A strategic mistake ... from the beginning!

Wow! How do I begin?

I have spent the past 30 or more hours (little sleep included) reflecting on my euphoria over the death of the butcher and the (then) Al-Qaida leader in Iraq, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. Oh yes, it probably did indeed reduce the potential effectiveness of the Al-Qaida faction of the insurgency for the near (and likely long-term) future; however it did little to change the course of events vis-à-vis the burgeoning civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiites.

I spent nearly an entire decade in the Middle East prior to returning to America and Washington State, most of it as the (job title only) “Political Advisor” to the Royal Saudi Air Forces. This was before, during and after the Gulf War of 1990-91. I full well know what issues energize Arabs, and the presence or absence of Al-Qaida forces in support of a popular uprising against “the Great Satan” (guess who?) is not one of them. I believe that the Civil War in Iraq began within days of the downfall of Saddam Hussein who, for all of his wickedness, kept it in check during the previous several decades. And at that time, there was no Al-Qaida and no Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi to “lead it” in Iraq.

My guess is that Al-Zarqawi’s death brought gratification to the majority of both Americans and Iraqis and yes, the Al-Qaida leadership as well. He was an embarrassment to some, a threat to others and, seemingly, a detriment to US interests in the region. His passing will bring few tears and, were it not for our parading his “portrait in death” in the press and in the streets of Iraq, he would not even be a suitable martyr to the Muslim world.

But that aside, what is it that really energizes the insurgency in Iraq? Is it truly a Sunni versus Shiite “war” or is it the presence of US troops on what is believed by Arabs to be “holy soil”? The answer is that it is the combination of the two, but without our presence, the Sunni hostility to the Shiite toadies of the “American Empire” (their view, not mine) would diminish in time since they would have to negotiate with the Shiites for sheer survival. They see the current Shiite-led government as a “US-created” entity that eats directly to the very heart of their being Arabs.

That also applies to our fear that if we were to leave that the Iranians would saddle up with the Shiites in Iraq to create a “Shiite theocracy” similar to that in Iran. Wrong again! The Shiite Arabs hate the Shiite Iranians (Persians and Arabs are like oil and water) far more than they hate the Sunni Arabs – or the Christian Arabs (we forget sometimes that Saddam Hussein allowed the Christians in Iraq to flourish, although for his own selfish reasons). How quickly we forget the terrible wars between the Arabs and Persians – most recently between Saddam’s Iraq and Russia’s buddy, Iran, only 25 or so years ago. The memories of the Iraqi Shiites are long—particularly those that fought in those brutal battles, or worse yet, were captured and languished as prisoners of the Iranians. They are not eager to be overtaken by “Persian infidels.”

In any of my papers written for the Royal Saudi Air Force (the papers dealt with weapons technology and not politics – I was “titled” as a Political Advisor simply to fill a vacant slot on an Royal Saudi Air Force advisory contract), I saw the words “Persian Gulf” changed to “Arabian Gulf” several times by the Arab editors until I learned the PC way of referring even to the names of land and sea masses on maps. Arabs hate Persians!

Yes, the Sunnis would be the “underclass” if we were to leave, but how different is that from what we have now in Iraq? The Shiites would have total control with their superior numbers and weapon systems and even worries of Sunni attacks in specific areas would quickly abate.

And both Sunnis and Shiites would ultimately join forces against the Al-Qaida operatives from other countries in the Middle East. Without a common enemy (us!), there would be little Al-Qaida could offer. Hellfire! They couldn’t even argue for Sharia (Islamic-based) law! Article 2 of the new Iraqi Constitution states: “First, Islam is the official religion of the state, and it is a fundamental source of legislation. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.”

I wish some of Mr. Bush’s advisors had lived with me in Riyadh Saudi Arabia where Sharia Law prevailed. The beheadings down at “Chop-Chop Square" (an otherwise non-descript, but modern area downtown with an unusually large center drain – for blood) or the veiled women who quietly moved through the super markets fully adorned in their head-to-toe burqas or the secret Christian meetings in apartments and homes of Westerners or ... ad nausium gave ample evidence of how Sharia Law can be applied – and Saudi Arabia is one of our staunchest allies (Osama bin Laden and the 9/11 pilots excepted, of course).

If nothing else, there has always been a strong nationalistic feeling among Iraqis, with the exception of the Kurds in the north who would, whether we like it or not and whether we leave now or later, create a country of their own. Iraq will be Iraq and “Kurdistan” (or whatever they call it) will be “Kurdistan." And Turkey, as a member of NATO, will not try likely invade “Kurdistan” and Iran will not likely invade Iraq – or at least would be less liable to if we were not Iraq’s conqueror-occupiers.

Thus the argument that we should “cut and run” (I hate that term almost as much as I hate the word “amnesty” when discussing immigration reform) is not only worth considering, it’s logical and of maximal benefit to the US, to the Middle East and to the world.

Yeh, we will see additional fighting and additional deaths there after we leave, but we will no longer be killing Iraqi civilians by the thousands and losing dozens of young American men and women there each month.



Representative John Murtha is right on target, and day-before-yesterday’s House Resolution stating that we aren’t interested in a time-limit for withdrawal is a politically-inspired piece of … well, you get the idea. Shame on our Congressmen and women who voted for that awful resolution. It is likely to be a bombshell that will have unexpected consequences in November.

And shame on me for supporting that action as late as day-before-yesterday when I wrote that uncharacteristic-for-me (I hope!) posting.

I have more to say on this subject, but it will have to wait until I have the courage to even mention my deep Spiritual beliefs when it comes to any war, not jut the debacle in Iraq.

Maybe my brother, Richard, can talk me out of writing that one

Jesus' words on the subject might not be PC enough for his tastes.