Middle East Imperative

I got this in my e-mail and thought I'd share it with the forum. Whether or not you agree with him, I think that the general makes some very interesting points, definitely worth discussing and debating.






Good read - but scary



Another assessment of where the US stands in relation to the Middle East problems,
this one is from the guy who had his finger on the nuclear trigger for three years as
head of our defense and response complex buried under Cheyenne Mountain at Colorado
Springs. He was the only person who could initiate a nuclear attack after advising the
sitting president of a missile launch by our enemies and our need to respond.

No political or civilian type in the US had more knowledge about day to
day military actions around the world. Everyone should find quiet time
to read this. As far as I am concerned, it is exactly the direction we
should go and the consequences of not doing so are well thought out.

John R. (Jack) Farrington Major General, USAF (Retired)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Middle East Imperative
BY: JIM CASH, Brig. Gen., USAF, Ret.

I wrote recently about the war in Iraq and the larger war against
radical Islam, eliciting a number of responses. Let me try and put
this conflict in proper perspective.

Understand, the current battle we are engaged in is much bigger t han
just Iraq. What happens in the next year will affect this country and
how our kids and grandkids live throughout their lifetime, and beyond.

Radical Islam has been attacking the West since the seventh century.
They have been defeated in the past and decimated to the point of
taking hundreds of years to recover. But they can never be totally
defeated. Their birth rates are so far beyond civilized world rates
that in time they recover and attempt to dominate again.

There are eight terror-sponsoring countries that make up the grand
threat to the West. Two, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, just need firm
pressure from the West to make major reforms. They need to decide
who they are really going to support and commit to that support. That
answer is simple. They both will support who they think will hang in
there until the end, and win. We are not sending very good signals in
that direction right now, thanks to the Democrats.

The other six, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya
will require regime change or a major policy shift. Now, let's look
more closely. Afghanistan and Iraq have both had regime changes, but
are being fueled by outsiders from Syria and Iran. We have scared
Gaddafi's pants off, and he has given up his quest for nuclear weapons,
so I don't think Libya is now a threat.
North Korea (the non-Islamic threat) can be handled diplomatically by
buying them off. They are starving. That leaves Syria and Iran. Syria
is like a frightened puppy. Without the support of Iran they will join
the stronger side. So where does that leave us? Sooner, or later, we
are going to be forced to confront Iran, and it better be before they
gain nuclear capability.

In 1989 I served as a Command Director inside the Cheyenne Mountain complex
located in Colorado Springs, Colorado for almost three years. My job there was to
observe (through classified means) every missile shot anywhere in the world and
assess if it was a threat to the US or Canada. If any shot was threatening to either
nation I had only minutes to advise the President, as he had only minutes to respond.
I watched Iran and Iraq shoot missiles at each other every day, and all day long, for
months. They killed hundreds of thousand of their people. Know why? They were
fighting for control of the Middle East and that enormous oil supply.

At that time, they were preoccupied with their internal problems and
couldn't care less about toppling the West. Oil prices were fairly stable
and we could not see an immediate threat. Well, the worst part of what
we have done as a nation in Iraq is to do away with the military
capability of one of those nations. Now, Iran has a clear field to
dominate the Middle East, since Iraq is no longer a threat to them.
They have turned their attention to the only other threat to their
dominance, they are convinced they will win, because the US is so
divided, and the Democrats (who now control Congress and may
control the Presidency in 2008) have openly said we are pulling out.

Do you have any idea what will happen if the entire Middle East turns
their support to Iran, which they will obviously do if we pull out?
It is not the price of oil we will have to worry about. Oil WILL NOT
BE AVAILABLE to this country at any price. I personally would vote for
any presidential candidate who did what JFK did with the space
program--declare a goal to bring this country to total energy
independence in a decade.

Yes, it is about oil. The economy in this country will totally die if
that Middle East supply is cut off right now. It will not be a
recession. It will be a depression that will make 1929 look like the
"good-old-days". The bottom line here is simple. If Iran is forced to
fall in line, the fighting in Iraq will end over night, and the
nightmare will be over. One way or another, Iran must be forced to join
modern times and the global community. It may mean a real war--if so,
now is the time, before we face a nuclear Iran with the capacity to
destroy Israel and begin a new ice age.

I urge you to read the book "END GAME" by two of our best Middle East
experts, true American patriots and retired military generals, Paul Vallely
and Tom McInerney. They are our finest, and totally honest in their assessment
of why victory in the Middle East is so important, and how it can be won.
Proceeds for the book go directly to memorial fund for our fallen soldiers
who served the country during the war on terror. You can find that book by
going to the Internet through Standup America at www.ospreyradio.us or
www.rightalk.com.

On the other hand, we have several very angry retired generals today,
who evidently have not achieved their lofty goals, and insist on
ranting and raving about the war. They are wrong, and doing the
country great harm by giving a certain political party reason to use
them as experts to back their antiwar claims.

You may be one of those who believe nothing could ever be terrible
enough to support our going to war. If that is the case I should stop
here, as that level of thinking approaches mental disability in this
day and age. It is right up there with alien abductions and high
altitude seeding through government aircraft contrails. I helped
produced those contrails for almost 30 years, and I can assure you we
were not seeding the atmosphere. The human race is a warlike
population, and if a country is not willing to protect itself, it
deserves the consequences. Nuff-said!!!

Now, my last comments will get to the nerve. They will be on politics.
I am not a Republican. And, George Bush has made enough mistakes
as President to insure my feelings about that for the rest of my life.
However, the Democratic Party has moved so far left, they have made
me support those farther to the right. I am a conservative who totally
supports the Constitution of this country. The only difference between
the United States and the South American, third world, dictator
infested and ever-changing South American governments, is our US
Constitution.

This Republic (note I did not say Democracy) is the longest standing the
world has ever known, but it is vulnerable. It would take so little to
change it through economic upheaval. There was a time when politicians
could disagree, but still work together. We are past that time, and that is the
initial step toward the downfall of our form of government.

I think that many view Bush-hating as payback time. The Republicans
hated the Clinton's and now the Democrats hate Bush. So, both parties are
putting their hate toward willingness to do anything for political dominance to
include lying and always taking the opposite stand just for the sake of being
opposed. JUST HOW GOOD IS THAT FOR OUR COUNTRY?

In my lifetime, after serving in uniform for President's Kennedy,
Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush I have a pretty good
feel for which party supported our military, and what military life was
like under each of their terms. And, let me assure you that times were
best under the Republicans. Service under Jimmy Carter was devastating
for all branches of the military. And, Ronald Reagan was truly a salvation.
You can choose to listen to enriched newscasters, and foolish people like
John Murtha (he is no war hero), Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Michael Moore,
Jane Fonda, Harry Reid, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and
on-and-on to include the true fools in Hollywood if you like. If you do, your
conclusions will be totally wrong.

The reason that I write, appear on radio talk shows, and do everything I
can to denounce those people is simple. THEY ARE PUTTING THEIR
THIRST FOR POLITICAL POWER AND QUEST FOR VICTORY IN 2008
ABOVE WHAT IS BEST FOR THIS COUNTRY. I cannot abide that. Pelosi
clearly defied the Logan Act by going to Syria, which should have lead to
imprisonment of three years and a heavy fine. Jane Fonda did more to
prolong the Vietnam war longer than any other human being (as acknowledged
by Ho Chi Minh in his writing before he died). She truly should have been
indicted for treason, along with her radical husband, Tom Hayden, and forced
to pay the consequences.

This country has started to soften by not enforcing its laws, which is
another indication of a Republic about to fall. All Democrats, along
with the Hollywood elite, are sending us headlong into a total defeat
in the Middle East, which will finally give Iran total dominance in the
region. A lack of oil in the near future will be the final straw that
dooms this Republic. However, if we refuse to let this happen and
really get serious about an energy self-sufficiency program, this can
be avoided. I am afraid, however, that we are going in the opposite
direction. If we elect Hillary Clinton and a Democrat controlled
congress, and they carry through with allowing Iran to take control of
the Middle East, continue to refuse development of nuclear energy,
refuse to allow drilling for new oil, and continue to do nothing but
oppose everything Bush, it will be over in terms of what we view as the
good life in the USA.

Now, do I think that all who do not support the war are un-American --
of course not. They just do not understand the importance of total
victory in that region.

Another failure of George Bush is his inability to explain to the
American people why we are there, and why we MUST win. By the way,
it is not a war. The war was won four years ago. It is martial law that is under
attack by Iranian and Syrian outside influences, and there is a difference.

So, what do I believe? What is the bottom line? I will simply say that
the Democratic Party has fielded the foulest, power hungry,
anti-country, self absorbed group of individuals that I have observed
in my lifetime. Our educational system is partially to blame for
allowing the mass of America to be taken in by this group. George Bush
has done the best he can with the disabilities that he possesses.

A President must communicate with the people. And, I would tell you that
Desert Storm spoiled the people. Bush Senior's 100-hour war convinced
the people that technology has progressed to the point that wars could be
fought with no casualties and won in very short periods of time. I remember
feeling at the time, that this was a tragedy for the US military. To win wars,
you must put boots on the ground. When you put boots on the ground, soldiers
are going to die.

A President must make the war decision wisely, and insure that the cause is
right before using his last political option. However, CONTROLLING IRAN AND
DEMOCRATIZING THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE ONLY CHOICE IF WE ARE
HELL-BENT ON DEPENDING ON THEM FOR OUR FUTURE ENERGY NEEDS.

Jimmy L. Cash, Brig. Gen., USAF, Ret.
Lakeside, Montana 59922

 

Interesting read. He speaks a lot of truths, but also has chunks of bias and the occiasional blind spot. For example, he seems to see any leader who pours money into the military as a good leader. He also thinks that there is a 1400-year old Radical Islamic conspiracy to rule the world, which is another point for debate.

At one point I started thinking - Hmm... funny how this is only coming out now that the USA is starting to make rumblings towards Iran...

 

Well, he is no longer in the military, so the timing may or may not mean anything. As for biases and blind spots, that just means he's human, IMHO; besides, who on Earth doesn't have such?

It can be argued that there has been an Islamic conspiracy to rule the world for 1400 years. Remember. Mohammed spread the religion he created on the edge of the sword, so it could be said that it started there. And the tide of Islamic conquest continued unabated for some time, overrunning North Africa, the Middle East, and large portions of Spain and the Balkans before finally being checked. And it cannot be denied that a major tenet of Islam is that all of the world must be converted to Islam. So there is technically a Muslim conspiracy to rule the world, and always has been one. And I started this thread to stir up a debate.

 

He's a lunatic!

 

You might disagree but such ideas are hardly the ravings of a lunatic. The first part of the statement; that humans are warlike is undeniable so I assume you are taking issue with his belief that a country that is not willing to protect itself deserves the consequences? That also isn't an original idea and is a belief shared by many. Whether one accepts it as truth might depend upon whether you accept social Darwinism as a fact.
Although it requires more intellectual effort it's better to debate the ideas presented than to dismiss them by labelling the author a lunatic.

ps-Herbert Spencer and Thomas Malthus would probably not consider that conclusion lunacy.

 

Yes but one thing is message: Attack Iran NOW!

 

I am not familiary with Spencer or Mathaus...

Many of Jimmy's points however can be criticized heavily

And vice versa, if we are willing to trace back to 600.AD...

Relevance? does he think we need to have more babies in order to fight them off?

... our allies. His comments are certainly not in the diplomatic interests of the USA. AFAIK Pakistan and Saudi Arabi do not show any signs of military action against America at all... Quite the opposite they are aiding in the war

Diplomatic solutions are completely impossible? Can we not prevent them getting nuclear capability IF they are?

An Iraqi State backed and supplied by America and Israel sounds quite formidable to me...

Gobbledeygook... There is Oil in places other than Iran, Iraq, and Kuwait, most notably in Saudi Arabia, from which America is most reliant upon of all Middle Eastern Countries...

Yes, we've all seen how a pre-emptive Strike on a Muslim nation affects insurgencies... IF the violence in Iraq subsides (which it already seems to be doing) an attack on another Muslim country would only solidify the terrorist groups, in Iran AND Iraq, and the US would have an even stronger enemy... The "winning-of-hearts-and-minds" would fail... America would effectively be saying to all Islamic countries that they are the enemy... Not a good thing for religious extremist recruitment

No, it is the fact that the USA has an impeccable humanitarian record, which i hope shall not be tarnished

Thats true but it does not make him right...

I wansn't aware of this... Which laws are no longer being enforced? I was under the impression that the only changes to the laws in America (and in Australia) following 9/11 were the introduction of anti-terror legislation and tightening of security- Seems more like an increase in the enforcement laws

Supporting the war in Iraq is one thing, starting a new one in Iran is another altogether...

Actually a very good point... As far as remaining in Iraq, his argument does have some merit... But he does not seem to present any evidence that in order to maintain a stable situation in the Middle East we NEED to strike Iran... how much energy do we get from Iran and what evidence is there that Iran wants to (or could...) seize the Middle Eastern oil monoploy?

I am sure that if the US or any conutry was capable of being entirely self sufficient they would do so... His solution to energy-sufficiency seems to be a thinly veiled taking-by-force, and little more... Furthermore he does not actually say anywhere that Iran poses a threat to the USA, because he knows that it does not... The worst happenance which may result of this situation, seems to be another 1929-all-over-again wall-street-crash... Attacking Iran for energy sufficiency, or perhaps just to eliminate a 'potential' threat does not, to me, seem very American

 

I'm not defending his thesis (though I think some of his points are valid) however IMO your response is far more interesting now that you address the arguments directly. Good show.

 

That's why I set up this topic; I wanted to have some debate here. And I agree with quite a bit of his thesis. However, I am curious about one thing smeghead said. When and where, precisely, did the West attack the Muslims in the 7th century? Given the state of Europe at that time, I was under the impression that the Europeans were in no condition to attack anyone except themselves until Charlemagne showed up.

 

Thank you I know i'm a wee bit left of centre when it comes to iran so i didn't want to launch into my scathing, opinionated critique right away...

As for Christian incursions into Muslim territory in the 7th century I am not aware of any I merely meant to say that in tracing back that far we can include all 8 Crusades in an assesment of "who is more aggressive", and I cannot think of any Muslim invasion of such magnitude as the Crusades... The Moorish conquest of Spain was arguably not even a conquest against Christianity, for although the Visigoth's who they supplanted were *technically* Catholic, there is evidence to suggest that a large part of Spain's population was still Pagan... Like most wars of the era it was probably more to do with power and glory, as were the Crusades...

And if you are willing to trace back to the Dark Ages for evidence of religious barbarity and intolerance, then you won't be dissappointed no matter who you analyse!

 

.
Smeghead ,

The Muslim expansion out of Arabia took on the Persian sassanids ( followers of zoroaster ) , the byzantine empire ( Christian orthodox ) ,
the Egyptians ,( somewhat Coptic ), the byzantine colony of north Africa ( vandals Arians ) , the Visigoth of spain (Arians , but I'm not sure )
finaly being smashed at the battle of Poitiers by the franks of Charles the Hammer in 732 ,
Spain and Sicily were occupied , for a few centuries raiding in the Mediterranean zone was vicious , involving Muslim settlements and
permanent occupation of cities on the Italian and French coast , slaving raids went as far as the north Atlantic
After that there was the crusades followed by the Turkish conquest of the Balkans with a sustained occupation of Hungary and a great effort to take Vienna ,

there is no reasons to think the Christians were the aggressors ,

As for Jimmy L. Cash, Brig. Gen., USAF, Ret.

" Yes, it is about oil. The economy in this country will totally die if that Middle East supply is cut off right now. It will not be a recession. It will be a depression that will
make 1929 look like the "good-old-days". The bottomline here is simple. If Iran is forced to fall in line, the fighting in Iraq will end over night, and the nightmare will be over. One way or another,Iran must be forced to join modern times and the global community. It may mean a real war--if so, now is the time, before we face a nuclear Iran with the capacity to destroy Israel and begin a new ice age.

- Of the importance of oil , no doubt , it's the very life stuff of modern societies
- Why on earth does he think Iran would fall into line ??
- The fighting in Iraq will end overnight .. no kidding , it was Iran all along ??
- " It may mean a real war " ,
I'm afraid the draft would be seriously disruptive and probably opposed , further the U.S.A. cannot financially afford a war now ,
there is no customers for war bonds ,gov. bonds or mass printed greenbacks , that leave a massive increase of taxation :-?
Iran must be forced to join modern times and the global community ???
guess what they have the telephone in Iran !
As for the hypothetical iranian nuclear bomb capable of destroying Israel , well the Israelis have about 200 nukes of their own , two nuclear capable submarines , intercontinental ballistic missiles plus a fleet of excellent bombers so.... who exactly is afraid of whom ??

.

 

I little correction. In 7th century there were no christian orthodox and chatolic as it was still the same version of christianity ( split occured in 9th century) to which i reffer as main stream christianity. The so called bysantine colony of north africa was clensed of Vandals after they lost the war and were resetled in mid east. Visigoths in Spain were main stream christian as was entire europe at the time.

Nothing new here. Spain and Sicily along with Malta and Sardiania were occupied by every power in mediteranean since Greeks and Chartageneans. Same goes for Spanish and French coasts and colonies on all above mentioned localities. As for slave raids and piracy in Mediteran also nothing new we all did it.
In those times we in the west were the barbarians comparing to Arabs. We were burning the works of classical scholars as incompatible with christian religion and they were saving them. All we now know from classical era Greece was copied from thier libraries not ours. We were the ones burning poeple at the stake and they were giving them the asylum (like Spanish Jews) and they were generaly more tolerant of other religions.

About Turks
They were on european continet much before the fall of Carigrad (Konstantinopolis) thanks to significant weakining of already shrunk Bysantine empire by crusader occupation of the city (as a payback to catolic Venice) and their mismanagment of the empire.

As for the article that is the topic, i think that the man is an idiot or very naive (not likely as US military isn't known for giving idiots or naive such responsible positions) or is representing ( a little bluntly) a clearly defined political idea of extreme right in the US.

 

.

The fatal weakening of the Byzantine was the result of the disaster of Manzikert 1071 , as a result the new emperor called for military help from the west , the pope UrbanII called a synod at Clermont and got overexcited , preaching a great crusade to the general enthusiasm :roll:

on subject
the man is not an idiot , he is a military officer

Plato said that the guardian of the state must be brave , honest and not too bright ,
a simple set of belief is necessary in a man who has the nuclear trigger and he probably was rightly chosen for it .
that he is politicaly naive , no doubt and ignorant of some issues , for sure
He strike me as typical of a center right way of thinking held by people who read to much " time magazine " the Mac Donald hamburger of information :bang:



.

 

Or maybe he's just a man stating his opinion. Certain of his points are undeniable, while others could be considered subjective. But putting him and those who would agree with him down as somehow being less than intelligent is wrong, IMHO, and your "Time magazine" statement clearly implies that these people are precisely that, less than intelligent. Just because you disagree with him and them does not mean they don't have any brains, or that they don't use them. Having said all of that, I will now climb down off my soapbox.

 

.


Corpcasselbury , I read Time ( among others ) and delight in the occasional burgher
but would not dream of having no other fare as it would be creating a bloatness of sort

my comment was to point out that for a man whose daily work involve the potential annihilation of a large section of the human race ,
a rather predictable outlook is a GOOD thing .

his view concerning Iran are not very sound and basically repeat the mainstream white house propaganda
( that the main function of time magazine , the semi official spin carrier , fed from .. " anonymous high administration officials " )

his affirmation that the U.S. are under imminent danger of extinction is not too good either ,
also the two most radical islamist governments Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are allied with the U.S.
He make very broad statement about the Democrats , commenting on the war record of john Murtha or the common sense of john Kerry but
is strangely silent on the war record and common sense of both incumbent s

Tiso you are wrong to think his view are far right ,
they are majority mainstream military , as no doubt the man himself
there is no problem there ,
I've seen and heard enough fools on the left , far left ,far right and alternative movement to ask too much from people ,

honestly and a sense of humor at the most

I have no claim to intelligence, couldn't pick the camel from the horses at a race and have been proven wrong most of the time most things on a regular basis ,
my friends are very good and very ordinary people with whom I take large dose of my favorite medication ....beer


.

 

the saudi and pakistani GOVERNMENTS are at the moment our allies ..please remember all the wahabi 911 boys were ALL saudis and musharif is tottering on the VERY brink as we speak .please spare me the notion that the average saudi or pakistani man in the street is a friend to the west ...

yes, israel has had nukes for many decades and will never USE them unless they are threatened with annihlation ...what a muslim theocracy might do with a nuclear weapon is a horse of a different color ..its an unknown but given their words and actions in the past , a dicey thing at best...

 

Musharaf created the Taliban when he was the chief of army intelligence , he always worked with and through the fundamentalists militants and has done nothing to stop and much to help the Taliban reemerging and raiding across the border .
He probably know what ben Ladden had for breakfast this morning
When , confronted with the proofs of his treachery , the U.S. finaly voice some objections , Musharaf make a big show of doing nothing much , the man is a poisonous snake :bang:

as for what Pakistanis think , I neither know nor care , I find the breed intensely unattractive
I have more time for the Saudis but they certainly would like to see the westerners brought low and resent their ruling family for cozying up to it

As for what the Israelis would do or not I have no clue ,
the definition of " threatened with annihilation can be used in a creative manner by a politician as supple as Bibi Netaniahu .
I believe that nukes are by their very nature defensive weapons but Israel should appreciate that bringing them into the middle east equation of power was easier done than undone

 

musharif and the saudi princes are not our freinds its true ..we in the west have no real freinds in the muslim world but things could be a lot unfreindlier for us if musharif and the princes are deposed

.israel could have immolated her arab nieghbors long ago if she so desired , would israel still exist if her arab nieghbors had nukes all this time ? im not so sure...

 

.

You must appreciate that the hatred of the average Arab has as a large component the unblinking support of the U.S. for Israel ,
It is widely believed that the U.S. political process is run by AIPAC

.