Training
the Enemy and Calamity
By
How
many times in AmericaÕs attempt to shape the world order have we provided
training for a foreign constituency only to have that training and military
hardware later be used against us in some new, unforeseen situation? And what kind of giveaway constitutes
training or funding the enemy?
During World War II in the fight to defeat Nazi Germany we ÒloanedÓ ships
and other war material to the Soviet Union. While it aided in the defeat of
Germany, the Soviets kept them during much of the cold war only to return some
of them after they were worn out.
We
provided assistance to our client, the Shaw of Iran, and the Pentagon even
received proposals from Lockheed Corporation to provide the Shaw with a CIA
A-12 spy plane in 1975. In 1978
the Shaw was overthrown in a revolt that brought the Ayatollah Khomeini to
power following an Islamic revolution.
Although Khomeini is dead, this theocracy continues and hovers over a
Òdemocratically electedÓ regime, but the radical Muslim clerics still have the
final word. The anti-American, and
even anti-Western, posture of this regime has been continuous since 1978. The
present Iranian regime continues to taunt our misguided and futile efforts at
bringing order and stability in Iraq, and currently resists international
insistence that they abandon their efforts at developing a nuclear weapon.
We
supported the Mujahadine in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, only to have
parts of that entity become Al-Qaeda and fly airplanes into the World Trade
Center and take 3000 lives.
Following our mistaken invasion of Iraq, the Bush Administration now
seems insistent upon taking sides in an Iraqi civil war, which is largely of our
creation, and we are at present training a new military for a dominantly Shiite
government, which has already become useful in furthering the interests of
Iran. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki, who is trying to get along with
both the U.S. and Iran, has protested that the U.S. and Iran may have their
differences, but he has urged that they be settled outside of Iraq. Iran has been lending support to some
of the Shiite militias and otherwise infiltrating weapons and mischief into
Iraq. And finally, our friends,
the Saudis warned Vice-President Cheney in his recent trip to Saudi Arabia that
if the United States were to withdraw from Iraq that the Saudis would have to
lend support to the Iraqi insurgency.
What next?
The
question is, Òdoes our presence in Iraq ÔattenuateÕ sectarian violenceÓ? If not, would a greater presence do it
better? In other words, how much
military power will it take to Òbring the Iraqis to their sensesÓ? Can we Òteach Ôem a lessonÓ with
overwhelming military force? If
the President could somehow find a magic wand with which he could bring all of
America behind the war effort, and if we instituted a draft, and if Americans
willingly went off to a war mobilization, and if we occupied every square inch
of Iraq with one million plus soldiers and marines with bayonets, and if our
troops exercised terror and ruthlessness in Iraq, would we Òteach Ôem a
lessonÓ? Would this display of military power be successful in stamping out an
idea, however bad, that radical Islam wants to advance? Would America achieve even a fragile
peace? Would the Iraqis learn
their lesson and come to think like us?
Is it a calamity now, or do we need to withdraw to have it be a
calamity? Or, if we stay there and
have more Americans die, is that the calamity? If we are advancing the cause
inadvertently of Moktada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric and the cause of
Iran, is that a calamity, or just a strategy? There is no clarity of purpose and all affects seem
perverse.
2/22/07