How to Win the War In Iraq.

Re: [spiers] How to Win the War In Iraq.

John,
Please provide some credible evidence for your following assertions:

On the other hand, I believe the reason there has been no second attack
after 9-11 in the United States is because the Chinese have forbidden it.

This is nothing new, the prime reason for Nixon visiting China in 1972 was to
ask the Chinese for a "decent interval" before Saigon fell to the communist
forces, so the US would not look so bad when we quit Vietnam.

China paid for US concessions with a washed-up puppet they had stashed in a
spider-hole, a puppet the US already owned!

I don't agree with either the Republican neocons or the Democratic liberals.
But I think it is a very good thing for both you and us that you did not go into
politics. It would be even better if you stayed as far as possible from the
subject as your level of expertise is much below you knowledge of business. It
is rudimentary at best and unrealistic in the extreme. Best left alone.

----- Original Message -----
From: John Spiers
To: spiers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 12:54 PM
Subject: [spiers] How to Win the War In Iraq.


Folks,

Since no one thinks we can win the war in Iraq, indeed, everyone is looking
for the best way
to lose, I think I should offer a way to win, a bit of public service on my
part. Perhaps my
specialty of small biz int'l trade can help out in this case.

First, we'd have to define victory in Iraq, and apparently Iran as well
shortly. Well, that is
easy, victory is peace and prosperity in the region.

As it stands now, we are mired in a conflict which the neocons explicitly
promoted since 1998
at the Project for a New American Century.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

George Bush is no neocon, but he certainly hired them on to do his thinking
and policy
development. Just as Martin Luther King hired on New York experts in
agitation and
propaganda to advance his moribund civil rights movement, so the Bushes
accepted the
neocons offer to advance the Bush family interests.

The interesting part is the Chinese welcomed the neocons offer as well. A
United States as
the focus of all Moslem rage, present and future, takes the heat off the
Chinese, who have an
even more pressing Moslem insurgency problem.

Just as in what the Americans call the Vietnam war, and what the Vietnamese
call the
American war, the Chinese are now providing crucial intelligence and
technological ability to
insurgents in Iraq. On the other hand, I believe the reason there has been no
second attack
after 9-11 in the United States is because the Chinese have forbidden it.
From the Chinese
point of view, the situation in the world is excellent, and it must not be
upset.

This is nothing new, the prime reason for Nixon visiting China in 1972 was to
ask the
Chinese for a "decent interval" before Saigon fell to the communist forces, so
the US would
not look so bad when we quit Vietnam.

In 2003, while the efforts in Iraq were stumbling, the US death toll for the
"cakewalk" was
approaching 500 souls, morale was dropping, and Americans began to question
our
involvement in iraq. At the same time Taiwan was making independence noises.
Here is a
news summary from those days:

http://tinyurl.com/eqpah

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao visited Washington from December 8 to 12 of that
year, and
gained many concessions from the US side. Three days after Premier Wen
returned to Beijing,
December 14 2003, Saddam Hussein was captured, giving the neocons a big boost.
China
paid for US concessions with a washed-up puppet they had stashed in a
spider-hole, a
puppet the US already owned! I am not criticizing the Chinese, I just wish we
elected
politicians half as smart as the Chinese politicians. We have people that
smart, they just will
not go into government.

The neocons are trotskyites, and believe all disasters can serve their
interests. Seymour
Hersh has an article in the New Yorker laying out the situation today, and
notes the window
of opportunity for peace is now.

http://tinyurl.com/hyfsf

One point the article makes is:

"... that ElBaradei's overriding concern is that the Iranian leaders "want
confrontation,
just like the neocons on the other side"-in Washington."

Exactly.

Hersh also makes the point that in regards to the use of a nuclear strike by
the USA on Iran,
many top generals are talking about resigning. This not a surprise, in fact,
it is quite
common they do indeed resign. When the elder President Bush wanted to invade
Panama
illegally the US general in charge refused to go along so he was cashiered.
When Clinton
wanted to invade the Balkans, the general in charge refused so Clinton
replaced him with an
Arkansas boy, Wesley Clark.

When the neocons prepared for invading Iraq, Generals Zinni, Shinseki and
other active
officers, and quite a few retired, argued against it. The active officers
were replaced with
more compliant officers, like Gen. Tommy Franks, a Texas boy, with a curious
resume.

The general directly responsible for the Abu Ghraib prison torture fiasco was
a reserve
colonel promoted to general for the task, in spite of the fact she had been
busted for
shoplifting perfume at a PX previously. This is the quality of the generals
the neocons can
atttract. After Abu Ghraib, the US Army had trouble reaching recruitment
targets. After Abu
Ghraib, the terrorists had trouble training all the new recruits.

The president can only nominate who becomes general, the congress confirms the
nominations, or rejects the nomination. It is a pity our politicians do not
support the troops
in Iraq by requiring they be led by our first rate generals, and accept 2nd
and 3rd rate
generals in war. It is a pity that although officers can resign, the poor
soldiers are obliged to
fight regardless of who leads them.

So, how to win the war in Iraq, as defined as peace and prosperity? Bring
back our first string
generals. The ones who can win the war. Of course, they won't work for the
neocons, so it
will require a regime-change in the USA, the impeachment of Geo Bush, and a
clearing out of
the executive branch. Talk has begun on this point, and really, is a mere
impeachment too
high of a price to pay for peace in the middle east? Go Russ Feingold!

Elections won't work, since the democrats have promised they will be more of
the same. Even
when the democrats sweep congress this fall, nothing will change. With both
Cheney and
Bush impeached, the House of Representatives would have to produce a
president, as
provided by the constitution. A very messy process, much closer to the US
citizens, will
produce a better president. The struggle would be a small thing compared to
peace in the
middle east.

With a completely new administration, devoid of the neocons, the hardliners
overseas will not
be as persuasive in their home countries. Further, the first rate generals
are smart enough to
threaten to withdraw US forces leaving the Chinese to step in and fill the
void. Just as the
USA fell into its own trap in the middle east, we can let the Chinese fall
into their own. The
last thing the Chinese want is for the US to withdraw from the middle east.

I think our first rate generals know that our unwillingness to fight will
force all parties to sit
and negotiate a settlement, a diplomatic solution. No sane general wants a
war. Our first rate
generals would provide a credible threat to the Chinese that we want peace.

Once the diplomats reach an accord, we small business international traders
can step in and
provide the front lines of peace and prosperity: trade. Iranian teens will be
watching
Bollywood videos on Chinese TVs beamed over US satellite networks, while we
finally get the
best rugs, pistachios and pomengranate juice in the world. Paul Wolfowitz
will be pumping
gas in Indiana while some tall bearded fellow in Eugene Oregon will be
repeating 50 times a
night, "Welcome to Applebee's, my name is Osama, and I'll be your waiter
tonight."

John






Compete on Design!

www.johnspiers.com

Bookmark this post --- Email this post