I took a lot of heat a few years back from the fanatic (you're with Republicans or you're a traitor) people when the war started because I said it would be another Vietnam. Turns out I was right. But that was a no-brainer for someone who had been in military combat. There are no real surprises during war; there are only options, and those options are always limited. Why they couldn't see that in Washington is beyond me? Guess it was because none of them had actually been in combat or active military. They just didn't have a clue...
Each time things go bad (or get worse) in Iraq, Korea rears up and draws attention away from just how bad things are in Iraq. Sudden numerous terrorist threats infect the news. Our government scares us with information that North Korea may sell nuclear devices to terrorists. Using common sense, a person could figure that if the terrorists wanted nuclear bombs, they could get them in Pakistan, where they operate base camps and you can buy almost anything. They sure don't need North Korea. Another argument states that if North Korea remains nuclear other countries will suddenly want to go nuclear, like other countries haven't thought of going nuclear before the North Koreans.
North Korea is a Chinese puppet. The Chinese hate us, and they have endless patience. We fought the Chinese during the Korean War. In the field in Vietnam, we listened to military advisers speaking Chinese while operating with Vietnamese units. Go to any Walmart and try to find something not made in China. Well, go almost anywhere and try to find something not made in China. North Korea takes the heat for China because our economy depends on China and they could pile up enough people to make a land bridge to America. Common sense should make everyone see that North Korea can't afford to mess with another country (using nuclear weapons) unless they want to be squashed like a bug. So, Korea is convenient to serve as a front for failures in Iraq to take the heat off those failures.
There are only two options for Iraq. The first has already failed. We tried to buy out Muqtada al-Sadr. We were going to kill him. He had arrest warrants for murder, etc. Then he said he would join the government and stop fighting. We said okay because our leaders were frantic for a solution while Sadr took our money and bought time to rebuild a massive force. Only in politics do people get burned over and over with the same lies. Maybe because all politics is based on lies...hmmm.
The second option will more than likely happen. I predict the end of U.S. involvement in Iraq will have to go down this way...
The leaders of the new Iraq government will be taken out by unkown insurgents, either through ambush or some kind of massive explosive, collective heart attack, or a plane crash. (Every time I see Malaki, the head of the U.S. backed government on the news, I just know I'm seeing a dead man.) The United States will take the position that since there is no more government, the mission can no longer be fulfilled. It will be stated that since the Iraqi people refuse our help, they will have to work out things on their own. We will start pulling troops out, leaving some near the borders, supplemented with UN troops to protect oil integrity, but we will no longer actively promote or participate in a Civil War. We will abandon all the cities. It will not be a defeat; we'll just say we can't help people who don't want to help themselves. Iraq will fall in behind Somalia, Haiti, and Lebanon as places where you wouldn't want to visit to promote a healthy lifestyle.
This is not an indictment of any particular person or policy. As Robert E. Howard, author of Conan the Barbarian concludes: war is the natural state of mankind. This is the natural progression of the situation to reach a resolution.
Comments
Post a Comment