27 October 2006

The Plan to Stabilize Iraq

The following is a cross-post from The Jacksonian Party.

The following is a position paper of The Jacksonian Party.

[UPDATE: Apparently there are some folks who need some backgrounding on my views of the Middle East and don't like the various and sundry links I provide and thus go off on tangents everywhich way. So the quick and easy links to further verbiage are as follows: Creating an Army - a MUST READ; Synopsis view 21st century US armed forces; How to fight in the 21st century and why; Transformed warfare and transforming our view of it ;Why Cold War ideas on Iran will not work; Transnational Terrorims and how it evolves; How States play a part in Transnational Terrorism, but do not drive it;Iran raises curtain on Act II; What Peace in the Middle East means; The Golden Opportunity; The major faultlines driving the Middle East a MUST READ for this article; What is Lebanon to Iran?; Iran's First Foreign Legion - Hezbollah; Iran's Second Foreign Legionn -Mahdi Army; Iranian Foreign policy; Iran's First Foreign Legion Act II, phase I; Iran's First Foreign Legion's teething pains;War with Iran first view, second view; Coalescence of Barbarism; Legitimate armed political party is an oxymoron; The al Qaeda plan for Victory - a MUST READ; The Long Term Consequences of Defeat - a MUST READ; Terrorism is illegitimate war not civil crime; The strategy in Iraq - a MUST READ; Ending unreal 'Realism' - a MUST READ and priority to examine the tribal overlay in the Middle East; Post-Warism - a MUST READ and necessary to understand the underlying structural problems of the Middle East; Some reminders of how Iran operates circa 2000; James Baker and the ISG echo chamber.

And if you don't like this plan, then perhaps a Jacksonian Retreat would interest you?

So, yes, I have taken time to look at the Middle East, see the problems, trace their roots, look at historical analogies and fits, see what does and does not work in similar situations, and so on. There are quite simple driving forces in the Middle East, but there are many of them. They must be understood individually and then put into interplay which is multi-divided factionalism. A good start there is the War of the Roses and the entire Italian Peninsula circa the Medicis, plus the Spanish Revolution. For the last time the West failed and continues to do so elsewhere, the post-warism article is a chilling concept as no one wants to address complexity arising from simple causes. The complexity is in the number of things and the interactions, but not in the underlying causations. This article addresses how to use a simple set of actions to strike across those causational drives and put them to work in a different means. And do note that stability is not "Peace". The world has never known this thing called "Peace", but has been more peaceful and less peaceful over time. Keeping conflict down is a dynamic tension, not a static one, which must shift scales and magnitude continuously. This plan aims to start getting that dynamic in place and to hold some of these offshoots to account. Getting from here to there requires changing the direction of those drives away from ones that they are currently in and destructive. That requires that we *do something else*, not just pull out moldy plans and try to apply them but to understand the dynamics in the region and address they dynamics to set up a better and more self-balancing one. In conception the actual plan is extremely simple, but its outcomes are not simplistic. Simplistic plans to address complexity fail due to the complexity shifting in response to the plan. This plan addresses the shifting complexity so that it can change to a new state that is dynamically self-balancing. No one else has tried to address this nor put a map from here to there.

The commentary rules are enforced. One free criticism and THEN PUT UP YOUR OWN PLAN WHICH IS BETTER. If you cannot do that, then do not criticize those trying to build. It is 'Put up or Shut up'. Building and solutions are necessary, and criticism without either is mere destruction and self-preening. Offer better and help build or be quiet. Thus ends the update.]

Many are complaining about the fighting in Iraq and the fact that there appears to be 'no end in sight'. On two levels this is correct and on one level wrong. It is firstly correct that fighting for liberty and freedom is an ongoing and endless task. That is part of being Republic run as a representative democracy: even if the whole world came to understand and accept this, the slide into Authoritarianism and Dictatorship must be watched for and fought. And since those that purport such things have come to value their rights over yours, violence ensues as this meets resistance. Authoritarian and Dictatorial regimes offer the simplistic view of one man or one party rule being 'perfect for the times'. It is not perfect for *all* time. That must be fought as it gives rise to the end of liberty and freedom of individuals. Further, even Nations that are fully democratic can go to war and have conflict: democracy is not an antidote for the human condition, but it alleviates the worst of it. Nations will always have National needs and goals and those will be at cross-purposes to other Nations even in this conceptual perfect world of democracy.

On a second and more specific level, Iraq can only be stabilized to a relatively high percentage, even if the MNF and Iraqi Armed Forces are *perfected* and able to wipe out those currently fighting them and their leaders. Why is this the case?

1) Because the native Ba'thist insurgency has disappeared and no longer exists. This has, in actuality, escaped the attention of the MSM, most military analysts and ALL political analysts. Ba'athism hit the 'ash heap of history' in Iraq soon after the Riverine campaign ended at the border town of Tal Afar. Facing very long and tenuous supply lines, hatred by the Sunni population that was viewing them as 'just another set of thugs' and still being targeted by al Qaeda, the Shia militias, MNF and, increasingly, the New Iraqi Army, National Guard and Police, the Ba'athists have quietly shuffled off the board to Syria. They do what they can, but their adherents are either dead or fled. This is necessary to the long-term stability in Iraq and the only success of the current plan is in this sole point. In removing the Ba'athists as a 'major player' the other players now gain high and stark definition. Thus, while the actual milieu of players is decremented by one, the remaining players gain much higher visibility for each and every act they do because they are, generally, sectarian. The higher media profile now entrenches the remaining players that use the media to push their agenda of hate-filled destruction. That said the current plan is addressing this, but doing so on the much slower basis of tribes needing to realize that the current crop of players have no good end for them.

2) Now for one of the major players we have al Qaeda from Saudi Arabia infiltrating into the southern Sunni population, with their adherents being in the percentage points of that population, with an upper limit at 10% or so. And, as the Arab Sunni population is 20% and declining of the entire population that is a 2% base to draw upon and an even smaller fraction that is willing to die for al Qaeda. Foreign infiltrators still make up a good percentage of their forces, but those are being more rapidly identified and, after having attempted to put their version of Sharia law into place, the rest of the Sunnis have had it with them. The Arab Sunni tribes are joining with the Government to help put al Qaeda out of business and will, presumably, have as much chance as, say, France or Great Britain has of doing that: nil. The tribes have recognized that as splintered tribes their *say* was getting diluted and exploited by outsiders and still is, to some extent. Getting picked off piecemeal by al Qaeda and Ba'athist remnants has endangered their entire tribal structure and society. They heavily resisted the US post-invasion clean-up until they found themselves coming face to face with the New Iraqi Army. They could 'fool those dumb Americans' for awhile, but their shrewd Iraqi cousins of the Shia strain were joining up with the New Iraqi Army and Police and even the 'dumb Americans' used a hard training and indoctrination cycle to start understanding the tribes, making friends and undermining enmity. These two things forced the Sunnis into National politics and is now forcing the tribes to band together and join up with the Government to find protection. They have realized the old Franklin saw: "We can hang together or hang separately." They then started to sign up to the New Army and Police forces and were even MORE harshly targeted by al Qaeda. This is making al Qaeda unwelcome even more than previously.

3) The Shia population is, itself, split into three major groupings, each consisting of multiple factions within those groups. Thus the 60% Shia majority is in no way seen as cohesive as a sectarian outlook as the splintering of Shia Islamic thinking that is based in Iraq has brought out many separatist groupings and followings who are willing to switch allegiance and be opportunists. That said they do fall into three main groups that broadly cover those intra-sect rivalries. They are as follows:

a) The followers of Iran/Khomeinist views. This is estimated to be a relative minority within the Shia population with estimates running between 10 % to 20% of the Shia population. These followers are mostly in the southeastern and Iranian border regions, with some good sized number of adherents all the way to Baghdad, where it starts to peter out badly. These are typified by the Iranian Foreign Legion of the Mahdi Army led by al Sadr, the Badr brigades, tribes aligned with their brothers in Iran and many imported followers from Iran over the porous border. Thus Iran is directly backing these groups and tribes for sectarian reasons and no love is lost between them and the majority of the Shia community over this. The simplistic view is that these folks are the *cause* of the troubles. Even in that view, however, the source of this being Iran is *not* being addressed. The current government, needing Sadrist support to come to power, has now found itself in the difficult position of having to *neutralize* the Mahdi Army and Badr Brigades. They are reluctant to do so as their government has a low probability of remaining if that support is withdrawn and trying to even *ask* for Kurdish or Sunni Arabs to *help* them may isolate the government even further from their majoritatian base.

b) The followers of al-Sistani, the 60% majority of Shias and possibly more, in Iraq. Ali al-Sistani *wants* a Federal and non-sectarian government and has been stating so since the end of the major part of the conflict against the Ba'athists in 2003. His viewpoint, privately as related by numerous authors and reporters, is that he says the Sadrists will be *taken care of*. And, all indications of the emotional phrasing of that language is on the order of a Mafia Don talking about a smaller, rival gang. These folks who follow al-Sistani, hate, with avengence, the Khomeinist schools of thought and volunteered in huge numbers during the Iran/Iraq war. The reason we have not seen mass bloodshed of 'Lancet Proportions' is due wholly and completely to this grouping that supports a secular and common Federal Government. They do, however, sit on their hands and offer INTEL and anything else that does not make them an obvious target at home and sign up for the Army and Police in droves. The followers of al-Sistani are becoming the committed Nationalists of the New Iraq and prove that day in and day out by fighting and pacifying *anyone* in those organizations, even the upstart minority followers of al-Sistani that are militant.

c) The highly secular city dwellers and remoter tribes that approach religion in a more Westernized fashion as something of 'personal belief' but not to be fought over with blood and guts on the street. This grouping makes up 20% to 30% of the remainder, with a high cross-over to al-Sistani for belief, but non-alignment with him in actions. These folks do *not* want a return of Ba'athists, view Iran with crawling skin and are also signing up for the military and police, although not in proportion to the Sistani followers as these folks have the jobs in manufacturing, banking and industry necessary to get the Nation up and running. These are the people getting heavily trained in Western Nations and have stood up a National bank and lending system, a stock exchange, a foreign currency market, are measuring employment rates and can now figure out 'sector outputs', have targeted spending on agriculture and infrastructure so as to stand up the Nation as a whole. They are joined with a scattering of non-aligned Sunni tribes and the Kurds in the north to get an entirely new power grid in place that will slowly replace the old one which was a Soviet monstrosity. Re-conversion of power plants away from their Ba'athist patchwork use of crude oil to their original capability for natural gas is a slow and ongoing concern that will take until about 2012 to complete. Once done the natural gas now vented and wasted will be used for power generation and crude oil will go to refineries. Iraq, like the US, lacks refining capability. Unlike the US they do NOT have environmental laws and will be putting up new and modern refineries in the coming years. These people are targeted as they are the *glue* holding the Nation together for this generation. The followers of al-Sistani will take that long to get educated, trained and aligned into the infrastructure of Iraq to give it a solid manufacturing foundation and some large amount of heavy industrial employment. They have seen the results of decades of living off of oil wealth in other Nations and want ZERO part of that. The overall objective is to make Iraq into a modern, manufacturing Nation with a strong natural resources segment, not a vestige industrial sector living off of the leavings of crude oil sales.

What a 'best case' scenario holds is a decade or more of 'holding action', sectarian strife, and a slow and steady push by the New Iraqi Army in a slow form of 'sectarian cleansing' against the Khomeinist followers and the minoritarian al Qaeda and Ba'athist supporters. This is a *Hamiltonian* conception that works just fine, so long as everything remains *just as it is*. Looking at the 'Defeatocrats', The Jacksonian Party reply is: fat chance of THAT happening!

So the two-levels of correctness are covered: ideologically - representative democracy is in a continuous struggle against simplistic authoritarian, theocratic, socialistic and other viewpoints that diminish human freedoms, and, on the specifics of Iraq, this is played out against two sectarian ideologies looking to make a new Empire that is global in expanse, thus quavering *there* will start that ball rolling in a harsh manner that we will live to regret and quickly.

And those bemoaning 'staying the course' are realizing that *Hamiltonian* ideas cost time, lives and money, require some sort of stability and take for-freaking-ever to get anywhere. Americans like 'faster, better, cheaper' and hate 'choose 2 out of 3'. They do go together, unfortunately.

And as the *Jeffersonians* have been wishy-washy and unable to come to terms that 'all men are created equal' and actually mean it regardless of cultural background and SAY SO, they are not helping the matter. They should be the very FIRST to denounce ANYONE using cultural bias to demean the idea of human liberty being universal as something anathema and foreign to the Nation. Too busy knitting, I guess.

Finally, those splendiferous *Wilsonians*? They got us INTO THIS MESS and will NOT clean it up! The fool and daft notion of 'International Law' the 'UN handling everything' and then undermining the Nation's foreign policy in the region since "shuttle diplomacy" all the way to the Clinton diplomacy of 'huh?' and lack of foreign policy is still reflected by that lack of 'Guiding Principle Foreign Policy' under this Administration and Condaleeza Rice is a problem directly traced to Wislonian conceptions of higher world order. Both the Wilsonian Internationalists and the Wilsonian higher order folks want the Cold War paradigms to work and are unable to cut the bonds to that conflict to address this one properly. *Wilsonians* have not been addressing the Middle East since before we were attacked by Iran in 1979 and the first response we have given that had any meaning to this latest generation of deadly Islam was in 2001!

And they, the *Hamiltonians* and the *Jeffersonians* will NOT realize that this is a deadly conflict that cannot be addressed by 'wonderful international institutions'. These three strains of US political thought are holding onto the Cold War boat anchor after the chain has been released and the anchor, itself, is now submerging quickly. This lack of conceptual space leads to defeatism and there are long term consequences to that which these practitioners of these schools of thought try to wash their hands of, although the stench of it, it still clings to them. All three of these strains of American political thought are endangering the Nation *before* we even get to the Transnational Progressivists.

The *Jacksonian* viewpoint, which is the contrary side to the other strains of thought and reviews the struggle the Nation is in within the context of the actual, real modern world, and thus offers the way out and points out the incorrectness of the other strains lacks, is that: if the game is going against you, then it is time to change the operational parameters of the game itself, and then *play harder*. Jacksonians see that the US has been at war with Islamic Fundamentalism since 1979 and with Islam, periodically, all the way back to Thomas Jefferson. Strange that Jefferson could send the US Marines to 'kick butts and take names' TWICE and modern day Jeffersonians will not stand up for the SAME.

Jacksonians have a simple but not *simplistic* view of Foreign Policy based on HONOR not on things too complex to talk about to the common man. From that I put together a very basic set of Goals on the Global War on Terrorism that depends upon the strengths of the 18th Century Republic of the United States to still EXIST as it was enshrined in writing and we still hold to that to this very day. From that conception comes the plan of enaction which uses the enemies paradigm of 'asymmetrical warfare' against them in a way that *they* cannot combat effectively. This offers a way *out* of Iraq on a National level, also, as I went over a framework for Peace in the Middle East that is wholly consistent with the Foreign Policy, Goals on the Global War on Terrorism, *and* uses a robust conception of Foreign Policy to do the one thing necessary on a National level in the Middle East. It is the thing that Our enemies have been promising and I propose to turn the tables and GIVE IT TO THEM. By changing the nature of the *idea* of what the conflict in Iraq *represents* changes the actual GOALS of that conflict and offers new means to address it in ways that fall outside the scope of Hamiltonians, Jeffersonians and Wilsonians *combined*.

What is that, pray tell?

The Jacksonian way out?

I promise you, you will not like it.

It is to widen the war and take out SYRIA using Egyptian or Jordanian or Kurdish troops in an 'Afghanistan style' light infantry attack and use US air supremacy to wipe out the forces of Syria wherever they appear. From the moment allied forces hit the ground with some US Special Forces and USAF spotters, this force will be 'Rolling Hot': it will be a continuous forward assault starting from a small entry point and racing through Syria to demolish the regime there. That took two weeks in Afghanistan and three months in Iraq. Syria is the 'weak brother' of the Middle East and a hard case of influenza would turn it over, so two weeks sounds about right, given that any forces we get for this will be MORE CAPABLE than the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. And that is not saying much, believe me.

The modern US arsenal now will decimate any pre-2006 armored force on the battlefield via the use of Sensor Fuzed Weapons. Two were used in Iraq to wipe out the 'Elite Republican Guard' counter attack that was forming up and demolish its forward component and cause the rest of it to flee. Time involved: 10 minutes. Syria may think of this in conception, but not believe it operationally. Further, if used at a storage depot, this could wipe out any organized counter-attack before it begins. If Israel can have dominance over the 'impossble' Bekaa valley, the US will have absolute air supremacy over Syria. At that point, to drive home the stakes in this Middle Eastern policy, the Kurdish areas will be given autonomy and allowed to vote on joining their Iraqi brothers and the Nation of Iraq. The rest of Syria does not get this option and may find itself land locked with the port area and northern areas handed over to Iraq.

This result does multiple things simultaneously.

First: it removes support for Hezbollah in Lebanon. It will be isolated and contained without ready means of resupply. Israel will thank us as will the people of Lebanon. Hezbollah's days there will be *numbered* without a single US soldier needing to attack them and whatever Arab or Kurd force containing them during and after the conflict.

Second: it removes the entire Ba'athist support sturcture in the Middle East and removes it from the region totally. We will see ZERO return of Ba'athist insurgents in western Iraq. It will end all operations based out of Syria against Iraq from al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Ba'athist insurgents. It will remove easy overland supply from anywhere for the insurgents in western and central Iraq.

Third: it will bring a change in the demographic structure in Iraq and move it from its current: 60% Arab Shia, 20% Arab Sunni and 20% Kurdish Sunni to one of 50-55% Arab Shia, 15% Arab Sunni and 25-30% Kurdish Sunni. Exact numbers are hard to place, but the shift to a more Kurdish moderated Iraq is one towards *stability* and *prosperity*.

Fourth: it will be the first time an overland route from the Mediterranean to the Arab Gulf will appear in centuries under a single authority. To get *that* the Kurds will be holding the key to this and must be treated as full and fair EQUALS in a Federal Iraq and respected for their hard work. By playing the *middle man* Kurds suddenly gain regional respect and Iraq will look NORTH to the Kurds for answers, not East or South for division. The Arab tribes in the region will see which way the wind of this Sandstorm from the United States is blowing and push heavily for border provinces of their brothers in Syria to be allowed to join Iraq. The hammer will have fallen hard and they will not want a set of lesser hammerings from continuing on an insurgency that cannot be *backed*. This should be pushed to further move Iraq from Shia domination to one of divided equality between the major sects and get the tribes into more properly aligned provinces towards *them*. The tribes will suddenly start to get the hard understanding of 'Limited Federal Government' and 'Reserving All Other Rights to the Provinces and the People'. This is a *good* thing.

Fifth: this will be harsh payback to Turkey. They attempted to deny the Iraq war. They have not acted in good faith as allies. They will get conniption fits over a continuous Kurdish border of Iraq to their south. They will either have to 'put up or shut up' about integrating their society and getting equality of rights and opportunities for Kurds. Because Iraqi Kurds will now be seen as offering a way *out* to prosperity and equal rights for all Citizens. Turkey will have a scant few years to cleans their political climate of ideologues and follow the footsteps of Attaturk. My guess is that if they don't they will get a real, honest to goodness Civil War with Kurdish provinces staging it and trying to get *into* Iraq.

Sixth: the entire concentration of Iraq will be towards integration and securing its only unsecured borders with Iran and Saudi Arabia. This means that heavy,new infrastructure will need to be built in the new Iraqi provinces and the rump State of Syria given some minor trade agreements for use of that infrastructure. Let this smaller Syrian State realize that its bread is buttered on one side and that side is *not* that of conflict. My guess is the people of Lebanon will begin to take pity on the Syrians if they ask for Lebanese help.

Seventh: Iran will no longer like this idea of 'Getting the Caliphate' as they will now be facing unrest in THEIR Kudish and Azeri provinces along the Iraqi border. Funny thing is: once people start to see their brothers get freedom, they soon want it for themselves. Iran should be given harsh diplomacy to rid itself of nuclear aspirations, end funding to ALL of Hezbollah and the Mahdi Army and any other bits and pieces the State Department has found of their handiwork. They will balk. They will seethe. They will threaten. They will not be given the time to do a damn thing, really.

That was *stage one*.

Stage two is something folks will like even less, I am sure. The USAF and CVN battlegroups will be given time for R&R and resupply and whatever else they need to get back into fighting form. The next al Qaeda attack in Iraq traced back to Saudi Arabia will get this little bit of news in return to the Saudi Government: you have promised for a long time to get rid of these nasty and irrational fundamentalists their exporting of their vile creed. That you have promised for some years if not decades.

You have just seen Syria.

"Where's the beef?"

They will hem. They will haw. They will be face to face with the fact that their equipment is bought from the US as is their training. They will proclaim themselves protectors of the Holy Cities. They will do many things. They will invoke diplomacy and we shall use that to demonstrate that they really do *not* treat all parts of Islam equally. The second al Qaeda attack from Saudia Arabia will get this response:

"The US will back any non-aligned, Islamic forces to secure the holy cities in Saudi Arabia for ALL MUSLIMS. No muslim will be denied entry as part of this bargain. We will need 10,000 or so troops to do this and you will get aircover from the mightiest air forces on the planet. Luckily, the US owns them completely. Administration of the Cities will be done by 'Unity Councils' and supported by foreign donations. Every single sect of Islam gets ONE VOTE on the council. Size does not matter in this. It is FAITH that matters."

I can think of at least two or three Islamic Nations with a beef against Saudi Arabia and complaints against it. Iranians will not believe this, and yet still want to send forces. Their Regular Army will be *welcomed*. Iraqis will want a say in this just to counter Iran. The question is *not* getting 10,000 troops, but how to stop from getting a whole lot MORE. Either way this goes, either the Saudis finally start harshly pulling in the Wahhabists or the actual Islamic Coalition forming up in a couple of months and the end will still be the same. al Qaeda will wholly, and completely, lose its largest funding base. al Qaeda operations, already on a shoestring, will now get razor thin. In either case this works out much, much better for the US and we will STILL not have spent any significant troops to achieve these things.

The US will be seen as an 'honest broker' willing to support Islam and yet also cleanse it of radicalism. If Iran does NOT support this, it will be seen wholly and completely out for power ALONE without religious intent. The rest of Islam will be united in opening the Cities freely to ALL people of their faith without discrimination.

This is known as 'pulling the rug out from under the enemy'.

What is even better is that this offers a way out and a way UP for the Middle East. Iran, will either have to open up and HELP, in which case their people will get first hand knowledge of how the US operates and realize the insanity of going after us militarily and start to work hard on a new regime OR it will close up and become an immediate threat realizing that its existence is being threatened without a single shot being fired at it. It will lash out, in that case. And find the US Forces that have been stabilizing Iraq have already been shifting to counter them. The moment they *do* a two pronged attack from the southwest and northeast out of Afghanistan by US forces will put Iran out of operation in three weeks or so. Maybe even three or four months. Definitely not long as the regime is 'one deep' and are facing the hard demographics of their population coming to loathe them.

And who gets to run Iran while it recovers?

Simple: Afghanistan and Iraq.

There has to be some localized anti-terror cleanup in any event, and with US oversight, these two new democracies can help Iranians rebuild their Nation and understand how democracy *works* after having *hands on* experience. It would be a dissonance hear throughout the Middle East as the US would execute operations, but the control and oversight of what needs to be done would be jointly decided upon by Iraqis, Afghanis, a provisional Iranian council and the US. We can hold veto, but how to get this done is up to THEM, not US.

This does *not* eliminate the threat of Transnational Terrorism! Yes, all that fighting, dying, expenditure of capital and the original threat is still around. But, it will make the climate harshly more intolerant OF IT. And then, the third part of this plan, really ongoing from as soon as possible, is to actually exectue the Larger Goals on the Global War on Terrorism and start involving US Citizens and companies to hunt down and deprive these enemies of their goods, and their lives if need be. All that while securing banking and shipping and putting up border *defenses* that are *lethal*.

The concept for this war is to get a dialogue started within Islam by calling their bluff of being a "Religion of Peace". Jacksonians will help the Arab world clean up the mess of Syria and then enjoin the entirety of Islam to send REPRESENTATIVES to Mecca to hash out exactly WHAT ISLAM STANDS FOR. And while that takes a few *decades* the Middle East will find that its central Nations now have a dual ring of Democracies to deal with that it cannot ignore. The center of that ring is Israel. The first arm of that ring while be an expanded Iraq that cuts the Middle East in TWO. The final ring is staring in Afghanistan and causing a shift of thought there, so as to stabilize Central Asia. But that cannot be done until Islam hashes out just what, exactly, it IS. By putting the Holy Cities into the hands of ALL Muslims a new State is created that will be defended by them ALL. If they cannot find commonality and accommodation they will begin wiping each other out while the US sits on the sidelines. And if they can find commonality, then their unity will allow them to actually begin *purging* radical Islamic beliefs. Or unite them behind it, which will then, definitively, make them the "Religion of Empire". And with the US standing in the wings, that will last for a very, very, very short period of time.

Is this a good way forward? It is forward, goodness is for history to decide.

Wonderful? No.

Better than any damn thing that anyone else has thought of? Yup.

Put up or shut up. The 'same old, same old' is going to get us killed.

You wanted a new way forward to *stabilize* Iraq? Well, you now HAVE ONE.

A real live, honest to goodness plan.

A Jacksonian Plan.

So we can get this nonsense in the Middle East done with for good and all, and get the fighting down to the pesonal level. Because these terrorists don't DESERVE death at the hands of Our Armed Forces. Terrorists sully the concept of Armies and Nations. They need more personal retribution.

From Citizens that see profit in their hides.

That is what they *deserve*.

From We the People.


ShrinkWrapped said...

Your plan makes far too much sense for those who desire our failure. I have long thought that it will require another 9/11 for us to get serious about confronting our enemies. That is certainly not something to wish for, but it seems inevitable and growing more so in the face of such "efforts" as the Baker report. Excellent work.

A Jacksonian said...

shrinkwrapped - I am coming to believe similar myself... in point of fact that other shoe will drop due to our laxness. Hezbollah in South America is now a going concern and they either have a cooperative agreement with FARC or similar. Many of the tactics used by Hezbollah have that FARC feel to them, but what works good in SA doesn't do so good in Lebanon. Static tactics work against helicopters, not ground forces.

When a Hezbollah agent is caught, tried and convicted of smuggling 3 tons of pseudoephedrine from Canada to a Mexican drug gang so as to sell meth... you definitively know we have a problem. Add that to the LA busts linking Hezbollah to the Triads and the greymarket, and such things as credit card fraud... and the problem is not a small one.

The question is not *if*, but *when and how often*. Hezbollah is the stockpile and then do alot of damage and hope its enough when they run out folks. al Qaeda is the plan a long time and hope its not uncovered folks.

What we are getting is small fry, at best.

And what do we do when Hezbollah trains folks in Latin America? They are hispanic... and Hezbollah.

Nice open border we have there...

As to the post, I know that when a liberal needs to rant on and on, and then I get an email from someone in Iraq asking 'what province are you in?' that I am hitting the right range... just impossible enough to be worth doing. *How* to get folks off the dime is the question. Beyond me, I'm afraid... that is in the enemy's hands now.

Donkatsu said...

Dear AJ,
Great work. I have long thought that this fascination with diplomatic approaches to Syria, without tangible benefit to us, was to say the least, bizarre. The fact that we are willing once again to hand over the goods to Syria in exchange for - somehow the other side of the transaction has escaped me - nothing, holds no interest for all of those now pledging their fealty to King James Baker.

I do not think that this approach, as sensible as it might be, will be tried until the HISH alliance hits us very hard and close to home, and even then we will need to be lucky and have a real president, not some “gormless popinjay” (thanks Jonah Goldberg). A real policy that promises something that looks like victory, at least tactically, would gain far greater public support than treating our armed forces as some sort of police force.

A Jacksonian said...

Donkatsu - My thanks!! And thank you for dropping by.

I do know this will go no where as a plan, per se, but getting the ideas out, even to those who denigrate it, is necessary to get people to start the thought process on what the actual problem in the Middle East *is*. We need to address those realities, and as events change I will continue to look at them through that varigated spectrum I applied here and see what they mean.

We ignore Syrian WMD capability at our peril, as a Nation, as Syria has already given Casus Belli to us and that is something that joining a previous coalition does not erase. And they have much, much more to be accountable for these days.

Again, my thanks, and we must remember that every time we vote for President we are voting for a WAR President, even if we are at no major conflict.