Geopolitical update
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Stratfor.com's latest prediction for the
Middle East's Near future
April 8, 2008
Middle East's Near future
April 8, 2008
Mystery in the Middle East
The Arab-Israeli region of the Middle East is filled with rumors of war. That is about as unusual as the rising of the sun, so normally it
would not be worth mentioning. But like the proverbial broken clock that is right twice a day, such rumors occasionally will be true. In
this case, we don’t know that they are true, and certainly it’s not the rumors that are driving us. But other things — minor and readily
explicable individually — have drawn our attention to the possibility that something is happening.
The first thing that drew our attention was a minor, routine matter. Back in February, the United States started purchasing oil for its
Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). The SPR is a reserve of crude oil stored in underground salt domes. Back in February, it stood at
96.2 percent of capacity, which is pretty full as far as we are concerned. But the U.S. Department of Energy decided to increase its
capacity. This move came in spite of record-high oil prices and the fact that the purchase would not help matters. It also came despite
potential political fallout, since during times like these there is generally pressure to release reserves. Part of the step could have
been the bureaucracy cranking away, and part of it could have been the feeling that the step didn’t make much difference. But part of
it could have been based on real fears of a disruption in oil supplies. By itself, the move meant nothing. But it did cause us to become
thoughtful.
Also in February, someone assassinated Imad Mughniyah, a leader of Hezbollah, in a car bomb explosion in Syria. It was assumed the
Israelis had killed him, although there were some suspicions the Syrians might have had him killed for their own arcane reasons. In
any case, Hezbollah publicly claimed the Israelis killed Mughniyah, and therefore it was expected the militant Shiite group would take
revenge. In the past, Hezbollah responded not by attacking Israel but by attacking Jewish targets elsewhere, as in the Buenos Aires
attacks of 1992 and 1994.
In March, the United States decided to dispatch the USS Cole, then under Sixth Fleet command, to Lebanese coastal waters.
Washington later replaced it with two escorts from the Nassau (LHA-4) Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG), reportedly maintaining a
minor naval presence in the area. (Most of the ESG, on a regularly scheduled deployment, is no more than a few days sail from the
coast, as it remains in the Mediterranean Sea.) The reason given for the American naval presence was to serve as a warning to the
Syrians not to involve themselves in Lebanese affairs. The exact mission of the naval presence off the Levantine coast — and the
exact deterrent function it served — was not clear, but there they were. The Sixth Fleet has gone out of its way to park and maintain U.
S. warships off the Lebanese coast.
Hezbollah leaders being killed by the Israelis and the presence of American ships off the shores of Mediterranean countries are not
news in and of themselves. These things happen. The killing of Mughniyah is notable only to point out that as much as Israel might
have wanted him dead, the Israelis knew this fight would escalate. But anyone would have known this. So all we know is that whoever
killed Mughniyah wanted to trigger a conflict. The U.S. naval presence off the Levantine coast is notable in that Washington, rather
busy with matters elsewhere, found the bandwidth to get involved here as well.
With the situation becoming tense, the Israelis announced in March that they would carry out an exercise in April called Turning Point
2. Once again, an Israeli military exercise is hardly interesting news. But the Syrians apparently got quite interested. After the
announcement, the Syrians deployed three divisions — two armored, one mechanized — to the Lebanese-Syrian border in the Bekaa
Valley, the western part of which is Hezbollah’s stronghold. The Syrians didn’t appear to be aggressive. Rather, they deployed these
forces in a defensive posture, in a way walling off their part of the valley.
The Syrians are well aware that in the event of a conventional war with Israel, they would experience a short but exciting life, as they
say. They thus are hardly going to attack Israel. The deployment therefore seemed intended to keep the Israelis on the Lebanese side
of the border — on the apparent assumption the Israelis were going into the Bekaa Valley. Despite Israeli and Syrian denials of the
Syrian troop buildup along the border, Stratfor sources maintain that the buildup in fact happened. Normally, Israel would be jumping
at the chance to trumpet Syrian aggression in response to these troop movements, but, instead, the Israelis downplayed the buildup.
When the Israelis kicked off Turning Point 2, which we regard as a pretty interesting name, it turned out to be the largest exercise in
Israeli history. It involved the entire country, and was designed to test civil defenses and the ability of the national command authority
to continue to function in the event of an attack with unconventional weapons — chemical and nuclear, we would assume. This was a
costly exercise. It also involved calling up reserves, some of them for the exercise, and, by some reports, others for deployment to
the north against Syria. Israel does not call up reserves casually. Reserve call-ups are expensive and disrupt the civilian economy.
These appear small, but in the environment of Turning Point 2, it would not be difficult to mobilize larger forces without being noticed.
The Syrians already were deeply concerned by the Israeli exercise. Eventually, the Lebanese government got worried, too, and
started to evacuate some civilians from the South. Hezbollah, which still hadn’t retaliated for the Mughniyah assassination, also
claimed the Israelis were about to attack it, and reportedly went on alert and mobilized its forces. The Americans, who normally issue
warnings and cautions to everyone, said nothing to try to calm the situation. They just sat offshore on their ships.
It is noteworthy that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak canceled a scheduled visit to Germany this week. The cancellation came
immediately after the reports of the Syrian military redeployment were released. Obviously, Barak needed to be in Israel for Turning
Point 2, but then he had known about the exercise for at least a month. Why cancel at the last minute? While we are discussing
diplomacy, we note that U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney visited Oman — a country with close relations with Iran — and then was
followed by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. By itself not interesting, but why the high-level interest in Oman at this point?
Now let’s swing back to September 2007, when the Israelis bombed something in Syria near the Turkish border. As we discussed at
the time, for some reason the Israelis refused to say what they had attacked. It made no sense for them not to trumpet what they
carefully leaked — namely, that they had attacked a nuclear facility. Proving that Syria had a secret nuclear program would have been
a public relations coup for Israel. Nevertheless, no public charges were leveled. And the Syrians remained awfully calm about the
bombing.
Rumors now are swirling that the Israelis are about to reveal publicly that they in fact bombed a nuclear reactor provided to Syria by
North Korea. But this news isn’t all that big. Also rumored is that the Israelis will claim Iranian complicity in building the reactor. And
one Israeli TV station reported April 8 that Israel really had discovered Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, which it said
had been smuggled to Syria.
Now why the Bush administration wouldn’t have trumpeted news of the Syrian reactor worldwide in September 2007 is beyond us, but
there obviously were some reasons — assuming the TV report is true, which we have no way of establishing. In fact, we have no idea
why the Israelis are choosing this moment to rehash the bombing of this site. But whatever their reason, it certainly raises a critical
question. If the Syrians are developing a nuclear capability, what are the Israelis planning to do about it?
No one of these things, by itself, is of very great interest. And taken together they do not provide the means for a clear forecast.
Nevertheless, a series of rather ordinary events, taken together, can constitute something significant. Tensions in the Middle East are
moving well beyond the normal point, and given everything that is happening, events are moving to a point where someone is likely to
take military action. Whether Hezbollah will carry out a retaliatory strike or Israel a pre-emptive strike in Lebanon, or whether the
Israelis’ real target is Iran, tensions systematically have been ratcheted up to the point where we, in our simple way, are beginning to
wonder whether something has to give.
All together, these events are fairly extraordinary. Ignoring all rhetoric — and the Israelis have gone out of their way to say that they
are not looking for a fight — it would seem that each side, but particularly the Americans and Israelis, have gone out of their way to
signal that they are expecting conflict. The Syrians have also signaled that they expect conflict, and Hezbollah always claims there is
about to be conflict.
What is missing is this: who will fight whom, and why, and why now. The simple explanation is that Israel wants a second round with
Hezbollah. But while that might be true, it doesn’t explain everything else that has happened. Most important, it doesn’t explain the
simultaneous revelations about the bombing of Syria. It also doesn’t explain the U.S. naval deployment. Is the United States about to
get involved in a war with Hezbollah, a war that the Israelis should handle themselves? Are the Israelis going to topple Syrian
President Bashar al Assad — and then wind up with a Sunni government, or worse, an Israeli occupation of Syria? None of that makes
a lot of sense.
In truth, all of this may dissolve into nothing much. In intelligence analysis, however, sometimes a set of not-fully-coherent facts must
be reported, and that is what we are doing now. There is no clear pattern; there is no obvious direction this is taking. Nevertheless,
when we string together events from February until now, we see a persistently escalating pattern of behavior. In fact, what we can
say most clearly is that there is escalation, without being able to say what is the clear direction of the escalation or the purpose.
We would like to wrap this up with a crystal clear explanation and forecast. But we can’t. The motives of the various actors are
opaque; and taken separately, the individual events all have quite innocent explanations. We are not prepared to say war is imminent,
nor even what sort of war there would be. We are simply prepared to say that the course of events since February — and really since
the September 2007 attack on Syria — have been startling, and they appear to be reaching some sort of hard-to-understand
crescendo.
The bombing of Syria symbolizes our confusion. Why would Syria want a nuclear reactor and why put it on the border of Turkey, a
country the Syrians aren’t particularly friendly with? If the Syrians had a nuclear reactor, why would the Israelis be coy about it? Why
would the Americans? Having said nothing for months apart from careful leaks, why are the Israelis going to speak publicly now? And
if what they are going to say is simply that the North Koreans provided the equipment, what’s the big deal? That was leaked months
ago.
The events of September 2007 make no sense and have never made any sense. The events we have seen since February make no
sense either. That is noteworthy, and we bring it to your attention. We are not saying that the events are meaningless. We are saying
that we do not know their meaning. But we can’t help but regard them as ominous.
The Arab-Israeli region of the Middle East is filled with rumors of war. That is about as unusual as the rising of the sun, so normally it
would not be worth mentioning. But like the proverbial broken clock that is right twice a day, such rumors occasionally will be true. In
this case, we don’t know that they are true, and certainly it’s not the rumors that are driving us. But other things — minor and readily
explicable individually — have drawn our attention to the possibility that something is happening.
The first thing that drew our attention was a minor, routine matter. Back in February, the United States started purchasing oil for its
Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). The SPR is a reserve of crude oil stored in underground salt domes. Back in February, it stood at
96.2 percent of capacity, which is pretty full as far as we are concerned. But the U.S. Department of Energy decided to increase its
capacity. This move came in spite of record-high oil prices and the fact that the purchase would not help matters. It also came despite
potential political fallout, since during times like these there is generally pressure to release reserves. Part of the step could have
been the bureaucracy cranking away, and part of it could have been the feeling that the step didn’t make much difference. But part of
it could have been based on real fears of a disruption in oil supplies. By itself, the move meant nothing. But it did cause us to become
thoughtful.
Also in February, someone assassinated Imad Mughniyah, a leader of Hezbollah, in a car bomb explosion in Syria. It was assumed the
Israelis had killed him, although there were some suspicions the Syrians might have had him killed for their own arcane reasons. In
any case, Hezbollah publicly claimed the Israelis killed Mughniyah, and therefore it was expected the militant Shiite group would take
revenge. In the past, Hezbollah responded not by attacking Israel but by attacking Jewish targets elsewhere, as in the Buenos Aires
attacks of 1992 and 1994.
In March, the United States decided to dispatch the USS Cole, then under Sixth Fleet command, to Lebanese coastal waters.
Washington later replaced it with two escorts from the Nassau (LHA-4) Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG), reportedly maintaining a
minor naval presence in the area. (Most of the ESG, on a regularly scheduled deployment, is no more than a few days sail from the
coast, as it remains in the Mediterranean Sea.) The reason given for the American naval presence was to serve as a warning to the
Syrians not to involve themselves in Lebanese affairs. The exact mission of the naval presence off the Levantine coast — and the
exact deterrent function it served — was not clear, but there they were. The Sixth Fleet has gone out of its way to park and maintain U.
S. warships off the Lebanese coast.
Hezbollah leaders being killed by the Israelis and the presence of American ships off the shores of Mediterranean countries are not
news in and of themselves. These things happen. The killing of Mughniyah is notable only to point out that as much as Israel might
have wanted him dead, the Israelis knew this fight would escalate. But anyone would have known this. So all we know is that whoever
killed Mughniyah wanted to trigger a conflict. The U.S. naval presence off the Levantine coast is notable in that Washington, rather
busy with matters elsewhere, found the bandwidth to get involved here as well.
With the situation becoming tense, the Israelis announced in March that they would carry out an exercise in April called Turning Point
2. Once again, an Israeli military exercise is hardly interesting news. But the Syrians apparently got quite interested. After the
announcement, the Syrians deployed three divisions — two armored, one mechanized — to the Lebanese-Syrian border in the Bekaa
Valley, the western part of which is Hezbollah’s stronghold. The Syrians didn’t appear to be aggressive. Rather, they deployed these
forces in a defensive posture, in a way walling off their part of the valley.
The Syrians are well aware that in the event of a conventional war with Israel, they would experience a short but exciting life, as they
say. They thus are hardly going to attack Israel. The deployment therefore seemed intended to keep the Israelis on the Lebanese side
of the border — on the apparent assumption the Israelis were going into the Bekaa Valley. Despite Israeli and Syrian denials of the
Syrian troop buildup along the border, Stratfor sources maintain that the buildup in fact happened. Normally, Israel would be jumping
at the chance to trumpet Syrian aggression in response to these troop movements, but, instead, the Israelis downplayed the buildup.
When the Israelis kicked off Turning Point 2, which we regard as a pretty interesting name, it turned out to be the largest exercise in
Israeli history. It involved the entire country, and was designed to test civil defenses and the ability of the national command authority
to continue to function in the event of an attack with unconventional weapons — chemical and nuclear, we would assume. This was a
costly exercise. It also involved calling up reserves, some of them for the exercise, and, by some reports, others for deployment to
the north against Syria. Israel does not call up reserves casually. Reserve call-ups are expensive and disrupt the civilian economy.
These appear small, but in the environment of Turning Point 2, it would not be difficult to mobilize larger forces without being noticed.
The Syrians already were deeply concerned by the Israeli exercise. Eventually, the Lebanese government got worried, too, and
started to evacuate some civilians from the South. Hezbollah, which still hadn’t retaliated for the Mughniyah assassination, also
claimed the Israelis were about to attack it, and reportedly went on alert and mobilized its forces. The Americans, who normally issue
warnings and cautions to everyone, said nothing to try to calm the situation. They just sat offshore on their ships.
It is noteworthy that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak canceled a scheduled visit to Germany this week. The cancellation came
immediately after the reports of the Syrian military redeployment were released. Obviously, Barak needed to be in Israel for Turning
Point 2, but then he had known about the exercise for at least a month. Why cancel at the last minute? While we are discussing
diplomacy, we note that U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney visited Oman — a country with close relations with Iran — and then was
followed by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. By itself not interesting, but why the high-level interest in Oman at this point?
Now let’s swing back to September 2007, when the Israelis bombed something in Syria near the Turkish border. As we discussed at
the time, for some reason the Israelis refused to say what they had attacked. It made no sense for them not to trumpet what they
carefully leaked — namely, that they had attacked a nuclear facility. Proving that Syria had a secret nuclear program would have been
a public relations coup for Israel. Nevertheless, no public charges were leveled. And the Syrians remained awfully calm about the
bombing.
Rumors now are swirling that the Israelis are about to reveal publicly that they in fact bombed a nuclear reactor provided to Syria by
North Korea. But this news isn’t all that big. Also rumored is that the Israelis will claim Iranian complicity in building the reactor. And
one Israeli TV station reported April 8 that Israel really had discovered Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, which it said
had been smuggled to Syria.
Now why the Bush administration wouldn’t have trumpeted news of the Syrian reactor worldwide in September 2007 is beyond us, but
there obviously were some reasons — assuming the TV report is true, which we have no way of establishing. In fact, we have no idea
why the Israelis are choosing this moment to rehash the bombing of this site. But whatever their reason, it certainly raises a critical
question. If the Syrians are developing a nuclear capability, what are the Israelis planning to do about it?
No one of these things, by itself, is of very great interest. And taken together they do not provide the means for a clear forecast.
Nevertheless, a series of rather ordinary events, taken together, can constitute something significant. Tensions in the Middle East are
moving well beyond the normal point, and given everything that is happening, events are moving to a point where someone is likely to
take military action. Whether Hezbollah will carry out a retaliatory strike or Israel a pre-emptive strike in Lebanon, or whether the
Israelis’ real target is Iran, tensions systematically have been ratcheted up to the point where we, in our simple way, are beginning to
wonder whether something has to give.
All together, these events are fairly extraordinary. Ignoring all rhetoric — and the Israelis have gone out of their way to say that they
are not looking for a fight — it would seem that each side, but particularly the Americans and Israelis, have gone out of their way to
signal that they are expecting conflict. The Syrians have also signaled that they expect conflict, and Hezbollah always claims there is
about to be conflict.
What is missing is this: who will fight whom, and why, and why now. The simple explanation is that Israel wants a second round with
Hezbollah. But while that might be true, it doesn’t explain everything else that has happened. Most important, it doesn’t explain the
simultaneous revelations about the bombing of Syria. It also doesn’t explain the U.S. naval deployment. Is the United States about to
get involved in a war with Hezbollah, a war that the Israelis should handle themselves? Are the Israelis going to topple Syrian
President Bashar al Assad — and then wind up with a Sunni government, or worse, an Israeli occupation of Syria? None of that makes
a lot of sense.
In truth, all of this may dissolve into nothing much. In intelligence analysis, however, sometimes a set of not-fully-coherent facts must
be reported, and that is what we are doing now. There is no clear pattern; there is no obvious direction this is taking. Nevertheless,
when we string together events from February until now, we see a persistently escalating pattern of behavior. In fact, what we can
say most clearly is that there is escalation, without being able to say what is the clear direction of the escalation or the purpose.
We would like to wrap this up with a crystal clear explanation and forecast. But we can’t. The motives of the various actors are
opaque; and taken separately, the individual events all have quite innocent explanations. We are not prepared to say war is imminent,
nor even what sort of war there would be. We are simply prepared to say that the course of events since February — and really since
the September 2007 attack on Syria — have been startling, and they appear to be reaching some sort of hard-to-understand
crescendo.
The bombing of Syria symbolizes our confusion. Why would Syria want a nuclear reactor and why put it on the border of Turkey, a
country the Syrians aren’t particularly friendly with? If the Syrians had a nuclear reactor, why would the Israelis be coy about it? Why
would the Americans? Having said nothing for months apart from careful leaks, why are the Israelis going to speak publicly now? And
if what they are going to say is simply that the North Koreans provided the equipment, what’s the big deal? That was leaked months
ago.
The events of September 2007 make no sense and have never made any sense. The events we have seen since February make no
sense either. That is noteworthy, and we bring it to your attention. We are not saying that the events are meaningless. We are saying
that we do not know their meaning. But we can’t help but regard them as ominous.
The following is an assessment of where the US stands in relation to the Middle East problems. It was
written by the man who had his finger on the nuclear trigger for three years as head of our defense and
response complex buried under Cheyenne Mountain at Colorado Springs. He was the only person who
could initiate a nuclear attack after advising the sitting president of a missile launch by our enemies and
our need to respond. No political or civilian type in the US had more knowledge about day-to-day military
actions around the world.
Everyone should find quiet time to read this. As far as I am concerned, it is exactly the direction we should
go and the consequences of not doing so are well thought out.
John R. ( Jack ) Farrington, Major General, USAF (Retired)
written by the man who had his finger on the nuclear trigger for three years as head of our defense and
response complex buried under Cheyenne Mountain at Colorado Springs. He was the only person who
could initiate a nuclear attack after advising the sitting president of a missile launch by our enemies and
our need to respond. No political or civilian type in the US had more knowledge about day-to-day military
actions around the world.
Everyone should find quiet time to read this. As far as I am concerned, it is exactly the direction we should
go and the consequences of not doing so are well thought out.
John R. ( Jack ) Farrington, Major General, USAF (Retired)
posted 13 April, 2008
Middle East Imperative
By James Cash, Brig. Gen., USAF, (Retired)
I wrote recently about the war in Iraq and the larger war against radical Islam, eliciting a number of responses. Let me try and put this
conflict in proper perspective.
Understand; the current battle we are engaged in is much bigger than just Iraq. What happens in the next year will affect this country
and how our kids and grand kids live throughout their lifetime, and beyond. Radical Islam has been attacking the West since the
seventh century. They have been defeated in the past and decimated to the point of taking hundreds of years to recover. But they can
never be totally defeated. Their birth rates are so far beyond civilized world rates, that in time they recover and attempt to dominate
again.
There are eight terror-sponsoring countries that make up the grand threat to the West. Two, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan just need firm
pressure from the West to make major reforms. They need to decide who they are really going to support and commit to that support.
That answer is simple. They both will support who they think will hang in there until the end, and win. We are not sending very good
signals in that direction right now, thanks to the Democrats.
The other six, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya will require regime change or a major policy shift. Now, let's look
more closely.
Both Afghanistan and Iraq have had regime changes, but are being fueled by outsiders from Syria and Iran . We have scared
Gaddafi's pants off, and he has given up his quest for nuclear weapons, so I don't think Libya is now a threat.
North Korea (the non-Islamic threat) can be handled diplomatically by buying them off. They are starving. That leaves Syria and Iran.
Syria is like a frightened puppy. Without the support of Iran they will join the stronger side. So where does that leave us? Sooner, or
later, we are going to be forced to confront Iran, and it better be before they gain nuclear capability.
In 1989 I served as a Command Director inside the Cheyenne Mountain complex located in Colorado Springs, Colorado for almost
three years. My job there was to observe (through classified means) every missile shot anywhere in the world and assess if it was a
threat to the US or Canada. If any shot was threatening to either nation I had only minutes to advise the President, as he had only
minutes to respond.
I watched Iran and Iraq shoot missiles at each other every day, and all day long, for months. They killed hundreds of thousands of
their people. Know why? They were fighting for control of the Middle East and that enormous oil supply.
At that time, they were preoccupied with their internal problems and could care less about toppling the West. Oil prices were fairly
stable and we could not see an immediate threat.
Well, the worst part of what we have done as a nation in Iraq is to do away with the military capability of one of those nations. Now,
Iran has a clear field to dominate the Middle East, since Iraq is no longer a threat to them.
They have turned their attention to the only other threat to their dominance, they are convinced they will win, because the US is so
divided, and the Democrats (who now control Congress and may control the Presidency in 2008) have openly said we are pulling out.
Do you have any idea what will happen if the entire Middle East turns their support to Iran, which they obviously will do if we pull out? It
is not the price of oil we will have to worry about. OIL WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE to this country at any price. I personally would vote for
any presidential candidate who did what JFK did with the space program---declare a goal to bring this country to total energy
independence in a decade.
Yes, it is about oil. The economy in this country will totally die if that Middle East supply is cut off right now. It will not be a recession. It
will be a depression that will make 1929 look like the 'good-old-days.' The bottom line here is simple. If Iran is forced to fall in line, the
fighting in Iraq will end over night, and the nightmare will be over.
One way or another, Iran must be forced to join modern times and the global community. It may mean a real war. If so, now is the
time, before we face a nuclear Iran with the capacity to destroy Israel and begin a new ice age.
I urge you to read the book 'END GAME' by two of our best Middle East experts, true American patriots and retired military generals,
Paul Vallely and Tom McInerney . They are our finest, and totally honest in their assessment of why victory in the Middle East is so
important, and how it can be won. Proceeds for the book go directly to memorial fund for our fallen soldiers who served the country
during the war on terror.
On the other hand, we have several very angry retired generals today, who evidently have not achieved their lofty goals, and insist on
ranting and raving about the war. They are wrong, and doing the country great harm by giving a certain political party reason to use
them as experts to back their anti-war claims.
You may be one of those who believe nothing could ever be terrible enough to support our going to war. If that is the case I should
stop here, as that level of thinking approaches mental disability in this day and age. It is right up there with alien abductions and high
altitude seeding through government aircraft contrails. I helped produced those contrails for almost 30 years, and I can assure you
we were not seeding the atmosphere. The human race is a war-like population, and if a country is not willing to protect itself, it
deserves the consequences.
'Enough - said!'
Now, my last comments will get to the nerve. They will be on politics.
I am not a Republican. And, George Bush has made enough mistakes as President to insure my feelings about that for the rest of my
life. However, the Democratic Party has moved so far left, they have made me support those farther to the right.
I am a conservative who totally supports the Constitution of this country. The only difference between the United States and the South
American, third world, dictator infested and ever-changing South American governments, is our US Constitution.
This Republic (note I did not say Democracy) is the longest standing the world has ever known, but it is vulnerable. It would take so
little to change it through economic upheaval. There was a time when politicians could disagree, but still work together. We are past
that time, and that is the initial step toward the downfall of our form of government.
I think that many view Bush-hating as payback time. The Republicans hated the Clintons and now the Democrats hate Bush.
So, both parties are putting their hate toward willingness to do anything for political dominance to include lying and always taking the
opposite stand just for the sake of being opposed. JUST HOW GOOD IS THAT FOR OUR COUNTRY?
In my lifetime, after serving in uniform for Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush I have a pretty good
feel for which party supported our military, and what military life was like under each of their terms. And, let me assure you that times
were best under the Republicans.
Service under Jimmy Carter was devastating for all branches of the military. And, Ronald Reagan was truly a salvation.
You can choose to listen to enriched newscasters, and foolish people like John Murtha (he is no war hero), Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry,
Michael Moore, Jane Fonda, Harry Reid, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and on-and-on to include the true fools in
Hollywood if you like. If you do, your conclusions will be totally wrong.
The reason that I write, appear on radio talk shows, and do everything I can to denounce those people is simple. THEY ARE PUTTING
THEIR THIRST FOR POLITICAL POWER AND QUEST FOR VICTORY IN 2008 ABOVE WHAT IS BEST FOR THIS COUNTRY. I cannot abide
that.
Pelosi clearly defied the Logan Act by going to Syria , which should have lead to imprisonment of three years and a heavy fine.
Jane Fonda did more to prolong the Vietnam War longer than any other human being (as acknowledged by Ho Chi Minh in his writing
before he died). She truly should have been indicted for treason, along with her radical husband, Tom Hayden, and forced to pay the
consequences.
This country has started to soften by not enforcing its laws, which is another indication of a Republic about to fall.
All Democrats, along with the Hollywood elite, are sending us headlong into a total defeat in the Middle East, which will finally give Iran
total dominance in the region. A lack of oil in the near future will be the final straw that dooms this Republic.
However, if we refuse to let this happen and really get serious about an energy self-sufficiency program, this can be avoided. I am
afraid, however, that we are going in the opposite direction.
If we elect Hillary Clinton and a Democrat-controlled Congress, and they carry through with allowing Iran to take control of the Middle
East, continue to refuse development of nuclear energy, refuse to allow drilling for new oil, and continue to do nothing but oppose
everything Bush, it will be over in terms of what we view as the good life in the USA.
Now, do I think that all who do not support the war are un-American--- of course not. They just do not understand the importance of
total victory in that region.
Another failure of George Bush is his inability to explain to the American people why we are there, and why we MUST win.
By the way, it is not a war. The war was won four years ago. It is martial law that is under attack by Iranian and Syrian outside
influences, and there is a difference.
So, what do I believe? What is the bottom line? I will simply say that the Democrat Party has fielded the foulest, power hungry,
anti-country, self absorbed group of individuals that I have observed in my lifetime. Our educational system is partially to blame for
allowing the mass of America to be taken in by this group. George Bush has done the best he can with the disabilities that he
possesses.
A President must communicate with the people. And, I would tell you that Desert Storm spoiled the people. Bush Senior's 100-hour
war convinced the people that technology has progressed to the point that wars could be fought with no casualties and won in very
short periods of time.
I remember feeling at the time, that this was a tragedy for the US military. To win wars, you must put boots on the ground. When you
put boots on the ground, soldiers are going to die. A President must make the war decision wisely, and insure that the cause is right
before using his last political option.
HOWEVER, CONTROLLING IRAN AND DEMOCRATIZING THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE ONLY CHOICE IF WE ARE HELL-BENT ON DEPENDING
ON THEM FOR OUR FUTURE ENERGY NEEDS.
Jimmy L. Cash, Brig. Gen., USAF, Ret.
Lakeside, Montana 59922
By James Cash, Brig. Gen., USAF, (Retired)
I wrote recently about the war in Iraq and the larger war against radical Islam, eliciting a number of responses. Let me try and put this
conflict in proper perspective.
Understand; the current battle we are engaged in is much bigger than just Iraq. What happens in the next year will affect this country
and how our kids and grand kids live throughout their lifetime, and beyond. Radical Islam has been attacking the West since the
seventh century. They have been defeated in the past and decimated to the point of taking hundreds of years to recover. But they can
never be totally defeated. Their birth rates are so far beyond civilized world rates, that in time they recover and attempt to dominate
again.
There are eight terror-sponsoring countries that make up the grand threat to the West. Two, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan just need firm
pressure from the West to make major reforms. They need to decide who they are really going to support and commit to that support.
That answer is simple. They both will support who they think will hang in there until the end, and win. We are not sending very good
signals in that direction right now, thanks to the Democrats.
The other six, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya will require regime change or a major policy shift. Now, let's look
more closely.
Both Afghanistan and Iraq have had regime changes, but are being fueled by outsiders from Syria and Iran . We have scared
Gaddafi's pants off, and he has given up his quest for nuclear weapons, so I don't think Libya is now a threat.
North Korea (the non-Islamic threat) can be handled diplomatically by buying them off. They are starving. That leaves Syria and Iran.
Syria is like a frightened puppy. Without the support of Iran they will join the stronger side. So where does that leave us? Sooner, or
later, we are going to be forced to confront Iran, and it better be before they gain nuclear capability.
In 1989 I served as a Command Director inside the Cheyenne Mountain complex located in Colorado Springs, Colorado for almost
three years. My job there was to observe (through classified means) every missile shot anywhere in the world and assess if it was a
threat to the US or Canada. If any shot was threatening to either nation I had only minutes to advise the President, as he had only
minutes to respond.
I watched Iran and Iraq shoot missiles at each other every day, and all day long, for months. They killed hundreds of thousands of
their people. Know why? They were fighting for control of the Middle East and that enormous oil supply.
At that time, they were preoccupied with their internal problems and could care less about toppling the West. Oil prices were fairly
stable and we could not see an immediate threat.
Well, the worst part of what we have done as a nation in Iraq is to do away with the military capability of one of those nations. Now,
Iran has a clear field to dominate the Middle East, since Iraq is no longer a threat to them.
They have turned their attention to the only other threat to their dominance, they are convinced they will win, because the US is so
divided, and the Democrats (who now control Congress and may control the Presidency in 2008) have openly said we are pulling out.
Do you have any idea what will happen if the entire Middle East turns their support to Iran, which they obviously will do if we pull out? It
is not the price of oil we will have to worry about. OIL WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE to this country at any price. I personally would vote for
any presidential candidate who did what JFK did with the space program---declare a goal to bring this country to total energy
independence in a decade.
Yes, it is about oil. The economy in this country will totally die if that Middle East supply is cut off right now. It will not be a recession. It
will be a depression that will make 1929 look like the 'good-old-days.' The bottom line here is simple. If Iran is forced to fall in line, the
fighting in Iraq will end over night, and the nightmare will be over.
One way or another, Iran must be forced to join modern times and the global community. It may mean a real war. If so, now is the
time, before we face a nuclear Iran with the capacity to destroy Israel and begin a new ice age.
I urge you to read the book 'END GAME' by two of our best Middle East experts, true American patriots and retired military generals,
Paul Vallely and Tom McInerney . They are our finest, and totally honest in their assessment of why victory in the Middle East is so
important, and how it can be won. Proceeds for the book go directly to memorial fund for our fallen soldiers who served the country
during the war on terror.
On the other hand, we have several very angry retired generals today, who evidently have not achieved their lofty goals, and insist on
ranting and raving about the war. They are wrong, and doing the country great harm by giving a certain political party reason to use
them as experts to back their anti-war claims.
You may be one of those who believe nothing could ever be terrible enough to support our going to war. If that is the case I should
stop here, as that level of thinking approaches mental disability in this day and age. It is right up there with alien abductions and high
altitude seeding through government aircraft contrails. I helped produced those contrails for almost 30 years, and I can assure you
we were not seeding the atmosphere. The human race is a war-like population, and if a country is not willing to protect itself, it
deserves the consequences.
'Enough - said!'
Now, my last comments will get to the nerve. They will be on politics.
I am not a Republican. And, George Bush has made enough mistakes as President to insure my feelings about that for the rest of my
life. However, the Democratic Party has moved so far left, they have made me support those farther to the right.
I am a conservative who totally supports the Constitution of this country. The only difference between the United States and the South
American, third world, dictator infested and ever-changing South American governments, is our US Constitution.
This Republic (note I did not say Democracy) is the longest standing the world has ever known, but it is vulnerable. It would take so
little to change it through economic upheaval. There was a time when politicians could disagree, but still work together. We are past
that time, and that is the initial step toward the downfall of our form of government.
I think that many view Bush-hating as payback time. The Republicans hated the Clintons and now the Democrats hate Bush.
So, both parties are putting their hate toward willingness to do anything for political dominance to include lying and always taking the
opposite stand just for the sake of being opposed. JUST HOW GOOD IS THAT FOR OUR COUNTRY?
In my lifetime, after serving in uniform for Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush I have a pretty good
feel for which party supported our military, and what military life was like under each of their terms. And, let me assure you that times
were best under the Republicans.
Service under Jimmy Carter was devastating for all branches of the military. And, Ronald Reagan was truly a salvation.
You can choose to listen to enriched newscasters, and foolish people like John Murtha (he is no war hero), Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry,
Michael Moore, Jane Fonda, Harry Reid, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and on-and-on to include the true fools in
Hollywood if you like. If you do, your conclusions will be totally wrong.
The reason that I write, appear on radio talk shows, and do everything I can to denounce those people is simple. THEY ARE PUTTING
THEIR THIRST FOR POLITICAL POWER AND QUEST FOR VICTORY IN 2008 ABOVE WHAT IS BEST FOR THIS COUNTRY. I cannot abide
that.
Pelosi clearly defied the Logan Act by going to Syria , which should have lead to imprisonment of three years and a heavy fine.
Jane Fonda did more to prolong the Vietnam War longer than any other human being (as acknowledged by Ho Chi Minh in his writing
before he died). She truly should have been indicted for treason, along with her radical husband, Tom Hayden, and forced to pay the
consequences.
This country has started to soften by not enforcing its laws, which is another indication of a Republic about to fall.
All Democrats, along with the Hollywood elite, are sending us headlong into a total defeat in the Middle East, which will finally give Iran
total dominance in the region. A lack of oil in the near future will be the final straw that dooms this Republic.
However, if we refuse to let this happen and really get serious about an energy self-sufficiency program, this can be avoided. I am
afraid, however, that we are going in the opposite direction.
If we elect Hillary Clinton and a Democrat-controlled Congress, and they carry through with allowing Iran to take control of the Middle
East, continue to refuse development of nuclear energy, refuse to allow drilling for new oil, and continue to do nothing but oppose
everything Bush, it will be over in terms of what we view as the good life in the USA.
Now, do I think that all who do not support the war are un-American--- of course not. They just do not understand the importance of
total victory in that region.
Another failure of George Bush is his inability to explain to the American people why we are there, and why we MUST win.
By the way, it is not a war. The war was won four years ago. It is martial law that is under attack by Iranian and Syrian outside
influences, and there is a difference.
So, what do I believe? What is the bottom line? I will simply say that the Democrat Party has fielded the foulest, power hungry,
anti-country, self absorbed group of individuals that I have observed in my lifetime. Our educational system is partially to blame for
allowing the mass of America to be taken in by this group. George Bush has done the best he can with the disabilities that he
possesses.
A President must communicate with the people. And, I would tell you that Desert Storm spoiled the people. Bush Senior's 100-hour
war convinced the people that technology has progressed to the point that wars could be fought with no casualties and won in very
short periods of time.
I remember feeling at the time, that this was a tragedy for the US military. To win wars, you must put boots on the ground. When you
put boots on the ground, soldiers are going to die. A President must make the war decision wisely, and insure that the cause is right
before using his last political option.
HOWEVER, CONTROLLING IRAN AND DEMOCRATIZING THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE ONLY CHOICE IF WE ARE HELL-BENT ON DEPENDING
ON THEM FOR OUR FUTURE ENERGY NEEDS.
Jimmy L. Cash, Brig. Gen., USAF, Ret.
Lakeside, Montana 59922