General Georges Sada Shares Saddam’s Secrets

15. November 2008 by The Chuck.

Did Saddam Hussein’s Iraq have weapons of mass destruction (WMD)? If so, what happened to them?

Was Saddam Hussein ever planning to attack his neighbors?

Was Saddam Hussein really a bad guy, or was he just misunderstood?

I know it’s difficult for most of us to believe, but since some time has passed, more than a few Americans have forgotten who Saddam Hussein was and what he did. They probably only vaguely remember the leftist mantra, “Bush lied, people died.” So a quick history lesson is in order.

Here’s an extract from the CIA country study on Iraq:

In August 1990, Iraq seized Kuwait but was expelled by US-led, UN coalition forces during the Gulf War of January-February 1991. Following Kuwait’s liberation, the UN Security Council (UNSC) required Iraq to scrap all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles and to allow UN verification inspections. Continued Iraqi noncompliance with UNSC resolutions over a period of 12 years led to the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and the ouster of the SADDAM Husayn regime.

Yes, I know.

They spelled Saddam’s last name wrong. I don’t know if the spelling was changed when the page was updated on 6 November 2008 or some time earlier. After a little research I discovered that there are multiple acceptable spellings since it is merely a transliteration of the Arabic language. I don’t think it was intended to disassociate the dead dictator’s last name from the middle name of our President-elect.

Did I say dead dictator?

Yes I did.

Iraq’s High Tribunal found Saddam Hussein/Husayn guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced him to hang in 2006. The trial wasn’t about WMD or any intent to invade his neighbors, instead it was about some of his murders in 1982. To have tried him for all his crimes, would have taken many years–maybe decades. As it was, it only took one conviction and one hanging to put an end to him.

But we’re stuck with those lingering questions. Was it all a sham? How will we ever really know?

Come to think of it, how do you know anything? Think about it.

There’s only two ways to know anything. You either have to experience the event or believe somebody else’s account of what happened. Most of the stuff you know, you know because you’ve taken someone else’s word for it. The challenge is to decide who to believe.

In legal proceedings and in historic research, the closer the witness is to actually experiencing the event, the more reliable they are as a source. For instance, the personal testimony of an eye-witness is considered more reliable that the testimony of a person who read about the event in a newspaper or saw it on an edited television news cast. Even somebody who talked with an eye-witness of an event is more creditable than someone who formed an opinion based on a collection of news reports and documentaries. And when the testimony is supported by circumstantial evidence, greater credence can be given to the witness.

So what about the Iraqi WMD?

Many blogs and news reports declare that there weren’t any. But how could they know? And who has disagreed with them?

Bill Clinton did in 1998 and still did as late as 2003. Maybe he was wrong. Do you think? Several other people disagreed also, such people as Nancy Pelosi, Sandy Berger, and Madeline Albright. Maybe they were wrong too. Certainly they weren’t all liars. No, they had to believe what they were saying, which had to be based on some reliable source they had access to. So much of that high-level stuff remains unavailable to the average American due to classification levels.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could talk to an eye-witness about what was going in Iraq. Or at least be able to read a book written by a witness. Maybe then we could have some certainly about whether there were WMD in Iraq.

Well, now there is.

A retired Iraqi Air Force Vice Air-Marshall (a.k.a. General) Georges Sada has written his testimony called Saddam’s Secrets. It answers the questions I asked at the beginning of this column. If you’d prefer to read the book and find the answers yourself, you need to stop reading now. Otherwise, here goes:

Did Saddam Hussein’s Iraq have weapons of mass destruction (WMD)?

Yes (page 71).

Then what happened to them?

Some of them were found by occupying forces, but most of them were transported to Syria in the summer of 2002. Pretending to provide humanitarian support in response to a collapsed dam in Zeyzoun, fifty-six flights on modified commercial 747s and 727s transported hundreds of tons of WMD (pages 260-261). I found an article referencing an Agence France-Presse (AFP) story about 20 plane-loads of aid from Iraq to Syria on 9 June 2002. There are some people who say they know where the WMD in Syria are today.

Was Saddam Hussein planning to attack his neighbors?

Yes. As most people know he initiated an eight-year war with Iran and then in 1990 he invaded Kuwait. However, he also planned to attack Israel with a air-armada of 98 aircraft all using chemical WMD (pages 128-129, 135, 140). And he intended to attack Saudi Arabia with twelve combat divisions (pages 171, 172). The primary reason he canceled the attacks against Israel and Saudi Arabia is because of the US-led attack which neutered his military power (page 173).

Was Saddam Hussein really a bad guy, or was he just misunderstood?

He was about as bad as a human can be. See pages 299 and 300 for a summary, but multiple accounts are scattered throughout the 315-page book.

Who is this General Sada and why should we care about him?

He graduated from Iraq’s Air Academy in 1959, received training in Great Britain, Russia, and the United States, trained many Iraqi pilots, and was the second ranking officer in Saddam Hussein’s air force. He was forced into retirement in 1986 because he was a member of the Baathist party, but was recalled during the First Gulf War to interrogate coalition pilots. He placed his life on the line by refusing to execute the coalition pilots as Qusay (the son of Saddam) ordered him to do (pages 181-187).

Without General Sada’s actions, no coalition pilots POWs would have survived to tell their tales.

When was this book, Saddam’s Secrets, published?

2006. 2006! Why haven’t I heard about this book before now?

He was briefly interviewed on Fox News’ Hannity and Combs, and then again on the comedic Daily Show. He has talked to a few churches around the country. But otherwise, he’s mostly ignored. I suggest there are at least six reasons why Saddam’s Secrets hasn’t been given much press coverage.

First of all, it is filled with little stories about Georges Sada’s life. For the reader who is searching for information about WMD, these stories can be annoying. Initially, I found them to be so, but the more of them I read, the more I grew to like the author. His account of his first flight in the MiG-21 on pages 54 to 62 was the turning point for me. As an Air Force pilot I understood what he went through as a 28-year-old aviator trying to do a mission without being fully trained for it. From there on, he was a friend telling me about his life. A life which had a connection to an evil dictator.

Saddam’s Secrets in not complimentary of the United Nations (UN). From high-level leadership down to the lowly blue-helmeted UN peace-keeper, they are all portrayed as bride-seeking individuals supporting nothing that relates to peace or justice. Some people might think it could bolster the traditional anti-UN sentiment of many Americans, whose tax-dollars pay 22% of the UN operating costs.

Georges Sada also talks about a Chinese connection in a deal to supply nuclear weapons to Iraq. Saddam offered them $100 million, but the deal was squashed when coalition-efforts prevented the transfer of funds. This information might set back the progress of elected officials working to convince Americans to accept China as a strategic partner and friend.

Probably the second worst offense in the book is that he warns us about a cultural invasion by the followers of Islam. Ever since shortly after 9/11, President Bush has repeatedly insisted that Islam is a religion of peace. Sada’s discussion on pages 285 to 291 suggests America and Europe are under going an assimilation that if ignored will soon transform our customs, history, and languages. This type of talk is not popular in an age where tolerance is culturally demanded, even written into our laws.

He criticizes the American handling of Iraq after the defeat of Saddam’s military. Not only were their major mistakes made after the 1991 war it was worse after the 2003 war. Disbanding the military the way it was, depleted the resources that could have been used to expedite stability and even worse encourage thousands of former officers to join the violent opposition. Shortly after the war, General Sada offered to establish security for Baghdad if he could have 40,000 UNARMED former Iraqi air force personnel assigned as police to him. The plan was rejected by the Americans in charge.

But Georges Sada’s greatest offense to the popular media might be that he is an Assyrian Christian. As an Assyrian, his ancestral claims to live where he does predate those of Arabs. It’s like a 2000-year trump card on the “evil-Crusading-invaders” argument used by many non-Christians. Greater than being Assyrian, the “Christian” descriptor is an obvious offense to non-Christians in the 21st century.

General Sada does more than just say he’s a Christian, throughout his book, he often gives thanks to Jesus for things that went right in his life. He also suggests that others should seek the truth of Christianity in several places throughout his book. He even has a small lecture for young people concerning their dress and sexual behavior–how dare he.

Personal testimonies of Christians often make non-Christians feel uncomfortable. I discovered through other sources that while Georges Sada was raised in the “old-style Christianity” of the middle-east, he actually became a born-again Christian in 1989. That was after an American preacher from California visited his church and taught about the individual relationship a person can have with Jesus. That explains a lot to those who understand what it means.

So Georges Sada has at least six reasons for people not to promote his book. Nevertheless the book is published and you might want to read it. If you don’t have a friend to lend one to you, it might be in your local library, or you can order a copy on-line at Amazon.com for about $17, it retails for about $25.

Another subplot in the book dealt with Saddam’s leadership style. Specifically, he placed very incompetent people below him in positions of great authority. While this tactic resulted in national leaders who were terrible at their jobs, they were totally loyal to Saddam. Without the power of Saddam to support and protect them, they would never be followed by the people they supervised. Thus revolution was impossible.

Doesn’t that make you wonder?

If you ever worked for an incompetent boss, did you ever wonder how he got there? Was it just a fluke, or was it a parallel of the Saddam principle of leadership?

Kinda makes you think about what your boss’s boss is thinking.

It just makes sense.

Posted in National Nonsense, Military Nonsense, International Nonsense, The Chuck's Comments | Print | No Comments »

America’s Allies Need An Appropriate Defense

20. August 2008 by The Chuck.

Russia has violated Georgia. A Russian invasion force–thousands of soldiers and hundreds of tanks–scattered the ill-prepared Georgian military. The Russian air force bombed Georgian cities and then occupied some of them. They stole the small boats of its navy. Pillaged and destroyed army bases. Pushed civilian police cars aside with tanks. Robbed banks. Put citizens in work details. And then scoffed at the international response.

America, its military stretched thin between two theaters of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)–Iraq and Afghanistan–reacted with diplomatic sternness. The American stance might have been respected by the Russians if NATO had offered a solid front. However, they only offered the threat of diplomatic reprisals due to some of its members being energy dependent on the Russian Bear.

Then in a diplomatic surprise, the new leader of the European Union–French President Nicolas Sarkozy–echoed the American position. Suddenly there was a ceasefire deal. American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice saw to it that Georgia’s President Mikhail Saakshvili and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev both signed the treaty this weekend.

Once the agreement was signed, the Russian invasion force was supposed to begin leaving. But “surprise” — they didn’t. Who’d a guess it? Who wouldn’t have?

The Russians said they would leave Monday, but they didn’t. They continued to position themselves to control Georgia–taking over villages and a power plant.

They continued to assert moral ascendancy on the people of the small country. The Russians even said they were leaving as some rumors spread that more forces were moving into the region. Hard to trust those Russians, ain’t it?

This is troubling, as most of the civilized community is trying to find a solution to an evil force that is bent on destroying the world as we know it.

Terrorist organizations are waging war against the civilized nations of the world. Suicide terrorists do what their label implies. Attacks are launched, just about everywhere. The Chinese are not immune. Terrorists blow up civilian aircraft, even in Russia.

The terrorists see little difference between the Russians, the Americans, the Chinese, or the Jews. But instead of cooperating and putting as quick as possible of an end to the GWOT, we have to revisit old wounds. What causes that? If we ever get it under control we just might have peace in our time.

Meanwhile, in an attempt to established a hedge against Iranian missile threats–especially with the imminent development of nuclear warheads–America has agreed to build a missile defense system in Poland.

While this might be part of a master plan to avoid having to depopulate Iran in order to stop their weapons development program, Russia has stated that it is just an attempt to weaken Russia. They rattle their saber and spout not-so-veiled threats of attack on Poland and others. So we’re going to put Patriot missiles in Poland to protect them from Russian missiles. Well, that’s a start.

This is getting complicated. Russia is a threat to its neighbors that are American allies, or are considering to become so. It’s a good thing to protect them from missile attack, but that’s not enough.

If our allies are to be safe from Russia, they need a tank defense system.

America has had success in stopping Soviet-technology tanks in the past couple of wars. Its probably safe to say, “Nobody does it better.” We should share our techniques and some of our hardware with our allies.

Did somebody just whisper, “It might be good for the economy.”

There are a vast array of stop-the-tank weapons out there. The Army says the best anti-tank weapon is a tank. Maybe so, but airplanes do a pretty good job of stopping tanks too–ask any Hog-driver.

Of course, all of that needs air superiority to happen. Come to think of it–America does that quite well too. If we feel up to the job, we might want to reconsider the number of F-22s we’ll need. I know that’s not a popular stance in the wake of the UAV craze. But can UAVs shoot down the Su-35 and MiG-29?

Some folks will say that these suggestions are needlessly extravagant. They will say things like: It will cause a war! It will never work! It will cost too much!

Georgia is being snuffed as we speak–and not because they were too strong. They were without the resources to stop 10,000 soldiers and 350 tanks who enjoyed air superiority. If they had, let’s say 20,000 combat soldiers and 400 tanks and air defenses to stop Russian airpower technology–or at least slow them, would it have been different? Could they have defended themselves long enough for the US or NATO to have moved an air superiority shield over their territory? Maybe.

In addition, the Russians would have had to muster a force of about 3 to 1 to be confident of success. Forces in that number don’t assemble quietly or cheaply–maybe that in and of itself would have been enough to have prevented the invasion of Georgia. Who knows?

What we do know for certain is that what was done wasn’t enough. We have to do something different. If we keep doing the same thing, we’ll eventually see all the border states around Russia forced to surrender to the Bear. Do we really want an imperialistic Russian Empire expanding its sphere of control with hot lead and cold steel? When they eventually clash with China’s ambitions, will the EU and US be influential enough to get them to sign a ceasefire treaty? Or will we see the Dragon and the Bear wear each other out with massive bombardments of nuclear weapons? Which one of them would you like to win? Would that be a better world than we have today?

No way. We have to do something else.

It just makes sense.

Posted in International Nonsense, The Chuck's Comments | Print | No Comments »

Let’s Be Mindful Of Georgia

13. August 2008 by The Chuck.

Russia’s brutal invasion of Georgia is seen by some as a cry for respect–like a shout in the darkness, ”The Bear is not dead, it was merely hibernating.” But now that the dastardly deed is in progress, how the world deals with Russia will set the tone for future imperialist schemes.

Georgia is a small nation–about the size and population of South Carolina–in the Caucasus region of Asia. It became independent during the breakup of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) following the Cold War. Since then, Russia has supported two break-away regions within Georgia: Abkhazia on the coast of the Black Sea and Ossetia in the middle of its northern border with Russia.

On August 7, the fighting started in Ossetia. Well, at least the shooting and killing started then. Georgia had been under an intense cybernetic attack since July. While its difficult to prove, much of the attack appears to have come from Russia. It was the cyber-equivalent of a blockade of Georgia. No cyber-business or commerce in or out of the cyber-ports–the government was cyber-crippled. Then kinetic shots were fired, a few people died, and Georgia reacted.

Their reaction against the Ossetia separatist forces was the “moral high ground” Russia needed to launch their invasion of Georgia. They just happened to have hundreds of tanks and thousands of soldiers ready to roll. Probably just a coincidence.

The Georgian forces were chased out of Ossetia but the Russians kept coming across into the rest of Georgia. They quickly took control of the air and their invading army was free-to-attack and free-from-attack by the diminutive Georgian air force. The United States has officially denounced the invasion, telling Russia to return to their August 6 positions.

Russia has sent various mixed messages. They said they would stop, but they didn’t. They said they had stopped, but they hadn’t. They said it was just like 9-11, but it wasn’t. They say they’re merely defending the independence of “Southern” Ossetia. Defending as they leveled buildings across Georgia, bombed airports and pipelines. They call their forces “peacekeepers”. They’re acting a bit like the old USSR did, invading any of their occupied nations when resistance stood-up. Hungary in 1956. Chechoslovokia in 1968. But our Secretary of State reminded the world today that things had changed.

“This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia, where Russia can threaten a neighbor, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it.”

Wow! Smart, beautiful, and tough.

But the toughest stuff is yet to happen. If the world is not shown that those words she spoke are true, millions of people could suffer. If Russia can invade and gobble up Georgia, why not the Ukraine? If Russia can have Georgia and Ukraine, why can’t China invade and conquer Taiwan? Once Taiwan goes, the United States will no longer be creditable as a superpower. Our allies would never take a chance on siding with us, because we will be seen as hollow and worthless.

Now, there’s a change we don’t want.

So what do we do? We need solutions not just criticism.

First of all, every member of NATO needs to publicly denounce Russia’s action. They need to make similar statements as our President and Secretary of State have. In an election year everyone seems to have some words to say but this challenge will either be fixed or broken–maybe beyond repair before January 2009. The official opinions of the NATO members need to be congruent with the official opinion of the United States.

That opinion must include, “[We] stand with the democratically elected government of Georgia. We insist that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia be respected.”

If the members of NATO can’t do that one simple thing–and do it quickly–then NATO has outlived any usefulness. NATO would need to either expel the dead weight or the United States would need to resign. I think NATO can belly-up-to-the-bar on this in the next day or at the most two.

That might be all it takes. But maybe not. What if Russia calls the bluff? What then?

Well first of all, it’s not a bluff. NATO would need to declare a no-fly zone over the entire country of Georgia. The Russian ground force would no longer be protected by an airpower umbrella. They would be subject to attack. Georgian forces defending their towns would have the freedom to maneuver for positional advantage. The Russian response would determine what would happen next. Columns of T-80s are no match for what could come their way. And if Russia pushed NATO in the air, there would be a new generation of Aces to put on playing cards for years to come.

NATO would only have to press as hard as was required, remembering the objective would be to stop Russian aggression–not kill them all. Ironically, we would be teaching the Russians how to respond with appropriate force. Some lessons are tougher than others.

But could this lead to a nuclear war? Would the Russians respond with nuclear weapons, forcing NATO nations to depopulate the Russian homeland? It could. But it won’t.

Vladimir Putin’s job pays a lot better than most. He’s the richest man in Europe, maybe the world. He’s also the Russian decision-maker. And he cares about himself–doesn’t smoke or drink to excess–has two well-educated daughters, has a lovely wife, and a little poodle named Tosca. Life is good for him. He doesn’t want a big war between Russia and NATO anymore than America does. But he does want more.

We just have to convince him that less is more. The less Russia invades its neighbors the more airplanes Russia will have.

What about the people of Southern Ossetia? Russia is just helping those people to have their liberty and independence, right? Okay, lets solve that problem too.

The people of Southern Ossetia are said to have a culture tied to the people of Northern Ossetia (a province in Russia). What do you say we have Georgia and Russia let all the Ossetia people have their liberty. The two regions could be united and allowed to be a sovereign, independent country. Maybe after a while they too, would like to join NATO.

It just makes sense.

Georgia,
Georgia,
No peace, no peace I find
Just this old, sweet song
Keeps Georgia on my mind

I said just an old sweet song,
Keeps Georgia on my mind  

 

 

Posted in International Nonsense, The Chuck's Comments | Print | 1 Comment »

The 8888 Uprising*

2. August 2008 by The Chuck.

We’re fast approaching the 20th anniversary of an infamous massacre of people who were protesting against socialist rule. And yet, the majority of Americans won’t even notice.

However, the United States government is well aware of what has been going on in the country calling itself Myanmar since 1989. Last week, President Bush extended our import ban on Burma. The goal of our sanctions is to convince the military dictatorship to stop suppressing democracy and to release Noble Peace Prize winner Dr. Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest.

She is the daughter of General Aung San. He’s basically the George Washington of modern-day Burma. Following WWII, he led the negotiations with the United Kingdom which resulted in the establishment of the fledgling democracy. Life was good. But democracy was strangled in 1962.

General Ne Win led the coup which transformed the once prosperous nation into a beggar. He set up “the Burmese Way to Socialism” which extinguished the flame of economic freedom and banished Chinese and Indian businessmen. Officially, he stepped down from power in 1988–but ruled in a veil of obscurity until his death in 2002. During that period he transformed the government with a strong hand into one with an iron fist.

Myriad people demonstrated in the streets. Some say it was chaos, but the students and monks used peaceful tactics. Their civil-disobedience was countered with cold steel and hot lead on August 8, 1988. Some reports say more than 3000 people were killed, the junta counters that only a few were killed. You’ll have to decide who you believe.

Regardless of how many were killed during the 8888 Uprising, it didn’t stop the movement toward freedom. The National League for Democracy (NLD) won the 1990 election with a landslide. The only problem was that the junta refused to step down. It seems they had a monopoly on guns–no second amendment over there. Its hard to argue with a government that doesn’t mind shooting its citizens.

Americans learned that lesson in the 1770 Boston Massacre. History records that those demonstrators were not all that peaceful. And only five were killed. But it was enough to help fuel the movement that resulted in the American Revolution. Of course, Burma’s struggle is not over.

In September 2007, the government suppressed protests over fuel prices by killing at least 13 and arresting throngs of people. Since then, government thugs continue to roll through houses and monasteries to arrest anyone they think is associated with the pro-democracy movement. Most Americans didn’t hear much about Burma/Myanmar until May 2008.

That was when category-four cyclone Nargis hit Burma at 135 mph. Causing more than $10 billion in damage, it killed more than 100,000–some extreme reports say nearly a million were washed out to sea. The junta initially resisted foreign aid, maybe fearing they might lose their iron-fisted grip on their people. In response, President Bush encouraged the world to condemn Burma’s military leaders. Under diplomatic pressure from all directions, they eventually allowed aid to flow in. And nobody really knows how many people died lacking timely aid. But it had to be more than a few.

The junta does its best to keep reporters out of the country. They say the people’s unrest is caused by foreign media reports and radio broadcasts in exile. But like a bad movie, the current regime uses those old-time despotic favorites: slaughtering, raping, and displacing to control the folks who oppose them.

But still they oppose.

The people in the democracy-movement in Burma will no doubt do something to remember August 8, 1988 on the 20th anniversary of the massacre. Anyone with even a vague familiarity of the military junta’s iron-fisted tactics should not be surprised when the charge to remember the 8888 Uprising is paid in blood.

But of course, that has been the price of freedom throughout the ages.

It just makes sense.

* (August 8, 1988 - a.k.a 08-08-88 - Thus 8888)

A few opinions about the situation in Burma from people much more famous than me:

Jim Carrey on Burma

Sylvester Stallone on Burma

Will Ferrell on Burma

Damian Marley on Burma

Kim Kardashian

Posted in International Nonsense, The Chuck's Comments | Print | No Comments »

One More Last Chance For Iran

17. July 2008 by The Chuck.

Iran is teetering on a political precipice. Very soon it will fall one of two ways.

Iran will either back down or get shut down.

They’ve adopted an anti-civilization stance since their muslim-revolution in 1979. They purged themselves, fought with their neighbors, threaten the world, and sent terrorists to kill the people in many places. They were identified as a charter member of the “Axis of Evil” by the President of the United States. And have been sponsoring the terrorists in the Global War On Terrorism (GWOT). Even with a stack of sins that high, they weren’t on the edge of what is about to happen.

What put them on the brink of doom is their well-publicized effort to acquire nuclear weapons and their public declaration that they will destroy the nation of Israel. Any reasonable reader of the news should be able to deduce that Iran intends to use nuclear weapons against Israel some time after they get them. Since it appears that nothing short of national disintegration will change their minds, the only solution is to deny Iran the ability to possess nuclear weapons.

As much as a nuclear attack on America would bother us, a geographical small nation like Israel couldn’t absorb the attack and expect to recover. Thus is seems that nothing short of national disintegration will prevent them from doing everything they must to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Some say it would be impossible for Israel to succeed with such a mission against Iran.

That’s what some people said prior to the successful 1981 mission against Hussein’s nuclear reactor in Iraq and the surprising 2006 mission against the “secret” nuclear reactor in Syria. While past performance is no guarantee of future results, it does suggest more truth than those who oppose freedom’s war against terrorism.

Suppose Iran doesn’t back down. Suppose Israel decides Iran is about to have functional nuclear weapons. Suppose no other nations shut down Iran. Then one of two things will happen.

The first possible outcome is that Israel once again pulls off the impossible. They destroy the 1000-megawatt nuclear plant at Bushehr and the other two-dozen or so suspected nuclear targets. In the process they out-think and out-fight what ever defensive actions Iran tosses at them. Standing in the rubble of extensive national damage and total embarrassment Iran would have two choices.

Choice one: Cut their losses and back down. Squeal to the UN and complain about the aggression of Israel, producing nothing more than a tongue-lashing for Israel. Israel, believing they saved their own lives, would tacitly accept the short season of talk. Eventually indigenous forces for change inside of Iran would prevail and they would have regime change.

Choice two: Iran squirts out of their borders with their diminutive airpower only to have most, if not all of it converted into smoking holes in the sand. Iran’s neighbors are not likely to give them free-transit of their airspace. Most of Iran’s neighbors are friendly enough with America to request assistance as needed. Having failed in the air, they would try to shut down the flow of oil through the Straits of Hormuz. After one or two successful attacks against merchant vessels, American air and sea power would neuter Iran’s ability to project power. Civil unrest at the embarrassing turn of events would most likely produce a violent regime change.

Another outcome supposes something different. Suppose Israel’s attack is unable to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Then Iran will most likely use their nuclear weapons on Israel. Maybe even on some of their other neighbors, but certainly against Israel.

Thanks to Jimmy Carter the world has little doubt that Israel has more than 100 nuclear weapons.

Let’s suppose Iran’s nuclear strike on Israel is successful. Israel would have little need for their nuclear weapons after they’ve been wiped off the map. Thus, they would at least give a major portion of their arsenal to Iran. Pointy end first. The parties in the streets of Iran’s major cities would be short-lived. The bowl of death produced by the nuclear shock-waves rebounding off the mountain ranges around Tehran would probably be studied for years by nuclear weapons experts. There would probably be little left of the near 13 million who live there now. But that would be from just one of the more than 100 weapons that would rain down on the Iranians. The small bands of survivors in the less populated areas of Iran would eventually be assimilated by their neighbors as the land became more inhabitable. The ultimate regime change.

The really ugly part of that entire scenario is that it would establish a precedent for using nuclear weapons in war. A pity for twenty-first century humanity, especially after over 60 years of investment by Americans to deter use of such destructive weapons.

But that’s what happens with rogue nations are not convinced to back down.

When will the attack happen?

According to John Bolton, former American ambassador to the UN, the attack will take place between the November 4, 2008 presidential election and swearing in of whoever replaces George W. Bush on January 20, 2009. Thus George W. Bush will be in command of the American response to Israel’s bombing of Iran.

So is all lost?

Not yet. You might have read in the news about the American envoy going to Geneva this week for the Iran nuclear talks. It hasn’t gotten as much attention as the Obama cartoon on the cover of the New Yorker or Jackson’s vulgar language but it’s much more important than either of those.

It is completely out of step with American policy. Presidents have been impeached for less. Yet, the civilized-world’s leader is sending Williams Burns, the third highest-ranking American diplomat to Geneva. The cover story is that he’s there to listen.

Of course we know that diplomats are best at talking, not listening. Is it possible that America is going to give Iran one more last chance? Will Mr. Burns say something like, “Let me help you save yourself from embarrassment, pain, and national suicide. Back down or get shutdown.” Will he? I hope so.

It just makes sense.

Posted in International Nonsense, The Chuck's Comments | Print | 2 Comments »

Party Pooper

8. July 2008 by The Chuck.

Five Hundred and Fifty metric tons of yellowcake. That’s a lot.

A metric ton is equal to a little over 2204 pounds. So 550 of them is just on the shy side of 1 1/4 million pounds. Needless to say, over a million pounds of anything is a huge amount. Thus, 550 metric tons of yellowcake is a huge amount of yellowcake.

No joke.

The Canadians bought the huge amount of yellowcake from the Iraqi government. The US military saw to its safe shipment via aircraft then by ship. Canada will process the yellowcake into energy-producing nuclear fuel. Yellowcake even in its raw form is a radioactive hazard. Now this potentially hazardous material is going to be used for good and not for the evil it was intended.

Certainly the former leftist ruler of Iraq, Hussein was his name, never intended for any good to come of his WMD seed. Even with his body digested by worms, the remnants of his nuclear weapons development program still was a threat to civilized people.

Imagine suicide terrorists padding their underwear-bombs with a few pounds of radioactive yellowcake as they went about their dastardly deeds. Now don’t imagine it, because America and its allies have prevented that from happening.

At least that time. At least in that place. America had the leadership with the determination to do what they believed to be the right thing to do. Since Americans were unable to deter Hussein from plotting, preparing, and performing evil, the next best thing was to invade, dispatch his fielded forces, and force a regime change. The criminal had to be stopped.

To have allowed Hussein’s fascist forces to fully develop nuclear weapons for employment against the civilized world would have been criminal on America’s part. Even though the powerful press in America continued to insist there were no WMD in Iraq, even though influential left-bent politician in America continued to call for the impeachment of President Bush, even though evil still stands strong in some rogue nations, America went the distance.

And it worked.

The terrorists invaders have nearly been completely pushed out of Iraq in a war of attrition. The strategic sponsors of the terrorist fielded forces have been mostly untouched, except for the former regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, which were annihilated. Because the people of Iraq recognized Operation Iraqi Freedom as a liberation campaign within the Global War on Terror (GWOT), they joined forces with the civilized nations of the world. Soon Iraq will be cleansed of any large scale terrorist forces. But the GWOT will continue. It’s not over.

If the majority of the well-financed, left-leaning Americans would stop for a moment and realize that the terrorists are not their buddies, not their ideological soul-mates, they are their want-to-be executioners–then the war could end soon. Before that can happen, those same folks will have to understand that Hussein had a huge amount of yellowcake in his basement. He was planning a surprise death day party for a huge amount of people.

George W. Bush was Hussein’s party-pooper. Thank God for George W. Bush.

It just makes sense.

Posted in National Nonsense, International Nonsense, The Chuck's Comments | Print | No Comments »

Great Balls of Fire

22. June 2008 by The Chuck.

Did you hear the one about Mohamed ElBaradei the director general of the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)? He wins the Nobel Peace Prize for his “efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way,” then in 2008 he threatens to resign his position if a military strike against Iran happens because “it would turn the Middle East region into a ball of fire.”

Not funny? Come on, don’t you get it?

Here you have an Egyptian lawyer in charge of the IAEA since 1997 being credited with preventing nuclear proliferation. But the Israeli Air Force did more on September 6, 2007 to prevent the military use of nuclear weapons by rogue nations than most any nation or UN affiliate since 1981.

In 1981, Israel took out Hussein’s French-built nuclear reactor in Baghdad. Since no other country had sufficient motivation to stop or deter Hussein, the Israeli’s did the job themselves. And it worked. Secretary of State Alexander Haig told President Reagan, “Before this is over, we’ll be on our knees thanking God Israel did what it did.” Over a decade later, Secretary of Defense Cheney referenced the 1981 attack when he told the Israeli ambassador to the US, “If it weren’t for you, Desert Storm wouldn’t have been a success.”

Now do you remember what happened on September 6, 2007? Yes, that was when Israel took-out Bashar al-Assad’s secret nuclear reactor in Syria. Israel’s motivation was probably similar to what they had in 1981. While we haven’t heard any public statements similar to Haig’s comment, I’d think somebody, somewhere must have said it.

In 2008, ABC news reported that Assad’s terminated Syrian reactor was strikingly similar to North Korea’s nuclear reactor in Yongbyon. North Korea? Do they have nukes?

Yes, their nuclear program dates back to the 1960s. The Clinton administration tried several appeasing techniques starting in 1994 to get Kim Jong-il’s newly-inherited regime to abandon the long-running program. While Kim Jong-il freely took the bribes, ultimately funded by the American taxpayer, he never lived up to his word on the North Korean part of the agreement. In 2003 Kim Jung-il’s regime admitted the North Koreans possessed nuclear weapons and then proved it with a successful test on October 16, 2006. The North Koreans apparently got busy exporting their proven nuclear weapons capability to Syria.

Diplomacy didn’t work. Sanctions didn’t work. Appeasement didn’t work. The UN didn’t work at all.

Lesson learned?

For several years, we’ve been listening to Iranian threats to blow Israel off the map. Meanwhile, plentiful evidence has piled up that Iran has been supplying the terrorists in their illegal war against the democratically-elected government of Iraq and its people.

While Israel is politically prevented from helping fight global terrorists operating within sovereign nations around them, they do have a pretty well proven record for doing something if they believe they are about to be blown off the map.

The charter members of the axis of evil identified in the 2002 State of the Union Address, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, all made decisions to continue to defy post-911 America and the rest of civilization. Deterrence failed.

Iraq insisted upon forced regime change before it would change its way. North Korea flaunts their nuclear weapons program while their people starve and their cousins to the south prosper greatly. Iran defiantly is clinging to its threat to destroy Israel, supplying the terrorists invaders in Iraq, and desperately trying to get their nukes developed before it is too late.

But “too late” is defined by their nuclear weapons development progress. The sands of the hour-glass fall to obscurity as their program approaches completion. It is much like they are playing Russian roulette with the tactic of squeezing the rounds off as fast as possible in order to get the game over before they lose. It’s suicide.

The facts are simple:

1)  Israel refuses to die.
2) Therefore they can not allow those who wish them dead to acquire the weapons that can kill them.
3) Therefore if the UN, or America, or any other nation or collection of nations does not want Israel to do the job themselves, they have to do or find somebody to do the job instead.
4) Or Iran has to change.

Iran needs to do a couple to things to rejoin the community of civilized nations. What they chose to do is totally up to them. But if Iran really wants not to be attacked, they need to completely abandon their nuclear weapons development program and then prove it to the world. And if Iran really really wants to end the Global War on Terrorism, they need to join the rest of the civilized nations in the war against global terrorists and then prove they have changed their ways.

A peace-starved world will not hold their past sins against them. If the Iranian did those two simple things, they would not be attacked. They would improve the life of their people. They would prosper like never before. They would even be considered heroes by many.

However, if Iran stays-the-course and doesn’t do those two things then ElBaradei’s opinion that “attacking Iran would be worse than anything else,” would be wrong. Not attacking would be much worse.

It just makes sense.

Posted in International Nonsense, The Chuck's Comments | Print | No Comments »

Beware of the “Global Poverty Act”

4. May 2008 by The Chuck.

On the sixty-sixth anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Barack Obama introduced S.2433. It is a Senate Bill with a couple of other names. One is the “Global Poverty Act,” which sounds nice and caring. Who would dare oppose a bill designed to reduce global poverty? The other name is the “Obama Bill,” which sounds friendly enough. Who would dare to oppose the handsome, baritone Senator from Illinois? The answer to both of those question is, only those Americans who would rather maintain our sovereignty than to become a puppet state under the rule of the United Nations.

I know this sounds like a stretch. In fact, it sounds nearly insane. So I’ve included a few supporting documents for you to reference if you’d like to read them for yourself. Here’s the bill that was introduced and here’s the updated version from April 24 that added names to the supporting list. You’ll notice that this is not just a Democratic Party member backed event, but Republican Party members are on record and sponsors of this attempted raid on American coffers and liberties.

Ready for the sticker shock? The bill’s backers refer to it as .7 percent of the nation’s GDP. However, over a 13-year period it adds up to $845,000,000,000. That’s 845 billion US dollars to fund the United Nations’ program. Of course that is in addition to the $300 billion we already plan to invest in global aid. And it doesn’t count the tremendous amount of foreign aid that comes from American churches and private organizations. That’s a lot of money.

Obama’s Global Poverty Act is not a source document. It is built from, and is designed to advance the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (General Assembly Resolution 55/2). Back in the year 2000, The UN came up with the plan to not only fix global poverty, but a lot of other things too–all for only .7 percent of the productive world’s GDP.

As I read it, the UN will basically become the controlling legal authority on Earth. The International Criminal Court will trump our Supreme Court, private ownership of small arms and light weapons will be banned, the Kyoto Protocol will become law, they will control the use of fresh water and all types of forests, and they’re going to end war.

End war? Now, how are they going to do that?

Well, they’ll use the billions of dollars coughed up by American taxpayer to establish a standing UN Army, and they will eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Don’t you feel safer already?

Imagine a squad of goose-stepping, blue beret wearing, international-socialist storm-troopers kicking in your front door and demanding you surrender your illegal small arms. While they’re there they’ll make sure you’re Kyoto compliant. And after they have your guns and your money, I guess they’ll be able to do just about anything else they’d like to do. If you have a complaint, take it up with the World Court.

Imagine that. With the humanitarian goal of ending global poverty, we’ll surrender first our money, then our sovereignty, and finally our liberty.

Back in 1776, a resilient breed of Americans, who loved liberty above life, put everything they had on the line so you and your children could have the liberty you enjoy today. Now 232 years later, we’ve freely elected enough “representatives” who believe in the hollow promises of international socialism that they are willing to give it away.

What founding father ever said Americans should surrender their hard-earned money to support the rest of the world? What American today believes we can add 1.5 billion people to our welfare roles without destroying ourselves? After decades of UN failures, which includes exposed corruption with fraud, waste, and abuse of the resources they have controlled, is there any American taxpayer who really believes the UN will be a good steward of the money?

Once we surrender all, what will it take to get it back? You don’t want to know.

You might want to know how to contact your Senator. You might want to send them a message about how you feel about the “Global Poverty Act.” You might want to tell them that you could never vote for the re-election of a Senator who votes for S.2433.

Do you want to know how to contact your Congressman? Not much sense in doing so. It was already rushed through the House and passed with a “unanimous” voice vote under the title of H.R. 1302. The backers of the bill did a great job of getting the sheep to vote for a bill they hadn’t researched or even heard about. I guess most of us would have fallen for the same trick. However … most of us aren’t Congressmen.

If this bill is passed in the Senate, then every American will have one last chance to let our President know how you feel about him signing it in to law. He shouldn’t have the chance to veto the bill, if we can just stop the Senate from passing S.2433.

If you lived in Lexington back on 14 April 1775, a knock would have sounded on your door. Then a neighbor would have told you to collect your musket and to assemble on the village green. All the men, and some of the boys, in the small village answered the call. Later that afternoon, a few of them died at the hands of foreign soldiers, but it started a movement that led to a free America.

That same America fought itself to end slavery, defeated the National Socialists of Germany and the fascist regimes of Italy and Japan, contained Soviet Socialism until it imploded, and now stands as the primary obstacle to global terrorism. But international socialism lurks in the darkest, waiting for it turn to control the world.

Today, you might get an email or read this column. All you need to do is click here, find your Senators’ names and then send a respectful message saying you will not tolerate them voting for S.2433, the Global Poverty Act.

We shouldn’t surrender freely what our founders gave their lives for us to have.

It just, makes sense.

Posted in National Nonsense, International Nonsense, The Chuck's Comments | Print | No Comments »

The Food Standard

27. April 2008 by The Chuck.

As Americans have carried the lion’s share of the war against the global terrorists, we seem to have come under assault from all directions:

1. A former US senator and vice-president leads a world-wide publicity stunt to destroy our economy backed by millionaire Hollywood singers, dancers, and pretenders. He is given an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize along with an an opulent lifestyle for his prevaricating power-point presentation.
2. Our trade policies have fueled an ever threatening Asian giant with tens of billions of dollars, which they are using to transform themselves into a military superpower.
3. Our once solid dollar is losing value against almost every other currency in the world.
4. A nuclear North Korea seems intent on exporting that technology to nations that back global terrorists.
5. Iran is openly defiant about not only developing their nuclear capabilities, but also about continuing to promise to “wipe Israel off the map” as soon as they can.
6. And even our allies in OPEC cooperate with the malevolent voices that call for greater efforts to pump up crude oil prices, even though they have risen over 94% in the last year, nearly 380% in the last five.

OPEC does not completely control the price of oil. They influence part of the supply, but academics will tell you that the total supply and demand for oil drive the price.

Other countries also produce oil, thus affecting the supply. The environmentalist movement in the United States, and the members of Congress that agree with it, have prevented drilling for the known American reserves, which would have helped to keep down prices by increasing supply. Meanwhile, the oil-thirsty, rapidly growing economy of China and other nations help to prop up prices by increasing demand.

At least the Chinese are doing what they can to increase oil supplies. Among other things, they are drilling between Cuba and Florida. A place where our government’s environmental policies prohibits US companies from drilling.

The US has been pursuing other ways to affect supplies. From investing in the development of various emerging technologies to converting corn into biofuels.

All this has generated some unintended consequences for everyone.

Food supplies have dwindled, which has pushed the price up. The record harsh winters of the last couple of years, despite Hollywood’s global warming, along with the biofuel movement have reduced the world’s food supply. Additionally, the parasitic price of oil has driven up the costs to produce food and to deliver it to where it needs to go. Food prices are soaring, and the world can’t do without food.

Unlike the oil-crop of OPEC nations, food-crops require more than simply harvesting it and sending it to processing. Farmers work their magic the world over, but especially in America.

American farmers have some advantages. They are blessed with great crop lands and an abundant supply of fresh water, something lacking in most countries–especially OPEC nations. If food-exporting nations wanted to extract a payback for the inflated oil prices it wouldn’t take long to recoup the looting of past years. Even without an organized effort, that may happen anyway.

If oil exporters continue their artificial pumping up of oil prices, it will be met with market-driven price increases in food products. When their cost of food imports exceed their return on oil exports, it will be too late for them to make smart corrections in oil production to save themselves.

When their economies finally collapse, so will the price-bubble of oil. It will take a couple of growing seasons after that for food prices to drop accordingly, but they will just have to be patient and tighten their belts, while the food-producing nations of the world save them again. First from a life of goat herding, then from their home-grown global terrorists, and then finally from starvation.

Our problem with China’s growing militarism may also be solved with rising food prices. Over the last several years the Chinese standard of living has increased, but it still lags behind what we enjoy in America. The average American spends 10% or less of their income on food, but in China it is different–it is nearly 50%.

America produces much more food than it consumes. If our supplies dwindled, we’ll take it out of our exports, but we’ll still have food. And if food-prices double, Americans will just spend less on Hollywood movies and maybe eat at home more often. But we still eat and many of us will still be fat. But if food-prices double for the Chinese . . .

The Chinese government will be forced to curtail their massive offensive weapons build-up and then to subsidize food for their people. Those billions of dollars they’ve collected in trade imbalances with America and the rest of the world will be their solution to impending starvation and unrest. When that happens, the Chinese will be the first to wish the US dollar was worth more.

The Chinese people are smart and hard-working. They are aware of the world around them–they have more internet users than we have in America. They will not sheepishly permit themselves to starve as the people of North Korea have. They know a starving people do not a great nation make. And they want to be great.

While this may not be exactly “beating swords into plowshares” as prophesied in Isaiah 2:2-4, it might be an interesting start to a better state of peace.

In the long run it all boils down to the food standard.

It just makes sense.

Posted in National Nonsense, International Nonsense, The Chuck's Comments | Print | No Comments »

We’re Going to Lose a City

23. April 2008 by The Chuck.

That’s what Newt Gingrich told the National Press Club he was afraid was going to happen before America would react to the growing menace to our way of life. Part of our reaction would include a ruthlessness imposed on ourselves. What we would do to our enemies was left to the imagination.

More recently, Hillary Clinton discussed what she would do as President concerning nuclear attacks from terrorist nations against our allies. She strongly suggested we would obliterate Iran if they nuked Israel. That means to destroy utterly. To cause to become invisible. Strong words from a Senator who declared in February that any action against Iran would have to be first approved by Congress.

That provides an interesting chain of command for those familiar with what it takes to employ nuclear weapons. I’ve been out of it for a while, but I don’t think Congress carries the football. But it is an election year, and sometimes the arguments get interesting.

For instance, my last article explained how Barack Obama’s intentions to rid the United States of nuclear and technologically advanced weapons was near suicide as a nation. After viewing his mini-speech on YouTube, the lesser evil of the two international socialists became very obvious. Even with Hillary as the most desirable democratic party nominee hopeful, her doctrine is flawed in at least two areas.

First, the American President should chose words of threat carefully. If you say you’re going to obliterate a country for attacking an ally, and you don’t when they do, you’ve made yourself into a liar. A weak liar. An afraid, weak liar. The President needs to keep a bit of a veil over how much of a price an antagonist will pay.

Better words are something like, “We view any nuclear attack on our allies the same as a nuclear attack on ourselves. It is completely unacceptable, and we would deal with that in a most harsh manner.”

It gives America the latitude to be flexible in our immediate and long-range responses, without making the terrorists think they have a chance of getting away with it.

Secondly, the massive retaliation doctrine was tailored for Soviet expansionist ambitions. The Soviets sought to dominate a world of puppet governments, hand-picked by them. If in the process of waging war with the United States the USSR became militarily the equal of the post-war Germany, they wouldn’t get to pick anything. A world of third, fourth, and fifth place nations would have run the show.

Sure, the outcome of a Soviet attack would have been terrible for the US, but it would have ended even the slightest dream of Soviet world domination. The implosion of Soviet Socialism changed the world. While some individuals in Russia might dream of being Earth King, it is not a national policy. And that makes all the difference.

In order to deter an antagonist like the USSR or the folks in charge of Iran, you have to understand what is most precious to them. Deterrence must go to the core values of decision makers for it to work best. To attempt to apply a Cold War deterrence strategy to a Global War on Terrorism antagonist presupposes that their core values are the same as Stalin’s. Nobody really believes that, do they?

The arrogant zeal associated with plotting and executing the 9/11 attacks clearly demonstrates that something else is at play here. The bold, defiant, near-public pursuit of nuclear weapons by Iran suggests they are either not afraid or they don’t believe America will kill 70 million people, no matter what they do.

They have a low opinion of America. They call us names, and we shrug. They call their children to become sucide-martyrs, and we express astonishment. They declare war on us, and we bicker with ourselves. They seek the most destructive weapons on Earth, and we say, “You’d better not.”

Declaring that we’re going to kill all of them after they destroy one of our cities is not enough. Unless we quickly learn how to use the value system of the terrorist’s centers of gravity to our advantage, they will obtain nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons in the control of terrorist nations will shortly turn into detonations on our allies and ourselves. We have to do something now, before we lose a city.

It just makes sense.

Posted in National Nonsense, International Nonsense, The Chuck's Comments | Print | No Comments »

The Global War [of Attrition] on Terrorism

10. February 2008 by The Chuck.

It can be argued as to when the terrorists began their war against the world. It was certainly before the suicide-terrorist attacks of 9/11. Some say it began in 1983 Lebanon with the horrific suicide-terrorist attack on our Marine barracks, others say it began in 1979 Tehran with the unlawful invasion and seizure of the US Embassy. Some historians argue that it was much earlier during the Crusades of the 11th century or even at the beginning of the Muslim invasions of their neighbors dating back to the 7th and 8th centuries. Regardless of when the terrorists began their war against the rest of the world, the United States began fighting with a purpose after 9/11.

Our President called it the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT).   He established objectives that were refined and spelled out in the 2006 publication National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism, also known as the NMSP-WOT:

1. Deny terrorists the resources they need to operate and survive
2. Enable partner nations to counter terrorism.
3. Deny WMD/E proliferation, recover and eliminate uncontrolled materials, and increase capacity for consequence management.
4. Defeat terrorists and their organizations.
5. Counter state and non-state support for terrorism in coordination with other U.S. Government agencies and partner nations
6. Contribute to the establishment of conditions that counter ideological support for terrorism.

The NMSP-WOT identifies the enemy as “extremists.”  The extremists oppose the right of people to live as they chose and they support the murder of ordinary people to advance their ideology.  Moderates or mainstreams are the folks who don’t support the extremists and oppose the killing of ordinary people.  Finally, terrorists are those who conduct acts of terrorism.  It goes on to stress that this is not a war between Islam and the West and then refers to some of the extremist organizations in the transnational movement responsible for the terrorism.

It even spells out an end state, sometimes referred to a better-state-of-peace:

“The national strategic aims are to defeat violent extremism as a threat to our way of life as a free and open society; and create a global environment inhospitable to violent extremists and all who support them.” 

Victory is achieved only after those aims are met.

In 2006, Mitt Romney referred to the enemy as “jihadists” suggesting more than extreme behavior, but also extreme belief. His web site declared that victory will be achieve through a combination of American resolve, international effort, and the rejection of violence by moderate, modern, mainstream Muslims. He stressed that we need to support modern Muslim nations both militarily and diplomatically.

While the NMSP-WOT spells out a theoretic strategy that appears sound, the practice of the GWOT appears to be more of a war of attrition.  We seem to have so limited the definitions of the enemy that our fielded forces invest most of their time killing individuals, occasionally capturing or killing one of the ring-leaders and confusing that with strategic success.

Strategic effects are those that have far-reaching consequences with a cascading effect that result in paralysis of the enemy.  Killing foot soldiers, even a few of their regional leaders is not strategic if there is a continual supply of replacements.  The surge’s success in the Iraqi Theater of the GWOT worked well towards satisfying GWOT objectives 2 and 4.  But the results will be temporary if the terrorists/extremists/jihadists are allowed to rebuild their forces.  GWOT objectives 1, 5, and 6 are essential to achieving victory.

The seemingly endless supply of willing replacements for the attrited terrorists has to be denied.  Otherwise we will be forced to continue to kill them, one at a time, as they present themselves.  If that happens, this war of attrition could easily last the 100 years John McCain has talked about.

State and nonstate support to the terrorists has to become completely unprofitable.  Leaders must be convinced they will face the same consequences as Saddam Hussein and the former leaders of Afghanistan before they will alter their policies.  And ultimately, a counter ideology has to be established before victory can be won.

Shortly after 9/11, columnist Ann Coulter wrote the politically incorrect statement that we should, “invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.” That statement generated a lot of criticism for her as it ironically blended the horrors of 9/11 with harsh Western humor and pointed out the realization that Western religious tolerance, which is sometimes credited with making us strong, may be our greatest weakness. Conversion to Christianity has always been by the word, not by the sword.

Since we obviously lack the national resolve to execute Ms Coulter’s suggestion, we must develop a different strategic course of action that renders terrorism equally unacceptable to the present supporters and future recruits of the violent extremists.

It just makes sense.

Posted in National Nonsense, Military Nonsense, International Nonsense, The Chuck's Comments | Print | No Comments »

Perception is Everything

7. December 2007 by The Chuck.

The November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran’s nuclear intentions and capabilities has been lauded by some as proof that we have no reason to be concerned about Iran. Sadly this is far from reality. Most people will not read the NIE report, even though it is available to the public on the Director of National Intelligence’s home page and it is only nine pages long, counting the cover, instead they will rely on second hand commentary to develop their opinion. Maybe this is because, like most reports, intelligence reports are often imperfect. Interesting enough, they never claim to be perfect, only accurate based on the data available at the time. Much like a weather report, which even when backed up by the greatest technologies available in the 21st century, is better at observing than it is forecasting weather.

Did you ever have the experience of planning and then attempting an outing, maybe a picnic in the park or a softball game, based on a forecast of ”sunny skies with a slight chance of isolated showers in the afternoon” only to be drenched in a downpour as your family ran for cover? If you complained to the weather folks, they would have said, “We said there was a slight chance of rain.” After you reviewed the forecast, you would have had to admit they were correct and then might have thought that you should have carried some umbrellas with you. In retrospect, you would have been considered the hero if you had made the effort to plan for “the slight chance of rain.”  Being a hero is so difficult.

What seems like ancient history to many might shed some perspective on this. A NIE 85-3-62 “The Military Buildup in Cuba” forecasted on 19 September 1962, while the USSR could gain military advantage with ballistic missiles based in Cuba, such action would be incompatible with Soviet practice, strongly suggesting it would not happen. However, photographic evidence on 14 October provided an observation to the contrary. Forced to become reactionary, the US President publically stated his intentions to deal with the USSR in the harshest manner possible when matters escalated. To many, it appeared that nuclear warfare was imminent. Only after the USSR decision-makers repented from their nuclear Cuba plan did the high-level tensions subside.

Observations beat forecasts every time, but you can’t plan based on observations—they come too late. The forecaster needs to collect, interpret, and provide the data as his science and expertise allows. However, much like weather forecasts, intelligence reports are not everything a decision-maker relies on to make important decisions. That craft requires science and expertise also. Part of that expertise is to understand the imperfect and somewhat ambiguous nature of forecasts. Much more complicated than planning events based on weather, is planning actions based on the evolving perception of antagonist decision-makers.

Basing nuclear weapons in Cuba was probably a logical, progressive course of action for USSR decision makers if they interpreted US resolution against their world-domination objective to have faltered. What could have given them that perception? How about apparent communist successes at the Bay of Pigs, the Berlin Wall, and in Laos? These could have been interpreted as a US fear of USSR nuclear might as demonstrated by their late 1961 Tsar Bomba, declared at the time as a 100 Megaton weapon. But whatever the catalyst for the USSR’s initial motivation, their interpretation of the modified US stance against their actions and their knowledge of US military capabilities, via their well-established spy network, convinced them that a nuclear show-down over Cuba was not worth the price they perceived they would pay in return for continued aggression. Perception is everything.

So let’s take a look as the 2007 NIE about Iran’s nuclear intentions and capabilities. It never really says what the anti-Global War on Terrorism advocates are saying. It only gives several low to almost high confidence statements about what is probably happening. Some of the higher confident statements are that Iran halted their program in 2003 as a result of international pressure. What was the nature of that pressure?

Do you remember what was happening to Iran’s neighbors in 2003? To their east, the government of Afghanistan had already fell, and to their west, the mighty forces of Saddam were rolled over, scattered to the four winds, and the ones that wanted to continue fighting joined up with the terrorist organizations operating in their former country. Tehran did not halt their nuclear weapons program because they were seeking peaceful negotiations with the rest of the planet; they were hoping to avoid an OPERATION IRANIAN FREEDOM. The report makes the declaration, “In our judgment, only an Iranian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would plausibly keep Iran from eventually producing nuclear weapons—and such a decision is inherently reversible.” That is undeniably the truest statement in the report.

Political leaders make decisions based on their perception of the most desirable outcome according to their value system. Iran is the antagonist in this international drama. When their terrorist-supporting neighbors defied the demands of a resolute US-led coalition of nations, Iran watched them experience a force-fed regime change. Iranian decision-makers might have had the perception that such a future was in store for them if they continued their nuclear weapons development program. If so, they might have discontinued it in the hope of getting some sort of multinational support via some third-party or UN inspectors once they were confident it was their turn to endure the torched-end of the US spear. But something else has happened since then.

The antagonist may have perceived some weakness in the willingness of the US to take action against Iran. The will of a nation is derived from a product of three factors: population, government, and military. While the US military boldly executed OEF and OIF and showed no wavering of dealing with other enemies if needed, the same was not necessarily true of the US population and government, at least from a totalitarian’s perception.

Antagonists can be emboldened in their plans when even lesser officials in the protagonist government express opposition. The noise coming out of Washington inspired many people to argue about the validity of the regime changes in Iraq and Afghanistan, some arguing unrelentingly, though absurdly, that the US was the terrorist and the actions were illegal. Americans mostly understand that such debate is better than giving up the constitutionally recognized right of free speech. At the same time, we have historically expected our elected leaders, even when not in control of the country, to speak more respectfully of our President and to at least stay close to the truth when they disagree with national policy. Still, we are a free nation and disagreement is certain to exist in a nation of such diversity. We deal it in our own way. But we are the United States, and our internal bickering should not be misinterpreted as disunited resolve. It is important that we understand our enemies are listening to our words as we debate.  We send a message to the world with our words.

Sometimes that message is the toughest one for antagonists to understand. That was why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, they believed we couldn’t or wouldn’t fight back. This was why the planes flew into the towers, they believed we couldn’t or wouldn’t hunt them down. If the result of the political debate during this upcoming election-year encourages Iran’s decision-makers that we won’t or can’t inflict the most serious of consequences on them for their development and use of nuclear weapons, who are we going to blame?

Certainly, we’d have to blame ourselves some along with our enemies, but only after we do what the majority of Americans expect us to do. We’d blame ourselves in the history books for the suffering that would follow, but it hasn’t happened yet so we don’t have to do it that way.  We can do something else.

We can tip the scales of the deterrence equation back towards producing acceptable behavior from the antagonist. As it now, the voices that are really just saying, “Look at me,” by demanding we should never attack Iran based on a report that clearly explains that the report might be wrong, may very well be the catalyst that motivates the terrorists to do the very things that will force our violent response against them.

Hang on tight because as I see it now—irony rules and common sense drools—this is going to be one ugly ride, unless Americans, especially our elected officials or those seeking to be one, learn how to debate without appearing unwilling or incapable of decisive action against those who choose to be our enemy.

It just makes sense.

Posted in International Nonsense, The Chuck's Comments | Print | No Comments »