StormWarning’s Counterterrorism

THIS IS AN OPINION PIECE. IT IS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO ALL SORTS OF SECOND GUESSING.

So much has been made of the “intelligence” (faulty or misinterpreted or whatever) that led to the War in Iraq and the lack of found WMDs, that I’ve been wondering about the real underlying strategy of the action(s) and where it could be leading.

Long ago, I wrote a piece that was much maligned at that time, in which I reported and commented on a report written by Dr. Jeffrey Record, a visiting professor at the Army War College in Carlisle Pa. (on loan from the Air Force’s Air War College in Montgomery, Ala.). At the time (December 2003), Record examined three features of the war on terrorism as then defined and conducted: (1) the administration’s postulation of the terrorist threat, (2) the scope and feasibility of U.S. war aims, and (3) the war’s political, fiscal, and military sustainability. He believes that the war on terrorism–as opposed to the campaign against al-Qaeda–lacks strategic clarity, embraces unrealistic objectives, and may not be sustainable over the long haul. He calls for downsizing the scope of the war on terrorism to reflect concrete U.S. security interests and the limits of American military power.

Unlike many who reacted to the Record premises, I was interested in the strategic component of his report, since I believe that all military and diplomatic actions should be analyzed in terms of strategy, tactics and outcomes (I’m a really “fun guy” but that’s what comes from idolizing brilliant thinkers like the recently deceased Peter Drucker).

For anyone interested in reading Dr. Record’s report, here is a link to it: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB207.pdf

I’m wondering now if Record wasn’t misled by a lack of total perspective on the overall U.S. strategy. Considering the controversy created by Cong. Murtha’s proposal (not voted upon in any way, but eventually, in essence, supported by recent statements by various U.S. Generals), and the most recent (and another) unsubstantiated rumor circulated by Debka (of a U.S.-Syria firefight in al-Qaim), I’ve concluded that there may be a much broader and grander scheme associated with the strategy of overthrowing Hussein in Iraq, and the additional pre-emptive strikes that may yet be coming.

The Debka blurb is still on the web site. But it has been moved from the banner headline…LOL…to a position of lower prominence. But nowhere else, anywhere, whether in the media (the so-called and much distained, "mainstream media"), or on the Internet (blogs or Arab news), has there been any corroboration (it hasn’t been mentioned by ThreatWatch, the Counterterrorism Blog or Global TerrorAlert either, but that could be a function of the Thanksgiving Holiday, but even Michelle Malkin hasn’t blogged on this subject – again, possibly because of Thanksgiving…and it certainly doesn’t show up in any Google search on the subject). I even asked one of my business associates who lives in Israel about it, and his response seemed to be a close paraphrase of the Debka blurb…leaving me no further along in my desire to confirm this Debka rumor than I was before.

Personally, I don’t place much weight in Debka blurbs until the information is confirmed. Lots of other people, though, buy their blurbs "hook line and sinker." Although an article just appeared on SF Indy Media (a well known, liberal website), http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/11/1722454.php, I’ve yet to see or read any reputable corroboration. I suspect we won’t know for sure, for a while.

But nay, I stray from my initial intent.

My premise is that looking at the War in Iraq as a microcosm instead of a much broader regional campaign might well be very wrong.

http://www.jhuapl.edu/colloquium/topics/friedman.html

If you follow this reasoning, then the War in Iraq is one “episode” in a grander, wider pre-emptive campaign against Islamic jihadism. Because of Iraq’s geographic significance, bordering on six other potentially hostile nations, and that fact that it offers a ground base jumping off point from which additional protective/pre-emptive efforts could be launched. “…The Weapons of Mass Destruction issue was a real but subsidiary consideration, but was made central for diplomatic and political reasons. It was seen as a stronger justification than geopolitics and it was assumed that it would be self-validating…”

Once you “buy-into” the premise that the War in Iraq is/was part of a broader strategy and initiative, then the possibility (if proven) of an incursion by U.S. troops into Syria makes more sense.

Of course, if the precedent is set that U.S. troops will pursue al Qaeda mercenaries across the border from Iraq into Syria, does that mean that pursuit of Palestinian thugs and terrorists from Israel to anywhere else is the next phase of what might be shaping up as a “Wild West” strategy in the Middle East of “seek and destroy” all fleeing terrorists becomes the rule and not the exception.

Go ahead and think about it. To me it makes a lot of sense. Who are our allies in this grander scheme? To me, one thing is certain…our military resources are stretched quite thin at this point. I don’t see how multiple fronts could be sustained under current military allotments (noting of course that the FY’06 Defense Spending bill went into another Continuing Resolution Act that runs through 12/18/05).

All of the preceding is my opinion and analysis, and has nothing to do with rumor or innuendo…of course, sometimes events that start out unsubstantiated, soon become real. I await the passage of time to prove me wrong about that.

Hopefully I haven’t missed or forgotten anything here…