The REAL Reason We Invaded Iraq

When I was in Afghanistan with the US Army Special Forces in 2002 - 2003, we began to notice a significant reduction in our air assets towards the end of 2002 (EC-130 Talons, AC-130 Spectres, AH-64 Apaches, etc...). This told us that regardless of whatever message the White House was delivering over the airwaves, the decision had already been made to launch a full-scale attack on Iraq in short order, as essential assets are never removed from an active battlefield to be used simply as a show of force or even placed in a staging or holding pattern in a different AO unless that engagement was imminent.

Most all of us were thoroughly puzzled and began voicing great concern that our CInC (Commander-In-Chief) was making a very bad decision. We were where the bad guys were. We had UBL (Usama bin Laden) in our sights more than once - and were told to stand down. We found numerous caches of Chinese weapons that we destroyed in place with C4 and diesel fuel. Though we were deployed to "seek and destroy our enemy and to prevent freedom of movement and deny sanctuary to them", we saw our mission change over a short period of time into policing various regions and burning opium fields.

The reasons Americans were given for us going to war with the Iraqis were myriad - and they changed with each passing week. In fact, the reasons changed so rapidly that it was next to impossible to keep up with what the current rationale was.

First, was the excuse that the Iraqis were involved in terrorism and were providing sanctuary and training to Al Queda (we KNEW this was untrue). Then it was the "fact" that they had weapons of mass destruction. Though it had been true 10 years earlier, that was quickly discounted as well, as sanctions and UN oversight were in fact working, and Hussein was known to be bluffing in order to keep the Iranians at bay. Then it became an issue of human rights and the provision of freedom to the Iraqi populace. In fact, one of the primary messages used to garner support for this argument was the gassing of Iraqis by Saddam Hussein in 1988, though, as CIA and US Army reports acknowledge, we knew that he was not the one responsible for this, but the Iranians were (the Iraqis had no such nerve agent in their arsenal). That did not stop the WH from using this misinformation to sway the American public towards supporting this war.

Other reasons that were floated were oil and economic control of the Persian Gulf (though we had been in complete control of the Gulf since GHWB's term as we had wrested it away from the Russians in the first Gulf War using Kuwait as bait), GWB seeking vengeance for GWHB's being targeted for assassination, democracy, Iraqi Freedom, violations of a UN resolution (though the leading violator of UN resolutions was and continues to be Israel), and on and on and on.....

Most all of these reasons were hollow, had little merit, and were easily seen through by most "in the know". However, the sales job on the American populace was rather effective.

The REAL reason we went to war in Iraq was for the sake of Palestinian autonomy and Israeli security. Every US president since Woodrow Wilson has been trying to bring peace to the area after he agreed to partition Palestine in order to give European Jews a homeland. Every US president since Wilson has failed. President GW Bush thought he could make it work. Unfortunately, he was wrong.

His motives were admirable. His plan was naive.

In order to make this happen and in order to secure Israel's safety, we agreed to eliminate Israel's biggest threat - Saddam Hussein. In exchange, PM Ariel Sharon formed a third party and agreed to remove settlements from occupied Palestinian territories, grant Palestinians autonomy, and work towards a two state solution. This plan was masterminded and negotiated by Paul Wolfowitz, John Ashcroft, and Donald Rumsfeld.

This was told me by a friend who had very close ties to the GWB WH and was then corroborated by several other independent sources - including one who serves on the Council on Foreign Relations, and another who is on staff at The Fund for American Studies. This scenario does seem to make the most sense. In fact, SEC Powell's statement, "The decision to go to war was made well before evidence was gathered" which he made around noon on the day of his resignation as he and his wife stood on the steps of the US Capitol, seemed to support this argument by weakening the other reasons given for the war. Food for thought.......

Iran Ready to Fill Power Vacuum in Iraq

Fox News reports that President Ahmadinejad Says Iran Ready to Fill Power Vacuum in Iraq.

Last night one of my old SF buddies from Tampa paid me a visit while I was pulling "Shock Doc" duty at Baptist Labor and Delivery. He's one of the most talented and intelligent guys I know, and has a great handle on foreign affairs - especially on the Middle East. In fact, I think he's knows more about the people, the culture, and the politics than Paul Bremmer. He was in Iraq for DS1 before hostilities officially began, and then again before OIF kicked off - when there were supposedly no US troops in Iraq.

We talked about almost everything - women, religion, commerce and trade, business, healthcare, politics, life, the future, CAG/SMU (Delta), and the intelligence community. Eventually, our conversation drifted to Iraq and what we believed to be prudent and correct military policy for the area. Unfortunately Congress disagrees, and I fear, will soon and rapidly fill Iraq with our absence. My friend's opinion was that Iran will immediately claim Eastern Iraq, Turkey will overrun Northern Iraq (as they've already tried to do on several occasions), and Saudi Arabians will slowly infiltrate the south.

I found it very interesting to see this article on Fox News this morning. He may be right on target. So much for the oil. (I really don't believe we'll leave the oilfields without some form of surveillence and defense - especially after spending all of that money to get Halliburton/KBR to lay pipeline from Kirkuk to Israel - though I understand they're having a little problem at the Jordanian border).

Cry for Lebanon

Since last July’s month-long random and merciless Israeli bombardment, Lebanon has faced the very real threat of internal conquest by a ruthless, militant, and emboldened enemy. Hizballah has intentionally paralyzed Lebanon with the intent of overthrowing the current government, and claiming the throne for militant Islamic rule, courtesy of Iran and Syria. March 14th forces are holding on the best they can, but their grip is weakening. Unfortunately, Lebanon is far from any political solution, and faces a high threat of armed conflict, whether internal or external. On the other hand, Lebanon may get pulled into a regional conflict between Israel and Syria, because Syria will be sure to use Lebanon as a primary staging ground and will attack Israel from the Southern border, the Mediterranean, as well as the Golan. In fact, Syrian troops have already re-entered Lebanon and have fortified positions three kilometers inside Lebanese borders.

It's only a matter of time before internal violence increases given that Hizballah refuses to concede governmental control to properly elected officials and will not give up until they are in control. They also will never have a policy of peace with Israel, but will continually seek conflict once they achieve their goal of governmental control. The only way out of this debacle is open, deliberate, and armed intervention by a foreign power such as France, Germany, or the US, and I don't see that happening. Then there's the Palestinian problem with Fatah al Islam.......

The Lebanese Army, though enjoying wonderful and widespread public support, is weak - as we've seen from the past 2 or 3 months of fighting in Tripoli. This is a conflict that should have been easily completed within a week or two. The fact that it is still dragging on would be almost comical if it weren't for the sad fact that so many soldiers have been killed. Approximately two Lebanese soldiers have been killed for every one militant. That speaks volumes as to the Lebanese Army's knowledge of military doctrine and tactics, and of its ability to properly execute a military operation. They may be slowly winning, but certainly not in a decisive way, and then only because of superior numbers of soldiers available to replace the dead and injured, and open food, water, and ammunition supply routes. On the whole, however, they are being out fought and maneuvered hands down and could never effectively face an organized military force, Hizballah, or global civil unrest. Depending on them at this stage to maintain peace is not an educated or wise position. However, they are trying, and my heart certainly goes out to them. I am very proud of their efforts, but they seem to be little more than cannon fodder. I blame their training, leadership, and governmental support. Additionally, it is always easier to defend than to attack, and unfortunately they find themselves facing a hardened, well emplaced, and defensive enemy with ideal cover and concealment, while they are relegated to poorly emplaced positions that leave them open to sniper and mortar fire.

The social structure of Lebanon is fraying rapidly, and will continue to degenerate until all those who can leave do, and many already have, leaving Hizballah an open door to take over and place Lebanon under some form of militant Islamic law. The fact is that Hizballah has freedom of movement throughout the country, while the properly elected officials are limited to their heavily fortified homes with no freedom of mobility whatsoever. It is only a matter of time. Lebanon is under siege and will fall without aggressive external intervention, which, as we've seen, will not happen, at least not before violence erupts once again. I wish the US would get involved, but we can't given the despicable situation in Iraq, and the political turmoil we are facing within our own country on Capitol Hill.