|
History
Here is a post from a California lawyer
that seems to present the "Big Picture"" in just the right manner..
This is something all Americans should read!
A Perspective on Iraq War:
Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and
hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat, and had sunk
more than four hundred British ships in their convoys between England
and America for food and war materials.
Japan had overrun most of Asia, beginning in 1928, killing millions of
civilians throughout China, and impressing millions more as slave labor.
The US was in an isolationist, pacifist, mood, and most Americans and
Congress wanted nothing to do with the European war or the Asian war.
Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage
Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on
Germany, which had not attacked us. It was a dicey thing. We had few
allies.
France was not an ally, the Vichy government of France had aligned with
its German occupiers. Germany was not an ally, it was an enemy, and
Hitler intended to set up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was
not an ally, it was intent on owning and controlling all of Asia. Japan
and Germany had long-term ideas of invading Canada and Mexico, and then
the United States over the north and south borders, after they had
settled control of Asia and Europe.
America's allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada,
Australia, and Russia, and that was about it. There were no other
countries of any size or military significance with the will and ability
to contribute much or anything to the effort to defeat Hitler's Germany
and Japan, and prevent the global dominance of Nazism. And we had to
send millions of tons of arms, munitions, and war supplies to Russia,
England, and the Canadians, Aussies, Irish, and Scots, because NONE of
them could produce all they needed for themselves.
All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the east, was
already under the Nazi heel.
America was not prepared for war. America had stood down most of its
military after WWI and throughout the depression. At the outbreak of
WWII there were army units training with broomsticks over their
shoulders because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on
the doors because they didn't have tanks. And a big chunk of our navy
had just been sunk and damaged at Pearl Harbor.
Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600
million in gold bullion in the Bank of England that was the property of
Belgium and was given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when
Belgium was overrun by Hitler. Actually, Belgium surrendered one day,
because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans
bombed Brussels into rubble the next day anyway just to prove they
could. Britain had been holding out for two years already in the face
of staggering shipping loses and the near-decimation of its air force in
the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only
because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively
minor threat that could be dealt with later and turning his attention to
Russia, at a time when England was on the verge of collapse in the late
summer of 1940.
Russia saved America's butt by putting up a desperate fight for two
years until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany.
Russia lost something like 24 million people in the sieges of Stalingrad
and Moscow, 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but
also more than a million soldiers. Yes, more than a million.
Had Russia surrendered then, Hitler would have been able to focus his
entire campaign against the Brits, then America, and the Nazis would
have won that war.
Had Hitler not made that mistake and invaded England in 1940 or 1941,
there would have been no England for the US and the Brits to use as a
staging ground to prepare an assault on Nazi Europe. England would not
have been able to run its North African campaign to help take a little
pressure off Russia while America geared up for battle, and today Europe
would very probably be run by the Nazis, the Third Reich, and isolated
without any allies (not even the Brits). The US would very probably
have had to cede Asia to the Japanese, who were basically Nazis by
another name and the world we live in today would be very different and
much worse. I say this to illustrate that turning points in history are
often dicey things. And we are at another one.
There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants
and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or
chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world, unless they are
prevented from doing so.
France, Germany, and Russia, have been selling them weapons technology
at least as recently as 2002, as have North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan,
paid for with billions of dollars Saddam Hussein skimmed from the "Oil
For Food" program administered by the UN with the complicity of Kofi
Annan and his son.
The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs -
they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam,
should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the
world, and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved,
or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, purge
the world of Jews. This is what they say.
There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East - for the most part
not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and
its Reformation today, but it is not yet known which will win - the
Inquisition, or the Reformation.
If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control
the Middle East, and the OPEC oil. The US, European, and Asian
economies, the techno-industrial economies, will be at the mercy of OPEC
- not an OPEC dominated by the well-educated and rational Saudis of
today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.
You want gas in your car? You want heating oil next winter? You want
jobs? You want the dollar to be worth anything? You better hope the
Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses and the Islamic Reformation wins.
If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who
believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, and live in
peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into
the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade
away, and a moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.
We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the
Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda, the
Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. We cannot do
it nowhere. And we cannot do it everywhere at once. We have created a
focal point for the battle now at the time and place of our choosing, in
Iraq.
Not in New York, not in London, or Paris, or Berlin, but in Iraq, where
we did and are doing two very important things.
(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly
involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively
supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist.
Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for
the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million
Iranians.
(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic
terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad guys
there and the ones we get there, we won't have to get here, or anywhere
else. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq,
which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle
East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the
Middle East for as long as it is needed
The European nations could have done this, but they didn't, and they
won't. The so-called "Coalition Forces" are, in most cases, little more
than a "Token Force" to keep face with the US. And once attacked, like
the train bombing in Madrid, they pull their forces and run for home. We
now know that rather than opposing the rise of the Jihad, the French,
Germans, and Russians were selling them arms - we have found more than a
million tons of weapons and munitions in Iraq. If Iraq was not a threat
to anyone, why did Saddam need a million tons of weapons? And Iraq was
paying for French, German, and Russian arms with money skimmed from the
UN Oil For Food Program (supervised by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan
and his son) that was supposed to pay for food, medicine, and education,
for Iraqi children.
World War II, the war with the German and Japanese Nazis, really began
with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began
with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years
before America joined it. It officially ended in 1945 - a 17 year war -
and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan
to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again a
27 year war.
World War II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a
full year's GDP - adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion
dollars, WWII cost America more than 400,000 killed in action, and
nearly 100,000 missing in action.
The Iraq war has, so far, cost the US about $180 billion, which is
roughly what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost over 2,300 American
lives, which is roughly 2/3 of the lives that the Jihad snuffed on 9/11.
But the cost of not fighting and winning WWII would have been
unimaginably greater - a world now dominated by German and Japanese
Nazism.
Americans have a short attention span now, conditioned I suppose by 1
hour TV shows and 2-hour movies in which everything comes out okay.
The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain,and sometimes
bloody and ugly. Always has been, and probably always will be.
If we do this thing in Iraq successfully, it is probable that the
Reformation will ultimately prevail. Many Muslims in the Middle East
hope it will. We will be there to support it. It has begun in some
countries, Libya, for instance. And Dubai. And Saudi Arabia. If we
fail, the Inquisition will probably prevail, and terrorism from Islam
will be with us for all the foreseeable future, because the Inquisition,
or Jihad, believes they are called by Allah to kill all the Infidels,
and that death in Jihad is glorious.
The bottom line here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism
until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away on its own.
It will not go away if we ignore it.
If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we
have an "England" in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work
to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of the
world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and
civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war
is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. And now,
for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear
weapons. Unless we prevent them. Or somebody does.
The Iraq war is expensive, and uncertain, yes. But the consequences of
not fighting it and winning it will be horrifically greater. We have
four options -
1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.
2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which
may be as early as next year, if Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is
what Iran claims it is).
3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle
East now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in
America.
4. Or we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad
is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has
dominated France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe. It
will be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier then.
Yes, the Jihadis say that they look forward to an Islamic America. If
you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or
grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the
Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.
We can be defeatist peace-activists as anti-war types seem to be, and
concede, surrender, to the Jihad, or we can do whatever it takes to win
this war against them.
The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes,
cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society
and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists
always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
In the 20th century, it was Western democracy vs. communism, and before
that Western democracy vs. Nazism, and before that Western democracy
vs. German Imperialism. Western democracy won, three times, but it
wasn't cheap, fun, nice, easy, or quick. Indeed, the wars against
German Imperialism (WWI), Nazi Imperialism (WWII), and communist
imperialism (the 40-year Cold War that included the Vietnam Battle,
commonly called the Vietnam War, but itself a major battle in a larger
war) covered almost the entire century.
The first major war of the 21st Century is the war between Western
Judeo/Christian Civilization and Wahhabi Islam. It may last a few more
years, or most of this century. It will last until the Wahhabi branch
of Islam fades away, or gives up its ambitions for regional and global
dominance and Jihad, or until Western Civilization gives in to the
Jihad.
Senator John Kerry, in the debates and almost daily, makes 3 scary
claims:
1. We went to Iraq without enough troops.
We went with the troops the US military wanted. We went with the troop
levels General Tommy Franks asked for. We deposed Saddam in 30 days
with light casualties, much lighter than we expected.
The real problem in Iraq is that we are trying to be nice - we are
trying to fight a minority of the population that is Jihadi, and trying
to avoid killing the large majority that is not We could flatten
Fallujah in minutes with a flight of B52s, or seconds with one nuclear
cruise missile - but we don't. We're trying to do brain surgery, not
amputate the patient's head. The Jihadis amputate heads.
2. We went to Iraq with too little planning.
This is a specious argument. It supposes that if we had just had "the
right plan" the war would have been easy, cheap, quick, and clean. That
is not an option. It is a guerrilla war against a determined enemy, and
no such war ever has been or ever will be easy, cheap, quick, and clean.
This is not TV.
3. We proved ourselves incapable of governing and providing security.
This too is a specious argument. It was never our intention to govern
and provide security. It was our intention from the beginning to do
just enough to enable the Iraqis to develop a representative government
and their own military and police forces to provide their own security,
and that is happening. The US and the Brits and other countries there
have trained over 100,000 Iraqi police and military, now, and will have
trained more than 200,000 by the end of next year. We are in the
process of transitioning operational control for security back to Iraq.
It will take time. It will not go with no hitches. This is not TV.
Remember, perspective is everything, and America's schools teach too
little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young
American mind.
The Cold war lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came
down in 1989. Forty-two years. Europe spent the first half of the 19th
century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany.
World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation,
and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan. World War II resulted
in the death of more than 50 million people, maybe more than 100 million
people, depending on which estimates you accept.
The US has taken more than 2,000 KIA in Iraq in 3 years. The US took
more than 4,000 Killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the
first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism.
In WWII the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week for four years. Most of the
individual battles of WWII lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war
has done so far.
But the stakes are at least as high . . a world dominated by
representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal
freedoms, or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by
the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law).
I do not understand why the American Left does not grasp this. They
favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not
for Iraqis. In America, absolutely, but nowhere else.
300,000 Iraqi bodies in mass graves in Iraq are not our problem. The US
population is about twelve times that of Iraq, so let's multiply 300,000
by twelve. What would you think if there were 3,600,000 American bodies
in mass graves in America because of George Bush? Would you hope for
another country to help liberate America?
"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate where it's safe, in
America.
Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq,
Sudan, North Korea, in the places in the world that really need peace
activism the most?
The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights,
democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins,
wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights,
democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the
liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy.
If the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism. Everywhere the Jihad
wins, it is the death of Liberalism. And American
Liberals just don't get it. |