A family letter from an ‘Old Soldier’

Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe. -- Albert Einstein.

By MGen (Ret) P. J. Mitchell

Dear Eileen:

First, thank you for filling in the rest of the family on my medical treatment. Next, here’s the point of view of a bunch of old soldiers on the George Bush - Tony Blair war against terrorism.

1. The Big Picture. Much of the Western industrialized world has still not awakened to the harsh reality that the Islamist hordes have declared war on us. 9/11 was their most spectacular and deadliest assault, but only one of many. In spite of a long series of atrocities in Asia and Africa, the never ending slaughter in Israel/Palestine, and even the recent incidents on the Spanish railway and in French synagogues, the “soft power” socialists of Western Europe still won’t accept the fact that we are at war.

Even the first waves of Islamist activity in Russia and the Western regions of China have not convinced them. They continue to put their faith in the UN, which has not solved a problem in decades. The UN has degenerated into an ineffectual debating society wherein the Third World nations, including many Muslim theocratic dictatorships, score political and publicity points by ganging up on the free world nations whom they outnumber by far. Thus, any effective action is forestalled and there is no prospect of a UN generated solution to Islamist extremism.

2. 9/11. This was a clear signal that the war was on and would be pursued vigorously by Osama and his followers. What was the reaction? Most of mainland Europe, led by France and Germany, clearly felt that the American “bully” had brought it on himself and it was his problem.

Russia, having been driven from Afghanistan by the Mujehedeen, showed no interest in fighting Muslims except in Chechnya. Our Canadian leader opined, with brilliant strategic insight, that we had not been nice enough to “dose people over dere”.

Only George Bush recognized the global threat, organized a coalition of nations and took action. Afghanistan was invaded, the Taliban routed, Osama driven into hiding and a democratically elected government installed. Today, the new government struggles for control and the country is not yet totally pacified. Warlords prevail in some areas and Osama is still on the loose. However, the situation is a quantum leap forward from the Taliban regime with its murderous Sharia law and the absolute degradation and persecution of women.

It is noteworthy that, since the ousting of the Taliban and with the continued pursuit of Osama by coalition special forces, there have been no Islamist assaults in the U.S.A. It is also significant that continuing military and restoration operations are being conducted under the aegis of NATO rather than the feckless, dithering UN, just as in the Balkans.

3.Iraq. Why invade Iraq? Assuming al-Quaeda and the rest of the Muslim fundamentalists are a global threat, which is apparent, and putting aside Western political and personality factors for a moment, the invasion of Iraq was clearly a strategic master stroke. It has placed a very large and primarily American/British boot right in the centre of the Arab/Islamic heartland. Imagine the discomfiture in the Arab/Muslim regimes surrounding Iraq, none of which are noted for liberal or democratic institutions.

It has disturbed them mightily and, of course, it explains why Iraq has been flooded by Islamic extremists from those nations, all determined to drive the Western “crusaders” from their territory. They fear the implantation of any seeds of individual rights or secular government as opposed to the Muslim theocratic model.

4. Why Not Iraq? It is an old military maxim that the best defense is an offence. 9/11 demanded bold counter moves against a fanatical enemy and Osama’s home base in Afghanistan was an obvious first target.

What next? Even after the defeat of the Taliban, the major players in Europe were still pretending that the Islamist threat was an American problem and, in any case, no action should be taken outside the auspices of the UN. The UN dithered, as did the Canadian government and many others. The Bush/Blair team recognized that the war had just begun and went for the Arab/Islamist throat in the Middle East.

Why Iraq? Consider the record. For more than a generation, Saddam enslaved and brutalized his people. His military and secret police outdid the Nazis and the mass graves to prove it are still being unearthed. He stockpiled nerve gas, a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) and, but for timely Israeli intervention, would have deployed nuclear weapons.

Saddam invaded Iran in 1981 and, in the ten years of war that followed, he used nerve gas repeatedly against Iranian troops. He used it again to destroy all 5,000 inhabitants of a village in the restive Kurdish region. Years of UN discussion and searching for WMD in Iraq, was nonsense. Saddam had them and used them.

After he was driven out of Kuwait in 1991, he tried repeatedly to shoot down American and British aircraft patrolling the UN regulated no-fly zones in Iraq. With the connivance of UN officials, he corrupted the UN mandated oil for food programme to enrich himself and a number of the French and Russian players involved in Iraqi oil production. His people went hungry. He actively encouraged fundamentalist terrorism in the region by financially rewarding the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Indeed, why not Iraq – Saddam and his odious regime had to go.

5. The Invasion. Carrying the fight against terrorism into the Islamic heartland was no mistake. The mistake was how it was done. The U.S. military recommended an invasion force of about 240,000. The Defense Secretary, besotted with the unproven Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA), which postulates that high technology weapons and equipment dramatically reduce the manpower requirement in battle, insisted on 100,000 fewer soldiers. Unfortunately, the Defense Secretary prevailed. So the initial battle went well and the Iraqi Army folded under the “hi-tech” assault.

However, there were not enough troops to clear that nasty Sunni triangle near Baghdad or to seal the borders. That’s what the extra 100,000 troops would have made possible. Instead, Iraq has been flooded by Muslim extremists and the coalition forces are severely stretched trying to root out the many pockets of resistance while under the constant threat of suicide and bomb strikes in the major centres and on the supply routes.

Consequently, casualty rates have been higher than they would have been if the civilian Defense Secretary had listened to his military planners.

I’m not finished yet, Sis, but I have to go and bake a cake. I’ll send the rest of the story in my next letter.

Cheers,

Pat

Top

Index