| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Are Bush's Critics Right? |
| 2006-08-23 |
| By Tony Blankley We are all aware of the dangerous Middle East conditions the United States faces today after five and half years of President Bush's leadership. So let's consider what the world might well look like if, in his remaining two and a half years, he were to follow the recommendations of his critics. First: America out of Iraq by the end of 2007. We warn the Iraqis to get off their duffs and prepare to be in charge by Dec. 31, 2007. We depart (leaving a couple of divisions in a desert base somewhere in Kuwait -- per John Murtha's over-the-horizon strategy). The Iraqi military and police are still not able to manage. Full-scale civil war breaks out. The Iranians enter to give help to the Shias. The Egyptians, Saudis and other Sunni states lend a hand to help the Iraqi Sunnis. The Kurds declare an independent Kurdistan. The Turks go to war against the Kurds after Kurdish PKK terrorists hit the Turks yet again. The Sunnis try to take a piece of Kurdish oil resources near Kirkuk. The Shia workers, who dominate Saudi's southern oil fields, attack Saudi pipelines in solidarity with Iranian Shia-led fighting in Iraq. Kuwait demands our two divisions immediately leave, as it is arousing the hostility of its population. Qatar makes the same demand, for the same reason, of our naval base. The United States complies. Second: President Bush forces Israel to accept Hezbollah's role as a non-terrorist, social services-based political party in Lebanon. In a special election, Hezbollah combines its support amongst Lebanon's Shias (40 percent of population), with voter intimidation to dominate the next government led by President Hassan Nasrallah. Third: President Bush finally personally "leans on Israel" to negotiate for peace with the Palestinians. No longer in the sway of the "Jewish lobby," Bush threatens to cut off Israel from all dollars, military equipment (including spare parts) and diplomatic support. He threatens economic sanctions if Israel doesn't negotiate a peace with Hamas-led Palestinians. Going beyond President Clinton's peace deal of 2000, which was rejected by Arafat, Hamas demands Israel return to pre-1967 borders, turn over the Golan Heights to Syria, no West Bank occupation (including in suburbs of Jerusalem), the right of return of the first half million Palestinians to Israel proper and turning over Jerusalem to a United Nations mandate. Israel is compelled to agree. They sign the agreement that recognizes two states. On the next day (Nov. 29, 2007 -- 60 years to the day from when the first post-U.N. resolution Arab terrorist attack on Jews occurred and the day the U.N. resolution for an Independent Israel was passed in 1947), Israel is besieged by terrorists and intensively grouped missile attacks on the north by Hezbollah-run Lebanon, on the south from Gaza and in the center from Janin to Hebron in the new state of the Islamic Republic of Palestine. Syria militarily re-occupies the Golan Heights. U.N.- administered Jerusalem becomes, with U.N. acquiescence, a free passage zone for terrorists into Israel. When the Knesset is bombed by terrorists, Israel declares a defensive, existential three-front war against Lebanon, Syria and the Islamic Republic of Palestine. The war escalates fast toward the edge of Israel's conventional military capacity. Fourth: The United States takes the military option off the table regarding Iranian nuclear negotiations. After U.S./French/British-proposed feeble U.N. sanctions are blocked by Russia and China, the world community accepts the reality of Iranian nuclear aspirations, but expects to be able to deter Iran as we did the Soviets for 50 years, should they ever develop such capacity. Just as the CIA had been caught unawares by the speed of Soviet, Chinese, Indian, Pakistani and North Korean atomic bomb development from the 1940s to the 1990s, in the summer of 2007, the CIA in testimony to the Congress admitted that its five- to 10-year prediction of Iranian bomb acquisition was off by four to nine years. This testimony followed by a week Iran's first underground testing of a nuclear device. President Ahmadinejad threatens to unleash the "fire of Allah" should the United States, Turkey, Egypt or Saudi Arabia further intervene in Iraq. The same "fire of Allah" is threatened at the "Zionist Entity" if she doesn't immediately stop her war against Syria, Lebanon and the Islamic Republic of Palestine. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey request immediate publicly acknowledged coverage under the United State's nuclear umbrella -- at least until their joint crash program to develop their own nuclear bombs can be accomplished. The 2008 American presidential campaign revolves around whether to grant such a nuclear guarantee -- in the face of Iran's ongoing terrorist/politico/military hegemonic advance toward the Caspian, Mediterranean and Red Seas. The Democratic presidential candidate is blaming President Bush and the Republicans for both: 1) forcing Israel into an untenable "peace," and 2) the precipitous departure from Iraq -- both actions of which has left the Middle East ablaze and a hair trigger's touch away from nuclear detonation. Price of a barrel of crude oil on Election Day 2008: $250. |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #5 Iraq put us out of nation building, we will never do it again that is why I will feel very sorry for the next country that gets lined up in our sights it will not be pretty. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2006-08-23 20:18 |
| #4 flyover: Well said. The President had a mandate to follow the post 9-11 route that he chose. I would point to errors, but not to bad faith. I am confident that he will both do the right thing, and secure bi-partisan support. |
| Posted by: Snease Shaiting3550 2006-08-23 20:02 |
| #3 Snease Shaiting3550 - I'd say that nothing has been carved into stone except that the US, true to its traditions and beliefs, had to try the democratization route. It's a well-worn topic here, from my readings. That the Muzzies are incapable of connecting the dots and resort to their age-old sectarian and "Muzzy First" habits comprise the answer to the question, "Can they change? Can they accept the great gift offered to them on a silver platter?" Nope. I believe we will not see the US attempt any nation-building on the behalf of Arabs or Islam, at least on the scale of Iraq, ever again. They blew it for everyone else. Obviously, I agree Iran is the key to the most pressing threat. Bush will play the various political games to try to cover his eventual attack on Iran. It's his reality. This seems to make many people go totally bonkers. "Isn't the UN dead, already? Haven't we learned that the Tranzis will stab us in the back?" Etc. I'm sure Bush gets it - but he has to deal with rampant nitwit BDS, tenacious partisan political realities, and bona-fide legal hurdles he must negotiate. Sucks to be him, IMHO, but that is the lot he must deal with. So he does - and gets ankle-bitten by the New BDS strain - from the right. He has said that they must not have nukes. He said it several times, including very recently, and I believe he meant it. So I believe that, when he thinks he's checked off all the political boxes that the timeframe allows, he will, indeed, take the Iranian regime down. The ankle-biting always begs the question, when people get nutso about his failure to have already acted, "Gee, do they know more than the President of the US?" No. That's simply stupid. Much has been said about the fact that Iran is a group of ethnic states being held captive by what has become a minority (?) of Persians. I believe that, once the grip of the Mullahs is broken by US decapitation and reduction of the nuke efforts, Iran will never be a threat again. Tony is obviously a very smart guy. I hope it's contagious. |
| Posted by: flyover 2006-08-23 18:38 |
| #2 The 5-point plan, sort of like the end of the Godfather this should all happen at once if possible. (1) Build up along the Iraqi/Syrian borders and Iraqi/Iranian borders to get Syria/Iranians to shift military equipment to the borders (or bury it to save it). Do this with the increased strength currently going into Iraq (2) Israel takes out Syria while the Syrian military is stretched, in the East, or hiding. (3) Kill Sadr (4) Target the Iranian leadership with concrete bombs if they pop their head up. (5) Promote revolution in Iran over the radio, satelites, internet, and loudspeakers. Parachute in radios if need be, with the military on the border there will be fewer people to bash down any revolts. Then wait and see. It is time to take the offensive again. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-08-23 18:28 |
| #1 Why not assume that the President has already decided on regime change in Iran? The past 5 years since 9-11 have not played out according to plan. Ergo: try something different. Groups like Hamas, Hizbollah, Basij, Mahdi Army, al-Fatah, Jamaat-i-Islami, Taliban, al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood should not exist. If we drop any plans to democraticize these animals, then the secular remnants in the Muslim countries could be forced to liquidate that enemy. Democraticization has somewhat legitimated terror groups. We have no alternative other than liquidation. |
| Posted by: Snease Shaiting3550 2006-08-23 08:23 |