The MSM has already started its chicken little routine "The war is lost. The
war is lost". If it can foster immediate Cronkitian hysteria, it intends to do so regardless of the consequences.
Next will be a series of articles explaining just how losing isn't so bad after all. (War is too expensive, after
all.) For the folks who actually govern, their first insight must be that you can't profess to be the Great Decider
unless you first become the Great Persuader.
The "Route" to a bi-partisan plan of action in Iraq rests on three studies. Last
week we discussed the ISG (Iraq Study Group) report which is predicted to heavily feature a recommendation
for negotiations within the region leading to direct talks with Syria and Iraq. The leaks confirm a planned withdrawal
to unspecified areas but no timetable for the transfers. The Joint Chiefs have already unanimously opposed mandated
timetables.
This week, we should look at the study commissioned by Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the head of the Joint Chiefs. A
blend of the two studies will be cited in a consensus statement scheduled for next week.
The Pace study has been leaked, not published. Apparently, it evaluates three options:
Go Strong. As Sen. John McCain has called for, the U.S. sends enough troops to dominate
the scene. That would mean, the study estimates, as many as 100,000 additional troops for a total of 250,000. The
war is costing about $2 billion a week now with a total expense of somewhere near $400 billion. The additional
force means additional billions with no particular identifiable return except "not losing."
The additional forces question is - where would you get them? Assuming that it were politically possible, not even
a portion of such a force is trained and on call. Nor would they be available for months. Nor would they leave
within 5-10 years. Nor would current forces be allowed to rotate out after one year. Staying beyond your tour in
Iraq during a Presidential election cycle is not a domestic winner.
Go Home. The MSM, the more radical Democrats and even some rogue Republicans speak
of a "phased withdrawal" to begin 4-6 months after an unspecified date. The retreat would proceed inexorably
until only U.S. troops involved in training Iraqi security forces would remain in country. (Think the Kennedy solution
to Viet Nam.) A small and mobile ready reaction force might be quartered in Kuwait. The idea would be to put so
much pressure on the Iraqi government that they would be forced to shape up quickly. The plan assumes that Iraq
is capable of responding.
This cut-and-run option could put the entire Middle East in unimaginable turmoil. The caliphate would arise in
Sunni Iraq funded by Saudi charitable money plus stolen oil. Faced with a mandate they couldn't meet, the Iraqi
government would collapse and the internal war would divide into four major parts - Sunni, Shia, al-Qaeda and foreign
proxies looking to exploit opportunities. Both Iran and Turkey would eye the Kurds. Within the civil war itself,
the population would split even further into tribes and clans protected by warlords with private militias. (See
Afghanistan outside the major cities.).
Throughout the world, America would be thought of as the Creator of Chaos. In Islamic terms, that would be Satan
himself. As columnist Bill Kristol wrote: "Our retreat would win us no friends and lose us no adversaries."
Go Long. As the Pace study describes it, the U.S. would add 20,000-50,000 ground
troops so that our commanders could pacify Baghdad without stripping the rest of the country of security. Those
who use terror tactics believe in Mao's little book and flow like water to the places of least resistance. This
increased attack force would gradually decline with success, the plan says, and some 70-80,000 troops would remain
for five or more years to train Iraqi forces and beef up the borders.
At this point, it seems likely that the establishment (which is the only expertise the ISG actually represents)
might come together on Go Long plus Talks with Iran.
In a very insightful column, Michael Novak describes asymmetrical warfare.
The primary battlefield is in the mind of your opponent.
The main purpose, Novak writes, is to dominate the way the enemy imagines and thinks about war. The physical side
of war no longer holds precedence. The main strategic aim of war today is to dominate the mind of the enemy's public
and then ultimately to dominate the mind of that public's leaders. The press surrenders first, then the leaders
of the nation. The weaker political will yields to the stronger, regardless of military resources.
To defeat America, Novak continues, you must impose upon the imagination of its media your own storyline. For example,
"The Americans are irresistible occupiers, and yet they cannot prevent small (even individual) acts of destruction.
They can be invalidated by continuing daily chaos". Every act of violence put on world-wide television furthers
the idea that the dominate story in that America cannot win.
The aim of terror tactics is to induce surrender before the great battles are fought. When the media does the Jhadists
work, they destroy the West's will to resist.
In conversation recently, a reporter said that she had asked a number of politicians if they knew the difference
between a Sunni and a Shia Muslim. They did not. She asked them what books about the Middle East they had read.
The universal answer was "none."
Colossal ignorance and reliance on the hopelessly biased MSM for current information is the barrier to victory.
Apathy and fear won't cut it.
Our elites want to accommodate. Their elites want to win. For the people to remain free, we must get beyond our
decadent, cowardly and failed elites. We must read for ourselves from a variety of trustworthy sources. That hard
work to know and speak the truth is the defense we have from the enemies of Western civilization both across our
borders and in our midst.
December 1, 2006
