The View From 1776

John Kerry: Latest Perspective on Iraq

The ever-changing (aka flip-flopping) Senator Kerry gives us his latest straight scoop on Iraq.
Thomas E. Brewton

1. "Historically it is absolutely false to say that there is no military solution to a political problem. “

   After writing that Mr. Brewton mentions something that happened in Egypt 5000 years ago as though it would apply to today’s world. That is what bugs me about much of Brewton’s analysis, whether with the Constitution or with his referrals to historic events. He lives in the past and thus thinks past methods are sufficient enough to run this world. He does not grow with the times. He is stuck in a time warp.

   He is to much of a TRADITIONALIST for this world. The world would collapse if it followed his stale and worn out arguments and solutions.

   Posted by  on  12/31  at  12:39 PM

2. This is part one of a comment posted for Don Robertson:

   Mr. Brewton-
    
   First, let me introduce myself.  I’m as old as John Kerry.  I voted for GWB in 2000, and holding my nose voted for JK in the last election simply as a vainly hoped for lesser of two evils change of course.  There wasn’t much choice yet again in 2004.
    
   I supported GWB right up until, quite incredulously for me, U.S. troops crossed the Iraqi border in their race into what I perceived then was going to turn into our own Palestinian-like conflict begging for a Boxer Rebellion.  These people in the ME, all think we’re barbarians, and we are, especially in their eyes.
    
   I’ve since read a bit more about how the British got themselves into India, and controlled that much larger and more heavily populated country with far fewer troops, and with a strategy that could have worked in even post-Saddam Iraq.
    
   We’ve had none of that leadership though with GWB, and no doubt we wouldn’t have gotten any of it out of JK either.
    
   Now as I’ve said, I’m as old as JK and GWB as well.  I’ve been married longer than both of them.  How our country dredged up through the political process two such men for political leadership in this country is beyond my need to undertand the given of a general mean of mass stupidity.
    
   When you get to be my age, you’ll find yourself trying to relate to such figures as you surmise they must have been when when they were younger, and in their more formative college years, where all their faults congealed.  These two schleps both would’ve carried non-virtual placards as undergrads that read on one side, Waste of Time, and on the other, Waste of Effort.
    
   Neither of these two men represent a success story, or even an admirable story, they both are the tainted scum rising to the surface of American politics because the American people in all their infinite wisdom are just simply incapable of choosing much better.  The founding fathers limited suffrage for a reason, and a damned good one too.
    
   It is part of our history, like Bill Clinton, GHWB, Ronald Reagan and Jimmie Carter.  I remember Einsenhower fondly, as a man incapable in the beginning, but able to learn to keep his nose out of trouble, a good soldier, and the last truly affable American politician in my time.
    
   Unfortunately I read history, especially dated history texts right along with philosophy, also dated, and just about everything else that is non-fiction and dated.  I refuse to read anything written within the last twenty years unless it is on the back of a can.
    
   As such I will proclaim for you the only able politician of the latter half of the 20th Century has to be Fidel Castro, for his restrained fiscal policies, and his lucky ability to keep his country from being rushed headlong into what passes for modernization.  He was at least an essentially benificent dictator by his effect upon his country.  I personally don’t care about his detractors one bit, what he nationalized, or anyone he had killed either.  Such is life. 
    
   Those who doubt his ability should compare Cuba to DR and Haiti, or even Florida, his three closest neighbors.  In historic terms Fidel comes out on top by miles and miles regardless of his methods, ideology or friends.  Of which, Khrushchev was doubtless his greatest mentor, the man who in one of the most selfless acts in modern history pulled the world back from the brink of nuclear disaster and war threatened by a megalomaniacal JFK, no doubt puffed up at the time on 1960s era pharmaceuticals, Darvon or some such other, and a real threat to the world.  To the moon!  Alice!  To the moon!  What a jerk.  You’re probably too young.
   As for your methodology, “Isn?t the better part of wisdom to play a chess game with a series of moves intricately related, each offering optional strategies if results of each step are not what is desired?” you’re a clever boy, but one who could use some coaching.
    
   Think hockey, it is far more intricate than chess, but just as much a thinking man’s game for the coach and the few players good enough to play defense.  In chess, the movement of the chessmen alternates.  In hockey all the players move all the time. quite like the real game you’re describing.
    
   As a hockey coach you want your players to let the other guy make his mistakes, not to watch your players make theirs.  Also, in hockey, one of the coach’s responsibilities is to keep fresh legs on the ice.  To accomplish this it is necessary to teach your players not to make a lot of flashy rushes up the ice that wear them out, and produce few goals, and moreso, expose your own goalie to serious problems in your own end of the ice.
    

    

   Posted by  on  12/31  at  03:31 PM

3. Part two of a comment posted for Don Robertson:

   The rush to Baghdad was one such flashy move. 
    
   The American troops once in Baghdad, were immediately surrounded and have been on the defense awaiting the day when the insurgents find a way to pound the Green Zone flat, which has to be, short of dressing soldiers in red uniforms and having them march three abreast thoughout guerrilla territory with muskets on their shoulders, the dumbest military strategy of the last two millennium.
    
   If there was a need to invade Iraq, and there wasn’t such a need, all military objectives could have been achieved by taking control of a small part of the Shiite region in the south, and sending the Shiites into Baghdad to get Saddam with our air support, and, as our troops pulled back across the border well out of harm’s way.  Hey, if they want to be liberated, then let them liberate themselves with our help, right?

   Occupation of Iraq as it developed made about as much sense as telling every player of your hockey team, including your goalie, to spend all their time in the opposing team’s end of the ice.
    
   You then go on to say astutely, “After all, we are playing on a chess board with multiple opponents and partners - Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Al Queda, and Iraqi shiites, sunnis, and Kurds - each with his own strategic aims."  which is a good observation, if something of a given with no real strategy behind it.
    
   Noting your observation, the obvious correct strategy, was to make the goals of the overwhelming majority of these opponents your goals.  That is how the British played in India, and it worked.
    
   By building alliances with all the “bad guys” you effectively control the game.  Motivating these bad guys to do what you would like to see happen then, is just a matter of working with them, one at a time, instead of trying to fight them all at once, which is the case of the conduct of the Iraq war, just as it has been a case of trying to fight one opponent not knowing if and when one of the other opponents would undercut those efforts.
    
   You state, “It?s worried about opening the flood gates to Iranian domination of the Middle East that would give it the power to choke off oil supplies to the Western world and ignite ruinous inflation."  which is being a bit too kind to the Bush Administration.
    
   The intent behind this war was to take control of Iraq’s oil, as noted by the immediate voiding of Russian and French oil contracts, and putting those oil resources directly into the hands of American oil interests with ties to key Whitehouse oil-interest operatives.
    
   And the war was also about getting the “man who tried to ill my daddy,” and killing by far, more innocents than Saddam killed when the Kurds tried to kill him.  It is a small world, isn’t it?
    
   Even more remarkable in this bungled attempt however, is that it is not about oil at all.  It is actually about controlling the world economy that is so dependent upon oil, it is its life’s blood.
    
   I do not think I have heard GWB more than once mention conservation, which is the most effective tool to remove the strategic danger of the need for these oil resources.  The truth is, the U.S. within six months could conserve as much oil as would be necessary to keep oil imported from the ME flowing as fast as they could sell it, but this would not continue control of the world economy, nor advance U.S oil company interests, is the thinking here.
   It used to be thought what was good for GM was good for the country.  The current moronic thinking is, what is good for Big Oil is good for the country, especially in a global economy.  It is an illusion however.
    
   I could continue on for too long, and likely already have.  So I’ll close with this.
   It isn’t politics at all.  It is philosophy.  The current abhorrent mental paradigm in the U.S. intelligensia is mired in a Libertarian ethic.  They want the damned gold standard revived, and, they want free trade as long as they can continue calling the shots, at which point they want war to continue calling the shots.  They think in the past without learning what the past tells us about the future.  The country is bankrupt and the dollar is worthless is the current Chicken Little rant.
    

   Posted by  on  12/31  at  03:32 PM

4. Part three of a comment posted for Don Robertson:

   Well, if the dollar is worthless, then why do we have record trade deficits every quarter?  Are not those goods pouring into our country being paid for with dollars?  Worthless dollars?
   I rhetorically asked an Iranian business pal of mine the other day, Can you spend U.S. dollars on the streets of Tehran?  He literally choked at the stupidity of my rhetorical query, telling me if you held out in one hand U.S. dollars in one hand and Iranian money, a proprietor would smile ear to ear and reach very quickly for the dollars.
    
   So, you see, convential wisdom, the stupidity on the streets of the U.S. and in the lecture halls of our esteemed universities is no different than what was being passed when I was in college in the Sixties, Those who can’t, teach.  And mostly what they teach is bullshit.  When I was in college in Boston they taught socialism bullshit.
    
   The U.S. should pull out of Iraq come what may, but, unlike what happened after we pulled out of Vietnam, the U.S. should keep the U.S. dollars flowing into Iraq.  We can control Iraq with U.S. dollars a hell of a lot more cheaply than we can by sending in the U.S. military.  And, if and when we withdraw, if we don’t keep the dollars flowing into Iraq, we’ll lose not just credibility, we’ll lose control of Iraq too.  That was the effect of sanctions on our man Saddam.
    
   John Kerry and John McCain were once U.S. military, almost top shelf, and if that doesn’t tell you anything about sending in the military, you ought to enlist yourself.
    
   One last thing, “Iran earnestly desires to dominate Iraq."  Yeh?  And, Red China will control all of Southeast Asia if we pull out of Vietnam too. 
    
   B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T is how you spell it.
    
   You don’t honestly think the Iraqis are going to let a bunch of Persians move in and marry their daughters do you?  The border between Iraq and Iran is one of the only real borders in the whole region.  All the rest were made up by the Brits when they controlled the region.
    
   Don Robertson, The American Philosopher
   Limestone, Maine
   An Illustrated Philosophy Primer for Young Readers
   http://www.geocities.com/donaldwrobertson/index.html

   Posted by  on  12/31  at  03:33 PM

5. Of what little I read above reinforces what I am talking about, that Brewton and his people put our world today in the context of the past. And that is no way of explaining what is going on today.

   Posted by  on  12/31  at  07:03 PM