SKYBIRD: Dale Brown’s Ops Report Copyright © 2005, TDPI

FATAL TERRAIN: Execute a new strategy in Iraq beginning NOW

Back in May of 2004 in “Skybird” I advocated a change in strategy in our military operations in Iraq: discontinuing our policy of “nation building” and “peacekeeping,” withdrawing from the urban areas, and setting up major air, armor, intelligence, and special ops bases in the north and west of Iraq.

I said all along that I believed our mission in Iraq had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction or saving Iraqis from a brutal dictatorship and everything to do with regional hegemony--establishing a strong military presence in the region, free of restraint by any government or faction, so we can hunt down al-Qaeda and secure our national interests in the Middle East…and yes, I mean the oil.

I believe I was correct then, and I’m even more correct today.

Unfortunately, in June 2004’s issue, I said we were winning the war. I believe now I was wrong. I don’t believe we can win because I haven’t seen any indication by the Iraqis that they want what we want: a democratically elected, reasonably stable, representative government. Iraqis aren’t arresting or killing the bombmakers; just as many roadside bombs and suicide bombers are exploding, killing more and more Iraqis as well as U.S. troops, but there doesn’t seem to be much of a hue and cry against the jihadists and insurgents.

I was particularly dismayed when assassins killed the assistant to powerful Shi'ite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani--and there was no retaliation, rallies, outcry, or ANY noticeable reaction AT ALL to the killing. Where is the "firebrand" cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who was so anxious to take up arms against the Americans? Where are his Imam Mehdi militias? Where are the "freedom fighters" who battled U.S. troops in Fallujah, Sadr City, Najaf, and so many other hot spots?

The obvious outcome to me is civil war, and I don’t want U.S. forces in the middle of packs of starving wild animals fighting each other.

I don’t want Iraq to turn into another Lebanon, where Syrian troops arrived when U.S. forces withdrew, but even if it happens, the difference in the two situations will be the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq. The Iraqi people will get whatever government they want, no matter what the United States wants or does.

Sure, lots of folks will slam President Bush for attacking and then withdrawing “before the job is done.” The job is still underway, and will be for many years: the fight against radical Islamists who think they can create fundamentalist theocracies and bring down “corrupt” Western society by fear, bigotry, and murder.

The United States and the Western democracies fought the spread of Communism all over the world for nearly a century. Communism purportedly sought freedom and justice by preserving and strengthening the power of the working class, which meant a strong central government controlling almost all aspects of life in that society; it also sought to spread Communism around the world by supporting and inciting revolution.

The United States took on what we saw as the spread of Communism in almost every corner of the planet: Korea, Southeast Asia, South and Central America, the Caribbean, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and even here in the United States. Not every battle was successful. Some battles were not battles at all, such as the Cold War between the Warsaw Pact and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but a battle of threats and counter-threats. Communism was eventually displaced not by military force but by its own ideological and bureaucratic wastefulness and inertia. If the people don’t care what happens to their society, and the government screws it up, there’s nothing left to sustain it.

The same is true with this battle against fundamental Islam and al-Qaeda. Radical Islam appears to be nothing more than a relatively small group of zealots who want to gain power for themselves by terror. It could be argued that the American Revolution was the very same thing: a group of “zealots” who called themselves “patriots” and “Americans” that resorted to using guerrilla tactics and terrorism to repel a “foreign” power. But the idea of America grew and prospered because the institution of government outlined in the Constitution gave people a voice. What voice do regular people in fundamentalist countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran have?

The final chapter in Afghanistan has yet to be written, but so far it looks like a victory—although the chances of the Karzai government collapsing and the country slipping back into anarchy look pretty good. The battle in Iraq did accomplish the destruction of a hostile regime, and our actions there have proven to the other powers in the region that the United States can and will intervene with force if sufficiently provoked, so it’s a partial victory.

Won’t the world think that America is weak if we withdraw from Baghdad? We did a “withdrawal with honor” from Vietnam, and that was seen as a major defeat for America and its military forces--wouldn’t another “withdrawal with honor” following the elections in Iraq in January 2005 be seen as another defeat?

Maybe--but that won’t stop the world from buying American products, selling their oil to America, investing in American bonds and notes, traveling to America, and fashioning itself like America. The ones that think America is weak will ALWAYS think America is a weak, decaying society. Let them think what they like. We should do what is in the best interest of America and not be guided by opinion polls, news reports, commentators, and spin-meisters.

The American people were willing to place American sons and daughters in harm’s way in the first Persian Gulf War because the threat from Saddam Hussein ravaging the oil-rich Persian Gulf nations was too much to bear. The threat to America’s national interests--yes, I’m talking about the oil--was clear. Similarly, the conflict in Afghanistan was grudgingly accepted because that country was the base of operations for the terrorists that invaded America on Nine-Eleven…

…and because we’d be hurting ourselves too much by attacking most of the terrorists’ home country, Saudi Arabia. What goes around comes around: I think once the jihadists and radicals stop fighting Americans in Baghdad and Fallujah, they’ll go after the weak, corrupt Saudi government next. Stay tuned.

The conflict in Iraq had to be fought because Nine-Eleven meant we had to do a proportional response--lobbing a few cruise missiles at Afghanistan and Sudan, like we did after the first World Trade Center bombing, wouldn’t be right after Nine-Eleven. Attacking America means a government or two goes down--in the case of Iraq, we just picked the biggest bully on the block, beat up on him, and knocked him down in front of everyone in the whole neighborhood.

Unfortunately, we misread what the neighborhood might do after we took down the big bully. We THOUGHT the neighborhood would be happy that they’re free of the bully, work to get rid of all the bully’s friends and henchmen, and accept our help to set up a friendlier neighborhood. Instead, the bully’s friends, a lot of other bullies from other neighborhoods, and even some members of the neighborhood starting fighting US, or at least not doing anything when the bully’s friends fought back.

It’s a tough lesson, but one I believe we may have to learn: we’re not welcome in Iraq. We’re outsiders, foreigners, even infidels to many, and they want us gone. I believe most Iraqis are grateful for the help and attention, but I also believe that most of them would prefer us to go home.

As I said in previous newsletters, a foreign army will always be considered an invading force if the foreigners fight against citizens of that country. It would be the same if Iraq sent troops to help put down riots in Los Angeles or Chicago--no matter how bad the rioters are or how noble the intentions of the foreigners, the true enemy will always be the foreigners, not the rioters. America accepted huge financial and war materiel contributions from France to help win the Revolutionary War against Great Britain, but we almost went to war with France just a few years later over fears of French colonization of New Orleans.

It is also true that very few invaders ever win a guerrilla war. The British lost the American colonies when the American rebels refused to engage British Redcoats; the Russians lost Afghanistan and are in danger of losing Chechnya; the French lost Algeria and Vietnam; and the U.S. lost Vietnam. We cannot fight what we cannot identify.

As hard as it might seem to the families of soldiers lost in the war, I hope we end this campaign quickly, set up a number of secure bases in the deserts away from urban guerrillas, and bring the bulk of our troops home immediately. I believe we went to war with Iraq without a plan to “win the peace” because the President had NO INTENTION of trying to “win the peace”--he wanted to plant a U.S. military force in the heart of the radical Islamic world. He wanted to send a message to unfriendly regimes in the region that the United States was mad as hell and wasn’t going to take it any more.

Whether it was because of military “mission creep,” bad advice from Colin Powell or Paul Wolfowitz, or pressure from the Democrats, somehow the mission was changed from crushing Saddam and establishing a foothold in the region to attempting to set up a democratically elected Western-style republic in Iraq. We lost the original mission objective. We had PRECISELY the number of troops we needed to win the war, and we did so with incredible speed and success--we should have ended the conflict right then and there, taken our forces out, and gone out to the hinterlands; we could have left the clean-up and reconstruction to the United Nations, the diplomats, the Iraqi bureaucrats, and most importantly the Iraqi people.

I hope President Bush isn’t so consumed with establishing or preserving his legacy in his second term that he’ll stay in Baghdad even though the prospects for total victory--whatever that means now--look bleak. In victory or defeat, it’s important to know when it’s time to attack and when it’s time to retreat. President George H. W. Bush had an overwhelming victory in his hands and could have taken his forces all the way to Baghdad if he wanted, but he chose to stop the ground forces at Basrah. Even though it was considered by many to be a sign of weakness, indecision, or even cowardice, the decision to stop and not occupy Baghdad ensured a triumphant victory that is still seen as the ultimate expression of American military power, resolve, and leadership.

President Bush #43 has already won a great victory--two in fact, counting Afghanistan, and three if you count no other terrorist attacks on U.S. soil a victory, which I certainly do. The fate of Iraq is in Iraq’s hands now. As I’ve said in previous Skybird reports, WE didn’t break Iraq--IT WAS ALREADY BROKEN WHEN WE GOT THERE. We fought and won the war that mattered. What becomes of that nation is in the Iraqi people’s hands, not ours. If they want a republic, or a theocracy, or another dictatorship--fine. We’ll deal with whoever and whatever crops up next.

Let’s get our forces out of the Sunni triangle, rest them, learn from our mistakes, rebuild our forces accordingly, and get them ready to fight again. There are plenty of other battles out there waiting to be fought.

What lessons do I think we learned? How would I rebuild our forces?

It’s an old lesson, but a useful one: the Powell Doctrine, attributed to Colin Powell as the key to success of the first Persian Gulf War but first outlined by Caspar Weinberger during the rebuilding of U.S. military forces in the 1980s. The Doctrine says: compose a clear set of objectives and an exit strategy; present them to the American people; get a majority of the American people behind the plan; execute the operation with an overwhelmingly strong force disproportionate to the enemy's; and get out when the objective is completed. If the objective needs changing, the operation is over, and it’s time to execute the exit plan, bring the troops home, and start all over again.

Iran’s nuclear development program is a good example of a possible next conflict that directly involves American interests…yes, I mean the oil. A nuclear Iran is simply not acceptable: they could hold the entire Middle East hostage and choke off a great percentage of the entire world’s oil.

We--not the European Union, not the United Nations--should immediately demand that Iran cease all plutonium enrichment operations and submit to international verification and monitoring. If they don’t, we make it CLEAR that the United States will retaliate with every option available to us, including military force. Again, it is in the United States’ national interests for Iran to stop enriching plutonium, therefore we won’t wait for international sanctions or approval before responding. Iran either agrees to America’s conditions, or suffers the consequences.

Obviously a war with Iran could have serious consequences for the entire world--Iran occupies a very strategically important location on the Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, and the Arabian Sea, and a closure of any of those sea lanes would negatively impact a large percentage of the world--and so it would be important to get as much consensus on sanctions from the world community before proceeding. But American interests trump the world’s interests every time. If the United Nations won’t go along, we’ll have to do it ourselves--again.

President Bush’s inability to get a firm consensus from the United Nations--even though the Security Council voted unanimously to allow the United States to proceed with any and all options to try to force Saddam Hussein to comply with U.N. resolutions--was not a failing of his leadership in the second Persian Gulf War. In fact, I believe it shows even greater resolve and leadership to press on with his plan EVEN THOUGH he did not have the United Nations’ blessing.

Critics and commentators point out that an attack against Iran would be ineffective and foolhardy because Iran’s military is widely dispersed, its nuclear facilities are underground, and if we couldn’t completely destroy the threat in one fell swoop, the Iranians would rise up and counterattack with such force as to leave the entire Middle East in flames.

Nonsense--and another example of outmoded twentieth-century thinking. A military attack against nations such as Iran or North Korea would be swift, stealthy, massive, and precise, targeting air defense, command and control, communications, and leadership targets, plus any area targets possible such as masses of artillery, troops, or minefields.

I should say, HOPEFULLY such an attack would be swift, stealthy, massive, and precise. As I said in previous newsletters, I was disappointed that we didn't see more "shock and awe" in the second Iraq war. I hope our military leaders have learned a lesson: lead off with your strongest force first, and don't stop until the enemy is not just defeated, but crushed.

This type of attack may not stop the enemy from counterattacking--Saddam Hussein's forces were able to launch several SCUD missiles despite the pounding he took in the opening days of the first Gulf War. But many military forces, especially North Korea's, are highly centralized and controlled, and cutting command-control-communications lines to the frontal forces may freeze them long enough for follow-on attacks to effectively neutralize counterattacking forces.

There's no doubt that such a conflict would be brutal, devastating, and dangerous, but if the threat is high enough and warrants such a response, it had better be done.

Click here for more on Plan Of Attack! Get Plan Of Attack At Amazon.Com! Plan Of Attack (MAY 2004) The unthinkable is about to happen in this high-flying novel of adventure and suspense. In Air Battle Force, Dale Brown introduced U.S. Air Force aerial warfare expert Major General Patrick McLanahan and his air combat unit of the future. Armed with a force of these robotic planes, the general and a handful of commandos were secretly deployed to the oil-rich nation of Turkmenistan to stop a Taliban invasion. And though the Americans won the battle, the war is far from over.... To punish McLanahan and his fleet of robot warplanes for their audacity, Russian president General Anatoliy Gryzlov decides to do the unthinkable: a sneak attack on America-unlike anything ever believed possible-that devastates her strategic air forces. McLanahan has collected information that not only foretold the Russians' daring plan, but also gave him the data he needs to plan a counterstrike that could stop the Russian war machine dead in its tracks. But Patrick is no longer in charge of Air Battle Force, and the Russian sneak attack has left the embattled U.S. president with few options: retaliate with every weapon in his arsenal, even if it triggers a global thermonuclear war, or to a cease fire on Russia's terms... ...or listen to a disgraced and discredited young bomber commander's long-shot plan of attack.

"The novels of Dale Brown brim with violent action, detailed descriptions of sophisticated weaponry and political intrigue... His ability to bring technical weaponry to life is amazing."
--San Francisco Chronicle

Contact Information:

Rights:
Robert Gottlieb
Trident Media Group
(212) 262-4810

Webmaster:
Parker Information Resources
bparker@parkerinfo.com

Welcome to AirBattleForce.Com Lake Tahoe, Nevada, USA Cyberspace home of: Dale Brown readermail@dalebrown.info