Wednesday 10 January 2007

Win, Escalate, or Surrender in Iraq? And Somalia ? Nancy P. again.

Nancy [ "the most powerful woman in the world" ] Pelosi has now warned the US Administration against "escalating the war". Nancy was only an infant when D-Day happened - did 5-year-old Nancy warn FDR against "escalation" ? Or did her politically-active father ? June 1944 in Normandy was certainly a major escalation, and also vital to end the war. The other way to end any war is of course to surrender, give in, run away.

If you will the end, you have to will the means to that end. And the means you use to win are not completely under your control; you have to counter the methods used against you. The level, local deployment, nature, equipment, training and tactics of your forces have to respond to the actual threat facing you - if you really want to win. And similarly the length or location of a campaign is outside your control. You have to defend yourself when and where attacked.

But is winning legitimate ? Or is it even vital ?

That depends. There are 4 types of conflict.

First, where 2 equally legitimate parties are in dispute, each with an equal right to exist, as with 2 neighbors, or capital and labor in a company, or 2 spouses. The terms of the dispute, the height of a boundary fence, the pay rate, the holiday plans next year, etc, are about the details of engagement, not about the existence of the other. The continuance of their working relationship is another good to be preserved, during and after the time of dispute. Here it is important that a "win-win" outcome is achieved, which preserves the existence and respect of both parties. Whether opponents or partners or allies at any given time, they are not enemies. Either to one another, or to the wider community.

Secondly, where both parties are equally illegitimate, as with a "turf-war" between 2 drug-gangs or bomb-gangs. The duty of the police and state in that context is to prevail over both gangs, and when possible, to eliminate both. Here, only a "lose-lose" outcome [for the 2 sets of gangsters] is desirable. Both are not only mutual enemies, but also "enemies of the people".

Thirdly, where one party is itself illegitimate, and the other is legitimate. Here, it is not just the right but the duty of the legitimate party to prevail, such as the State and police against a drug-gang or bomb-gang. Here, only a "win-lose" outcome is acceptable.

Fourthly, where a formerly legitimate party, such as a State, or a political or ethnic or religious group, embarks on a campaign of aggression and becomes, for that specific reason alone, itself illegitimate. As with the Nazi invasion of Poland in Sept, 1939, or the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in Dec, 1941. Here, the only desirable outcome again is a "win-lose" outcome, as in 3 above, where the innocent party prevails. As happened in 1945. Such an aggressor is no mere opponent, but an enemy, and to be defeated. Not tolerated. Not appeased. Not ignored.

If those are the principles, what are the facts in Iraq ?

In Iraq today, there is on one hand, the democratically-elected Government, and against not only it, but also attacking the peoples of that multi-ethnic land, is a collection of disparate armed gangs, [a] some imported Jihadi elements like Zarqawi from Jordan, [b] other native Islamicist Jihadis, [c] some Baath elements, [d] some ex-military or ex-security elements, [e] some Sunni and [f] other Shia elements, with Iranian aid coming to the latter, along with [g] some "ordinary" criminal gangs.
None of these gangs have any right to exist, much less carry on any armed attacks, be they against the democratic Iraqi state, or against civilians, including against Mosques.

Secondly, the Coalition Forces are in Iraq for 3 purposes: [a] to train the Iraq Government Forces to defend their own people from such multi-sourced aggression, and [b] to support those Forces logistically, and [c] to temporarily reinforce the Iraqi Forces in operations against the aggressors - until they have reached and sustained a critical level of capability which enables them to prevail against the threat. Not against "freedom-fighters". Not against "insurgents". But against the enemies of freedom, democracy, and decency.

Thirdly, the threat is concentrated. The 3 Kurdish Provinces in the North are mostly peaceful. The capital, Baghdad, and some Sunni Arab Provinces, like Anbar, are the main threat-area. It therefore makes sense to concentrate Government and Coalition operations, and whatever resources or re-inforcements are needed, on those sectors. Which is what the White House plans.

Fourthly, the more you delay, or limit, a response, the worse the problem becomes. Decisive and effective action, and in good time, is ultimately the easiest course.

Which part of this outline analysis does Nancy not get ? Or reject ? And is it for reasons of ideology, or factual evidence ? Or does Nancy make a "moral equivalence" between the ruthless aggressor and the innocent victims, the civilians and democratic State targeted by the suicide-bombers ?

An Irish woman from Dublin, Margaret Fitzpatrick, spent her adult life in Baghdad, involved in a NGO, married a local, and was kidnapped and beheaded. One of many, mostly Iraqis, so targeted. Does Nancy want decency and democracy to prevail over thoseJihadi beheaders ? Does she stand with the decent, heart-broken Hassan [Arab Sunni] family that Margaret married into, and with the courageous colleagues and friends of Margaret who demonstrated to demand her release ? Or does Nancy turn her back, and walk away ? Screams from Baghdad dont reach San Francisco. Nor will the blood of beheaded Iraqi women pollute the Bay. Is that now to be the new American way ? Or will Nancy, along with the Marines and Army, also bring back the millions of decent Iraqis who voted for democracy ? Remember the Vietnamese "boat-people", Nancy ?

Right now, the Jihadi aggression against Somalia has been routed - by a 4-sided alliance. Kenya seals its border, the Somalian Interim Government Forces, with Ethiopian re-inforcements, pushes the Jihadi enemy southwards, away from the capital, Mogadishu, towards the sealed Kenyan border, while the US Navy deploys off the coast, sealing that escape or supply route, while carrier-based air power supports the Interim Somali Government. And it works - as well as eliminating Jihadi elements responsible for the Embassy bombings. And it is an "escalation". Any problem with that, Nancy ?

The Somalis, or Iraqis, dont demand a new life in some Californian heaven, but only an end to Jihadi hell on their doorstep. For a nation of over 300m to deploy 150,000 personnel is 1 deployed for every 2,000 US population. And the death-rate equals 1 for every 100,000. Is either burden unsustainable ?
My small state, Ireland, lost far more, pro-rata, on UN duty in Lebanon, but nobody ever complained.
Is your problem, Nancy, [a] that you believe in nothing, or [b] that you will pay no price for it, or [c] that your concern stops at the 8th Congressional District boundary, or [d] that you lack the courage to lead, or [e] even the insight, openness, or courage to re-think your old slogans ?

Being the self-proclaimed "most powerful woman in the world" is a tool, an opportunity, not an end in itself. The rest of the world needs power, US power, and your new-found power, to re-inforce the good. Not run the world, not conquer it, not ignore it, just support the forces of decency and humanity, as the US did in 1917 in France, in 1941, in 1950 in Korea.
And remember that the US is the first nation in human history to be formed from emigrants from every people on earth, and rightly still seen as a beacon of hope. Your Congress has Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, 10 not stated, 1 not affiliated members - a microcosm of the world, and a reflection of its truly open, democratic and multi-ethnic character, and of its proud boast as being the "land of the free". Iraq also deserves the freedom to enjoy its own "rainbow", not to be abandoned to Jihadi or Baath tyranny.

The true American spirit was shown in 1936 when 14,000 volunteers went to Spain to resist Hitler's proxy force, Franco's fascist rebels, and 1,000 were Jewish, vastly above their share of the US population. There was not enough democratic "escalation" in 1936 to resist fasicst aggression, and so a huge price was paid later to defeat that same ruthless enemy. Dont walk blindfoled and backwards into the future, Nancy. The Jihadi beheaders are the writing on your wall.

No comments: