Part two: A family letter from an “Old Soldier”

By MGen (Ret) P.J. Mitchell

Hi Sis:

As I mentioned in my first letter (items 1 to 5), the situation has highlighted the Rumsfeld blunder in limiting the number of troops initially committed. Nevertheless, considerable progress has been made in restoring order as well as the national infrastructure. The escalation of violence at election time and now, during early attempts by the new Iraqi government to take control, has mostly been generated and supported by the influx of extremists from neighbouring Muslim nations.

6. Restoration. To understand what’s happening in Iraq, other than casualties and the incessant media use of the term “body bags”, one must remember that the media focus seems always on the bad news. For example, the fact that about one-third of the coalition forces in Iraq have been employed rebuilding infrastructure has never been fairly reported.

You will not learn from the media that hundreds of schools have been reopened or that the power grid has been restored to a level unknown in the Saddam years. You will not hear about the restoration of sanitary sewers and potable water supply in the major centres or the rebuilding of telecommunication services.

There’s been some coverage of the restoration of the oil industry, the main source of national revenue and hope for economic strength, probably because the terrorists occasionally manage to blow a hole in one of the pipelines. Thankfully, at least we’ve had coverage of the formation and training of Iraqi police and military units. These have become increasingly effective in spite of being targeted by extremists.

7. The Oil Canard. Many Bush critics claim that the invasion was all about oil. It’s a red herring. The merging of Iraqi oil into the OPEC system benefits only Iraq, not the U.S.A. except as an OPEC customer. However, oil definitely was the key issue for France and Russia in the prelude to the war. It is no secret that French and Russian oil interests developed the Iraqi oil fields for Saddam, an extremely expensive undertaking. Saddam owed them tens of billions of dollars (U.S.) for making him an enormous personal profiteer in exported oil.

Those huge debts, of course, are the main reason French and Russian leaders argued so hotly against direct action by the Americans and refused to join the coalition. They insisted on U.N. sanctions only, those same sanctions which were putting untold millions into their national oil companies, Saddam’s palaces as well as his Swiss bank account and, disgracefully, the hands of dishonest U.N. officials. The fall of Saddam ended their huge profits from the Iraqi oil venture but not to their anti-war, anti-American invective. Despite Islamist terrorist activities within their own borders, France and Russia have not been helpful in facing the threat.

8. What Next? The Muslim states of the Middle East are enormously disturbed by the American presence in their midst and Iran has taken the lead in promoting and supporting the flood of extremists into the centres of terrorist activity in Iraq. The Ayatollahs are not at all pleased about the introduction of democratic ideals and government in Iraq, right in the Islamic heartland. Their aim is to sponsor Islamic fundamentalist government in all those Muslim territories first, then in the Western world as well. That large American footprint upsets their grand strategy.

It is no coincidence that Iran is accelerating the development of a nuclear capability at this time and has already built missiles that can accommodate nuclear warheads. These projects are being pursued in spite of futile U.N. efforts to stop them and the blandishments of European Union nations aimed at diverting them into nuclear power generation. There is no fanatic like a religious fanatic and nuclear weapons with delivery systems would make those Iranian Ayatollahs a fearful menace.

They have already threatened to obliterate Israel, which is within range of their missiles. Hopefully, before the Iranians reach the stage where a nuclear strike against Israel would be possible, the Israelis will take out their capability with a pre-emptive strike like the one against Baghdad in 1981. I just don’t believe that Israel will tolerate a nuclear strike capability in the hands of those fanatics in Tehran.

9. The Canadian Context. The Islamist threat is real but only seems to be recognized by a few leaders like Bush and Blair. The Canadian government seems to be set on minimizing the problem and doing as little as possible, such as the minimal participation in Afghanistan. At home it won’t even crack down on the Tamil Tigers, a known terrorist group which extorts money from the Tamil community to support its murderous activities in Sri Lanka. Worse yet, considering our lax immigration and security systems, an al-Qaeda presence in Canada is a certainty. Suspected members have already been detected conducting reconnaissance of potential targets such as nuclear power plants in Ontario.

And, of course, we are still awaiting some sign of the Muslim population and authorities in Canada objecting to the activities of their fanatical religious brethren.

10. Conclusion. Well, Sis, this ends my assessment of the situation. It sounds pretty grim but Islamic fundamentalism is a serious threat that cannot be ignored and cannot be defeated by half measures or by appeasement. An enemy, even an elusive and wide-ranging one like Islamism, must be confronted and strategy developed to eventually defeat him. Deny him time to prepare more mischief. Go after him on his own ground like the Blair/Bush coalition has done in Afghanistan and Iraq. Keep hitting him. Offensive action is the key. It is far better to fight him in Iraq than in New York.

The soft approach of the Canadian government, which has allowed multiculturalism and political correctness to overcome courage and common sense, will not work. Canada has been targeted by Osama and, sooner or later, al-Qaeda fund raising in Canada will escalate to terrorist atrocities in our cities.

Cheers,

Pat

Top

Index