A Withdrawal or Redeployment from Reality

Saudi Arabia—the country which brought us the 9/11 Twin Tower terrorists—has, at an Arab League meeting, declared now that the U.S. role in Iraq in “illegal” and has laid blame on the U.S. for having a defined colonial purpose to impose controls over Iraq and the Middle East.

The usual rhetorical or superficial apology from King Abdullah—that it was necessary for public display, but that he really did it to protect his country’s relationship with us—is not only unacceptable but is a compounded insult to the American people.

We much demand that Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and the Arab League positively engage in stabilizing Iraq and also directly participate in Iraq’s reconstruction to avoid any colonial interests [of course, other than theirs] and thus purge the spilling of American blood in return for oil deliveries. Will they agree? No! Should we accept such an answer? No! As the walrus said, “the time has come” to reject, as part of the Surge, anything less than complete acceptance of responsibility by the region for the creation and maintenance of terror in the Middle East—anything less would be a farce. Theirs has been hidden behind a veil of religion—ours is exposed in the light of folly.

The Saudis safeguard their backside over and over again by bribery to a dedicated core of religious fanatics, by providing funding to Shiite as well as Sunni controlled agents of terror, by supporting Osama bin Laden [one of the Saudis’ prime citizens] in his al Quaeda plan for an Islamic takeover, etc., etc. The bottom line is that Saudis will do nothing unless it avoids Shiite/Sunni internecine ethnic cleansing—actually hatred of America is the one that that unites them.

It becomes obvious [if you are a conspiracy buff] that in order to accomplish an Islamic takeover, the Islamists have had a number of their congregants migrate into a number of nations ostensibly to secure economic positions and to favor the democratic election process, allowing them a safe and sound place in the community.

In that fashion and by using state-supported terrorist groups, they can ultimately gain conquest by means of a takeover in a peaceful and controlling fashion and without engaging in an actual battle [i.e., Taliban], and then the world wakes up.

While most of the world was oblivious to the Islamic deception, the American and Coalition forces went ahead and sent ground troops into Iraq based on misinformation and misguided intelligence reporting, or you can believe whatever purpose you want. Other than a substantive structural change to a guerrilla/terror form of war, the only recognizable reality discovered was the realization that Islam quietly and covertly and out of sight but yet in the open was shielded behind an exceptionally disciplined religion with a formulated and quiet plan of takeover.

In Islam’s new communities they have condemned as discriminatory any criticism by placing guilt as its being a bigoted attack on their religion. Many of our own citizens have responded by setting up ecumenical dialogues to prove that they were not racially profiling Islam or making excuses for non-terrorist Moslems. Yet, we ignored the defined non-assimilation of the Muslim into the general society.

While they acted as soldiers within their enclaves, they displayed their votes as an enticement to politicians who sought election in Europe as well as in the U.S.—and showing that they were and are as politically important as they have become. They have been accomplishing, slowly but surely, results which a Saladin could reach only through battle. We were and are very gently being sucked in.

Negotiations by the Nations most affected in the Region have worked out in Liberia and are being used with North Korea—such an involvement is ignored and rejected by the Arab League which fears that by using such an approach on Iraq or the Middle East, they would have to put aside centuries of ethnic hate within a society composed of Shiites/Sunnis/Kurds. They prefer to be allocating production in OPEC so they can maintain high oil prices to enable them to fund terrorism.

If we were to withdraw from Iraq and Saudi Arabia tomorrow, Iraq would probably be divided into three separate units, and the Arab League and its members would have to step in to prevent an internecine conflagration. Of course, being the thieves that they are, their first action would be to show how moderate they can be by raising oil prices to over $100 a barrel and demanding the return of American Forces. This would allow them to sit on the sidelines and criticize while making money.

So, the question we have to consider is how can we, as Americans, live up to our potential in a world where we need to recycle our troops back to Iraq, where Iran abducts British seamen by holding them hostage, where troops mean nothing when a single person or group can blow up a tank car of chlorine killing hundreds or thousands, and on and on. They are constantly testing our resolve. It is interesting that Russia has been cautiously supporting them under an irrational supposition that Russia will return to its prior glory—they are even more foolish than we are.

Here in our own land, we find industry and agriculture in disarray with jobs outsourced, education prowess diminished, the importation of food a major concern, and, step by step, the loss of our superpower status or of any power at all. Many of those to whom we are deeply in debt consider us merely as consumers and get satisfaction by participation in the economic cabal relying on our military to come to their aid when trouble arises, and they may also wake up a little late to reality.

We have accepted [a better word than “surrendered”] distortions in our way of life out of fear—fear of insecurity—fear of economic failure—fear of competition—fear of health deterioration—fear of travel and, ultimately, fear of being without self-imposed controls laid upon us outside the protections under the Constitution.

So, why even write about the possibility or even the probability of something in the future. In the last issue, my cover and centerfold were accepted; my column was questioned by some for being without compassion for collateral damage of civilians in protecting our own “power.” War is War is War!!! But it need not be if we maintain a superior power and ability to enforce any accord we enter into. It is that power that will control the result.

Again, confrontational conflicts are possible, but guerrilla and terrorist attacks are more likely since they entail fewer and more coordinated troops. Thus, if a conflict arises between nations, we, with our ability to impose, would be in a position to manage the process of resolution. The tools are always available whether they be by ever present negotiation, economic sanctions, or economic strangulation—and if that does not bring it to an end—then targeted military action without massive ground troops in place. Victory is an illusion, and stability is a result that calls for the involvement of all, not merely us.

So, for those who prefer unfettered compassion over resolution, we will stagnate in the status quo. It is only by having intrinsic strength will we be able to recover and maintain our way of life. Will people get hurt or die? Yes! But, better them than us, for, if they sanction the approach, then they also sanction the result.