US Government, Pentagon, members of the United States House and Senate, members of the American Armed Forces, FBI, CIA, NSA, UN, and international governments and military bodies, this blog is for you. Call Senators: 202-224-3121.

Thursday, June 08, 2006

The New[est] Insurgency

My personal reaction to the news report that al-Zarqawi is dead was 'oh, that guy.' I am little concerned with individuals in the Iraqi theater. We have made numerous environmental problems in Iraq, and their results, such as resistance, poverty, disruption, are bound to be environmental and not truly focused on any one man.

Plainly, what are they trying to do? Kill all the terrorists before more people get wind of American and western atrocities and rally against them? That is a two way race to the edge of a blade, and that cannot be won. Granted only about 5% of the world's muslim population are violent fundamentalists, but that is still millions of people. By engaging them in this nondescript manner we are hedging them power and by behaving badly during the battle we are championing them, even if two wrongs do not make a right. Republicans performing atrocities make democrats look like a good choice. And since we're offering no alternative in Iraq, it is either us or them.

We've taken a freestyle war and pinned it down, yet again. We've already left the safety of our walls. Lessons of Cambodia are thus: don't fight in someone else's civil war. Don't fight dirty. Don't get involved in a land war in Asia. Only fight when you have to.

If we want to get to the bottom of this war, as a people as well as a nation, we should examine the video that got it all started: The Osama bin Laden Confession video 9/11 Confession Video Faked. 'Osama' is wearing a gold ring and watch in the video. Muslims cannot wear gold rings by their religion. He writes something with his right hand, but Osama is left handed. His face is also different than in other publications. This is not Osama. 12 jurors would agree this is not Osama.

I don't even think he's the Al-Qaeda leader. I have no real evidence of that. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein's wife said that the man we captured is not Saddam. We probably have one of his doubles on trial. The question is whether *we* know.

Numerous questions have come up against all major terrorism events since 9/11. I believe that American law and forces pre-9.11 were able to handle and stop all significant terrorism activities, but that inside work created openings for either outside forces or an inside job to be performed on 9/11. This is a widely held belief. 70 million Americans want the 9/11 commission reopened.

Is terrorism truly a threat? Well, if you are talking about buildings and bombs blowing up, then yes, it is. If you are talking about foreigners and mercenaries doing this, I'd say they are a minimal threat or primarily rendition attacks.

The resistance in Iraq may be *faked*. Not everyday bombings and shootings in the streets, but we may be playing both sides of the coin if certain pieces of evidence and speculation assemble. We could have gone to Iraq full strength, with the recommended 300,000 soldiers fully prepared, and knocked down every province and suspect with strong force. Then held meaningful elections that summer [2003] after the meaningful opposition was destroyed. That would have been good continuation.

Instead we went in understrength and underfunded, and are wallowing around. Why did we do this? To waste time? To stand on top of oil? Peak oil is scheduled for 2007. We've installed clauses saying Iraqi comapnies do not need to be Iraqi and installed all of our own and Britain's major oil companies in Iraq. We own a lot of their oil by corporate rights. We do not truly need to control their country militarily. Our companies can control it and make all the profits for us. Is this our intention?

So what does this mean for the future? What is the best plan for right now? We should send the United Nations peacekeeping forces to Iraq, and to Afghanistan, and Iran for that matter, and primarily disengage ourselves from the region. The United Nations can handle fighting an 'insurgency' better than we can, since the insurgency is fuelled by reciprocation from atrocities , bad behavior, and aggression. The UN is almost entirely innocent of these things, and is a rainbow coalition whose goals are clearly for peace and in the interest of no individual nation. America is a hound dog barking over Iraq to lay down and stay down. The UN would be a gardener.

Why do we resist UN peacekeeping forces in Iraq? What are the reasons we gave?


Post a Comment

<< Home