Please note our primary author, a religious pacifist and disabled veteran, objects to these discussions as a matter of conscience and religious conviction.]

STOP THE PRESSES!!!

TIME FOR A REASONED RECONSIDERATION

A MILITARY REDEPLOYMENT

within Iraq's borders.

IS NOT A

TROOP WITHDRAWAL

After opposing, then studying Congressman John Murtha's recommendation of a military redeployment of our Iraq troops - we discovered how foolish was our original position. It is shrewd and effective military strategy to consider REDEPLOYING our troops to IRAQ'S BORDERS - The Periphery. Then, our military possesses the option of "MOVING-BACK-IN" if something goes amiss within Iraq. For instance, if Iran enters; or,a radical theocracy is established etc. [We pray the opposite be the Will of The Father, however,] it appears civil war is imminent. One observer sstated: "If civil war breaks out, there is no other realistic alternative, than redeployment of our troops to Iraq's borders. Let the Iraqis fight it out. Then, subsequently do what we can assisting that unfortunate nation."

NOTE: This Site does not endorse any military plan or strategy. Nevertheless, all ideas must be considered such as - redeployment - rather than withdrawal. Redeployment is not "CUTTING AND RUNNING." To the contrary, it may be the most INTELLIGENT STRATEGY [thus far] in a tragic war - a comedy of errors, shameful corruption - unnecessary blood, sweat and tears of death.

Please note our primary author, a religious pacifist and disabled veteran, objects to these discussions as a matter of conscience and religious conviction.]

Finally,

A Step In Right Iraq Direction.

March 22, 2006:

[An Excited Rough Draft. Correction subsequently.]

By Jim Hoagland "Diminishing the U.S. Footprint" Sunday, March 19, 2006; Page B07 is insightful and speaks wisdom during a chaotic military hurricane.

Jim succinctly describes the first realistic practicable key phase en route to a fair and just resolution of gruesome Iraq War. As a majority of us see it, [particularly the veterans] the matter can be summarized "to the number of U.S. kids lives we can save." How best to shrink our casualties presently over 17,000. Our brief essay, "STOP THE PRESSES!!! TIME FOR A REASONED RECONSIDERATION A MILITARY REDEPLOYMENT within Iraq's borders. IS NOT A TROOP WITHDRAWAL" supports The Article's deliberative brains-not-brawn-bullets-bombs approach.

The following article[What we are about to say is vociferously opposed by our primary author, a religious pacifist and disabled veteran.]

Adoption of the US troops INTERNAL IRAQ REDEPLOYMENT will grant our military numerous capabilities not previously available. Only few will be evaluated herein.

ONE: After THE INTERNAL REDEPLOYMENT is accomplished, and our kids are safeguarded in defensively secure enclaves and secured border outposts, THEN the US military WILL HAVE ACCOMPLISHED A MAJOR VICTORY = placing full responsibility within Iraqi hands. The Iraqis must choose for themselves either to stay together as one nation; or, fracture further into the civil war [already in progress].

MOST IMPORTANTLY: The U.S. would create essential time for reassessment by creating a breathing space! The military will acquire the R,R,R&R option [Rest, Relaxation, Rotation & Repair] of its troops. And, accomplish required materiel repair and maintenance.

Moreover,

a composed military leadership can initiate a rational objective tactical review. A re-planning, redesign re-strategizing, which - believe it or not - could allow the U.S. TO GO BACK ON THE OFFENSIVE! To fabricate from the chaos a: quick, beneficial, decisive - phased - conflict resolution.

How? By doing what we do best. Surgical air and troop attacks within Iraq ["persistent in-and-out" guerilla-style tactics] against specific terrorist targets which emerge. As The Veteran says, "The only way to win a guerrilla war is to combat it with guerrilla war tactics. IN-AND-OUT ATTACKS AND RETREATS. Thereby, forcing the terrorists into an uneasy apprehensive defensive position. The Mouse becomes The Cat; and, The Cat transforms into The Mouse. The tables are turned to counter-terrorism favoring the Iraqi People."

In our opinion, this could; not only, create peace and prosperity in Iraq; but also, perhaps, in the entire Middle East.

Could this be why our inflexible Iranian Brothers and Sisters are suddenly eager for diplomatic negotiations?

Our Thanks To JIM HOAGLAND for a great Article.

Onward! Forward!

Together!!!

[See: Military Tactics utilized by Genghis Khan and Ukrainian-Russian Cossack Brotherhoods. Our apologizes to our prime author. Nevertheless, a Site majority believed this approach would save lives.]

Diminishing the U.S. Footprint

By Jim Hoagland

Sunday, March 19, 2006; Page B07

Two important and related changes in the Bush administration's strategy for the long war on global terrorism emerged here last week. One tiptoed in quietly. The other came with trumpets blaring for political effect. It might have worked better the other way around.

The quiet change was suggested in classified briefings for friendly diplomats and visiting foreign officials: U.S. troops will be moving out of Iraq's streets and then out of Iraq's cities by the end of this year as part of a coordinated drawing down and concentration of all foreign forces. Troops from Italy and other nations will leave the country, and a reduced British force will redeploy into a smaller area of operational responsibility.

This is part of a new internal exit strategy that President Bush hinted at in Monday's Iraq speech. U.S. forces will stay in Iraq beyond 2006 to fight al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremists who are using Iraq as a platform for terrorism. Iraqi units -- operating with U.S. logistical assistance from remote locations and embedded command help -- are to be given primary responsibility for containing the domestic insurgency. This is what Bush calls Iraqis standing up to allow Americans to stand down.

Drawing lines between global and local terrorists will be a difficult task, as U.S. officials privately acknowledge. And Iraqi security forces and their political leaders, deadlocked in an intensifying power struggle, still must demonstrate they can carry out their part of the internal exit strategy.

But on its face, that strategy is a coherent way of reducing the foreign occupation footprint that fuels much of the conflict in Iraq. It realistically scales down what Iraqi units can be expected to accomplish: a long-term containment of terrorist attacks to a level that does not destroy the country's fraying ethnic and sectarian balances, rather than a quick final victory over the rebels. Finally, an internal exit is consistent with the administration's newest National Security Strategy white paper, released with fanfare Thursday.

The White House has struggled since Sept. 11, 2001, to define with precision both the enemy that Americans confront and the path to victory they must take in the war on terrorism. The Bush team gets closer with this exercise, which portrays the long war as a global ideological struggle that hinges on a battle of ideas within and about Islam.

That is change: The words "ideology" and "Islam" were each mentioned only twice, and in passing, in the 12,629-word version of the strategy document issued in 2002. They are at the conceptual heart of this year's paper (longer by one-third), which argues that Washington and its allies must "counter the lies behind the terrorists' ideology" by empowering "the very people the terrorists most want to exploit: the faithful followers of Islam. . . . Responsible Islamic leaders need to denounce an ideology that distorts and exploits Islam for destructive ends and defiles a proud religion."...

Bush himself steered drafters away from any discussion of Islam in the earlier paper, I am told, and his concern about attacking another religion is reflected in a caveat this year that "the War on Terror is a battle of ideas . . . not a battle of religions." But this year's realistic acknowledgment of the decisive role of moderate Muslims in defeating al-Qaeda and its allies is a welcome adjustment.

The heavy emphasis on ideology -- explicitly al-Qaeda's and implicitly Bush's -- is less useful. By proposing democracy as a cure-all for the vast frustrations and delusions of al-Qaeda's target audience, the White House skips over a lot of the hard work that must still be done to shape the military and political battlefields of the long war, trying instead to rally U.S. and foreign support for Iraq and Afghanistan.

A new tone of realism about those conflicts has taken hold in internal administration discussions of the way forward. Nothing could reassure Americans more than publicizing that change.

The intensity of the power struggle in Baghdad was brought home to me when my phone rang shortly after a column reporting that Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jafari is fighting to keep his job was published last week. The president of Iraq, Jalal Talabani, was calling to say that he, too, is dug in: The Shiite alliance that backs Jafari should present an alternative candidate so a "national unity" government can be formed "in the next two weeks."

Talabani, an acquaintance of 30 years, would not discuss his reasons for opposing Jafari now. But speaking in English, he emphasized that the presidency needs new powers to block "extreme demands from the other side."

As they say, stay tuned.

jimhoagland@washpost.com

ONE WAY OUT OF IRAQ

People, allowing them to decide this question: SHOULD THE USA REMAIN and CONTINUE TOWARD DEMOCRACY; OR, SHOULD IT LEAVE WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME - THREE MONTHS. A Vote of Yes, to Stay. A Vote of No, To Leave. It's their country, their future, let them decide." Respectfully Submitted "the"

THE

REASONS FOR IRAQ WAR

WHY???



THE

WHOLE TRUTH

SEE:

GORE VIDAL'S BOOK

FIRST - AN EMBARRASSMENT AND AN APOLOGY:

Authoring this breaches of personal confidence which I have never done before. This Washington insider of insiders who provided his factual information favors Iraq war. Although I hear he is having second thoughts. I solicit his acceptance of my apology. Nevertheless, After many restless nights, struggling with my ethical convictions and conscience, I could not endure knowledge of being uncommunicative and consequently culpable (For Cardinal Law like) omission. After the Vietnam Era service, could not carry burden of remorse as a Lady Macbeth powerless to cleanse the blood from her hands. I was morally obligated to balance this personal commitment not to publish --- against the greater good. I could not continue this life, silence in face of evil terminating with more blood on my hands. Therefore, I concluded writing a generalized description was my obligation to the American and Iraqi people.

I will summarize this twisted but unethically logical justification of the powerbrokers behind war. All Americans have a right to know and entitled to comprehend the complete truth. Paraphrasing my source as best I remember:

"This is not a war against Iraq but against Saudi Arabia! For some time now the Saudis, by US agreement, have acted as the world's oil price stabilizer. This arrangement operated well until the evil of the savage and barbaric 911 attack. Until that date, the US was indifferent and did not protest The Saudis openly dissemination of radical fundamentalist Islam throughout the Globe. US intelligence, was concerned, however, did not consider it a grave hazard; until world wide violence commenced. Immediate US investigation proved all financial roads and intelligence pointers concluded direct Saudi sponsorship. All have concluded all the "following of the money trails" lead back to the Saudis. They are responsible for most funding of Al Qaeda; for its foundation and Islamic hatred-filled worldwide scholastic spread.

The Saudi break with Bin Laudin was a sham from the start. The Bin Laden game is a "Good cop bad cop' routine. A Saudi dramatized act on the world stage to cover Saudis involvement. The Saudis now realize this has been a gargantuan blunder. Yes;. Presently they are endeavor to trap their massive cobra into the basket. That's why capturing Al-Qaeda's leaders has improved - to placate the West. . Nevertheless they refuse or cannot for fear of uprisings turnover Bin Laudin . Furthermore, Stating it bluntly, the US cannot attach Saudi Arabia. It is home of major Muslim holy places. This would immediately spark and initiate international war with 1.2 and 1.6 billion Muslims.

The only alternative plan remaining for those knowledgeable was the decision to replace Saudi as oil price world stabilizer. Saudis own 25% world potential production capacity. To accomplish this US must acquire oil field of world second largest oil owner --- Iraq. Thus the Iraq war in imminent. Stealing or more precisely controlling Iraq's oil supply and production (modernization by Dick C and friend), combined with Kuwait, other Arab suppliers and a long made secret arrangement struck with Russians--the world's largest producer. the perennial problem with Russian oil reserves is their location in forbidding Siberia (Thus Russia was forced to oppressing Muslim Chechnya because needs to accessibility of Chechnya oil supplies.) In addition the long planned AFGHANISTAN OIL PIPELINE (opposed by the Taliban and Usama - the true reason for Afghanistan war) will be construction contracts awarded to Bush corporate associates. This pipeline will carry the oil supplies from the area's "Istam-nations" to the sea for export. (However, It is long shot possibility the moderate Saudis could last minute reverse the Iraqi Attack. By providing promises complete amnesty and exile for Saddam his family and culpable supporters Bathe Party.) What will be the result? USA will assume the new role the world oil price stabilizer replace the Saudis and destroy OPEC's power over the West. This will create all-inclusive and absolute military, political and economic US world dominance. Allowing US enforcement of a Israeli Palestinians permanent peace. The US expects world opposition. Although the world will realize the US possesses all the winning cards in Bush's poker Game. Germany and France opposed Iraq War due to billion in oil profit losses. Moreover, capture of Iraq means a new European dependence on USA. The USA will in effect economically dominate NATO, UN and EU reducing their subsequent power dreams. As a ruse (or a ploy) of "Good Cop, Bad Cop" --- the Russians are pretending to be allied in opposition with Germany and France. Nevertheless post Iraq war, the Russians will economically unite with US. No US powerbrokers truly objected to France, Germany, China and Russia's UN security council gamesmanship. They are entitled to their opinion, to protect self-interest. Through the centuries the US blithely accepted years of French arrogant misbehavior. The French were expected to accept our economic assistance, and then like Judas turn as usual insultingly acting as uncooperative obstructionists. The French were expected Judas us insultingly acting as uncooperative obstructionists. We ignored this to engage their opposition to soviet communism. We ignored this to engage their opposition to soviet communism.

However, the France stepped over the line of acceptable diplomatic behavior when THEY SENT FRENCH DIPLOMATS TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES TO INTERFERE WITH US DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. THIS IS UNFORGIVABLE breach of international etiquette. This amounted to passive act of war mandating retaliation. We never interfered with their diplomacy, we cannot allow theirs in ours, Otherwise, unless an example is made, everyone else will soon be stabbing us in back. As an aside, THEY DID THIS AFTER THE our REVOLUTIONARY WAR, AND WERE severely PUNISHED. History has repeated itself, they will be severely PUNITIVELY ECONOMICALLY PUNISHED.