* Editor's Commentaries - #44  The Attack Iraq Tact 

What's the Question?  Stay 'tuned,' for the editor's answer.

. What of the looming War to free the Iraqi people from the tyrannical despotism of Saddam Hussein by overthrowing Saddam, thus ensuring peace for the USA & western nations from Saddam's threatened offensives with weapons of mass destruction?

. What is the objective of the US really?  Are we really motivated by Hussein's tyranny and reign of terror against the Iraqi people?  If so, why aren't we motivated to even speak out against the mass genocide of literal millions of Christians in Sudan, committed and still being committed by the Marxist Muslim regime with the vital backing of the Marxist superpowers (woops, sorry, I should really not imply that there is any superpower other than the almighty USA)?   

. Do you recall anything of the War(s) in the middle east/the Persian Gulf, of the early '90s, i.e., Operation Desert Shield, Operation Desert Storm...?  Do you recall what the official purported rationale/justification necessitated the UN sanctioned, US-led, allied military operations.  The military invasion of little oil-rich Kuwait (which blocked Iraq from the Persian Gulf) by Saddam Hussein's Iraqi military regime (which was cleverly led to think they could invade Kuwait with impunity, i.e., without a military response from the US & western nations).  Do you recall all of the impassioned rhetoric about Kuwaiti women being raped, that was the chief line of outrage used to justify the massive military response.  We were very fortunate, God was very merciful to the troops of the US & western nations, and miraculously spared them (us) from suffering massive casualties.  When George Herbert Walker Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell...put a premature and inconclusive end to the retaliation against Saddam Hussein, the subsequent horrific conditions suffered by the Kuwaiti people, e.g., the ongoing rape of Kuwaiti women and violence against Kuwaiti people by non-Iraqis, no longer troubled us, nor motivated us (why not?)  The purported justification had merely been a convenient and utterly predictable smokescreen/excuse for our "humanitarian" military intervention.

Well folks, here we go again, except this time (as was the case during the Clinton-Rodham-Clinton/Gore Administration) there are also political motivations involved, duh!

. Why did we intervene in former Yugoslavia, i.e., Bosnia, Herzegovina, Croatia...while we remained mute and disdainful of the genocidal slaughter of millions in Sudan?  What was our "justification," our battle cry, for intervening in the former Yugoslavia?  The rape of muslim women, ethnic cleansing....  Were terrible things committed in the former Yugoslavia during the "civil" war?  Absolutely.  Were millions slaughtered?  Absolutely NOT!  But we turned the formerly beautiful Yugoslavia into Rubble, of course now we will rebuild it (though not the peoples we slew!); while we callously ignored the millions of black Christian men, women, young people, little children, and babies who were slaughtered as viciously, as barbarously as any peoples at any time in human history, and today we still are not involved in Sudan!  And in addition to the evils of our government and western governments ignoring the genocide of Christians in Sudan, and the enslavement of those that were not slaughtered, e.g., the forced concubinage of 8 and 9 year-old girls!...the western media, the western press, those great defenders of the downtrodden everywhere, blacked out any coverage of the atrocities, even to this day the only coverage there is, in the name of balanced coverage, denies the atrocities, denies this holocaust of black Christians, ala denial of the holocaust of Jews by the Nazi Reich & Stalin's marxist Soviet regime, and legitimizes the Marxist Muslim regime enabled by foreign marxist powers referring to it as the government of Sudan, while it refers to those who have fought for survival against the evil regime as rebels, guerrillas....  To add insult to injury, the great black leaders, e.g., "the Rev." Jesse Jackson, "the Rev." Al Sharpton, "the Hon." Rep. Charles Rangel turned a deaf ear and stiff back to the cries from Sudan, but if it had been a handful of muslim Arab terrorists who suffered they likely would have been outraged and actively engaged.  Incidentally, the enslavement of black Christians has chiefly been committed by Arab muslims in Sudan.

* "The Rev." Al Sharpton, has of late stated that human rights groups should do something about the slavery in Sudan, but has painstakingly refused to blame the marxist Muslim regime for the genocide of Sudanese Christians & the enslavement of those not slaughtered, chiefly orphaned little children.

* "The Rev." Al Sharpton will graciously bless America by running for President of the United States.

. OK, OK, on to, or back to, the Attack Iraq Tact.  

  1. Is Saddam Hussein evil, a destroyer, a menace to people in his sphere of action?  YES!
  2. Should Saddam Hussein be driven from power?  YES!  Should foreign nations far removed from Iraq, e.g., the US, undertake to drive him from power?
  3. Should G.W. Bush's father (#41) have permitted the joint US-Allied command to finish the job he had them begin, by rolling into Baghdad and overthrowing Saddam Hussein?  YES!  Though we should not have allied ourselves, and should not ally ourselves, with nations which are in rebellion against God, except of course that we are too!  But should G.H.W.B. have started the job in the first place?  Should he have lured Saddam Hussein into invading Kuwait in the first place?
  4. Can the US, with or without allies, attempt to take up where the joint US-Allied command left off (when it abruptly aborted it's mission, with the claim that the mission had been accomplished)?  No, and Yes, and No.
  5. We can not take up where we left off, that is a physical impossibility; we can attempt to replicate or repeat a military offensive against Iraq, but no it will not be the same, i.e., that time we were responding to an "evil military aggressor" which had invaded a peaceful nation (though the administration is attempting to provoke Hussein into at least making the first move, the first attack, again, thus requiring, necessitating, & justifying a retaliation (as in 1990/91).  [Do you recall Pearl Harbor?] The Bush administration is hoping thus to elicit the active support of our traditional western allies, and new allies, and if not the support of the Arab nations, at least the absence of any organized opposition.  Mercifully, God intervened on behalf of the US and Israel in 1990/91, we certainly tempt providence when we blindly imagine we can rebel against God with impunity, and adventure ourselves in foreign war, trusting in the flesh of our arm and in ungodly allies, whose allegiance is neither to God, nor loyalty to us.
  6. There have been reports/articles in the major media lately claiming that we could strike swiftly using stealth, surprise...but not until at least 2003; oh come on, stealth and surprise have been thrown out the window long ago, the administration has gone on with talking up a "war" with Iraq for nine months now, if we were going to use surprise as an effective, much less a decisive, weapon we needed to strike without advance notice, and endless saber-rattling bravado (the G.W. Bush, #43, administration is not practicing TR's policy of "speaking softly but carrying a big stick."
  7. It is routinely reported that Saddam Hussein's regime's military strength is so much weaker than during the Desert Storm/Desert Shield conflicts, i.e., that Hussein's troop strength is a fraction of what it formerly was, that his armor, aircraft, & naval forces are a fraction of what they were....  Excuse my skepticism, but these are the same kinds of claims I hear about Russia, the former Soviet Union countries....  The truth is that Russia fully resupplied Saddam Hussein following the disastrous defeat of Desert Storm, and the armor, aircraft...resupplies were state-of-the-art, so other than the loss of manpower, Saddam Hussein actually came out of the Desert Storm defeat stronger than he went in! Additionally, he has gone underground, literally, with much, very much of his weapons systems....  [Saddam, you know that "crackpot, lunatic, madman" Saddam, has shrewdly refused to show off his military might.]  As for opposition leadership, Saddam Hussein has continued to preemptively eliminate any possible rivals, and despite the effusively optimistic claims by Kurdish leaders that the peoples under Hussein's control will immediately fall away, as soon as he is attacked, he has continued to elicit the unwavering, vehement, fanatical support of most of the peoples under the boot of his regime, and will likely receive even more fiercely loyal support once he is attacked, as Adolph Hitler did.
  8. Additionally, it is claimed that Hussein allegedly only controls a portion of Iraq (the area surrounding Baghdad), that opposition forces control much of Iraq, and are continuing to gain on Saddam.  But were it not for the US & allied daily sorties over the areas we claim are no-mans land, i.e., the Kurdish occupied regions of Iraq, Saddam would seize control of them; thus Saddam's lack of control over these areas is a direct result of our current military involvement, not a demonstration of a strong resistance movement (which is not to say it is not a legitimate or worthy resistance movement).
  9. Meanwhile the state of US military equipment has changed, and not all for the better, i.e., the US military has embraced the philosophy (aggressively promoted by the Clinton Administration) that rejects the need, or even the possibility, of simultaneously fighting major wars on two (or more) fronts, that focuses on the need to respond with great speed and agility to engage and destroy small, guerrilla-like, rogue forces, typically within urban settings, at the expense of being prepared to respond to some "unimaginable" old, antiquated, passť "cold-war" Armageddon-like scenario.
  10. And what of the almighty US & allied forces that will be called upon to remove Saddam Hussein from power.  Ah yes, what of them.  The US force is a fraction of what it was during 1990-91 (1/2 million US troops were sent to the fronts during Desert Storm, the most we could possibly field now would be 250,000), the US force has lost a great many battle-seasoned combat pilots, and combat officers tried by fire, this atrocious attrition has been very largely due to the morale-destroying "leadership" provided by the Clinton administration, it is entirely composed of volunteers, many of whom are women, and some of them are mothers (e.g., approximately 10% of the crews aboard our nuclear-powered aircraft carriers are women).  Though the media neglects to mention such things, it is reported by independent observers who have travelled aboard US Navy ships, that sexual immorality is the rule rather than the exception aboard the ships of our naval fleet (interestingly you would not imagine that anyone aboard one of our ships had so much as a sexual thought or impulse, based on the feature reports the major media have provided).  Our combat pilots now include many women.  Our top brass include many women, who have never led troops in combat.  Pride is climactic in the US armed forces at this time, following the engagement in the "war on terror."  Our military is more intensely technology-dependent than ever before ('In technology we trust'), and is softer, as standards have been lowered to sensitively accommodate the influx of women, and permit "equal opportunity" for advancement....  Women now compose a significant minority portion of our combat troops, and contrary to all of the hoopla about sexual harassment, sexual immorality is rampant and pervasive, and sodomy/homosexuality is accepted, tolerated...additionally, "spiritually speaking" Islam is represented and encouraged in our armed forces, along with all manner of "spirituality," e.g., Satanism, occult, new-age, paganism, witchcraft....
  11. And the state of the US's traditional western allies is no better than ours.
  12. The US depleted a huge portion of its stockpile of conventional weapons during the Gulf War in a matter of mere weeks; it has done so again, this time in the grandiose bombing of the desolation of Afghanistan; can it trust that its new allies, e.g., Russia & China, will actively support it, or at least not attack it, when it has exhausted its conventional war munitions in the desolation of Iraq?  Russia's Putin was #2 man in the KGB; Communist regime China has a larger force of military spies operating in the US than the Soviet Union ever did....  "Do you feel lucky, Punk?"  "Make my day!"
  13. But, those of us here in the USA (because we have been carefully indoctrinated to believe such nonsense) know that we are the sole world super-power, and God is on our side, and that we can easily overthrow Saddam's Iraqi regime, the only question is whether we should, and how much it will cost (it's the economy stupid!).   

So, what can we make of this?  The Clinton-Rodham-Clinton/Gore administration did everything in its power to destroy the capability of the US armed forces to defend the US against the super-powers, Russia & China, while it did everything in its power to strengthen the ability of China to attack the US, and the ability of the UN to compete with the US and control the US, dare I say enslave the US.  Additionally, the Clinton administration focused the US military on a radically new mission, that of preparing and rehearsing the US armed forces to wage war against the civilian population of the United States of America, but specifically against certain targeted groups seen as being historically especially troublesome, i.e., devout Christians, and patriot militia-men, i.e., the descendants of the only people that fought and won the war of independence, referred to as the Revolutionary War (which they fought to free the American Colonies from despotic tyranny).  The Bush Administration has continued this "modern" military theme, using the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the resulting "war on terror" as the reasonable justification to do so.  The military base closings continue, the canceling of "old-style" or "old-thinking" weapons systems (e.g., the state-of-the-art Challenger mobile artillery piece), the praising, promoting, and glorifying of employing women as soldiers, combat troops, and officers, to militarily "defend" the USA and its vital interests around the world, including the now invariable indoctrinating lie, referring to the "men and women who have died" while fighting for or defending America throughout its history (all the better to mold impressionable minds and souls), the embracing of a value-neutral morality, the espousing of a truth-neutral spirituality....  And now we have an ever expanding police-state with the worst of all things at the helm (other than an evil genius, that is), i.e., a diligent, conscientious, energetic, smart, capable, patriotic, christian politician-statesman, who (some would say, sold his soul) swore up and down repeatedly, emphatically that he would aggressively prosecute and enforce evil laws on the books of the USA, contrary to his personal beliefs, if confirmed as Attorney General! 

. The Bush Administration will launch a war against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.  While the attack of Hussein's regime will not be undertaken for domestic political reasons, the timing will likely reflect the "real-politik" understanding that #43's position/popularity is greatly strengthened by being a "War-Time President," and the fact that a major factor in #41's failed  reelection was that Operation Desert Storm ended too long before the Presidential reelection campaign season of 1992.  The initial US attack force will likely consist of a force of approximately 50,000 crack troops that can be wielded into battle with unprecedented speed, and if our stealth and surprise do not shock, stun, demoralize, and destroy Hussein's forces, we will follow-up with 200,000 reinforcements.  But the unimagined, let alone unasked, question is whether there will be 50,000 troops surviving for our larger body of troops to reinforce.  If President Bush's war against Saddam succeeds with minimal American casualties, #43 will likely be reelected (albeit with a more politically advantageous Vice Presidential running mate than Dick Cheney, e.g., Colin Powell or J.C. Watts, Jr.); but if the American casualties mount to the heavens, #43 will have to hand the reins to a successor, e.g., Hillary Rodham-Clinton.  Que sera sera, i.e., what will be, will be.

Surprisingly, it seems as if the Bush administration has determined that attacking Iraq in Fall 2002, is necessary to maintain political control in the Governorships, the House of Representatives, and to regain control in the Senate, and thus to keep from operating as a lame-duck President for the remainder of President Bush's first term, which would render him very vulnerable to defeat in 2004; thus it appears that the timing of the attack Iraq tact has been pushed forward.

. Tie a yellow ribbon round the old oak tree, it's been ... long years, will you still love me?

Occasionally I think while standing up, walking, or even chewing gum, though I can't say I necessarily do my best thinking while exerting myself in these ways - Editor/Ed.

Boys are so silly, I prefer to do my deep thinking, reflection, ruminating, and meditation, while I am reclining at length in the tub, preferably with several servants to attend to my every whim and need.  [One must be careful to only think in moderation while soaking, though, lest one should turn into a prune!]  Umm, I wonder if those silly hunky stone-age boys are thinking about me?  If they think they can use me like I'm some worthless disposable thing, they've got another thing coming! 

{No, bathing beauty.  If I had a lady like you to think about (but a little less "hard-bodied"), I wouldn't manage to think of anything else.  It is true, God does work in mysterious ways.}

Editor's PostScript Page & Editor's Commentaries hyperlink list

Editor's PostScript Page - theme

Al's secret to his superior thinking - sitting down.

 Ah yes, now I see the resemblance between Albert Einstein and CBM's Editor, they are both hard-bodied hunks (almost as if chiseled out of stone) and undeniably dreamers.



what's a hunk, am i a hunk too?  boy, i think that lady has the right idea, a relaxing soak in the tub home (toc)

ok you little feller, but while you are splashing around, pretend you are winston churchill, and not a seal.

going up? (top of page)