Yes, yet again I fly off and give verbiage its fair due! This time at Bloviating Zeppelin where a post on the recent Presidential dressing-down of Helen Thomas was featured. And, needless to say I come in late to the discussion... and see some assertions that needs be addressed, like how the US Military should have prepared for a civil war in Iraq... well out of the last few hundred predictions of a civil war, exactly zero of them have come true, but I am sure that will not stop the predictions business! So I enter in to do a bit of this and that and then get wound up a bit... yes, intemperance doth reign again. Like others the post is edited to break up the copy and paste which never seems to go right. Then to address the fact that the New Iraqi Army is totally useless, except of course for ending the mosque violence without killing a single soul. You can guess what I am going on about from context. Spelling and other problems remain to point out the weakness of the typist involved, which is me:
Planning for a civil war is a difficult thing, seeing as how you don't know which way it will split and when. We have changed from hard plans to flexible response based on available capability. I call this NetWar in which you use what you have in the best way possible and push down command capability to the lowest level. This works once the troops get thoroughly trained in where they will be, which is exactly what has happened. Also, the plan to handle a Civil War was to let the Iraqi military do so. Notice that there have been ZERO deaths due to Iraqi military intervention to stop the hotheads?
Also, the Sunnis have been signing up in very high numbers for the last year. While still disproportionately Kurd and Shia, the New Iraqi Army is slowly shifting in demographics to reflect the population as a whole. Also, the military echelons within the New Iraqi Army have clearly stated that if they intervene to stop conflict, that is what they will do and NOT take sides.
There are three sides in Iraq. When two out of three sides want to fight each other and the third wants peace and the military will follow those that wants peace, which of the sides wins? Side three. In this case, the Kurds. Neither the Sunni nor the Shia's want to make the Kurds into the peacemakers for their country.
The tactics used against both Sunni and Shia are *identical*. This points to another force wanting to inflame those two sides. The insurgents, strangely enough, do not want a civil war now as they know they will be slaughtered in trying to do so. Only terrorists want a civil war at this point. By the end of the summer over 75% of Iraq will be under control of the New Iraqi Army, up from 60% now.
I too, judge by outcome. And when each and every part of the Executive testifies before Congress and tells it: we are doing all we can do and it is not enough. I then expect Congress to damn well examine what THEY can do to help. If you think the GWOT is not being well pursued then know that the Executive does NOT have all the powers for warfare. Within what the Constitution has set up, this President has done as full an exercise of the Powers invested in that Office to uphold the Oath as anyone could ask for.
It is not enough.
The mighty Powers that We The People have given Congress to regularize Treaties, make the Laws of the Sea, to regularize Commerce with Foreign Nations and to use the full warmaking powers *beyond* declaring war are all still there. Congress can, yea and verily, tell our trading partners via treaty that: Here is a list of individuals, companies, groups, organizations and nations that support the sworn enemies of the United States and this Congress will be putting an end to all trade going to our enemies.
Congress can then, after doing so, set out a list of items and goods and transport types that it will set Bounties upon and give Warrants to private Americans and companies of them to stop, search and seize vessels carrying contraband listed and return them to ports, embassies or to military units so that the Executive may verify the goods and the seizure. Then a Bounty will be paid to those doing such good work or given the right to dispose of the entire vessel and its goods as those with the Warrant would like to do. All funds garnered are tax free.
To those doing Commerce with the enemy, you would be warned to stop doing such as the Congress has had it with you.
This is not only legal it is IN the Constitution! And we are one of the very few countries on this planet NOT to have signed away that right. No one else can wage asymmetrical warfare this way, by putting out bounties on commerce and letting their people think of new and novel ways to stop and seize it for REWARD.
And the Executive could NOT stop this. It is not in the listing of powers for the Executive, only in the Legislative.
I want *real* war. One that cuts off the enemy in a way it cannot respond to. A few large cargo vessels or aircraft seized and paid out on would get the point across. Trafficking with terrorists that threaten the United States is not profitable. Americans seizing goods and returning them for Bounties would be *very* profitable.
The President is only the Leader of the Most Powerful Nation on the Planet. The President has harsh restrictions on what can and cannot be done. The Most Powerful Weapon on this planet is not a bomb or poison or germ or virus... it is the People who live in the Most Powerful Country that give it that Power. Congress can unleash the power of the People of the United States to vigorously find and cut off our enemies from supplies. I do not complain about what a paltry few hundred thousand troops have done to free 51 million people.
What happens when the entire People set about the task of bringing an end to our enemies?
More than *just* an Army of Davids. A Nation of Davids going to War.
To Congress: set our People free to save Our nation; We are a Pack, not a herd.
And may the world quiver as a Free People devise new and clever ways to bring an end to our enemies.
I truly do believe in the Terrible Swift Sword of the Republic.
May God have mercy on Our enemies, for We will surely have NONE.
Yes, irreligious of me to do that last! But, if the enemy believes in a God (or Gods or other Deific formulation) the point is that the only thing I am willing to give you is, as I have stated before, Death. The Transnational Terrorists practice it, commit it and use it as a weapon and I think that handing them over to Sweet Death's Door and keeping Her busy is a good thing to do.