This is War

THIS IS WAR, DAMMIT!!!!

I have been formulating an overlook of the current situation in Afghanistan for several months now. My original intent was to attempt to determine a reasonable course of action pertaining to our involvement there. But McChrystal completed his analysis before I did, and, though they parallel, they only coincide in a few areas. He obviously has more resources than I do, so I'll forgo my current evaluation for now, and only speak of what I believe the future brings there based on my analysis. But Afghanistan is far from being the only area we need to concern ourselves with, and I fear focusing on that area alone is a faulty plan of defense and protection even though Afghanistan is the first link in the chain of providing for our security here at home.

Considering the recent apprehensions of terrorists on our soil, and the fact that they are only a few of the potential jihadists among us, we must begin to look in our own backyards for trouble. Not to mention our Southwestern border. But where else are we going to face problems that have the potential of affecting our security? There certainly are more than enough to go around. And where are they? Allow me to list them first, and then assess them.

Somalia remains an ongoing problem as radical Islamic rebels now control most of the country, including the bulk of the capital city, Mogadishu. Of course we are all aware of the increasing problem between Israel and the Palestinians who want more and more Israeli lands. Pakistan is a slow burning fuse leading to a huge powder keg, even though it seems relatively quiet on the surface. The Pakistani Army is in control of most areas, but the Taliban and al Qaida will soon bring any tentative peace to an abrupt end. Iran, with their saber rattling, is far more dangerous than many give them credit for. And North Korea is as well, and will become even worse unless China decides to shut them down. Closer to home is the Mexican Drug War, and in spite of attempts by their president to bring enough forces to bear to take back control, it isn't working. Honduras is facing a real threat of having their constitution violated and becoming another dictatorship while they are currently a democracy. The Venezuelan Chavez seems to be behind the destruction of the current system of government in Honduras, and we know of his association with Iraq and Cuba, which does not bode well for continued peace in South America.

The list of not so dangerous areas is longer, and each has the potential of becoming a very serious situation within the next one to two years, even though some have already been in chaos for nearly two decades now. Columbia, Chechnya, Yemen, Nigeria, Chad, the Philippines, India, Turkey, and the Kurdistan region of Iraq all hold enough threat to become the next big problem area. There are another dozen not worth mentioning quite yet, but I'll be watching for signs of eruption in them and try to let you now as they develop, if they actually do.

Somalia, and most of the African continent, is under subversive attack, all fostered by al Qaida and backed by oil monies from those who support them. For now, the best thing for us is to stay out of the way and let them battle it out. While that may sound somewhat defeatist, even risky as it allows the possibility of al Qaida gaining in strength and number, spreading ourselves any thinner is not a good choice for now, nor will it make anything there any more stable. In fact, quite the opposite is true, as it appears al Qaida would love to have us jump in there and take troops from where the current fight is in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. And our involvement would only serve to aid in their growth in numbers and increase the animosity level toward us even if we went in with plenty of allies or UN support (the latter isn't likely to happen anytime soon). Besides, we are already supplying a large amount of aid, most of which isn't getting to the people so they don't really know we're sending it. In all actuality, al Qaida is getting the credit for what we're doing there much as the Russians got the credit for what we supplied in Viet Nam, so to continue sending more resources there is as counterproductive as sending in military at this time, and we should be rethinking what, and how, we're providing that aid. That particular region should be the very least of our concerns right now, even though the atrocities are quietly growing and many are raising the alarm in hopes of redirecting our might from Afghanistan to Somalia.

Additionally, we need to reassess our method of fighting in those mountains. We have all the superior firepower and technology on our side, but they are still fending us off in many cases. Why? We're using the wrong approach, just as if we were using trenches to fight a moving enemy, or marching in a straight line against men fighting from behind trees. While we are certainly more mobile that that, we still aren't properly using the terrain to our advantage like they are. We have the capacity to map it all, study it, and develop new methods of traversing it. We have some rugged mountains in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, as well as Pickle Meadows (aka hell on a hill), but how many of our troops have trained there? (You haven't lived until you've visited the Pickle Bunker!) The desert training they got before going to Iraq was invaluable, so why can't we ensure that any new troops going over are mountain trained in a similar terrain? Why is it only a veritable handful of Marines, SEALS and Rangers are prepared for it? The problem is we need people there NOW, not in three or four months, but since Obama wants to drag his feet for political reasons, let the military get ready to fight a mountain war while he dawdles, or send half of what's needed now and the rest after Winter training in the mountains. That way when they do finally get there, they will be well prepared for the harsh winter climate and extreme altitudes, if they even get sent.

Next up on the list is the Israeli situation, and there again we should just get out of the way and let the Israeli's handle it. They are well prepared to deal with the continued threat from Hamas, the real troublemaker there. Other than giving them support instead of criticism, our involvement there should be severely restricted unless they ask us for help. Unless it starts to blow up and threatens to actually break out in open hostility beyond just the rhetoric currently wafting out of the area. We also should be very careful about sending any more financial aid to the "Palestinians", as most there are not only anti-Israel, but anti-US as well. Don't forget how they danced in the streets in the aftermath of 9-11, and just because they love Obama is no reason to think they've changed their opinion of us as a country.

Iran and North Korea are following the same playbook, stall, talk, stall some more, talk some more, but do nothing that will slow down their advancement towards a nuclear weapon, or the means to launch it. Considering where North Korea is geographically, they really are not a threat to us, but certainly are to Japan, and many other nations of that region. Their repeated launch of missiles is a smokescreen, as their nuclear ambitions are not as advanced as those of Iraq. But if Iraq manages to develop a decent warhead and the means to detonate it, you can bet North Korea will have it one way or another. As will Venezuela, this then becomes a major problem for us. China most likely won't let North Korea get to far out of hand, even though they don't seem to willing to step on the toes of their comrades and are continuing to fund their needs and supply them with the necessities of their population. I don't trust where the Chinese stand in all this, especially considering how much we owe them, but for now we'll have to trust that they won't let Jong Il out of his cage.

Recent news that Iran has yet another nuclear development site isn't really news at all. We've known it for some two years now, but the media didn't cover it too well since it was Bush revealing it. And Congress all but ignored it for the same reasons. So what is the truth about their facilities? What about the other three they have working, or the other five or so in developmental or partial stages of completion? Why aren't we hearing about them? And how far along are they in developing a nuclear warhead?

The Brushehr and Qom sites are only two of what could be many in the areas of the Middle East. The Syrian's secret site at Dair Alzour, once exposed, along with the outing of Qom should be proof enough that there are many such hidden sites in the region. We aren't hearing about these alternate sites because we don't know where they are. Well, not exactly anyway. But we know from several different surveillance techniques and on the ground data that they do exist, and we're within months of finding them. But that's part of the problem, not part of the solution. Reports that Iran is five years away from having a viable nuclear warhead capable of incredible destruction are simply wrong. Eighteen months is closer to the truth. And don't expect conventional testing to be part of their plan. They may not use it immediately, but they will certainly let the world know they are capable when they do finish development.

But they don't have an effective delivery system to send a warhead beyond Israel, and are waiting on North Korea to develop it for them in a trade program; warhead technology for delivery technology. But being able to send one as far as Israel is enough for them to take control of all of the Middle East and begin to threaten Europe. And, considering Venezuela's obvious partnership with Iran, the importing of both technologies there would also cause a great threat to us right here at home, particularly when you look at Chavez' attempts to put a puppet into the leadership in Honduras. Which brings even more importance to settling the chaos in both Afghanistan and Pakistan sooner rather than later.

Afghanistan and Pakistan share a common problem, even though we are primarily involved in Afghanistan and not Pakistan. Pakistan is already in a national turmoil, from accusations of voter fraud to attacks on the Pakistani military by Taliban militants. Civil War there is a very real possibility, and the opinion of some of our leaders that the Taliban and al Qaida are not working together is just simply idiotic. We need to stay on point against our enemy there, and if that means helping the Pakistani government quell attacks, so be it. But we certainly don't need to get involved in the actual workings of that government, or their elections. Yes, it's a fine line, but a line we should not cross if we can help it. It would also be advantageous to us to withdraw a certain amount of the aid, both financial and physical, we give them, as too much of it is finding its way into the enemies hands, especially the military supplies. Handling the Afghanistan problem will go a long way toward solving the problems in Pakistan, since, as I stated, they are basically the same problem.

The fact that we have been mostly ineffective in stemming the insurgency in Afghanistan is a multi-faceted problem. First, we need to step back the current "rules of engagement" orders to allow our troops to actually do their job. Civilians are going to die, but they will die anyway, at the hands of the Taliban, al Qaida or the Afghani Army, if the top blows off this area. Our military knows how to reduce, as much as possible, any civilian casualties, let them do their job. Second, send in the materials and equipment they need to get the job done. And send in the needed increases in troop levels to facilitate getting it done.

This is a war, not a rebuilding effort, and we need to treat it that way. There is absolutely no sense in rebuilding the infrastructure there if we can't give the Afghani's the strength to hold it against the Taliban and al Qaida. And it certainly doesn't make much sense to spend millions rebuilding something that won't last beyond the next attack. Something we learned in Iraq to be sure. But there is the only real similarity between the fight in both areas other than who the enemy is. There is concrete proof that the Taliban supplied insurgents, as did Iran, Syria, etc., to oppose us in Iraq, but now we're in their backyard instead of their neighbor's. And they are going to fight that much harder at home than they did next door. However, unlike al Qaida, the Taliban will yield and join the superior force once they see they aren't going to win out against the rest of the population of their specific countries. And once in the fold, so to speak, they will help drive out the members of al Qaida currently hiding amongst them.

They respect strength, not diplomacy, and talking the problem to death isn't going to solve a thing because they aren't listening. And, of late, neither is any other problem country around the globe. But taking care of Afghanistan and Pakistan while we're still able should allow us to put enough pressure on al Qaida, not to mention the leadership of the rogue nations like Iran, and force them to back off. They'll never stop coming, even after bin Laden and all the others at the top are gone, because of the radical ideology involved and the fact there will always be others of their ilk to take their place.

We are also fighting a war at home, against drugs, or at least those who are at the top of the food chain in the drug business. And the continuing war in Mexico against the drug cartels is spilling over into many aspects of our society. Kidnappings are up, often drug related, as are abductions, murder, theft and burglary and most other violent crimes. What is infinitely more dangerous than the obvious damage hard core drugs are doing to our society is the fact that the cartels have started working hand in hand with the terrorists we're fighting in the Middle East. They are sharing technologies and concepts of bomb making and transportation of illicit items. Recently there have been assignation attempts of Middle Eastern dignitaries using some of these techniques. Just as "mules" have used their orifices to hide drugs and smuggle them across, so too are the assassins. Stuffing their colons full of explosives gives a whole new meaning to the term "dirty bomb", but it was somewhat effective.

There is also no doubt that the cartels are using those of Arabian descent to smuggle drugs, and who knows what else, across our borders in exchange for setting them up with their cell contacts on this side. Or that the cartels are helping these terrorists to learn about the Mexican culture so they can fit in more easily once they do get across. But what can we do short of invading Mexico and taking over?

We're already working with the new President of Mexico, Calderon, and his people, but many of them are as crooked as a dog's hind leg and are on the cartel payroll. And so are the border officials in Mexico's impoverished towns and cities, all the way from the top down. So about the only thing we can do from our side is to further control our borders to keep any more of the Mexican Drug War from spilling over to our side. If we don't all we're doing is putting off the inevitable, war on our own streets.

However, if we can get Afghanistan stabilized, then Pakistan, we will take some of the wind from the sails of al Qaida in regards to bringing the war here again, but on a much larger scale than 9-11. Pulling out now will only embolden our enemies, all of them. This makes Afghanistan and our own border the top priority, followed by Pakistan, then Somalia, Iran or North Korea, whichever one pops its ugly head up first.

In preparing this blog, I wanted to address many other things that have come to my attention in regards to the areas I've discussed, but some of the reports I've scanned are still classified, and others are incomplete, and still others were so far off base that I couldn't use them. Also my timetable for posting it was delayed over a week while I waited for clearance to discuss some of the items mentioned. Other than that, I'll close by saying,

WAKE UP, AMERICA!!

WE'RE BEING SOLD DOWN THE RIVER!!!

Because if we don't soon recognize that we're at war on more than one front and develop a real war effort, we'll be fighting just to survive!!

ALL PHOTOS, GRAPHICS, CLIPART AND LOGOS USED ON THIS SITE ARE THE PROPERTY OF THEIR SPECIFIC OWNERS AND ARE USED WITH FULL PERMISSION OF THOSE OWNERS. A NUMBER OF PHOTOS USED AS BACKGROUNDS AND CLIPART BELONG TO THE OWNER OF THE CHEROKEE PARKS SITE AND MAY NOT BE COPIED OR USED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION. PLEASE CLICK THE EMAIL BUTTON ON THE HOME PAGE TO REQUEST PERMISSION FOR USAGE OF PHOTOS, GRAPHICS AND CLIPART DISPLAYED ON THIS SITE, OR GO TO THE LINKS PAGE FOR USAGE REQUESTS REGARDING LOGOS, CLIPART, PHOTOS AND GRAPHICS FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS.