Iraq Recap With updates First, Im a USMC veteran of both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom II. From my personal experience and intellectual appreciation the war is just and must be completed. I was injured in said conflicts and have since returned to civilian life. My only regret is that I cannot return to fight another day.

Operation Iraqi Freedom

Allow me to pose a question. Would the "world" be just as mad if the United states had attacked Nazi Germany and removed Hitler for violating the 1918 Armistice? Would the world be angry at the US? Would our troops been refused entrance through France?

At the close of WWI the 1918 Armistice provided Germany strict restrictions to its military. These terms were grossly violated by Hitlers regime and most intensly by the Germans participation in the Spanish Civil war supporting Spains Fascist party headed by Fransisco Franco defeatinf Communist rebels. The world did nothing to enforce the Armistice's language limiting Germanies military even after this demonstration of its growing power and as a result an entire generation of the human race was thrown into a tumultuous conflict.

The question is what would have happened if some country had decided to take action to stop Germanies disregard for the Armistice? Would world opinion have been brought to bear on the "offender"?

Say hypothetically that the United Kingdom had blocked Germainys invasion of Poland. Suppose they forced the German government to abondon its quest for expansion early and placed it under economic sanctions. Suppose a defiant and hostile Adolf Hitler had continued to antogonize the UK and violate UN sanctions with illicit trade in arms and trade goods. Suppose the UK had attacked Germanies own borders removed the Nazi party and installed a local German authority of amicable nature. Would Europe have berated them? Would they ever had understood the millions of lives saved? Would they even care to consider the possibility?

You have post Gulf War Iraq but pre Operation Iraqi Freedom.(view as similar conditions to post WWI Germany except that in this case the Germans were driven out of Poland by Allied forces in 33) Like post WWI Germany Iraq is under military restrictions. Like Nazi Germany Iraq was in violation of its treaty. What is the difference between stopping Hitler prior to 33 and stopping Saddam in 2005?

Violations of UN Sactions

Many Violations of the peace agreement are made (will likely miss quite a few)

1) Iraq retains Medium range balistic missles. I personally know this because they shot them at us during the war. You know this because you watched them live on TV. Under UN sanctions these scud missiles wre to be destroyed. The Baathist regime claimed to have destroyed all these weapons in accordance with the treaty. Not to anyones suprise the Iraqis had them on hand for the war. If anyone recalls these "scuds" were used during the initial gulf war to devastate Kuwait and to strike conflict nuetral Tel Aviv (capital of Israel) in an attempt gain Islamic Militant support from Islamic anti-semetic radicals. To coin a phrase "scuds that werent supposed to exist were shot down by patriot missles that werent supposed to work."

2) Iraq retains Nuclear material. Granted this was often disputed prior to the war and largley based on the testimony of exiles. We recovered over two tons of Uranium in various staged of enrichment, at least two nuclear centrifuges(buried in the yard of a scientist), and over 1000 other highly radioactive items. Basically put enough to create several "dirty bombs" (a weapon that uses conventional explosives to disperse radoactive material to cause mass casualties) or to get a nuclear program back on its feet. Also note that it is a gross violation of peace condidions. Dont beleive me dig up the rueters report and read it yourself. There are several detailing the transfer of the material to the United States and several more about the difficulty coalition forces had picking up the dispersed materials.

3) Chemical Biological Programs. Also disputed. Im not going to give you conjecture Ill stick to fact. According to exile reports Iraq had a stockpile of biological and chemical agents. In 1988 the Iraqi government used various nerve agents to supress an ethnic minority known as the Kurds. Over 300,000 kurds were murdered and placed in mass graves(reason enough to bomb a country in my book). To put the pain in perspective most deaths from nerve gas are a result of seizures breaking the victims own neck. Also note that extensive amounts of lab equipment, all the raw materials needed to produce chemical weapons, samples of biological agents, mysteriously empty chemical payload warheads (dumped in the Tigris and Euphrates rivers), and competent scientists were all captured. One thing I found amusing was the fact that Iraqi troops were carrying gasmasks. Also note that one Serin gas artillery round was recovered in a roadside bomb (pretty much ingnored by the press but available from reuters) Also note that several truck convoys escaped into Jordan and Syria before the war began. Israeli intelligence published several reports of Iraqi Chemical weapons being recieved and stockpiled by Syria.

4) Violation of Oil for food program. This was known before the war began. Oil smuggling was the factor keeping prices down beleive it or not. One thing I did not find amusing was the sheer volume of French Weapons that were brand new. Also note there were brand new Turkish small arms, russian and german equipment and repair parts and new russian optical equipment some of whish was nightvision. This is in addition to all the Jordanian, Egyptian, and Syrian equipment they had. The part I was most angry about was all the brand new French Anti Aircraft guns. Now that the war has been fought the whole scope of the scandle is being investigated. Now you know why certain countries didnt want US forces in Iraq. And why the Nato vote went the way that it did.

Also note that the UN was involved in the scandal to such an extent that Secretary General Kofi Annan's own son was netted in the investigation for participating in illegal trading activity with Iraq violating the UN's own sanctions under the guise of the UN's Oil for Food exchange program.

5) Post 9/11 attempts to contact Al-Qaeda

After the 9/11 incident the russians caught Iraqi officials meeting with Al-Qaeda. Also note that they took in Afghani militants fleeing the war in afghanistan and that Militant Leader Al-Zaqarwi (probably misspeled) is an Al-Qaeda afilliated terrorist. There was no Iraqi involvement in the 9/11 incident whatsoever, but they were in contact with Al-Qaeda after the incident in attempts to open a dialog to aid the group in exchange for assistance in Iraqs own anti American and Anti-Western goals. A lot of this is speculation and conjecture. The only concrete fact is that after 9/11 the Iraqi government went to lenghs to set up a clandsdine meeting with Al-Qaeda and allowed refugee militants into their country.

Russian President Vladmir Putin had several press conferences on the subject.

6) Assasination attempt on George W Bush Sr. (Papa Bush) Yes thats right the Iraqi goverment tried to assascinate one of our presidents. (Violation of geneva convention!)

7) Torture and murder of dissidents and citizens. I have personally seen a Republican Gaurd torture chamber at an airfield in Saddam city. I dont want to speculate what any of the to and devices were for. I am just happy our unit blew it up and set it on fire. We have all seen the men without hands because they traded in foreing currency and heard the tales of rape and torture. Hell they raped Jessica Lynch and damned near every other female captive they have had. She should be lucky she didnt get her joints powerdrilled like many of Iraqs own people. Bottom line is any government resoting to torture, mutilation, and rape is a worthy target for regime change.

Results

1) Libya agreed to a peace deal and is dismantling its weapons of mass destruction willingly. They were afraid they might be next. They are one of many countries to enter such negotiations. Basically put US threats are no longer considered Idle and the US has greater diplomatic influence as a result

2) After Russia proposed adding the PLO and other groups(chechen and georgian terrorists) to the terror list the new leadership of the PLO has denounced terror and is once again in peace talks with Israel.

To update further Palestinian leader Yasser Arafate died resulting in the election of moderate leader Abbas. Abbas has since brokered a peace deal with the Israelis and the two sides are deliberately beginning the proscess of creating an independant Palestinian state bringing a peaceful end to a racial conflict that began in 1948 when Israel was created.

3) India and Pakistan are no longer on the brink of Nuclear war. In 2002 I was sitting on a Navy Ship preparing to evacuate American civilians from India in preparation for a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan. Since the war on afghanistan began Pakistan had deescalated slightly after the attack on Iraq began more diplomatic effort was made to get Pakistani assistance in nuetralizing Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders. Since then both countries have stood down and the region is the most peaceful its been in a decade.

Cooperation with Pakistan has allowed the Pakistanis to gain control of most of their country from violent tribal leaders. This proscess is not complete but conflict between Indias and Pakistan has been arrested and Pakistan has transformed from a hostile state into a cooperative US ally.

4) Slight de-escalation of North Korean aggresiveness. Now armed with nuclear weapons in addition to its biochemical fair North Korea (read as "evil" Korea) has recently made threats against Japan by launching a medium range ballistic missile into the ocean to demonstrate its capabilities. Since the seriousness of our resolve in the war on terror and labeling them as part of the"axis of evil" Korea has been more responsive in negotiations with Russia, China,and the united states. Please note that the Clinton administration provided the nuclear material the Koreans used to build the reactor it built its nuclear weapons with. Smooth Move Billy.

5) Improved relations with Russia. Even though Russia voted against the war for economic reasons the expansive war on terror has gained support in terrorist plagued Russia. The Iraqi conflict increased the desire for information sharing and the US and Russia are nor collaberating to gather intelligence on a large number of different terrorist groups.

6) A less beligerant Iran. Iran has been only marginally responsive to negotiations revolving around its new neclear power station and what it intends to use its reactor for.

7) Iraq a magnet for terrorism. The majority of militant forces are foreign terrorist fighters or at the very least led by them. Several months ago a Syrian intelligence officer was captured by Iraqi security forces and forced to read a statement on the Al Iraqia News network detailing the Syrian training, support, and control foreign insurgents in Iraq.

Their efforts in Iraq prevent them from stiking us at home by diverting their assets and they are being killed as an added bonus. An Iraqi captive freed in Fallujah told his American Liberators he thought he was in Syria because all his captives were Syrian.

8) Syria forced to commit to withdrawal from occupied state of Lebanon. Basically put the Iraqi conflict gave the Lebanese hope. They began to attempt to gain the worlds attention for their plight only to be noticed after Syria assasinates one of its leaders. International pressure has forced a syrian withdrawal to begin.

Why Iraq

Iraq was selected as a target for four reasons. You can read more about them in General Tommy Franks book.

1) The administration beleived it would be an easy victory fot the american people and thought it would be needed to keep public opinion in what was expected to be a long drawn out conflict in Afghanistan.

They were only partially correct in this regard. The Baath Party was easily removed. The war in Iraq was record-breaking fast. The people were glad to be liberated. The unexpected flood of foreign fighters into the region has hampered reconstruction. Ironically Afghanistan would be the success. Elections have been held and the region is relatively safe. Afghanistan was a complete success. Iraq is the long drawn out conflict. The other great peril no one expected was the fact that The news Media has ignored the Success(afghanistan) and concentrated on showing the ongoing conflict in an increasingly negative light (Iraqi Freedom). Please note that pre gulf war Iraq was very secular and progressive in addition to being wealthy. This means that it has potential to be a very wealthy and powerful state once its free governmnet is running. The Administration beleves that in the future Iraq will be wealthy,influencial, and arab....meaning that it will have more effective influence on its arab neighbore in turning them to democracy as they are the same culture and will be wealthy enough to take seriously/envy/emulate.

2) The administration was determined to show the world that it was serious about the war on terror. It was intended to increase the weight the United States had in diplomacy with rogue states by proving that there would be repercussions to beligerance.

Iraq was a good target because it had become a champion of resistance. Basically put they had defied US and UN intentions for more than a decade. This sets the example that any state couls openly challenge the US without fear of action and that any dictatorship could strenghen the hold it has ion its people by uniteing them against a common enemy like the US or the UN. This was a succes. Since the Iraqi was many rogue states have complied or entered talks. Us diplomatic efforts are much more succsesful.

3) Saddam Hussein and the Baath party were evil, maniacal, and dangerous.

The Baath party had habitually abused its own people to violent extemes allegedly exceeding monsters like General Augusto Pinochet. In retrospect these atrocites were greater than first anticipated.

They had resulted to terrorrist action before by launching missiles at Tel Aviv in a deperate effort to gain terrorist support while losing the Gulf War and they attempted to assasinate former President Bush.

The government was worried that the impoverished and desperate Baath party would give chemical, nuclear or biological weapons to terrorist factions. (This belief was strenghened by Russian reports that Iraqis were meeting Al Qaeda affiliates after 9/11) The reality of this possibility will never be known because the United States acted before it was possible. While no stockpiles of these weapons were found in quantities larger than two tons. Iraq could easily produce them or merely contributed its radioactive material for a dirty bomb. Most of the detractors to this argument would be the first to critisize american non-action had this been allowed to happen. This was a distinct reality but not the primary focus. The media focuesd on the WMD argument because of the popular focus on the devastation from the 9/11 attack.

4) Iraq is an excellent candidate for democracy and very likely to influence its neighbors in the future. This is conductive to the USA�s desire to spread peace in the middle east and provides a vector for peacefully changing the political climate of the Middle East.

WANT MORE?

Still not convinced its a good enough reason? Thats ok but consider the following;

1) The US Congress and Senate voted for the war when presented with all the same evidence as the president. Even the members of the intelligence commision including John F Kerry.

2) Saddam was given a final opportunity to surrender, receive exile, and peacefully allow the country to change. He refused and the war began.

3) There was no dissent in the government about the war until the Democratic Primaries began. Dissent was the tool of choice for the Democratic party. Thus the Anti-War sentiment in the government was the begining of Partisan election politics.

4) William Jefferson Clinton was Impeached and disbarred as a Lawyer over an affair with an intern. If anyone actually beleived that President Bush intentionally lied to the whole world they would be actively trying to Impeach him to save face. Also note that he won re-election to further bitch slap that argument.

5) You will never truly know the full impact removing the government would have. Thats the bitter fruit of the whole deal. You can speculate whatever you want about Iraq's intentions for the future but will never truly know the answer. If you take the Average Iraqis word however you would know that they are pleased to be free of Saddam, proud of their new government, and hate the insurgent fighters.

Operation Iraqi Freedom II

When President Bush Declared Major Combat operations in Iraq over he was correct. The Baathist Government was destroyed. Insurgent rebels would appear... but of foreign origin. So marked the beginning of OIF II where Coalition forces would be posed the task of training and aiding iraq in the face of feriegn invasion.

Insurgent Fighters are not Iraqis

There were some Iraqi rebels re-enforced by Al Qaeda refugees fromt he Afghanistan conflict. They are led by a Jordanian militant named Abu Musab al-Zaqawi who calls his militia "Al Qaeda in Iraq" They have been since decimated by Iraqi Defence forces and their allies, However foriegn replacements arrive anew encouraged by Liberal Media's negative spin on the war and American Partisan political abitions to force a set date for troop withdrawal.

Furthermore, Syrian intelligence Officer Lt. Anas Ahmed al-Essa was broadcasted on the Al-Iraqiya news network (Iraqi State Television network). He spoke of his mission to train and aid insurgents in Iraq. Explained how Syrians were funding the insurgency in Iraq, went on to explain that his mission was to "cause chaos in Iraq" and stated that his orders came directly from the Syrian government. Following this confession were several Iraqis detailing their own experiences being recruited, funded, and trained by Syrian intelligence officers. In addition to those statements were further first hand accounts from Sudanese and Egyptians detailing how they were recruited, trained in Syria, smuggled into Iraq and later commanded by Syrian intelligence officers working to undermine the new Iraqi government with violence.

WARPIG APPRAISAL OF CURRENT CONFLICT

The Players

Coalition forces, Iraqi Nationals, Iraqi State, and conservative Western Culture, VS Radical Foriegn Terrorists, "liberal" socialist western society, and mainstream media outlets.

The Strategies.

The Insurgency

The Insurgency believes that they can outlast coalition resolve to support the new Iraqi state. They also believe that they can outlast and overthrow Iraqi leaders and overtake Iraq resulting in the imposure of Islamic Family law on the secular nation.

The Stategy is Circa Vietnam.

The Insurgency is depending on liberal media outlets to break the morale of their enemies. They work to affect this goal by perpetuating acts of terrorist violence against these enemies. These acts get free press and demoralize the populace of enemy parties. The insurgents hope that continued media coverage of their activity will break the will of the United States. They are encoraged both by the media coverage they recieve and by the statements of dissenting politicians like the democrats call for set troop withdrawal dates. These events pull double duty by demoralizing the Iraqi government and its allies then by spurring insurgent morale and recruiting.

Just like Communist North Vietnam the Insurgency has lost its indigineous forces and its regular material support. (the local communists were destroyed in the Tet offensive the local Iraqi insurgency was destroyed in Fallujah) The communists had Chinese militants and soviet and Chinese weapons smuggled to them via the Ho Chi Mihn Trail Likewise the Insurgency is dependant on Egyptian,Syrian, and Jordanian militants armed with devices and training of mostly Syrian origin.

Also in similar fashion to vietnam the Iraqi Governemnt and its Allies are militarily undefeatable. Insurgents are killed and arrested in large numbers regularly and in greater proportion than the damage they cause. As a result insurgents must rely on public opinion to claim victory.

Take the Vietnam conflict as the example. The US withdrawal resulted in communist victory after which the communist would go on to slaughter an additional 6 million civilians in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.

Imagine the destruction that could be caused by the abandonment of much larger and more potentially powerful Iraq.

The Flaw in the insurgents plan is that they will fail if the coalition forces simply maintain the course supporting the Iraqi government or if the Coalition becomes bold enough to sever their Syrian support network.

Coalition Strategy

Coalition strategy is stay the course.

Basically put the US and its allies plan to maintain prescense in iraq and to assist the Iraqis in security and training. The consensus is that Continued growth of Iraqi Government will result in the Iraqis gaining the ability to fight the insurgents themselves entirely resulting in the demoralization of the insurgency and an end to the influx of foreign militants.

The Stategy is Israel all the way. The intent is to provide the Iraqis with the tools to defend themselves. Over time this is a distinct possibility. Especially since the Insurgents they are fighting are foreign invaders.

The Flaw in this plan is the fact that dissenting political figures and media are actively trying to undermine public support for the conflict. To attain victory the coalition must stay the course to fail they must commit to a troop withdrawal. Even in the case of withdrawal it is still possinble that the Iraqis could successfully resist the insurgency. This increases the likelyhood of open foreign invasion and ultimate failure however

Upcoming Turning Point

Election year 06 sees half of the US senate and House seats up for election. If liberal factions are capable of retaking the house and senate (very unlikely as the liberal party in the US has been in decline). If this should happen the legislative branch could possibly commit to a troop withdrawal and force failure of OIF II.

Conversly the GOP could make gains in the election strengthening the resolve of the nation and demoralizing the insurgents. This would likely quiet dissent and possibly even influence the media image of the war.

Results

INSURGENT VICTORY

Iraq becomes a hostile theocratic state. It becomes a hotbed for terror and oppression. The West loses more face in the Middle East and Jihad against Western Nations increases Dramatically.

COALITION VICTORY

Iraq maintains its democracy,becomes an ally to the west, and an ambassador of freedom to other arab states,

WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON?