What’s the message?

Msg. Oct 3, 2006; RE: Wimpy Rambos/

Watch an introduction to Obsession: Radical Islams War Against the West 


“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil….

…Is for good men to do nothing.”

 Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

Irish philosopher, statesman

I think a good response from the Democrats or any other American would be an expression indicating a desire to win the war against “Militant Muslim Imperialists.” A war against unlawful, militant, Muslim ideologues that practice world wide terrorism against innocent people and militaries for world domination in the name of a religion. If democrats have that will, and truly believe this country and its citizens are worth protecting, I would sincerely like to hear what their Presidential and Congressional leaders intend to do to win that war. So far all we’ve heard is “…I have a plan…” Is that a plan? All I hear is criticism. Constantly yelling, “I told you so,” using a biased media machine to divulge national security secrets, and politically undermining the war effort, isn’t going to get the job done. Opening the borders wide for anyone to come in here isn’t going to do it ala Georgy, Ted, John, Harry, Nancy, and Turbin Durbin. What is “the plan?!”

The enemy wants the war to slow down. It’s to their advantage to drag it on as long as possible. They like to see our congress bicker and filibuster and do nothing. They know and we know they can’t beat us militarily. So they use our divisiveness and the constant drum beat of mob intimidation and death.  The unpopularity of daily killing by a thousand cuts in order to force the American public and western democracies to capitulate and turn away and refuse to look at the daily grind of more death,  because it is so frightening and horrific. The Muslim attack is insidious and imperialistic. They’ve been at it for over a thousand years; convert to Islam or die! They promote a primitive ideology with modern criminology, communications, and weapons technology.  It’s a social, propaganda and economic war in addition to an unconventional battlefield. We’ll deal with that, for now.

However, when one introduces the fact and existence of strategic nuclear weaponry into the equation, somehow the charge that we’re just being frightened and lied to by the Bush administration for political purposes doesn’t ring true. Especially, when you see the rogue state nuclear proliferation that has been escalating since the seventies occurred during Democrat and Republican Presidencies and majorities in congress. And, most of that time it has been a Democrat Party dominated congress.

It’s easy to blame everything for the last fifty years, on George Bush, in hindsight. Yes, he is clumsy and inarticulate. He makes a lot of mistakes and so does his staff. And so do we, the American citizens.  If we don’t pay attention and start fighting this war as one nation, we may wake up on another beautiful clear September morning watching news reports from CNN and FOX on TV that reveal an immense explosion and a large mushroom cloud; billowing above the skies of LA. Perhaps, within minutes of that will be, multiple nuclear attacks on other major cities. There and then, if we’re still alive, we’ll be left with only the thought that a house divided shall surely fall. And, the morbid speculation about what devastation remains below the shadow of all that smoke.

Then, once again, we’ll soon see the good ole Democrat & Republican congressman on TV the next day holding hands, shoulder to shoulder, shaking in their shoes, singing “…God Bless America…, [somebody please save our ass]!

Shortly after that,  our youngest and brightest will run to our rescue to do our killing, while “we,” and our sensational mongering media criticize and undermine everything and every mission they attempt. It is interesting to note, “we” demand that the military spell out and perform under the conditions that will make us feel better. Regardless if we win or lose or how unpopular war is, we’ll feel better about someone else fighting and dying for us because it will have been a “sensitive” and “compassionate” war with strict “rules of disengagement.” “Rules,” that require criminal prosecution and imprisonment of soldiers doing their job; killing and imprisoning our lethal enemy! “Rules,” that allow illegal enemy combatants captured on the battlefield to plea their cases in our domestic courts because they don’t like the menu and barking dogs, or the edition of the Quran they were issued, or the fact that we’re not happy with them, or ACLU lawyers that petition our courts and would wantonly bring our criminal justice system to a screeching halt with their frivolous litigation. The threats from within our country are near as lethal and potentially damaging as those without.

It has been known for a long time that the threat of rogue nations acquiring nuclear weapons was a threat to the entire world. Yet, the Useless Nations does nothing but smile and debate and line their pockets with gold or oil or whatever.  If the western democracies and honorable nations of the world won’t stand up for their mutually assured survival, against these “evil-doers” then we are left to our own resources and strategies. Let’m have Europe the Middle East and  Africa, no one else seems to care! The Chinese and Russians don’t seem to be worried. They all say we’re dumb, ugly, unsophisticated, and war mongers anyway. Yet, just like we do our own men and women in uniform, they love to have the luxury of someone else (U.S.) to do their killing for them. So they can afford to sit around and act as if they are so much more cultured and civilized because they refuse to indulge in such barbaric behavior.

It would be sheer terror for all of  Europe, Africa, and parts of the Middle East to see our flag, on their far distant horizon,  in the lead and the beloved back side of everyone of our American Soldiers overseas in preparation for transport to their homeland. WAKE UP AMERICA?! WAKE UP WORLD!!! YOU WANT PEACE AND PEACE KEEPERS? LETS SEE IF YOU CAN DO IT WITHOUT BIG BAD OLE EVIL AMERICA MESS’N EVERYTHING UP FOR YA!!! YOU’VE CERTAINLY BEEN GIVEN EVERY














Another Infidel

PS And proud of it!


October 28, 2006 - Posted by | Islamo Fascism

1 Comment »

  1. This was such an excellent and informed analysis of the Defense Department pre and post invasion policy effecting the war in Iraq. I appreciated the former General’s perspective and insight so much I felt it should be shared on this blog. Perhaps you’ll agree?
    Dead Messenger
    Attached Message
    Gen Zais On US Strategy In Iraq . . . or Lack Thereof
    Mon, 13 Nov 2006 12:08 PM
    I think that this Gen. Zais is the son of Gen. Mel Zais, with whom I served
    back in the 50’s. It surely does sound like him. In any even, this guy is
    dead-on in my opinion. He doesn’t offer a solution to the present problem in
    this piece, but he does explain it’s birthing better than I have heard.
    Rummy has certainly torn up our Army, and I hope it will start to be
    repaired —- SOONEST! Doug.
    From: President
    Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 11:12 AM
    To: Faculty; Staff
    Faculty and staff:
    A number of you have asked me for copies of my remarks today at the
    honors convocation. They are below. I will also ask Casey Banks to submit
    them to the Newberry Observer for publication. But it may be too long for
    them. We’ll see.
    Mitchell M. Zais, Ph.D.
    President, Newberry College
    2100 College Street
    Newberry, SC 29108
    US Strategy in Iraq
    Honors Convocation
    Newberry College
    9 November 2006
    Mitchell Zais
    Many of our faculty and staff have asked me my views about the current
    situation in Iraq. A few students have also asked. So I thought I would
    take this opportunity, two days before Veterans’ Day, to provide you with
    some insights as seen from the perspective of a combat veteran who served as
    the Commanding General of US and allied forces in Iraq. I also served as
    Chief of War Plans in the Pentagon and have spent considerable time studying
    national security affairs, including a fellowship at the National Defense
    University. So while it’s true that everyone has opinions about Iraq, I
    would argue that not all of those opinions are equally well-informed.
    This talk will address our strategy in Iraq. I won’t talk about what the
    next steps should be, what the long-term prospects for peace in Iraq are, or
    how we can best get out of the quagmire we are in. Those might be other
    talks. For today I’m going to focus on strategy
    Let me begin by saying that most of our problems in Iraq stem from a flawed
    strategy that has been in place since the beginning of the war.
    It’s important that you understand what strategy is. In military
    terminology there is a distinction between strategy, operations, tactics,
    and techniques.
    Strategy pertains to national decision-making at the highest level. For
    example, our strategy in World War II was to mobilize the nation, then
    defeat the Nazi regime while conducting a holding action in the Pacific,
    then shift our forces to destroy the Japanese Empire. Afterwards, our
    strategy was to rebuild both defeated nations into capitalistic democracies
    in order to make them future allies.
    An example of an operational decision from World War II would be the
    decision to invade North Africa and then Italy and Southern France before
    moving directly for the heart of Germany by coming ashore in Northern France
    or Belgium.
    Tactics characterize a scheme of maneuver that integrates the different
    capabilities of, for example, infantry, armor, and artillery.
    A technique might describe a way of employing machine guns with overlapping
    fields of fire or of setting up a roadblock.
    Our strategy in Iraq has been:
    1. fight the war on the cheap;
    2. ask the ground forces to perform missions that are more suitably
    performed by other branches of the American government;
    3. inconvenience the American people as little as possible, and
    4. continue to fund the Air Force and Navy at the same levels that they
    have been funded at for the last 30 years while shortchanging the Army and
    Marines who are doing all of the fighting.
    No wonder the war is not going well.
    Let me explain how the war is being fought on the cheap.
    From the very beginning, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who thankfully
    announced his departure yesterday, has striven to minimize the number of
    soldiers and Marines in Iraq. Instead of employing the Colin Powell
    doctrine of “use massive force at the beginning to achieve a quick and
    decisive victory,” his goal has been “use no more troops than absolutely
    necessary so we can spend defense dollars on new technology.”
    Before hostilities began, the Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki, testified
    before Congress that an occupation of Iraq would require hundreds of
    thousands of soldiers. Shinseki made his estimate based on his extensive
    experience in the former Yugoslavia where he worked to disengage the warring
    factions of Orthodox Serbians, Catholic Croatians, and Muslim Kosovars.
    Shinseki also had available the results of a wargame conducted in
    1999 that involved 70 military, diplomatic, and intelligence officials.
    This recently declassified study concluded that 400,000 troops on the ground
    were needed to keep order, seal borders, and take care of other security
    needs. And even then stability would not be guaranteed.
    Because of his testimony before Congress, Rumsfeld moved Shinseki aside. In
    a nearly unprecedented move, to replace Shinseki, Rumsfeld recalled from
    active duty a retired general who was more likely to accept his theory that
    we could win a war in Iraq and establish a stable government with a small
    number of troops.
    The Defense Department has fought the war on the cheap because, despite
    overwhelming evidence that the Army and Marine Corps need a significant
    increase in their size in order to accomplished their assigned missions, the
    civilian officials who run the Pentagon have refused to request
    authorization from Congress to do so. Two Democratic representatives, Mark
    Udall from Colorado and Ellen Tauscher of California, have introduced a bill
    into Congress that would add 80,000 troops to the end-strength of the active
    Army. Currently, this bill has no support from the Defense Department.
    When I was commissioned in 1969 the Army was one and a half million.
    Despite the fact that we’re engaged in combat in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in
    the Philippines, and committed to peacekeeping missions in Bosnia, Kosovo,
    and the Sinai, and on operational deployments in over 70 countries, our Army
    is now less than one third that size. We had more soldiers in Saudi Arabia
    in the first Gulf war than we have in the entire Army today. In fact,
    Wal-Mart has three times as many employees as the American Army has
    As late as 1990, Army end-strength was approximately 770,000. With fewer
    than a half-million today, defense analysts have argued that we need to add
    nearly 200,000 soldiers to the active ranks.
    Today, the Army is so bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq that fewer than
    10,000 soldiers are ready and able to deal with any new crisis elsewhere in
    the world. And because the Army is so small, after only a year at home
    units are returning to Iraq for a second and even a third 12-month tour of
    Let me add a parenthetical note here explaining a difference between
    our services. Army tours of duty in Iraq are for 12 or 13 months. For
    Marines it’s normally six months. For Air Force personnel it’s typically
    four months. So when a soldier says he’s going back to Iraq for his third
    tour, it means something totally different than when an airman says the same
    Because the active force is too small, the mission of our National Guard and
    reserve forces has been changed. Their original purpose was to save the
    nation in time of peril. Today they serve as fillers for an inadequately
    sized active force. This change in mission has occurred with no national
    debate and no input from Congress.
    We have fought the war on the cheap because we have never adequately funded
    the rebuilding of the Iraqi military or the training and equipping of the
    Iraqi police forces. The e-mails I receive from soldiers and Marines
    assigned to train Iraqi forces all complain of their inadequate resources
    because they are at the very bottom of the supply chain and the lowest
    We have fought the war on the cheap because we have failed to purchase
    necessary equipment for our troops or repair that which has been broken or a
    worn out in combat. You’ve all read the stories about soldiers having to
    purchase their own bulletproof vests and other equipment. And the Army
    Chief of Staff has testified that he needs an extra $17 billion to fix
    equipment. For example, nearly 1500 war-fighting vehicles await repair in
    Texas with 500 tanks sitting in Alabama.
    Finally, we are fighting this war on the cheap because our defense
    budget of 3.8% of gross domestic product is too small. In the Kennedy
    administration it averaged 9% of GDP. The average defense budget in the
    post Vietnam era, from 1974 to 1994, was about 5.8% of GDP. If we are in a
    global war against radical Islam, and we are, then we need a defense budget
    that reflects wartime requirements.
    A second part of our strategy is to ask the military to perform missions
    that are more appropriate for other branches of government.
    Our Army and Marine Corps are taking the lead in such projects as building
    roads and sewage treatment plants, establishing schools, training a neutral
    judiciary, and developing a modern banking system. The press refers to
    these activities as nation-building. Our soldiers and Marines are neither
    equipped nor trained to do these things. They attempt them, and in general
    they succeed, because they are so committed and so obedient. But it is not
    what they do well and what only they alone can do.
    But I would ask, where are our Department of Energy and Department of
    Transportation in restoring Iraqi infrastructure? What’s the role of our
    Department of Education in rebuilding an Iraqi educational system? What
    does our Department of Justice do to help stand up an impartial judicial
    system? Where is the US Information Agency in establishing a modern
    equivalent of Radio Free Europe? And why did it take a year after the end
    of the active fighting for the State Department to assume responsibility
    from the Department of Defense in setting up an Iraqi government? These
    other US government agencies are only peripherally and secondarily involved
    in Iraq.
    Actually, it would be inaccurate to say that the American government is at
    war. The U.S. Army is at war. The Marine Corps is at war. And other small
    elements of our armed forces are at war. But our government is not.
    A third part of our strategy is to inconvenience the American people as
    little as possible.
    Ask yourself, are you at war? What tangible effect is this war having on
    your daily life? What sacrifices have you been asked to make for the sake
    of this war other than being inconvenienced at airports? No, America is not
    a war. Only a small number of young, brave, patriotic men and women, who
    bear the burden of fighting and dying, are at war.
    A fourth aspect of our strategy is to fund Navy and Air Force budgets at
    prewar levels while shortchanging the Marine Corps and the Army that are
    doing the fighting.
    This strategy, of spending billions on technology for a Navy and Air Force
    that face no threat, contributes mightily to our failures in Iraq.
    Secretary Rumsfeld is a former Navy pilot. His view of the battlefield is
    from 10,000 feet, antiseptic and surgical. Since coming into office he has
    funded the Air Force and the Navy at the expense of the Army and Marines
    because he believes technological leaps we’ll render ground forces obsolete.
    He assumed that the rapid victory over the Taliban in Afghanistan confirmed
    this belief.
    For example, the Defense Department is pouring billions into buying the
    newest fighter aircraft, at $360 million each, to take on a non-existent
    enemy Air Force.
    But, for pilots like Rumsfeld, war is all about technology. It’s computers,
    it’s radar, and it’s high tech weapons. Technologists have a hard time
    comprehending the motivations of a suicide bomber or a mother who celebrates
    the death of her son in such a way. It’s difficult for them to understand
    that to overcome centuries of ethnic hatred and murder it will take more
    than one generation. It’s hard for them to accept that for young men with
    little education, no wives or children, and few job prospects, war against
    the West is the only thing that gives meaning to their lives.
    But war on the ground is not conducted with technology. It is fought by
    25-year-old sergeants leading 19-year-old soldiers carrying rifles, in a
    dangerous and alien environment, where you can’t tell combatants from
    noncombatants, Shiites from Sunnis, or suicide bombers from freedom seeking
    Iraqis. This means war on the street is neither antiseptic nor surgical.
    It’s dirty, complicated, and fraught with confusion and error.
    In essence, our strategy has been produced by men whose view of war
    is based on their understanding of technology and machinery, not their
    knowledge of men from an alien culture and the forces which motivate them.
    They fail to appreciate that if you want to hold and pacify a hostile land
    and a hostile people you need soldiers and Marines on the ground and in the
    mud, and lots of them.
    In summary, our flawed strategy in Iraq has produced the situation
    we now face. This strategy is a product of the Pentagon, not the White
    House. And remember, the Pentagon is run by civilian appointees in suits,
    not military men and women in uniform. From the very beginning Defense
    Department officials failed to appreciate what it would take to win this
    The US military has tried to support this strategy because they are trained
    and instructed to be subordinate to and obedient to civilian leadership.
    And the American people want it that way. The last thing you want is a
    uniformed military accustomed to debating in public the orders of their
    appointed civilian masters. But retired generals and admirals are starting
    to speak out, to criticize the strategy that has produced our current
    situation in Iraq.
    But, if we continue to fight the war on the cheap, if we continue to
    avoid involving the American people by asking them to make any sacrifice at
    all, if we continue to spend our dollars on technology while neglecting the
    soldiers and Marines on the ground, and if we fail to involve the full scope
    of the American government in rebuilding Iraq, then we might as well quit,
    and come home. But, what we have now is not a real strategy – it’s business
    as usual.

    Experience is simply the name we give our mistakes.
    — Oscar Wilde

    Comment by urantian | November 16, 2006 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: