The Real Iraq We Knew - By 12 Former Army Captains

well said Tim.

..KILLROY WAS HERE AND.... ...SNAFU....

Yeah, a lot of officers have gone on record, stating things against the war which could ultimately come back to haunt them. It's incredibly unusual. It's my understanding that even during Vietnam we didn't see so many officers stating their problem with what was going on.

From my time in the Army during Vietnam: there was huge dissention in the ranks, but almost none publicly in the officer corps, certainly none at the senior level. But then, we hadn't experienced the corrosive aftereffects of Vietnam on our society and on the military. Now we have, and these officers have decided that they and their troops are being turned into just cannon fodder around a failed foriegn policy whose authors won't admit they have failed, and the senior ones having experienced what happened after Vietnam, have decided they can't brook that happening again. So they speak out, an absolutely unprecedented event.

I will also note that in Vietnam one of the significant dangers to company-level officers (lieutenants and captains) was getting fragged -- killed by a fragmentation grenade by your own troops. The troops knew the whole business was lost and if the officers got too aggressive and started taking too many losses in the company, they got fragged in their tents. I don't hear that happening now, perhaps because the officer corps is being more public with their displeasure.

Don't kid yourselves, this war, coupled with Afghanistan (where we still could make a difference) is ruining our military and it's capability. These people have a deep devotion to the military, to their troops, and to their profession and it's just tearing them apart to watch this happen.

Well it would have been helpful in this regard if the Congress and the president during the 1990s hadn't trimmed the active duy army almost in half in the delusional belief that with the end of the Cold War we were living, in Frankie Fukuyama's words, at the "end of history."

Too bad our Congress isn't listening...

Bill, Bush has been in office for 7 years. He could have imposed a draft if he'd really thought this was the ultimate struggle for Western civilization, and if he were brave enough to put his possible re-election on the line for it. The more you guys try to blame Clinton for everything the more you sound like sniveling children trying to explain to Mommy that you weren't the one who broke the lamp.

Bill, your exactly right. Except... instead of the vague 90's reference, why don't we let the people here know who exactly it was that was responsible for these cuts...

Over Cheney's four years as Secretary of Defense, encompassing budgets for Fiscal Years 1990–93, the Department of Defense's total obligational authority in current dollars declined from $291.3 billion to $269.9 billion. Except for FY 1991, when the TOA Budget increased by 1.7 percent, the Cheney budgets showed negative real growth: -2.9 percent in 1990, -9.8 percent in 1992, and -8.1 percent in 1993. During this same period total military personnel declined by 19.4 percent, from 2.202 million in FY 1989 to 1.776 million in FY 1993. The Army took the largest cut, from 770,000 to 572,000 — 25.8 percent of its strength. The Air Force declined by 22.3 percent, the Navy by 14 percent, and the Marines by 9.7 percent. Link

Yup... Bush sr. and Cheney's "delusional belief that with the end of the Cold War we were living, in Frankie Fukuyama's words, at the "end of history,"" sure didn't prepare us for a post 9/11 world of preemptive nation building... did it?

Jim, you cannot cite Wikipedia for something like that as being dispositive given its track record. Try this on for size and tell me how it fits. I'm willing to wager as tight as Sandy Berger's underwear with a full load of purloined documents in them.

Bill, that link was the only one I could find on short notice. Mostly I'm going from memory.... Shortly after the First Gulf War (91-93) the draw down was having a definite impact on our daily lives... I spent most if not all of 92 trying to run my section at about 55-60% of the manning I was authorized. We can banter links back and forth till the cows come home... but I lived the "draw Down." And I remember the dates... And I remember who my Commander in Chief and Sec. of Defense were....
92 Bill... the year before Clinton came to office....

That's a real nice personal account Jim but neither is it dispositive of anything. You either need to look at the link I posted (which is not from any rw website) or our conversation on this matter is at an end.

Bill, I looked at the link. It doesn't contradict anything I've said here... Table 2 shows that the Reagan years had a decrease in defense spending that continued under Bush sr. and continued through 98 under Clinton. The two largest decreases (both at -8.2%) occurred in FY 91 (which pretty much confirms my personal account of 92), and 94 under Clinton. What is it your trying to point out to me?

I'm trying to point out that in terms of real dollars the major drawdowns at DOD occurred on Clinton's watch. DOD spending hit its peak under Reagan in '87 (Jim Webb resigned as Navy Secretary when it became evident we wouldn't keep the 600 ship fleet) and declined from that Cold War peak under Bush41 but its disingenuous at best to cite percentages seeing that you're comparing the DOD budget at the height of the Cold War with one submitted after the Eastern bloc fell apart. People tend to forget that there were rumblings about Clinton overtaxing the military too with his little Haitian and Balkans adventures in the '90s.

Well, look at what ~1/2 this defense budget has been going towards since Reagan. If Russia or China or N. Korea or Giuliani's u.f.o.s ever launch missiles in the direction of the US, we may have a chance of intercepting them.

Check my figures Bill (again from fig.2). The four budgets under Bush Sr. had a loss of 79.5 billion The eight budgets under Clinton declined 57.9 billion for the first six years and then went up 24.1 billion in his last two budgets. Any way you cut it... 4 years under Bush was a greater total (in fy. 08 dollars) cut in defense spending than 8 years under Clinton.

But as I would point once again to you Jim that doesn't mean squat since the Reagan era budgets were Cold War budgets. If Clinton had stuck with the figure he inherited from Bush 41 you might be on firmer ground but he didn't. But that said, the defense drawdown was a thoroughly bipartisan matter in the Congress.

electricblanket

Well, look at what ~1/2 this defense budget has been going towards since Reagan. If Russia or China or N. Korea or Giuliani's u.f.o.s ever launch missiles in the direction of the US,

from link: those occasional Pentagon proposals -- a bomb that doesn't destroy infrastructure, a weapon that turns the enemy into rutting homosexuals

BTW What happens to homosexual soldiers that are hit with this weapon?
Do they get straight? hmmmm....

Yeah there are a lot of "brilliant" projects in the military-industrial-complex. I, for one, am sure glad our great-great-great-grandchildren are going to be paying for these projects.

Our defense from the boogymen of the world is worth any amount of liberty or debt, dammit!

Some fact checking for Bill:

In fact, the Clinton administration actually spent more money on defense than the previous administration of President George H.W. Bush. The smaller outlays during the first Bush administration were developed and approved by then-Defense Secretary Cheney and then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell. The Clinton administration did not coast on Reagan-era procurement funding. During the 1990s, the Pentagon invested more than $1 trillion in developing and procuring new weapons and information technology that gave U.S. forces such an unprecedented advantage in the last two U.S. military campaigns. But more significant than the budget increases was the shift that occurred in the mid-1990s. That shift involved much greater emphasis on precision weapons, sensors, robotics, advanced communications, training, readiness, and orienting the intelligence community toward direct support of military operations. It was that shift that produced the superb military that not only swept through Iraq at a rate that defied historical precedent, but used its awesome force with unprecedented precision and effect, unprecedented low collateral damage, and unprecedented low casualty rates. It was the American Revolution in Military Affairs begun in the Clinton administration that was unveiled in Bush's Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The combination of Joint Defense Attack Munitions (JDAMs) and unmanned aerial drones -- both products of that shift -- made it possible to find and destroy targets, including mobile targets, more precisely and quickly during Operation Enduring Freedom, the response to the Sept. 11 attacks, and in Operation Iraqi Freedom than in any previous war. As many as 70 percent of all munitions dropped on Iraq were the precision-guided munitions developed and built during the Clinton administration. Funding for the JDAM program began in 1993, Clinton's first year in office. The advanced, GPS-guided Tomahawk cruise missile, which proved far more accurate and reliable than the earlier cruise missiles used in Desert Storm under the first President Bush, was funded in 1999. Unmanned aerial vehicles like the Predator and Global Hawk, which enabled U.S. forces to use combat aircraft in close air support in unprecedented ways, also originated in the Clinton years.

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=124&subsecID;=159&contentID;=251793

electricblanket

Our defense from the boogymen of the world is worth any amount of liberty or debt, dammit!

What was that Patrick Henry said: "Give me Liability an give me Debt." What foresight!

Bill,

If Clinton had stuck with the figure he inherited from Bush 41 you might be on firmer ground but he didn't.

But the Cold War WAS over. And in the meantime prior to Iraq you have Don Rumsfeld crowing about automated weapons systems and "light" troops.

The mistake was not in the size of the military but in entering a war on the assumption that the military that we had would be sufficient to fight it. It was deceitful from the beginning.

You know that.

I know no such thing. What makes you think that all of the nation's future wars won't require a goodly portion of garrison/occupation duty? That's just plain dumb. Yes, the US military can certainly knock over any competing military on the planet in a one-off conventional engagement but the nitty gritty of pacification requires larger forces. As I've said countless times before the civilian leadership at the Pentagon and the brass are to blame as the former didn't want to spend for the type of force needed and the latter never wanted to fight another counterinsurgency after VN so they didn't bother to train either themselves, their junior officers or non-coms and enlisted men how to do so until recently.

What makes you think that all of the nation's future wars won't require a goodly portion of garrison/occupation duty? That's just plain dumb.

Yet that's the bill of goods that Rumsfeld was selling, When a more realistic estimate was suggested to Congress by Shinseki he was blown off heavily by the Bush administration -as were his suggestions that overall troop levels not be decreased as Rumsfeld was advocating prior to the war. You know this and you cannot shift the blame easily. The military understood its requirements well - yet Rumsfeld was in a dream world as to what would be required.

Is it realistic for the U.S. to have an occupation force of Cold War strength indefinitely? You can answer "yes" to that if you want, but in doing so you're suggesting that the U.S. should be engaged in Cold War-style military occupations indefinitely. To have that type of strength and to have reserves available to fight on a global scale is horrendously expensive. While Beltway thought jockeys can ideate as to how important this is for America's future it's not clear to me that there's going to be an America left that's worth fighting for if all we do is fuel the ambitions of foolhardy armchair warriors with tax dollars better spent on fundamental services and infrastructure for economic development at home and abroad.

We should have owned up to the American people on the real cost of this war up front, instead of insulting voters with baloney about being able to fight wars on the cheap. To me that says only that the people who want us to fight those wars on the cheap think that American lives are cheap.

ROTFLAMO. And the leftie jerks are now advocating invading Pakistan's NWF Tribal areas which are huge and inhospitable. The first duty arrogated to government under the Constitution is to provide for the defense of the country. It's generally agreed now that given the "fight two theatre wars simultaneously" doctrine under which the Pentagon's been operating for well over a decade that the force is now too small and has been since Desert Storm for such a doctrine. We need to increase the size of the active-duty army by at least four (and I'd prefer five) combat divisions. But in the meantime please feel free to surrender at any time. That's what the post-McGovern Democrats do best.

Yes Bill, name calling will work... psychotic war-monger... did that help?

...the leftie jerks are now advocating invading Pakistan's NWF Tribal areas which are huge and inhospitable...

Where is Osama ibn Laden? Isn't at least one of these wars about getting Osama ibn Laden? Why would the US go to someplace he isn't to get him? We do know of certain knowledge that he [Osama ibn Laden] is either in Afghanistan, or in some other country, or dead.

The first duty arrogated to government under the Constitution is to provide for the defense of the country...

And that why after the 9/11 attacks perpetrated by a group of Saudi nationals, the US has invaded Iraq.

Do remember Colin Powell? He was once Sec'y of State and he had a couple of other jobs for the gub'mint. Once, a while ago, before he was cut loose by the Bush administration, he came up with some decent parameters regarding engaging in a war. 1. Is a vital national security interest threatened? 2. Do we have a clear attainable objective? 3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed? 4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted? 5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement? 6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered? 7. Is the action supported by the American people? 8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

We need to increase the size of the active-duty army by at least four (and I'd prefer five) combat divisions.

As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time. I would not say that the future is necessarily less predictable than the past. I think the past was not predictable when it started.

ROTFLAMO. And the leftie jerks are now advocating invading Pakistan's NWF Tribal areas which are huge and inhospitable.

I've got to hand it to you, Bill, you always know how to change the subject - when the topic is who decided to go to war with woefully inadequate troops you blame everyone but the people who made that decision.

Since it's the global corporations that benefit most from U.S. occupations and not the American people, I suggest that you go to them to sponsor your global conquest plans. You could do it the way that the baseball owners prostitute their stadiums - call it the "General Motors U.S. Army" or "British Petroleum U.S. Air Force." Same difference. In the meantime I think that average Americans are a little tired of Beltway cocktail sippers telling people about how patriotic it is to let someone else's kids be blown up in the name of our country.

The Sheepdogs

Most humans truly are like sheep
Wanting nothing more than peace to keep
To graze, grow fat and raise their young,
Sweet taste of clover on the tongue.
Their lives serene upon Life’s farm,
They sense no threat nor fear no harm.
On verdant meadows, they forage free
With naught to fear, with naught to flee.
They pay their sheepdogs little heed
For there is no threat; there is no need.

To the flock, sheepdog’s are mysteries,
Roaming watchful round the peripheries.
These fang-toothed creatures bark, they roar
With the fetid reek of the carnivore,
Too like the wolf of legends told,
To be amongst our docile fold.
Who needs sheepdogs? What good are they?
They have no use, not in this day.
Lock them away, out of our sight
We have no need of their fierce might.

But sudden in their midst a beast
Has come to kill, has come to feast
The wolves attack; they give no warning
Upon that calm September morning
They slash and kill with frenzied glee
Their passive helpless enemy
Who had no clue the wolves were there
Far roaming from their Eastern lair.
Then from the carnage, from the rout,
Comes the cry, “Turn the sheepdogs out!”

Thus is our nature but too our plight
To keep our dogs on leashes tight
And live a life of illusive bliss
Hearing not the beast, his growl, his hiss.
Until he has us by the throat,
We pay no heed; we take no note.
Not until he strikes us at our core
Will we unleash the Dogs of War
Only having felt the wolf pack’s wrath
Do we loose the sheepdogs on its path.

And the wolves will learn what we’ve shown before;
We love our sheep, we Dogs of War.

Russ Vaughn
2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division
Vietnam 65-66

The dogs are valuable, let's make sure that they're used against real wolves and not abused whenever someone cries "Wolf!"

..Frank..no the thanks are for you and those that were there..I joined in `73,but has no comparison to you guys that were "IN COUNTRY".. "THANK YOU" ..

..Partisan Hack,I agree..and history imhho is repeating itself...

"Neville Chamberlain lives"

Rob, the trouble with a metaphor is that it can cut different ways. The job of sheepdogs is to keep the herd together and prevent the sheep from straying, so that when the shepherd is ready to turn them into lamb chops or mutton stew he'll have no trouble finding them. There are those who think that the Bush-Cheney coup is well on the way to doing exactly that.

By the way, Clinton's supposedly "feeble" military did a pretty fine job in Afghanistan. It wasn't their fault that Bush stopped the campaign before they could finish it, and went chasing off after Iraq instead, which had nothing to do with 9/11. It was the misbegotten, illegal, unjustified war of aggression in Iraq that stretched the military to the breaking point. Bush did this, not Clinton.

trex I can`t argue the point with Afghanistan...Bush never should have turned it over to NATO/UN...but imhho at the time it looked like a simple mop up....but noooo they just half arsed policed the country...so I agree we learned a very hard lesson..if you want something done you best do it yourself...as far as Iraq goes...I totally dis-agree ..Bush was well within his right..14 UN resolutions..numerous GW1 truce violations/firing missiles at our planes at the no-fly zones and the constant shell game Saddam was playing..and the sanctions...what a joke.....and after 911..the possibilities were to grave to ignore..

Exactamente!The use of US force should have been used in the flip flop. US troops in Afghanistan and UN troops barely policing Baghdad. Six years into this war people...

Rob_NC, was anyone in the general public chewing their nails with anxiety about Saddam's evil intentions before fall of 2003? Did you hear ordinary citizens speaking in hushed, worried tones about what Saddam might plan to do to us? No, you heard people talking about Osama bin Laden. All that sudden hysteria over Saddam's hypothetical WMD was sold to us like a tawdry product with a good ad campaign. The fact is that the neocons had been wanting a war with Iraq and Iran, and possibly five other Arab countries as well, since long before 9/11, and Bush had been wanting some way to one-up his father, and 9/11 gave them both the pretext they needed.

The idea with Iraq was to scare the Arab world by showing them we meant business. Unfortunately, the effect was exactly the opposite: we demonstrated that we could be pinned down in a miserable quagmire, our troops exhausted and demoralized by repeated tours of duty, by a determined insurgency. I find it mind-boggling that the same people who got us into this deadly mess now want to expand the disaster into Iran. If they do that, our troops will be massacred.

Rob_NC, was anyone in the general public chewing their nails with anxiety about Saddam's evil intentions before fall of 2003?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb 4, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 ....and notice those are dems...so you know I need to compile another list for independents,republicans..and interviews with the man on the street..but nevertheless the point is made yes there were concerns...

..what the...@#@k thats not the way it should have posted..why.....!!!

..yeah Frank another 50 and the thing would have exploded..I probably should have block quoted them and it probably would have stayed were I put it.

..it just steams my shorts the pure hate rhetoric...if only a small percentage would pull their collective head out of their arse and be part of the solution we might find a way to find peace....sadly not in my or your lifetime...));

One thing I found that helps the formatting when you're adding a list of items like you did, although it's not foolproof, is to add an empty line between each item.

There's only one guaranteed way... put < br / > (without the spaces) anywhere you want to break up points.

..wonder why it changed from preview to post.? Thanks Jim I`ll give it a try..
..Frank my friend I`m sooo afraid you are spot-on..but there`s hope ..at least Colbert makes me laugh..he`s got my vote..(;

The computers ready to ship. Unfortunately, I'm stuck in Souix Falls till tomorrow. Hopefully, I'll ship it on Tuesday.

As far as the < br/ > thing goes, when I have a long list as Rob did, I separate them with spaces (as I'm sure Rob did), then I go to the first space and type in the < br/ >, right click, copy, and then all I have to do is go to all the spaces and paste it in. When done that way it only take a few seconds to make sure your formatting comes out OK. It's definitely worth it...

Damn, I think I missed out on something...

Grrr I think the tracker let me down... I was mixed in with that a while back, when we were talking about the gift packages you could order and send off, hehehe that set me back $125 but the guys said they were pretty cool. I take it they got an address then.

I think it was an issue of Archie Comics.

Sadly, I think you are right. The draft would be a disaster. I would be a conscientious objector if it were instated. If/when someone decides to attack Iran I think the draft will be instated, as the domino effect bringing many other nations into the brewing world war will occur.

Some of these "leaders" either have no foresight, no concept of history, no conscience, or all 3.

If/when someone decides to attack Iran I think the draft will be instated, as the domino effect bringing many other nations into the brewing world war will occur.

No one is talking about invading Iran except some leftwing bedwetters like Sy Hersh who's been saying war with Iran is imminent for going on a year and a half. Guess he has a different definition of "imminent" than most of us.

yeah, fox news isn't pushing the attack iran agenda---and they're known for their left leaning.

Of course there's that wild-eyed lefty Norman Podhoretz, who not only encouraged Bush and Cheney to attack Iran but says he is "praying" that they will do so.

Non-dispostive and stupid to boot.

Bill Harrison
"No one is talking about invading Iran except some leftwing bedwetters like Sy Hersh "

NORMAN PODHORETZ [Rightwingwetter n Neoconartist]
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Although many persist in denying it, I continue to believe that what Sept 11, 2001, did was to plunge us headlong into nothing less than another world war. I call this new war World War IV, because I also believe that what is generally known as the Cold War was actually World War III, and that this one bears a closer resemblance to that great conflict than it does to World War II. Like the Cold War, as the military historian Eliot Cohen was the first to recognize, the one we are now in has ideological roots, pitting us against Islamofascism, yet another mutation of the totalitarian disease we defeated first in the shape of Nazism and fascism and then in the shape of communism; it is global in scope; it is being fought with a variety of weapons, not all of them military; and it is likely to go on for decades.

What follows from this way of looking at the last five years is that the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq cannot be understood if they are regarded as self-contained wars in their own right. Instead we have to see them as fronts or theaters that have been opened up in the early stages of a protracted global struggle. The same thing is true of Iran. As the currently main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11, and as (according to the State Department's latest annual report on the subject) the main sponsor of the terrorism that is Islamofascism's weapon of choice, Iran too is a front in World War IV. Moreover, its effort to build a nuclear arsenal makes it the potentially most dangerous one of all.

The Iranians, of course, never cease denying that they intend to build a nuclear arsenal, and yet in the same breath they openly tell us what they intend to do with it. Their first priority, as repeatedly and unequivocally announced by their president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is to "wipe Israel off the map"--a feat that could not be accomplished by conventional weapons alone.

But Ahmadinejad's ambitions are not confined to the destruction of Israel. He also wishes to dominate the greater Middle East, and thereby to control the oilfields of the region and the flow of oil out of it through the Persian Gulf. If he acquired a nuclear capability, he would not even have to use it in order to put all this within his reach. Intimidation and blackmail by themselves would do the trick.

Nor are Ahmadinejad's ambitions merely regional in scope. He has a larger dream of extending the power and influence of Islam throughout Europe, and this too he hopes to accomplish by playing on the fear that resistance to Iran would lead to a nuclear war. And then, finally, comes the largest dream of all: what Ahmadinejad does not shrink from describing as "a world without America." Demented though he may be, I doubt that Ahmadinejad is so crazy as to imagine that he could wipe America off the map even if he had nuclear weapons. But what he probably does envisage is a diminution of the American will to oppose him: that is, if not a world without America, he will settle, at least in the short run, for a world without much American influence.

Not surprisingly, the old American foreign-policy establishment and many others say that these dreams are nothing more than the fantasies of a madman. They also dismiss those who think otherwise as neoconservative alarmists trying to drag this country into another senseless war that is in the interest not of the United States but only of Israel. But the irony is that Ahmadinejad's dreams are more realistic than the dismissal of those dreams as merely insane delusions. To understand why, an analogy with World War III may help.

Vice President Dick Cheney several weeks ago proposed launching airstrikes at suspected training camps in Iraq run by the Quds force, a special unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, according to two U.S. officials who are involved in Iran policy

No one is talking about invading Iran except some leftwing bedwetters like Sy Hersh who's been saying war with Iran is imminent for going on a year and a half.

students heckle Ahmadinejad ......

[Yep!..... He sounds like a real big International threat to me, an Norman.......provided he can survive his domestic speeches.

Critics accuse Ahmadinejad of failing to keep his election promises [Reuters]

Iranian students have staged a rare protest against the country's president, chanting "death to dictator" as he delivered a speech to mark the start of the academic year at Tehran University.

Despite tight security measures by the organisers, a scuffle ensued between opponents and supporters of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday.

The protesters, numbering about 100, dispersed only after the president left the campus.

Witnesses said Ahmadinejad ignored the heckling and continued his speech on the merits of science and the pitfalls of Western-styled democracy.

Tight security

In December last year, a similar incident occurred during a speech when students at Amir Kabir Technical University called him a dictator and set fire to his picture.

On Monday organisers checked the identity papers of all students entering the university, allowing only selected students into the hall where Ahmadinejad spoke.

Ahmadinejad was subjected to blistering criticism of his country's human rights record and foreign policy when he spoke at Columbia University in New York city last month.

The Iranian president was met with protests on the streets and Lee Bollinger, the university's president, called him "a petty and cruel dictator" and "simply ridiculous".

On Monday Ahmadinejad said the incident at Columbia was an America attempt at propaganda gone wrong.

"They had planned to use this incident for propaganda in the international community and prepare the ground for violating Iran's rights. Three or four hours after my speech in Columbia University they realised that they were in trouble and they admitted they had failed in their plans and had made a mistake," he said.

Reformers marginalised

Students were once the main power base of Iran's reform movement but have faced intense pressure in recent years from Ahmadinejad's government, making anti-government protests rare.

In recent months the government has detained hundreds for allegedly threatening the Iranian system and shut down numerous pro-reform newspapers.

At universities, pro-reform students have been marginalised and now only hold low-level meetings and occasional demonstrations, usually to demand better school facilities or the release of detained colleagues.

Ahmadinejad's popularity at home has fallen since he was elected, with critics saying he has failed to fix the economy and has tarnished Iran's international image.

He is accused of failing to keep his campaign promises to bring oil revenues to every family, eradicate poverty and tackle unemployment.

Instead, prices of houses, food and other commodities have soared

Iran is a paper tiger, the sooner that we bolster moderate opposition the better. Going to war will diminish that possibility - which may be what Cheney wants. There's a 10-20 percent extra margin in today's oil prices based on the risks of Middle East instability - take away the risks and prices plummet.

But that's one of the key points -- nothing has changed. And I don't buy that only someone who has been there just last month knows how different it is; oho, were they there just last week? Things have changed, we're winning! If "winning" can only be seen by somebody right there in the trenches, I doubt it's really happening.

One of my jobs during Vietnam was developing personnel loss statistics by MOS and geography, so I and my unit knew what the actual score was, with about 2 days delay. So we processed lots of data and fed it up the chain, and a day or so later all this stuff got released to the news media by Westmoreland in daily briefings for the evening news. We used to watch these things to see if we recognized anything they were talking about (our data). We used to call them "the five o'clock follies."

Uh, things have changed quite a bit in Anbar or haven't you been reading recently. A friend of mine who served two tours as a combat engineer (his company's job was to seek out and destroy IEDs) went back for a visit and the change has been remarkable.

ajs #7:

Very good point.

It would appear that Anbar is improving because it's being saturated, but we can't afford to saturate the whole country without a major increase in funding and a draft.

It appears that the whole business looks like whack-a-mole; we keep expecting the "insurgents" to stand and fight, but they keep slipping away; we used the same strategy on the Hessians during the revolution and we won! Didn't we learn anything at all?

Uh, Anbar is improving because of the Sunni Awakening. That's why they're considering pulling a lot of the Marines out. Jeebus, this is basic stuff.

Well, that's not what it looks like to me. It appears that the Sunnis have figured out how to play us into their agenda, so of course we're their Friends du Jour.

Remember, al Qaeda is a Sunni organization.

I don't think you have the foggiest notion what's going on in Anbar. The Iraqi Sunnis hate al Qaeda in Iraq and are killing them in large numbers. The organization is crippled in large measure. Iraq is a much more cosmopolitan and secular country than Saudi Arabia from whence al Qaeda sprang and Iraqi Sunnis don't cotton to being killed for smoking or not growing beards.

Bill, that's one possibility. Another is that when we bought off the Sunni sheikhs, Al Qaeda in Iraq magically evaporated -- because "our" sheikhs WERE "Al Qaeda in Iraq." They are certainly killing SOMEONE in large numbers, however, you're quite right about that.

Face it, man. Iraq has never been a nation state in the Western understanding of the word. The political organization that has always worked best for them, and still does, is tribal feudalism. We blundered into the middle of it without a clue.

We blundered into the middle of it without a clue.

Nothing summarizes the whole Iraq business better than this.

IF the war in Iraq is directed at Al Qaeda, why does it 500,000 coalition forces and $ zillion of killery to fight some 2000-7000 Al Qaeda? And if the Iraqis can take care of Al Qaeda as they have demonstrated in Anbar why does the US have to stay?

IF the war in Iraq is directed at Al Qaeda,

good question

THe article is troubling on so many fronts, but especially in its confirmation that US dollars are basically arming various militias and factions in preparation for the civil war

IF the war in Iraq is directed at Al Qaeda, why does it 500,000 coalition forces and $ zillion of killery to fight some 2000-7000 Al Qaeda? And if the Iraqis can take care of Al Qaeda as they have demonstrated in Anbar why does the US have to stay?

Beautifully put. We know the truth... we just can't do anything about it.

Brilliant? Oh, I think not. The battle against al Qaeda is just one front in this war. Even more worrisome longterm is Sadr's Jaish-I-Mahdi. But if you take a look at the latest Iraq Index and especially pp. 10-12 as regards bombings the trendlines continue to be favorable since the "surge" began.

If you admit the fight against Al Qaeda is just one front could it be that you realise that the preponderance of the violence in Iraq is driven by the US occupation. Do you acknowledge that the Shiites are fighting to consolidate power while the Sunnis are fighting both the US occupation and the US-propped Shiite government?

If the US occupation is the cause and driver of the preponderance of the violence, is it not already obvious that removing that US presence might well be the solution?

Yes I know there could be a breakdown of serious hostilities there if the US pulled out. But what about the people dying there daily now. The US is responsible for those deaths too. It's presence is the cause of the violence, and as occupier is responsible for those deaths.

But what if that scale of hostilities that you people say could happen started? What can the US military do? Take sides? And leave 500,000 coalition forces in those killing fields as an open target fom all sides including Iraq's neighbours which might join the fray?

Not take sides and not be able to do anything to stop the killing anyway?

This strategy of stay and see is the worst. Many people are certain to continue dying and there has been no clear chain of events under US control that lead to any of the stated objectives.

What planet are you living on? The Sunnis want us there right now.

I still have yet to hear stated objectives. Every military person put in charge has said all they can do is buy time for diplomatic solutions. Then on occasion you hear the US gov. criticize the Iraqi gov's lack of progress.

What we have is Bush's quagmire. What is the purpose now? What was the purpose in 2003? If the purpose was lining the pockets of a number of the administration's military-industrial allies at the expense of the US taxpayers' grandchildren, mission accomplished.

If the purpose was to get rid of WMDs, why did we sell them the WMDs in the 80s? And where did they go to? If the purpose was getting rid of Saddam, what was the reasoning for this? How was getting rid of him beneficial to the US?

If the goal was fighting "terrorism" why are there terrorists in Iraq now, when there were none in 2003?

...Earth Bill, try to stay with us...

the trendlines continue to be favorable since the "surge" began.

hahaha. Seriously?

And The Weekly Standard was talking today about how the USA is winning the war. Wow, amazing. Tell the 4 million refugees and however many dead ... I know you like to debate the amounts. And the immeasureable decline in American prestige and authority, and etc.

The article I believe raises the only two sensible alternatives. Send several million troops (yes institute a draft) or leave completely.

It is such a mess that unfortunately there are no good solutions and also unfortunately the cowardly Democrats are too afraid to force a change in policy because they fear being blamed for the inevitable mess.

At least its a comfort that the spiraling decline of the US dollar in some part linked to the buedget deficit (I understand there are many other reasons) is funding corrupt warlords while the ordinary Iraqi flees if he can, or sits in fear and darkness if he cant.

so sad.

the trendlines continue to be favorable since the "surge" began.

hahaha. Seriously?

To be clear, I am not debating your contentionthat the trend might be currently downwardly sloping. I am laughing at the sentence and the belief that somehow things are looking rosy/rosier.

What planet are you living on? The Sunnis want us there right now.

Bill - IMHO that's a pretty simplistic view. Which Sunni faction? Or are you suggesting most/all of them.

I'd suggest that many of the Sunni militias want the USA there for exactly the reason suggested in the article. Divert/Steal/etc US funding to arm themselves to the teeth - not that Shia factions aren't doing the exact same thing.

What planet are you living on? The Sunnis want us there right now.

What planet are you living on. Most Iraqis continue to want the US out, and beyond that Sunni insurgents are still hitting coalition forces with casualties.

Read the news.

Get out of that Fox/National Review falsehood echo chamber sometimes.

Oluseye,

The link you supplied says that six Sunni factions are uniting under an umbrella organization. This means that they will be effectively sort of like one (admittedly big) Sunni faction.

BILL - This means that the trend line is declining for the of the number of Sunni factions that want the US out of Iraq. Feel free to share with Kristol.

(Yes, I could get a job making Powerpoint presentations for the White Hoouse)

=======================

I nominate this as the comment of the day.

Yes. We are winning the war. Yippee!!

Hope you note Bill, that the article also makes it explicit that these guys are jostling for power when the US leaves. It's a domestic matter which the US has planted itself into despite not having the means to offer distinct solutions.

Again, when I say the US has no solutions, I mean nobody has presented no clear chain of events, each under US control that leads from the present state of affairs to the desired end results.

Bush wants to hand in there with the belief that at some point things will get better. The danger of that approach is that with the current rate of Iraqi civilian casualties, even the official tallies of Iraqi civilian deaths will soon reach the levels we would expect in a humanitarian meltdown. But we all know that between 100,000 and 700,000 have died already, with the continued US presence guaranteeing many more.

No one knows what will happen if the US leaves Iraq precipitously but my guess from long study of history is that you will see a concerted effort at ethnic cleansing of Sunnis by the Shiite majority. The Jumaily tribe (numbering at least 100,000) wants us there for the foreseeable future. Most such sectarian strife takes about a decade to play itself out. US forces will be in Iraq in some strength regardless of who wins the '08 election.

Bill, I salute you for accepting that we don't know what would happen. What we do however know is that as long as the US remains there, the violence would continue and with 100,000 to 700,000 already dead, if the US remains there for 10 years as projected we could easily have the same number dead as the ethnic genocide we fear.

Maybe the solution is to make a grand bargain with Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia and Iran to contribute an Islamic force that can help stem the violence there without its mere presence generating as much violence as the US presence does.

That requires Bush to admit that the mission is wrong and can not yield the stated results. Don't bet on that happening though.

Please leave out that word "precipitously" when you talk about pull out. Now is the time. After 100,000 to 700,000 people have died with no end to the violence in sight, right now might be the time to pull out.

Most such sectarian strife takes about a decade to play itself out.

Bill, this ten years thing gets bandied about quite a bit, what evidence is there that this is really true? I am not saying that it doesn't exist, but I am pressed to find good examples that really parallel Iraq fairly closely. The Yugoslav experience is one possible analogy, but it seems to be a less than perfect parallel.

Obusye

Maybe the solution is to make a grand bargain with Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia and Iran to contribute an Islamic force that can help stem the violence there without its mere presence generating as much violence as the US presence does.

You're not serious are you? One, the Saudis are not going to be part of any multi-national force that includes Iran and vice versa. Same goes for the Egyptians. The Kurds would never agree to have a Turkish element to this force as well. This is a non-starter.

Hack 7.27

No historical analogy holds together completely but one can look at the Malaysian situation in the '50s and Salvador in the '80s as examples. Eventually, so long as one side doesn't gain the upper hand for good they'll get tired of killing each other and come to some kind of rapprochement. Personally I think the al-Maliki government has got to go in favor of a counter-Shiite bloc of Allawi, SCIRI and some of the other Shiite parties. Maliki is little more than that punk Sadr's @!$%#.

Bill,

Thanks, these are interesting examples, each with their own informative angles. In the Malaysian instance it was as much a working out a path of independence out from underneath colonial rule, but it plays kind of along the same lines in that you had a range of ethnic groups that really didn't want to be together that eventually wound up in a federated state that continued to coordinate with Western interests. Kind of an ugly example, but perhaps close enough. With island nations this was easier to achieve compared to the complex political geography in which Iraq finds itself. The Salvador example is probably a bit more of a stretch, as the solution to the dissidents was in essence to mow down most of them. More than one way to secure one's rule.

Personally I think the al-Maliki government has got to go in favor of a counter-Shiite bloc of Allawi, SCIRI and some of the other Shiite parties.

Well, we've committed ourselves to a pro-Sunni outcome so perhaps this makes sense from that perspective, but it's basically saying that Saddam's way is the only way to make Iraq be Iraq. It's possible that in six more years you could cow the Shiias back into submission, but it's a dangerous bet at best. I don't know, it seems that we're hosed no matter what with all but the loosest of federations. If we declare military victory ASAP and draw down quickly I don't know that the outcome would be terribly worse or different.

You're not serious are you? One, the Saudis are not going to be part of any multi-national force that includes Iran and vice versa. Same goes for the Egyptians. The Kurds would never agree to have a Turkish element to this force as well. This is a non-starter.

They have vehemently told you they would not do it? While those countries might not want Iran to get nuclear weapons they are by no means mortal enemies of Iran's.

It's called self-interest. It's their hood. To call this a non-starter is laughable. Even the Bush admin are trying this track with their conferences. What is missing is the US accepting that it must leave and throwing the gauntlet down for these countries. If many countries would rather leave Iran out, then leave Iran out of it. How does that weaken the idea?

If the US pulls out, and war breaks out they would each suffer a lot, and that is why they would act in their interests.

Frankly, if the US decide on this course of action, they have no choice to support it as they had no choice to support the current occupation and the invasion that preceded it.

Far from being a non-starter it is the solution.

Hack, we certainly are not committed to a Sunni-led Iraq. Where on earth did you get that idea from? We're committed to a federal Iraq giving a fair share of local autonomy while still having a central government strong enough to provide for a common defense, fairly sharing oil revenues, etc.

Obuseye, I'm sorry but the Saudis and Egyptians are, in fact, mortal enemies of Iran your statement notwithstanding. There is no way in hell either would accept Iranian military forces on Iraqi soil. You're forgetting that Saudi Arabia has its own Shiite problem in the eastern provinces (read: oil-producing) bordering Iraq.

Bill,

I think that what I got hung up on was your concept:

a counter-Shiite bloc

What I think that you're saying is a counter pro-Iranian bloc.

Maybe there's such a thing that can still give Shiite groups a sense of inclusion, but it will be interesting to see how that can be done. If Maliki represents the best that a Shiite consensus can come up with it's not encouraging. But we'll see, I suppose.

Bill,

The Saudis and Iranians have a pact to combat terrorism proving they can work together in a security ambit. Can you point me to something that shows the Saudis expressing Iran to be their mortal (or any manner of) enemy? Or something suggesting that they would indeed be loath to consider being equally yoked with Iran in a multinational force going after their common interests? Why might they be opposed to this force? Why would they oppose a defined number of Iranian troops being given the mandate to help pacify limited and pre-defined parts of Iran, as part of a force with a rigid mandate that contains 6,7 other countries?

Also when you say that "Saudi Arabia has its own Shiite problem" what do you mean. I know they have problems with their restive Shiite minority but which other country mentioned has a similar problem to this.

As I point out anyway, if Iran or Turkey's presence is opposed, then leave them out and find a fore to do it in any case.

Oluseye, that link is from April 2001 when it was widely believed that the Iranians were cooperating in reining in al Qaeda. We now know that is not the truth thanks to the 9/11 commission, inter alia. The Saudis, Egyptians, and Jordanians will not agree to anything that might give Iran more influence in Iraq and the region and those are the simple facts.

Look Bill that pact stands till today. You keep asserting but point me to no evidence.

And please explain how a multinational force of 7+ countries gives Iran more influence. I would argue it actually caps and curtails Iran's influence.

Again all what you are asserting but not backing up is out of that Fox/National Review/Weekly Standard echo chamber. It's a talking point not a fact that Iran and Saudi Arabia are mortal enemies.

By the way, does the 9/11 report actually list these judgments they were anticipated to list about Iran.

Look it up yourself. If you can't familiarize yourself with the relevant documents that's your problem and not mine. I sense what you know about the Saudi-Iranian relationship would fit in a thimble with room left over. I read widely and do not appreciate the references in your post, capisce?

That's the problem with poor logic. The fact that Saudi Arabia does not want Iran to get nukes does not mean they would not work with them to solve the Iraq problem they both have. Logic please!

Here are more instances of the Saudis working with Iran in Security arrangements:

Iran and Saudis vow to end sectarian strife in Middle East

Saudis and Iran pledge cooperation to end crisis in Iraq

Since your knowledge of the region would fill more than one thimble, it might help if you found one link showing the Saudis publically or privately suggesting they would not work with Iran in a multinational force.

By the way, just so you know as a social service so you find out what your NRO/Fox/WS won't tell you, the Saudis in 2004 or 2005 already proposed a Muslim Force in Iraq and Bush turned it down.

So Bill, if you truly want to know about the Middle East, you can ask nicely and I'll point you to a few more facts about the relations between Middle Eastern countries so you won't have to depend on the echo chamber talking points.

Read the damn link I posted supra. It outlines exactly what I'm talking about to a tee. Christ almighty. Are you dense?

. . .A senior Saudi official said that no countries had signed on but that Pakistan, Malaysia, Algeria, Bangladesh and Morocco were among strong possibilities. Countries that border Iraq, such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan, would not be included, he said.

And this is from 2004. It's gone nowhere since although the Saudis have dropped hints that if we were to withdraw they might be tempted to go in (along with presumably the Egyptians and Jordanians) to protect the Sunnis against the Shiites and their Iranian (at least Sadr and Dawa) masters.

I won't give up on you.

Pakistan 2007

Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Egypt, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia. under the ambit of OIC in 2007. Excerpt from the communique>

"The OIC supports Indonesia to form a peacekeeping team of Islamic countries to replace the multi-national military force led by the United States,

Dude! Insults are not masking your ignorance. Why are you so emotionally commited to insisting on this point you're clearly wrong on?

All while ignoring the merits of my porposal. As you can see, most of the countries in the region see my proposal as a very valuable option.

ROTFLMAO. From your own link:

In this scenario, a Muslim force can serve little purpose. In fact, given the mood the Iraqis are displaying, such a force will suffer heavy casualties without restoring peace in the country. A Muslim force can be formed and deployed in Iraq only if all Iraqi factions unite in making an appeal to the Organisation of Islamic Conference for sending in their peacekeepers. However, under the kind of situation that exists, the Iraqis have not even asked the Arab League for such a peacekeeping force. For that reason a Muslim force stands no chance of coming into being and putting an end to the Iraqi people’s misery.

Pakistan, the only Muslim country outside Turkey and Egypt with a substantial military, has its hands quite full now. And for the reasons stated in your link the Iraqis aren't going to be any keener on a Muslim force of foreigners than they are with the US and coalition forces. Keep trying to fill up that thimble.

Finally we have a debate again.

Yes you can question whether the insurgents would accept the legitimacy of this force. But there are ways to ensure that. There's where diplomacy comes in.

1. Get a Daytona Type peace conference with all insurgent forces and Iraq's neighbours. The aim at the first instance would be to get people behind the Islamic force.
2. Also the Muslim force are better able to win hearts and minds. If the insurgents don't accept their legitimacy, the Muslim force would nevertheless win the support of the populace as they speak the language and understand the terrain well.

Having said that I want you to realise that this force will DEFINITELY have much more legitimacy than the US-led occupying force. That is obvious. Very obvious. And Iraqis support this too. I remember seeing a poll on their attitudes to this in 2005. Also you get rid of the opportunities Al Qaeda has to capitalise on this to use Iraq as a testing field, and to recruit on the US occupation.

I will write an article to expand this proposal dealing with all the pros and cons. The pros I can tell you definitely crush the cons.

And stop the distortions. I used those links not to make a case for the Muslim Force but to disprove your claim that it's a non-starter because Iran and Saudi Arabia are mortal enemies.

Pakistan, the only Muslim country outside Turkey and Egypt with a substantial military, has its hands quite full now.

Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and Syria also have fairly large militaries. Also just FYI, Pakistan is leading the push for this force so obviously they do not feel tied down.

The problem with you people on the right who still support this war is that you're not thoughtful about options and consequences. I present something here that you have never heard about or thought about at length but you reject it. Why? Make a proper thoughtful critique of this idea.

I just seeded the same article (I deleted it once I saw yours)

Same here, Doppelganger is really struggling lately. I assumed it was probably seeded but it can be hard to find when Doppelganger fails

Yeah chill,

Doppelganger failed again, I was really excited too. I thought, how lucky am I? That is, until I saw Top Seeds, but I'm glad my brother Frank was the one who beat us to it!

..so you are saying we should go into Pakistan..for that's where most say he is...the tribal areas...sure why not..Pelosi pisses the Turks off W pisses the Paki`s off...hey we all know Iran is trouble...AF ain't real busy these days...sheeesh...

whole world against us

...a sad fact for you..when you are on top the rest are against you...question is to what extent are they willing to go to knock you off that spot..we can holler and scream all day long but when you pilot boats,fly planes into buildings,plant bombs in parking lots and refuse not to confront the scurge...then I guess you are right ....