning the war and stabilizing Iraq could
enormously destabilize the whole region and create even more enemies
with greater capabilities who are bent on attacking the USA.
5. Cut and Run ?
Although shocking in its wording it is a viable solution, a little
bit like a cancer treatment. Surgically cut out the tumor and/or
the organ but follow up with aggressive chemotherapy. This solution
means that all American troops would evacuate Iraq and the region
simultaneously. Chaos will follow, but good diplomacy that includes
pressure and incentives could help stabilize the region again after
a period when the dominos will be reshuffled and then reorganized.
The important part of cut and run is the timing. Within the next
six months it is too soon. In addition the Bush Administration is
firmly opposed to this option.
6. Divide and Separate Iraq into Three Almost Independent
Countries ?
Only splitting IRAQ into three independent entities under a loose
umbrella could provide a less damaging solution. As soon as this
step is taken, but not before, getting out of Iraq will benefit
the USA and Iraq. A reasonable time table to set for achieving this
partition of Iraq should be two years. However the reality is that
the Bush administration is not moving in this direction and timing
is almost everything during a war. It is important to remember that
in a war a solution advocated today and not implemented or acted
upon could be irrelevant after two more years of the Bush Administration
Retaining the name Iraq would be possible as in, “The United
States of Iraq,” At the same time the USA or the UN would
have to help the Iraqi people in making the inevitable displacement
of populations which has already begun less traumatic and then let
them sort out their own futures and eradicate terrorism in their
own territory under a UN resolution. This solution is advocated
by Senator Joseph Biden and Historian Eric Lafayette.
7. Go big, Go long or Go Home ?
These are the solutions offered to President Bush by a panel of
high level Colonels from the battle-field. Their recommendations
are: go a little big bigger, 10,000 to 20,000 more US troops for
six months in order to stabilize Baghdad then when Baghdad is stabilized,
push and push again the training of Iraqi troops. In the meantime
embed some Americans soldiers within Iraqi military units.
The '"go home" solution will be rejected by president
Bush.
8. Bomb Iraq back to the cave age ?
A limited bombing campaign will only irate Iranians into
a frenzy without rendering them harmless to the USA.
If Americans should remember a lesson from their past wars it is
the fact that only when the USA has bombed their enemies into utter
crippling weakness; such was the case for Germany and Japan and
the Indians without bombing but crippling massacres; America has
dominated then helped rebuild devastated countries into peaceful
nations.
This solution has an incredible number of advantages;
No more Nuclear threat,
No more support of Lebanese Hezbollah,
No more support of Iraqi shiites,
No more support of terrorism world wide,
Moderate regime such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia will gain breathing
room.
All rogue regimes such as North Korean will all of a Sudden become
open to American interests.
This solutions has a couple of major disadvantages:
Irate to the point of fury all Muslims in the world.
That will almost guarantee a terrorist attack on US soil.
All countries in the world will openly strongly disapprove of the
US attack while approving it in private.
Do not be mislead by the fact that this option is rarely mentioned,
it is at the top of the Agenda by President Bush and Vice President
Cheney.
9. More and more Diplomacy ?
Although hardly a solution by itself, the Baker Commission, as well
as many others, are recommending engagement in diplomatic talks
with Iran and Iraq and bringing in more local rulers of the Arab
world. The eventual goal would be to organize a regional peace conference.
It will be probably an important element of the Baker commission
plan.
It is however
a double edged sword.
In one
hand it is a very efficient tools to get to know your friends and
ennemy better and form alliances but on the other hand your ennemies
could be the one forging thye best alliances
As President Bush has shunned anything that is` not bullying foes
and friends alike there is a lot to repair and do in the Diplomatic
field.
As all great diplomats will tell you:
The military option is a necessary tool inside the diplomacy
multiple tools but it is only a tool;
An overall solution could be 30% military and 70 % diplomatic involvment
in opposition to President Bush overall policy of 99% military and
1% diplomacy.
Henry Kissinger and James Baker are trying to reinsert diplomacy
in the Equation but their problem as advisors to President Bush
is that President Bush is not even remotely close to understand
them.
The distressing side is that President Bush has brought the USA
to such a low with no strong position to start a discussion with
other countries that it could seem hopeless.
Diplomacy however is anything but hopeless.
US Diplomacy will have to dismount their high horse that never went
anywhere anyway and begin to toil the soil by hand in order to plant
the seeds of Diplomacy here, there and everywhere in the hope that
within five years other People and Countries will begin to respect
support and help the USA again.
After all the master of Diplomacy: The French Ambassador Talleyrand
was able when Napoleon was crushed and France invaded to restore
France in its territorial integrity.
The situation of the USA is not as dire but a lot of long term diplomatic
work is necessary.
In the future we will scrutinize these solutions and see
if they have any merit.
EricLafayette
--------------------------------
SOLUTIONS FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ
AND
FOR THE FUTURE OF THE USA
2006/10/11
DIPLOMATIC SOLUTIONS:
There
is NO WAY that the USA can win the War in Iraq using its current
strategy as defined by President
Bush in his many “STAY THE COURSE” discourses.
Our readers have been well aware of the Bush White House’s
persistent flawed direction in Iraq long before political pundits
started to come to the same conclusion.
The Solutions described in the following article have been put forward
to our readers for almost two years now.
Only splitting IRAQ into
three independent entities under a loose umbrella could
provide a less damaging solution. As soon as this step is taken,
but not before, getting out of Iraq will benefit the USA and Iraq.
A reasonable time table to set for achieving this partition of Iraq
should be two to three years.
However the reality is that the Bush administration is not taking
this direction and timing is almost everything during a war. It
is important to remember that in a war a solution advocated today
if not implemented when advocated could be irrelevant after two
more years of the Bush administration
Retaining the name Iraq would
be possible as in, “The United States of Iraq,” but
it is extremely important that these three entities remain totally
independent even have a name differentiating them but held together
by a coordinating committee that has consultative powers only. At
the same time the USA or the UN must help the Iraqi people in making
the inevitable displacement of populations which has already begun
less traumatic and then let them sort out their own futures and
eradicate terrorism in their own territory under a UN resolution.
THE VERY IMPORTANT THING TO REMEMBER IS THAT WAR IS A FLUID AGREGAT
OF ELEMENT THAT GETS RESHUFFLED AND CHENGED ON A DAILY BASIS. WHAT
WAS GOOD YESTERDAY MAY NOT BE GOOD TODAY AND WHAT IS GOOD TODAY
MAY NOT BE GOOD TOMORROW.
Bottom
line
We would have three small independent States under a loose umbrella
with a displacement of population rendered less traumatic thanks
to international help.
The road to this solution could be extremely bumpy.
8 0% of the Iraqi are not in favor of this solution.
8 0% of the American Leaders are not in favor of this solution.
Some American leaders believe that other steps should be taken in
order to achieve some sort of minimal success in Iraq
The USA may have to implement a succession of intermediary steps
before achieving
the final design of three independent entities of Iraq. This succession
of intermediary steps could be constituted by what is already out
there offered as independent solutions.
The elements of a viable solution as well as the timetable to implement
the activation of these elements could be the following. **
1) For a period of 6 months to a year, add 50 000 soldiers
to Baghdad to give a sense of victory and security to the law abiding
citizens and to show to the Iraqi police and army that it can be
done. At the same time increase training of the Iraqi forces.
2) Then withdraw most of the troops out of Iraq and let the Iraqi
find out if they can govern their country.
3) Start in the meantime to push the legal frame for partition.
4) If the Iraqi can maintain a Peaceful Iraq as a whole and the
army and police keep a relatively safe environment so much the better,
happy ending.
If sectarian violence continues between Sunnis and Chiites then
the partition of Iraq between three entities will separates the
warring factions which is always a good thing.
Another UN peace keeping force will be needed.
I am personally forcefully against what I call a double
jeopardy: Shrinking under the name of redeployment the
US Forces in Iraq while embedding a few dozen Americans soldiers
inside Iraqis brigades.
This is not acceptable because it will have these American soldiers
tortured and killed by renegade Iraqis inside the police and the
Army.
THE ROOTS OF THE
PROBLEM
It is always best to research the roots of a Problem and then extirpate
them.
The only solution that can
control terrorism is for the USA to be able to restrain
China’s Foreign policy by demonstrating to China
how dreadful economic restrictions on China’s imports into
the USA could be for their economy.In one of our previous article
we showed that China specifically has strong ties with America's
foes. China should be able to understand that supporting Iran as
well as other countries favorable to terrorists and terrorism will
be very detrimental to China. Because of its HUGE size and fast
paced economic development China is continually starved for oil.
China’s constant search for adequate oil supplies is the main
driving force behind its foreign policy.
It has to be explained to
China in no uncertain terms that selling products in the USA made
in factories using oil from Iran is not going to help China’s
sales to the Western World when it is under attack by Iran. Without
China’s help Iran would most certainly be in a much more difficult
economic and technological situation and much less able to afford
helping terrorists.
On the other hand it is absolutely
crucial that the USA and the European Union spend a lot of money
and extend their good will to the few Modern Moderate Muslim nations
left.
Stabilizing this region will
take a few years but the presence of US troops is part of the problem,
not part of the solution.
Oil is money and Iran has
a lot of oil thus a lot of money. Iran is the problem. If you examine
terrorism and/or the crisis in the Middle East from any angle you
will see that Iran is constantly launching attacks on its neighbors
and the USA through many proxy terrorist organizations which Iran
provides with money, arms, training and IDEOLOGY (Fundamentalist
Muslim Faith).
Iran is on a path to rule
the Middle East region including Syria and Lebanon. China must be
made to understand that its economic future depends on China's willingness
to NOT support terrorist regimes. For the next ten of years China’s
economy will continue to strongly depend on its huge exports to
the USA and Japan.
In addition, it is crucial that the US through alternative energy
solve its dependency on foreign oil
A nother vital key is to solve the Palestinian - Lebanon-Israeli
-Syrian problem.
Make no mistake: Due to George Bush the younger abandonement of
this part of the world where USA commitments are absolutes and SHOULD
NOT have been overlooked the situation has gotten a lot worse.
We have now two powder kegs istead of one:
Palestinians against Israel in an ongoing war that has seen Israel
increase the level of violence against Palestinians without success.
In Lebanon, the Hezbollah party which has most probably 60 or 70%
of the Lebanese sympathetic to them has left the government and
started governing from the street which is the very first step for
civil war.In addition the Hezbollah fighter are not been disarm
completing the pictire of a power keg. This potential problem
is even more dreadfull than the Iraqi problem although so far no
American troops are involved.
IDEOLOGY
An understanding of the following ideology is essential to future
diplomatic strategy.
Muslim Fundamentalism is an ideology bent on attacking Western values
and Western countries. The Ideology of the Fundamentalist Muslim
faith will develop and rule part of the world for two generations
perhaps for a little bit less time than the Communist Ideology ruled
part of the world. It will do this in the same way, using
dictatorial power, repression and massacres.
Western nations and their Leaders do not have even a vague idea
how blood thirsty and enormously cruel these enemies are.
The positive thing for Western
Secular Democracies is that Muslim Fundamentalism offers
such an enormous step backward that it cannot stand in
the face of television and the internet. Within fifty years the
Muslim Fundamentalist Ideology will have lost a lot of its power.
By then China will be a very dangerous and powerful nation and will
become a new and even more dangerous threat for the USA, but that
is another story. In the meantime as they are not natural allies:
the USA must work in weakening any link between China and the Fundamentalist
Muslims. That task is far from beeing impossible.
This Fundamentalist Muslim
Ideology is on the rise and becoming a huge powerful wave
made of millions of human droplets made from the waters
of fundamentalism.
You cannot fight it by brute military force. The only solution is
to dry all the wells that produce this dangerous water one after
the other and wait until the wave has lost its power.
In the same fashion that
the Communist Ideology lost all of its strength Fundamentalist Muslim
Ideology will without a doubt lose its power. It will take some
patience and although it is upsetting we will have to wait it out
while doing damage control
PRACTICAL STEPS
The key is: do not add water to their well.
1) By staying in Iraq
2) By not solving the Palestinian-Israel- Lebanoni conflict.
3) By using enormous quantities of their oil which raises the price
of oil and gives them more and more money
4) By partially preventing their Friends (China- Venezuela- Russia)
from continuing to help them
In addition, there are a
few red flags that need to be raised, the most important being to
prevent lawless states from becoming a haven and training ground
for terrorist foes.
Some countries that are on the verge of becoming training camps
for terrorists are Sudan and Somalia.
Lebanon is going to be a major problem and needs close monitoring.
The big danger however is with Iraq. If US troops leave before a
strong and organized structure is in place, it will become a new
terrorist state that will manufacture literally millions of terrorists.
It will be Afghanistan all over again and on a much larger scale.
PARTITION AND ITS
OUTCOME
If Iraq is partitioned into three countries what will happen?
Kurdish Iraq will stay relatively
calm and not harbor terrorists.
Sunni Iraq will be overpowered by Shiite Iraq and decimated to a
powerless entity unless secretly armed and suported by the USA.
Fight within these separates entities will happen but without the
US presence
Shiite Iraq will ally itself with Iran very closely and will be
a training ground for terrorists. Iran is already breeding terrorists
and with the Shiites portion of Iraq Iran will be a little bit more
powerful, not a lot more.
Again Iran is the problem.
It is not a perfect
solution but it is damage control made necessary by the creation
of a dreadful situation originated by President Bush Junior, It
is the best the USA can hope for.
On the plus side:
No more killing of US soldiers in Iraq
Instead of 2 fronts : Iran and Iraq, after the partition, one front
only: Iran with the addition of Shiite Iraq.
In the world of real politic Shiite and Sunnis in Iraq could be
too busy exterminating each other to have the time and resources
to attack the USA. If they are not exterminating each other they
will be busy reconstructing to focus in killing Americans
The Bush Administration says that US troops are working hard at
improving the capability of Iraqi soldiers and Iraqi police to fight
terrorists. As always this is a false statement. If they were honest
they would say what the commanders of the US Army and Marines on
the ground are saying. The Army and the Police are so infiltrated
by terrorists (infiltration acknowledged by the Iraqi minister of
the interior) that we are actually improving the skills
and strength of the terrorists who after they train with the US
army during the daytime go on night time and week-end rampages torturing
and murdering their religious opponents.
Telling the American
People that the Iraqi Army and the Iraqi Police are going to replace
American soldiers within 12 to 18 months nis a LIE and a deceitful
MIRAGE dangled in front of American citizens to entice
them into voting Republican and supporting the Bush Administration.
President Bush has repeated this lie time and time again while repeating
his unsuccessful formula for success: when the Iraqi troops will
stand up the American troops will stand down.
With or without the Americans
the region is falling into chaos. A very recent poll in Iraq showed
that the vast majority of Iraqis want US soldiers out of Iraq within
one year or at the most two years. 61% of Iraqis support attacks
against the Americans.
The US government should apply the solutions offered by our publications:
FOR DEMOCRACY and its Newsletter USA TOMORROW.
The main opposition
to redefining the exit Strategy in Iraq is not only of course the
President but also 99% of Republican leaders who continue to bash
the Democrats and to advocate “Staying the course in Iraq.”
Make no mistake there will be more terrorists’ actions
in the main land USA.
We are in for a 50 years cycle of problems with the Fundamentalist
Muslim world.
Homeland security must be developed. The only reason there has been
no more terrorist attack on the USA is the very very small pro-fundamentalist
Muslim community in the USA.
Frightening fact: Between 9/11 2001 and November 2006 the FBI has
not been efficient enough to raise the number of their agent fluent
in Arabic to more than one hundred agents.
Human intelligence in Muslim countries must be developed.
Because of its small population of Muslims, 0.6%, and because it
is extremely remote from the Middle East the threat to the USA is
not gigantic once the USA is out of Iraq. Western Europe is a more
likely field of combat for Muslim terrorists where in some Europeans
countries such as France 10% of their population are members of
the Muslim Faith and many of them are sympathetic to Fundamentalist
Muslims.
MILITARY SOLUTION
It seems that President
Bush's Iraqi war has defined the decades to come into a situation
similar to the Cold war. The USA is going to fight Iran
and the majority of the Muslim world backed by their covert allies
Russia and China in a series of proxy wars that will use mostly
guerrilla warfare and the threat of atomic weapons. US strategy
of war has to be entirely redefined by abandoning the notion of
mediocre levels of troops on the ground. This notion is
incredibly stupid.
Abandoning the Powell Doctrine
which advocated overwhelming force based on the lessons of the Vietnam
War was Donald Rumsfeld’s irresponsible and catastrophic decision.
My belief is that more troops than even Colin Powell would have
advocated would have been needed to stabilize Iraq after 2 years
when the situation was beginning to get out of hand. One million
troops would have been an efficient number and would have created
a viable Iraq.
If before the Army is equipped
with remote controlled ground weapons the USA has to send ground
troops anywhere it must be in overwhelming numbers following or
surpassing the numbers advocated by the Powell doctrine. Defeating
a guerrilla force is very demanding in numbers .
If you take a good look at
the success of the American military in the last TWO years, the
most powerful army in the world has only seen DEFEAT and no success.
--- AFGHANISTAN: After a brief success, the American
Army had to accelerate the turnover of Leadership of the war to
NATO because the American Army was losing ground.
--- IRAQ: ONLY dishonest people or imbeciles can
maintain that Iraq is improving and that STAYING THE COURSE is the
way to Victory and the withdrawal of American troops.
--- IRAN: Make no mistake; Iran is waging a fierce
war against the USA. They are using proxies such as the terrorist
organization Hezbollah and Sadr militias but most importantly they
have assessed that the USA army under President Bush’s leadership
is totally impotent because the army is bogged down in Iraq. In
addition polls show that American people not support another war.
Iran believes that there is no American Army anymore and they are
right. Iran has defeated the USA under President Bush and they are
building their own atomic bomb.
--- NORTH KOREA: They have manufactured their bomb
and engaged in a nuclear test under President George W. Bush’s
watch and know that the US army cannot attack them while engaged
in Iraq. The real DANGER is that if they are not engaged in dialogue
with in addition extreme pressure be the main provider of nuclear
technology for terrorist State or terrorist entities.
--- CUBA, VENEZUELA, BOLIVIA, SYRIA: All American
foes, they may be small countries but they are influential in their
zones of influence and are all building stronger armies and insulting
the USA as if the USA was a defenseless Banana Republic which as
a matter of fact the USA is under President Bush.
On the other hand, counting successes is a very easy task:
NONE.
AMERICAN TECHNOLOGY
The US now has to think outside the envelope and American technology
can bring victories in far away countries with almost no loss of
US lives.
The concept is to reinvent the army.
Every military action should be done by remote controlled robots
and remote bombings
The raw bottom line in any conflict once started is: Our lives or
their lives.
Ground robots in
the form of miniature tanks, some the size of a small golf
cart, others the size of compact cars can go almost everywhere and
search everywhere and inspire fear as well as being able to destroy
tanks and armed trucks and bands of Kalashnikov armed assailants
without any loss of US troops.
These golf cart size tanks and some even smaller that could enter
houses and climb stairs should be equipped with missiles including
micro missiles. In addition to their main engine, they must have
a small solar energy source allowing them to crawl out of the combat
zone for easy recovery. They must have self destruction mechanisms.
The technology to build these remote controlled mini and micro tanks
exist and has been available for at least Decades. Only the very
narrow minded mind of the military leadership had not seen its potential.
There is hope however and rumors of such weapons been studied are
been confirmed. Thinking outside the enveloppe is the absolute trademark
of the great Military leaders and this new mini tank technology
is a step above the thinking of the actual Commander in Chief and
his secretery of defense, mediocre minds at best.
The great mistake of the US military is to fight the Iraqi
war in the window of knowledge and strength of the enemy which is:
Guerrilla combat with foot soldiers of wich they could muster tens
of millions. The US military CANNOT make this mistake and must fight
with technology and not with human foot soldiers.
The fact that the US military
does not already have hundreds of high-tech remote control mini
tanks is unbelievable and pathetic. With these remote controlled
mini tanks as well as with existing remote control planes all controlled
via satellites, the USA would have an enormous advantage. As the
only nation technically capable of implementing these techniques
and building these equipment any assailant would think twice before
threatening a nation that could search every house and kill every
armed enemy in the assailant country while the US ARMY would not
suffer one casualty while remotely controlling the war sitting at
their desks in the USA.
When and if potential conflicts
arise with China the nuclear arsenal and heavy tanks which should
not be discarded will be useful as a threat, but the beauty of these
mini tanks is that the USA could manufacture ONE BILLION of these
mini tanks to match China’s population of One Billion.
The numerical inferiority of the US population would be erased by
the manufacturing of ONE BILLION ROBOTS if necessary. It will be
a gigantic plus in tomorrow's chaotic world.
USA ARMS
What are the Weaknesses and Strength of the USA's high tech armament.
Bombs:
Strength; Without loosing one man the USA can completely destroy
with conventional Bombs or nuclear bombs any nation; Weakness: The
USA today cannot use this capability because it will upset all the
nations in the world and make the USA a pariah. In today guerrilla
warfare it is useless. Strength: When tension with Future Super
power such as China will arise having this huge bombing capability
will be a crucial deterrent.
Foot Soldiers:
Strength: The best trained and equipped troops in the word with
a patriotism, dedication and courage rarely matched,
Weakness: No efficiency in guerilla wars which are the wars of this
generation of soldiers. Zero efficiency against I E D ( roadside
bombs), The American people does not want them to die; The American
culture does not accept the lost of US life in remote countries
.
Major weakness: the American army does not have a usable force of
troops on the ground to conduct what are piece meal operations which
consist of finding and killing terrorists in an environment hostile
to the US army .
Weakness: The numbers of enemies of the USA in any terrorist friendly
country can be overwhelming because almost all men have access to
a gun and the entire male population can be a soldier. In comparison
the USA have despite their medium size population a relatively small
number of soldiers. this number is furthermore dwarfed by the Numbers
of potential soldiers in China or India. Strength: The USA due to
its advance in satellites can manufacture billions of agile six
wheeled foot soldiers able to attack, patrol, search including climbing
stairs.
FUTURE WEAPONS
China is planting to land on the moon and is developing satellites.
The USA has already lost most of its lead in the space conquest(
remember Americans landed on the moon 40 years ago but abandoned
the moon 34 years ago), as of today the USA is incapable to achieve
what it achieved 40 years ago. but it is crucial that the USA go
back to the moon and establish a permanent base instead of China
establishing a permanent base which they could turn first into a
propaganda tool and then into a military base . The USA
MUST in order to rebuilt their standing first establish a permanent
scientific base then establish a military base on the moon before
the Chinese.
ALLIANCES:
On the face of the recent Nuclear test by North Korea and the fact
that China, India and above all Pakistan which may become a hostile
country in the future the USA should encourage its very faithful
ally to build a nuclear bomb. A stronger Nuclear armed Japan is
necessary to balance China.
BOTTOM LINE
In this generation of Guerilla warfare the US is totally impotent
because it cannot use its overwhelming bombing capability and Iraq
has proven that the US Strategy of troops on the grounds is failing
when guerilla is opposed to them.
Today, the USA has no military
option to fight the Guerilla wars of today.
THE OVERALL PICTURE
AXIS OF EVIL
No American is unaware that President Bush Junior has specifically
labeled three countries as enemies when he branded them as being
part of THE AXIS OF EVIL.
These Countries are Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
Under his boisterous watch, he specifically named the enemy of the
USA but under his leadership these three Countries defeated the
USA.
Iraq: Win for the Insurgents
by creating a killing field and an endless quagmire
Iran; Wins through Hezbollah proxies, Building a Nuclear weapons.
North Korea; Wins by building and experimented with a Nuclear weapons
and medium range ballistic missile in defiance of President Bush
threats
USA: 0; ENNEMIES PART OF THE AXIS OF EVIL: 3
This sad scoreboard does not take in account the GIGANTIC loss of
influence against Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, China, Sudan, Indonesia
......
The scoreboard will show at least: 0 to 10 in favor of the USA's
enemies
SHORT TERM POLICY
In one sentence, the new order for a modicum of stability in the
world will be successfully established by teaching the nouveau riche
such as China to use good manners befitting the strong educated
countries and siding with the western world against terrorism.
LONG TERM POLICY
The USA MUST rebuild its aura and reputation of invincibility, power,
fairness and Ethical behavior. All assets that took generations
to build and took only SIX YEARS of the worst Presidency of modern
times, the Presidency of President Bush Junior to squander and leave
the USA weak, distrusted and despised around the world. Establishing
a permanent presence on the moon is one example of rebuilding an
aura of power. Having an Army of a few hundred thousand soldiers
but with one billion robots is another solution. Helping Darfur
refugees would be another example.
The last word by Henri Kissinger: At last Henri Kissinger
has understood that he ows the truth not to the Princes that he
serves but to the American citizens who gave him a country where
he built a formidable carreer.*
Here are his words:
"If you mean by Military Victory an Iraqi government that
can be stabilised and whose writ runs accross the whole country,
that gets the civil war under control in a time period that the
Political process of the Democracy will support ,I don't beleieve
that is possible".
IN CONCLUSION and
ABOVE ALL the next generation of American Leaders as well
as the People of America must focus on restoring what made in the
recent past America the Greatest Nation in the world when the Leaders
were Franklin Delanoe Roosevelt, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Ronald
Reagan, George Bush the Elder, Bill Clinton. The United States of
America must focus on restoring this sense of Awe and respect that
the other People around the world had for the USA. The USA must
strive in regaining its technical superiority by opening high level
universities to a lot more of its students. America must redesign
its Army the Symbol of its might. Absolute greed, corruption and
constant lies by the Neo Cons Republican leaders of the Nation should
not be the standard of government accepted by the American People.
Sound ethics in government should be the rule not the exception.
Eric Lafayette
*added on 11/20/2006
**added on 12/10/2006
|