HOME
Message Board
CURRENT COLUMNS
- Editor's Corner
- Blogfest 2005
- Commentary
- Commentary Too
- Down The Middle
- Faulking Around
- Global Warning
- This guy walks into a bar...
- Investing 101
- Faulking Opinions
- Off The Rail
- Words
ARCHIVES
LINKS
CONTACT US
 | |||
Down The Middle - March 27, 2007 - Printable Version
- Surge Forward
by Down The Middle
"We must protect our soldiers in Iraq." "Bush has already increased the number of troops he originally asked for." "Congress wants to limit the war." "Where are we going to get the troops?" "We must send enough to do the job." And so goes the talk-talk on network news, inspiring one more point of contemplation, one more topic for discussion - and one more crock of shit, pardon my Farsi.
The simple fact is exactly what the best military tacticians have been saying from the very beginning of this "surge." It won't work, at least not in the realm of even the largest numbers being quoted. In reality, we would have to literally double our current troop strength to have any chance whatsoever of disarming and pacifying the country - and our forces would have to remain at this level for a very long time to come, because the moment they are withdrawn, the country will immediately revert to civil {tribal} war.
So, why are we going forward with a plan that virtually everyone agrees will not work? And if so, what possible advantage could the President and his administration possibly gain from placing more soldiers in harm's way and possibly running up the numbers of our KIAs [Killed In Action]?
"When you're in a hole, stop digging," the political pundits cry out from their studios - and the country goes on perceiving that Mr. Bush is simply making another "bad call" on the war in Iraq. But what the pundits and their listeners are missing is the other way to "get out of a hole"� Dig your way out! And that is exactly what this administration plans to do.
With Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and her supporters basking in the light of the Congressional mandating of a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq by Sept. 1, 2008, the Administration may now be feeling the "noose" of Iraq tightening around their necks, a little more each day. With no hope whatsoever of any sustainable solution, the only politically survivable way out of Iraq is forward. As this "surge" has no chance to succeed as billed, one can only assume that it is, in fact, a buildup of manpower in conjunction with the coming attack on Iran.
While the collective American mind continues to baffle at this latest Presidential misstep in Iraq, our military is finalizing its preparations for the attack on Iran. And although this next step was always part of the original neo-con plan for "liberating" the world, it is now as much {or more so} a last chance for the neo-cons� political salvation. At this point, they really have nothing to lose.
I know what you're thinking, "We don't have enough troops to attack Iran" but what you are neglecting to consider is the basic neo-con war doctrine of advanced technologies {airborne munitions} supplanting the need for greater troop strength on the ground. This has been the basis for our invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq and will continue to be the format for the strike on Iran.
But now you say, "Look what has happened to our occupation of those countries. We simply don't have the troop strength to occupy Iran" - and you are correct, except we have no plans to occupy Iran any better than we have occupied Iraq. If we are to possess any new ground in this campaign, it will only be the oil rich province of Khuzestan and possibly some adjoining coastal areas that are overwhelmingly Arab and already seeking independence from the Persian Empire. Simply put, if we control Iran's oil and infrastructure, we control Iran.
Almost all our chess pieces are in place, having two aircraft carrier groups and two amphibious assault groups on station, along with compliments of mine sweepers, mine destroyers and nuclear submarines. During group "rotations" would be the optimal time to strike, as at least three or four aircraft carriers will be within range�and with the appointment of Admiral William Fallon to head up CENTCOM [U.S. Central Command], it appears that naval action is definitely expected.
The Iranian Navy has just begun its forth in a series of naval exercises since the beginning of the year, reportedly testing domestically manufactured naval weaponry {anti-ship missiles} with extended range, while practicing defensive maneuvers for the expected U.S.-Israeli attack. The exercises, which are scheduled to last until the end of the month, could very well increase the chances for an incident that could ignite this war.
Last Friday, Iranian naval vessels captured and held15 British sailors and marines, who were engaged in stopping and searching ships to interdict the smuggling of men and munitions, while Iran's U.N. Press Secretary blamed the United States for the overdue delivery of visas, preventing President Ahmadinejad and the Iranian delegation from presenting their case, before the Saturday vote to sanction Iran, which subsequently passed unanimously.
All the while, Russian engineers and technicians are rushing to leave the Bushehr reactor site, citing delays in Iranian payments, although Iranian state TV blamed Russia for its procrastination in the construction of the project. Is this just an excuse to bow out of ground zero, before the attack.
I, for one, do not believe that the Bush Administration is prepared to go quietly onto the night. No matter what the opposition, they have always pushed ahead with their plans, legitimate or no. I believe, they will instead do exactly what they have always done -- surge forward!
Voice your opinion on our message board (you don't have to sign up to post).