|
We the People Scoop
12/22/05
====================================================================== WE THE PEOPLE SCOOP - TO EXPOSE! ** ** Visit the offshore website at: ** ** http://www.wtpconstitutionalactivism.org ** ** Like the Scoop? Forward it to everyone you know! ** ** ** ** SPECIAL NOTICE: Many of our readers know that the Scooplist has ** ** been down for just over a month. Our previous site at ** ** www.stanley2002.org was just closed down by the Powers That Be ** ** that do not want to see this kind of info coming out. ** ====================================================================== OPINION RELEASE: Costly Withdrawal Is the
Price To Be Paid for a Foolish War
----- Original Message ----- From: "Hank Roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 9:40 AM Subject: Costly Withdrawal Is the Price To Be Paid for a Foolish War (http://up-yours.us/)
> > Costly Withdrawal Is the Price To Be Paid for a Foolish War > > By Martin van Creveld > > * This article is based on a speech given by Professor Martin van > Creveld at the U.S. Naval War College. Martin van Creveld, born in > the Netherlands, has lived in Israel since 1950. He holds degrees > from the London School of Economics and The Hebrew University in > Jerusalem, where he has been on the faculty since 1971. He is the > author of fifteen books on military history and strategy, of which > Command in War (1985), Supplying War (1977), and The Sword and the > Olive (1998) and Transformation of War (Free Press, 1991) are among > the best known. Professor van Creveld has lectured or taught at > virtually every strategic institute, military or civilian, in the > Western world--including the U.S. Naval War College. He is also the > only non-American author on the U.S. Army's required reading list > for officers. > > Forward Magazine > November 25, 2005 > > The number of American casualties in Iraq is now well more than > 2,000, and there is no end in sight. Some two-thirds of Americans, > according to the polls, believe the war to have been a mistake. And > congressional elections are just around the corner. > > What had to come, has come. The question is no longer if American > forces will be withdrawn, but how soon and at what cost. In this > respect, as in so many others, the obvious parallel to Iraq is > Vietnam. > > Confronted by a demoralized army on the battlefield and by growing > opposition at home, in 1969 the Nixon administration started > withdrawing most of its troops in order to facilitate what it called > the "Vietnamization" of the country. The rest of America's forces > were pulled out after Secretary of State Henry Kissinger negotiated a > "peace settlement" with Hanoi. As the troops withdrew, they left most > of their equipment to the Army of the Republic of South Vietnam which > just two years later, after the fall of Saigon, lost all of it to the > communists. > > Clearly this is not a pleasant model to follow, but no other > alternative appears in sight. > > Whereas North Vietnam at least had a government with which it was > possible to arrange a cease-fire, in Iraq the opponent consists of > shadowy groups of terrorists with no central organization or command > authority. And whereas in the early 1970s equipment was still > relatively plentiful, today's armed forces are the products of a > technology-driven revolution in military affairs. Whether that > revolution has contributed to anything besides America's national > debt is open to debate. What is beyond question, though, is that the > new weapons are so few and so expensive that even the world's largest > and richest power can afford only to field a relative handful of > them. > > Therefore, simply abandoning equipment or handing it over to the > Iraqis, as was done in Vietnam, is simply not an option. And even if > it were, the new Iraqi army is by all accounts much weaker, less > skilled, less cohesive and less loyal to its government than even the > South Vietnamese army was. For all intents and purposes, Washington > might just as well hand over its weapons directly to Abu Musab > al-Zarqawi. > > Clearly, then, the thing to do is to forget about face-saving and > conduct a classic withdrawal. > > Handing over their bases or demolishing them if necessary, American > forces will have to fall back on Baghdad. From Baghdad they will have > to make their way to the southern port city of Basra, and from there > back to Kuwait, where the whole misguided adventure began. When Prime > Minister Ehud Barak pulled Israel out of Lebanon in 2000, the > military was able to carry out the operation in a single night > without incurring any casualties. That, however, is not how things > will happen in Iraq. > > Not only are American forces perhaps 30 times larger, but so is the > country they have to traverse. A withdrawal probably will require > several months and incur a sizable number of casualties. As the > pullout proceeds, Iraq almost certainly will sink into an all-out > civil war from which it will take the country a long time to emerge > if, indeed, it can do so at all. All this is inevitable and will take > place whether George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and > Condoleezza Rice like it or not. > > Having been thoroughly devastated by two wars with the United States > and a decade of economic sanctions, decades will pass before Iraq can > endanger its neighbors again. Yet a complete American withdrawal is > not an option; the region, with its vast oil reserves, is simply too > important for that. A continued military presence, made up of air, > sea and a moderate number of ground forces, will be needed. > > First and foremost, such a presence will be needed to counter Iran, > which for two decades now has seen the United States as "the Great > Satan." Tehran is certain to emerge as the biggest winner from the > war a winner that in the not too distant future is likely to add > nuclear warheads to the missiles it already has. In the past, Tehran > has often threatened the Gulf States. Now that Iraq is gone, it is > hard to see how anybody except the United States can keep the Gulf > States, and their oil, out of the mullahs' clutches. > > A continued American military presence will be needed also, because a > divided, chaotic, government-less Iraq is very likely to become a > hornets' nest. From it, a hundred mini-Zarqawis will spread all over > the Middle East, conducting acts of sabotage and seeking to overthrow > governments in Allah's name. > > The Gulf States apart, the most vulnerable country is Jordan, as > evidenced by the recent attacks in Amman. However, Turkey, Egypt and, > to a lesser extent, Israel are also likely to feel the impact. Some > of these countries, Jordan in particular, are going to require > American assistance. > > Maintaining an American security presence in the region, not to > mention withdrawing forces from Iraq, will involve many complicated > problems, military as well as political. Such an endeavor, one would > hope, will be handled by a team different from and more competent > than the one presently in charge of the White House and Pentagon. > > For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish > war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and > lost them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been > removed from office, put on trial along with the rest of the > president's men. If convicted, they'll have plenty of time to mull > over their sins. > ____________________ > > Link > > * Forward Mag > > [think.gif] > > All material provided here is is in compliance with the Fair Use > Doctrine for educational purposes per Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, > Copyright Law > __________________________________ > > This page (permalink): http://pnews.org/ArT/ExP/WIth.shtml > > > ----- > / o o \ > ===OO=====OO========================== > http://pnews.org/archives/ > ====================================== ====================================================================== Disclaimer: Information shared in the We The People Scoop is not necessarily the opinion of the editor or staff. It is shared for information purposes only and it is recommended that you come to your own conclusions. ====================================================================== Live Free or Die! Liberty in our Lifetime! We the People Scoop http://www.stanley2002.org (Down currently but will also be recreated offshore) http://www.wtpconstitutionalactivism.org Reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Listen to: Standing Up for America Radio Show with Rick Stanley
Every Sunday, 6pm MST for 1 hour On Truth Radio Network to listen, click here: http://www.truthradio.com Sponsored by: Stanley Fasteners and Shop Supply http://www.stanleyfasteners.com Also check out The Revolutionary Coalition!
This group is working to unite all third parties that defend the constitution, independents, and non-voters (making up 60% of Americans) into one SUPER THIRD PARTY! On Yahoo groups at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheRevolutionaryCoalition This group has a single line platform: "To defend our
(Natural)
God-given, unalienable, Constitutionally protected and guaranteed rights." Subscribe by sending email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Also see our main website at:
http://www.therevco.org To subscribe to the We the People Constitutional Activism Scoop, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you wish to unsubscribe from We the People Constitutional Activism
Scoop,
send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] All other changes for personal attention, such as changing your email
address, send to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Be aware that you may be receiving mail forwarded from a group, in which case you may have to visit http://groups.yahoo.com to unsubscribe. Please also note that mail sent to our "reply to:" address, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is usually ignored.... YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
|
[LibertarianExchange] OPINION RELEASE: Costly Withdrawal Is the Price To Be Paid for a Foolish War
We The People Constitutional Activism Thu, 22 Dec 2005 06:49:49 -0800
