Dec 19 2006
The War For The Heart Of Islam Rages
The ME is now, finally, taking its future into its own hands and deciding whether they will live under the brutal oppression of Islamo Fascism or in the modern world. There is a role for the devoutly religious in our world of consumerism, me-first, and what-ever-turns-you-on media driven society. From the open civil war in Palestine to the trouncing in Iran that Ahmadinejad took at the polls, to the counter demonstrations in Lebanon, the signals are clear. The ME is taking this choice on and not simply letting the Islamo Fascist take the field without a fight. The counter balance this moment offers the world could be helpful. The more conservative and religous views are necessary to illustrate the ideas of sacrifice and honor and dedication, but they must be presented at the table of democracies and free economies in order to be productive and useful.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Broken Army, Broken Empire
by Patrick Buchanan
The insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan have thus far
cost fewer U.S. lives than the Filipino insurgency of
1899-1902. Yet Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter
Schoomaker warned Congress last week the U.S. Army
“will break†without more troops.
We started this war “flat-footed,†with 500,000 fewer
soldiers than we had before the Gulf War, says the
general, who wants 7,000 soldiers added yearly to the
507,000 on active duty.
——————————————————————————–
The Army is “about broken,†agrees Colin Powell, the
former chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Powell believes
we “are losing the war†in Iraq, but opposes any
“surge†of 15,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops, as urged by
Sen. John McCain.
“There are no additional troops,†says Powell. “All we
would be doing is keeping some of the troops who were
there, there longer, and escalating or accelerating
the arrival of other troops.â€
CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid lately told an
audience at Harvard, “This is not an Army that was
built to sustain ‘a long war.’â€
Retired Gen. Kevin Ryan agrees: “Today, the 37 combat
brigades of the active Army are almost totally
consumed by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. With all
units either deployed, returning from deployment or
preparing to deploy, there is none left to prepare for
other contingencies.â€
Yet, adds Ryan, “Our published defense strategy
requires a military that can defend our homeland,
sustain two major wars, be present in key regions
abroad and fight a global war on terrorism. With
Marine and Army ground forces barely able to fight the
two major wars, the other security tasks are left to
flyovers and ship visits from our Air Force and Navy.â€
What these generals are saying is ominous. Not only is
the United States “losing†the war in Iraq, the Army
is breaking and we do not have the troops to meet the
commitments America has made all over the world. In
short, U.S. foreign policy is bankrupt. We cannot meet
all the IOUs we have outstanding if several are called
at once.
What kind of superpower is it whose army can be
“broken†by two insurgencies that have required only
half the number of troops we sent to Korea, and a
third of the number we sent to Vietnam?
If our Army is “about broken†now, how do we propose
to defend the Baltic republics and, if Bush and the
neocons get their way, Ukraine and Georgia from a
revanchist Russia? How could we fight a second Korean
war, the first of which required a third of a million
men?
If our Army is “about broken,†has our commander in
chief lost his mind when he issues bellicose
ultimatums to Tehran? And if our Army is not built to
“sustain a long war,†are not those people insane who
talk wildly of fighting “World War IV� In World War
II, we had 12 million men under arms on V-E Day.
Our Army, says Abizaid, is not “built to sustain a
long war.†Yet we are committed by NATO to defend
Central and Eastern Europe—including the Baltic
republics and the eastern Balkans, against a resurgent
Russia. We are committed to defend Israel, Kuwait,
Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states from Iran. We
are committed to defend Afghanistan from the Taliban,
South Korea from North Korea, and Japan and Taiwan
from China.
Who do we think we are kidding? America today is like
an auto insurance company with the cash on hand to
handle one or two fender-benders, but anything beyond
that means Chapter 11.
In the Reagan decade, writes national security analyst
William Hawkins, the United States had 18 Army
divisions. Clinton cut it to 10. Yet, since Reagan, we
have not cut commitments, but added to them: in
Eastern Europe, the Balkans, the Gulf and the Taiwan
Strait.
The American Imperium is hollow. We have nowhere near
the troops to sustain the security commitments and war
guarantees we have ladled out. Like the Brits in 1945,
ours is an overstretched empire with a sinking
currency, whose enemies are salivating at the prospect
of being in on the kill.
America may need a larger Army. More imperative is the
need for a radical reduction in treaty and war
commitments.
While the U.S. Navy and Air Force remain supreme, the
Army and Marines are, as Abizaid says, too small a
force to fight a long war. We must adjust our
commitments to reflect our capabilities and, beyond
that, to defend only what is truly vital to the
national security.
While our armed forces are more than adequate to
defend us, they are insufficient to defend an empire.
Rather than bleed and bankrupt the nation endlessly,
we should let go of the empire.
Americans must learn how to mind our own business and
cease to meddle in other nation’s quarrels. Iraq was
never a threat to the United States. Only our mindless
intervention has made it so.
To find out more about Patrick Buchanan, and read
features by other Creators Syndicate writers and
cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at
http://www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2006 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
got that, FE? “Islam’s war” will have to be viewed on the sidelines by the crumbling Empire, AJ.
FE –everyone worth worrying about sees through Strata’s parroting
“al Qaeda” –and your parroting AJ’s “al Qaeda” boogeyman as well.
Which is why your parroting it in the form of a question to me after a comment on Shia anti-American activity in Iraq is ineffectually
morinic.
typo–moronic.
Ken, if I understand you, your point is Buchanan is a “nationalist conservative” and that’s what you think you are? and you think that’s moronic? Ok, I’ll agree.
Gee, you might be right one time. But ONLY if I understood you correctly.
Senility does hamper one. Again , YOU’RE moronic in believing
throwing out al Qaeda as a scare tactic works with any more than
about 20% of the American public according to Bush’s latest
war approval ratings and the results of the last election. You’re also moronic for throwing it out directly after I depicted SHIA anti-American factions, whihc have nothing to do with al Qaeda.
See, other than senility your problem is America has so many varied enemies in the Middle East you have difficulty keeping score.
Ken, you said:you have difficulty keeping score.
It may be difficult, but at least I can, unlike one French guy I know.
You were unfamiliar with the term “neoconservative” until I mentioned it–don’t they allow political literature in the rest home?