…. having a direct connection the the ultimate Grand Scheme of our leaders.
There can be no way of winning a war in Iraq for the simple reason that this "war" had no national self-interest as its purpose. As a consequence, the notion of "winning" has absolutely no meaning in this context. This war–as with most others with which we have involved ourselves–was a ruse by the Neocons to do what they always do which is to achieve all or a combination of several objectives.
Both Iraq and Viet Nam had deeper and more sinister motives. Let’s take a look at these two conflicts and then turn to the underlying motives:
Many apologists say that we "would" or "could" have won the Viet Nam war if we had not been politically fractured as a nation. They point out that we "won every battle." This of course is a ludicrous assertion and at best is irrelevant. We left for a number of reasons not the least of which was the public's weariness of the war.
there are at least two critical differences between this war and the Viet Nam conflict, and one similarity. The similarity lies in the weariness of an endless war with no end in sight and with a steady stream of useless losses of lives.
The first difference has to do with the nature of the warring parties:
The "North" and "South" Vietnamese were not really culturally different at all, and they certainly did not represent a profound philosophic difference in worldview nor religion dating back for centuries. This dichotomy was an artificial creation of the French, from whom we inherited that conflict. If there were any separation it was due to the similarity in culture between China and North Vietnamese, on the one hand, and the created "South" with it's dubious benefactors, on the other.
In contrast, the differences in Iraq are truly sectarian, philosophical and political. The irony here is that this very same Saddam Hussein was the cohesive force that allowed that country to survive as one despite these differences:
Until we arrived on the scene, there was little sectarian violence between Sunni and Shiite during his reign, and this was not just because of Saddam's power per se: Many Sunni and Shiite families lived in peace with one another and even intermarried. The Kurds were not a major threat to either Sunni or Shiite, and they had their hands full, dealing with Turkey, to the north; and the oil flowed.
The second difference has to do with the ostensive reason for and purpose of the war:
Regarding Viet Nam, by 1954 we were supporting 80% of their war effort, so we were committed to a losing situation from the git-go. By 1958, we had inherited a debacle. As one Intel officer told me then, "the people of Viet Nam want to know only two things: Where's my next meal coming from, and who's the boss?" Once inherited, our leaders and their handlers saw benefits to assuming the conflict, none of them rational in nature. (See above.)
The fictitious "Pueblo Incident" was as imaginary as the so-called "Yellow cake" incident, which together with the arbitrary assertions of the Administration that Saddam had–or was about to have—WMD, frightened a gullible public. A few years before, it had been the allegation that Saddam had infringed on the Kuwaiti oil sources. (Actually it was exactly the opposite: The Kuwaitis were slant-drilling Saddam's oil.)
Because the allegations were proven false by the IAEC, which had inspected Saddam's facilities, we–literally–had no reason for staying. The other assertion–that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 was even more ridiculous, and was proved to be patently a lie.
Let us consider the possible outcome of the current conflict in Iraq, seen against the backdrop of Viet Nam, and in terms of what we haven't learned:
The brilliant planning and propaganda of Ho Chi Minh and General Giap insured the real reason for our demise in Viet Nam:
These men made it clear to the Vietnamese people that they were just that–one people, and that they had to make that simple fact their major focus, that the people would suffer extreme losses and privations, but that this was the only way they would rid themselves of their oppressors. They were absolutely right, of course; and incidentally, their brutal honesty was matched only by their moral intransigence and integrity. (There are several books on this subject, but you will not find them in general circulation here.)
In their favor was the nature of the dichotomy between "North" and "South" Viet Nam. The leaders correctly pointed out than there was only one Viet Nam and that the "South" was in large part a contrivance of the US government, which put a weak leader (Ngo Diem) in office, followed by General Thieu and later General Ky, all after the assassination of Diem by the CIA. The fact that Madam Nhu, Diem’s widow, together with their daughter, got on TV and emotionally and with disregard for their own safety, told exactly what happened, thus showing this family to be just that–a family, and showed what happens if you trust the US. Anyone who worked for the corrupt "South" government was hated; and all predictions to the effect that the US would abandon him or her in the end were absolutely correct. Even Westmoreland years later admitted that it was a civil war and that the only war of "liberation" was to be liberated from us.
The specific implementation of that goal was to have guerrilla-striking forces adjacent to all major foci of US military strength, and then simultaneously, to attack all of them on and at a pre-arranged time–in this case the Tet New Year, which is why it was called the Tet Offensive. They shrewdly reasoned that, should their initial effort be dramatically successful, then the American military, completely disoriented, would beat a hasty retreat, in view of this and of the general public's dissatisfaction. They were absolutely right. After all is said and done, the last battle determines the war, not the first ones.
I get the impression that to a limited extent the Iraqis are beginning to realize this truth, and that is why their sudden guerilla attacks are so effective. Even if one in hundred is successful, that is all that is needed to demonstrate our vulnerability.
Now, let’s consider Iraq:
In the Iraq debacle, the decision to leave will be when and if the Neocons decide that they have achieved as much as they can and that further efforts will not be in their best interests. Popularity or public dissatisfaction now no longer is a significant factor, as the Administration controls the ballot box, Congress, and the candidates.
This presumes of course that we have any intention of leaving Iraq. This is worth considering, for the simple fact that we have set up a massive enclave on the eastern border of Iraq, and it would appear that we have no intention of departing from it, unlike the case with Saigon, or more recently, Okinawa. Iraq is a tribal culture; and therein lays its greatest strength and greatest weakness: Tribal cultures characteristically feud, one with another. At the same time, they demonstrate remarkable cohesiveness when dealing with a common enemy.
The discovery of the perfidy of Blackwater and other corporative military forces in the slaughter of Iraqis will easily be forgotten, and identical or comparable corporate troops will remain in Iraq, or worse yet, will return to the US to control the public. I will have more to say about this later.
I stated previously that one of the weaknesses of tribal cultures is their propensity to feud, one with another; however, in that structure also lies their greatest strength:
The only significant event that could reverse the tide and fortune of Iraq would be the appearance on the scene of a true Mahdi—a savior, one who could rise above sectarian differences. This actually occurred with the unifying strength of an outsider, Lawrence of Arabia, who achieved just that.
The Neocons are hoping to maintain control over the puppet government in Baghdad; but if ever such a figure arises, and if he can unite Shiite and Sunni, God help our troops, and God help the rest of us.
I started out by saying that these two conflicts, in consideration of the similarities and differences, are part of a wider and deeper and more sinister plan. In order to understand this statement, we have to accept the notion that conflicts are not chosen for the idealistic and stirring reasons given by our leaders, but by far more cynical and inhumane ones:
All of our so-called wars since and including WWII have always been for all or several purposes, in varying combinations. WWII had the added benefits of:
1) facilitating both aeronautical and mind-control experimentation, 2) damaging Europe terminally, leading to the establishment of the European Union, and 3) destroying the Jewish people, both to obtain their wealth and to keep an agreement with the Vatican, prior to the latter’s move to Jerusalem for the nominal leadership of the New World Order. (This last goal was delayed by the unanticipated survival of the Jewish State in 1948, 1967 and later 1973.)
The standard reasons for all of the conflicts involve the power to;
1) control oil
2) control drug trade
3) have a listening post on our enemies as well as our friends
4) build a permanent forward position from which to launch any further operations, military or intel or what-have-you.
And to these, we can now add a fifth, which is critical:
5) Destroy our military so that they cannot rise up against our leaders. This will contribute to the desired destruction of our republic and the establishment, in turn, of the North American Union.
Control Oil: This surprises no one. Recently, Alan Greenspan and others have come up with this startling revelation. Peak oil has been a real concern. Some seven years ago, an Intel officer told me that we were going to reach peak oil, not in seventy years but in more like seven years. I scoffed at this notion—together with his assertion that every third story of the Twin Towers was rigged with charges during a prior “inspection.” I scoff no more.
Control the Drug Trade: Drugs are the major means of controlling populations, funding black ops, and developing an army of willing informers who will do the bidding of the darker agencies of our government in order to avoid being sent back to prison. Witness the draconian sentences for drug use, not just drug sale or growing. Afghanistan and Indochina, Kurdish Iraq and Turkey constitute the French Connection.
Similar to true monetary standards such as gold silver and platinum, drugs have an intrinsic use, or value, are easily divisible, readily portable, and in totality are, for all intents and purposes, of a relatively limited quantity at any given period of time. The attribute of durability, a distinct advantage with silver and gold, is replaced by the net balance between a reliable rate of attrition matched by a rate of demand, the two offsetting thus offsetting each other; and in the case of an illegal commodity is precisely what allows drugs to maintain their value—their impermanence, because they are constantly supplied and consumed (and so laundering themselves,) and then replaced, therefore making detection time sensitive, and therefore almost impossible. Distribution is accomplished through organized gangs with leaders allied with the CIA primarily.
Have a listening post on our enemies and our friends: Almost every conflict in the past half a century has placed us in a strategic position to listen in on our enemies, real or potential, from Korea, to Viet Nam, to Iraq, and next Iran. Add to this our presence in the Bering Straits and our presence on Hokkaido, both opposite the most sensitive Russian installations, thus encircling China and Russia, our two greatest concerns, and you have a ring of information-gathering.
Build a permanent forward position: Our presence in Diego Garcia in the British Indian Ocean Territories, in Serbia and Kosovo in particular—the real reason behind our attack and ousting of Milosevic, who, incidentally was never shown to have committed even one atrocity—and now our permanent installation of comparable magnitude in Iraq gives us a commanding presence in the Balkans and the Caspian.
Destroy our military so as to avoid potential revolution: Our leaders have a very legitimate fear of our military returning to tell the truth, and with any support from Flag rank officers who have had enough, would find themselves facing impeachment at best, and charges of treason, at worst, excluding out-and-out lynching.
The gravity and the reality of this possibility cannot be overestimated. Our leaders know that the military is the greatest threat; and to that end, they have systematically done everything to destroy it, and in its place to substitute a Corporate military. This will be reinforced with Chinese troops, which can now be seen in abundance in Central America and Mexico.
Our prison system will be federalized. What is happening in California is the test case, made possible by the appointment of activist judges in the 9th circuit, jurists who, through the use of Receivership, and under the guise of sympathy for prisoners, have opened the federal door which will lead to corporate control and ownership of the state prison system and will be followed by a similar pattern in the remaining states of our once-existing republic.
I have written about this previously, and I will have a dynamite follow-up to give you the scoop very shortly, as events unfold.
In the words of the late and great, fearless Sherman Skolnick,
“More to follow. Stay tuned….”