Guerrilla and Terrorism
The American war

This part is devoted to the American war against terrorism, the one that was officially declared after september 11, 2001, and that began to roll against Afghanistan in november of the same year.
The war on Iraq will begin 3/20/2003. Here are some articles on the subject, some of which have been written before or just after the war had started, and others that are quite recent.

On the morning of the 9/11, the terrible 19 didn't know it, but they had just set in motion the decline of the American empire. Five years later, the consequences of their action are more visible than ever and the changes they have provoked are even accelerating.

Witness the law Congress passed that allows the president to designate a U.S. citizen as an ''unlawful enemy combatant.'' This person can be imprisoned indefinitely, won't be allowed an habeas-corpus review in a U.S. court, and can be subjected to interrogation techniques that are nothing less than torture. Such a law gives the President powers that the U.S. Supreme Court already had said no president should have. It destroys America's most cherished values: due process, respect for the rule of law, and protection of the rights of the individual. Clearly the 19 were successful into provoking a reaction and measures that erode U.S. moral authority and changed a former democracy into a quasi-dictatorship.

Another success of the 19 is the building of a 700-mile fence at the Mexico border and a 2000-mile fence at the Canadian border. The ''Land of the free'' is walling itself up like the worst European dictatorships of the 1940s. Also the crackdown on illegal immigration, when Homeland Security agents all dressed in black carry out mass roundups and midnight raids, this is very reminiscent of Gestapo methods; clearly America is sinking to a new low.

Finally, the defensive stance of the American diplomacy during the last 5 years, the lashing out at the international community, and the two quagmires: Afghanistan and Iraq are undeniably the result of the 9/11. That day of september 2001 may mark the true beginning of the American decline. Looking back, the terrible 19 succeeded beyond their wildest dream. They forced a society to look at its many contradictions and realize that it is not so different now from the worst dictatorships in history; even that it could become one. For that, history might decide to call them ''the magnificent nineteen'' after all!

This was the last one of a long series of articles on Iraq and the War on terror. Since the war has already been lost by the coalition of the willing, we fellow Khanologists proclaim that there is no need to say anything more on the subject before historians have a chance to begin their post-mortem in a few years.

BACK

1- No serious inquiry has been made as to the exact nature and extent of the grudges that those terrorists hold against America, and the real reasons for 9/11.

2- The war started out fine in Afghanistan. They had the Taliban and al Qaeda on the run and Osama bin Laden trapped in a box canyon. Then they were distracted by a nearby shiny object (Iraq) and didn't finish the job...

3- In May 2003, when general Bremer, the chief of the CPA, purged the members of the Baath Party (with a membership of 400,000) from official positions and dissolved the Iraqi police and military, the final mistake was made. The Baathists had the essential skills to maintain security and rebuild the country. To ban them from office was the antithesis of previous successful U.S. occupation policies during the 1940s (Japan and Germany), when the entire bureaucracy was kept intact. As a result, the number of Baathists who joined the guerrillas suddenly increased.
4- The perception that there is less security in Iraq now and that things are much worse than under Saddam Hussein is what makes some say that the War on Terror has already been lost.

5-  Afghanistan's sitting president still rules only within the confines of the nation's capital. Tribal warlords, the growing remnants of the Taliban and al Qaeda call the shots in the rest of the county.

6-  In the ill-begotten war of Iraq, the three warring tribes that Bush "liberated" are using US money and soldiers' lives to partition the country. The Shiites and Kurds are carving out the prime cuts, forcing the Sunnis onto a kind of Death Valley. Meanwhile Iran is increasingly calling the shots in the Shiite region as mullahs loyal to Iran take charge.

7- By attacking Iraq, the US provided Iran the rationale and time to move toward nuclear weapons. The Bush administration's neocons' threats to attack Syria next only provided more support for religious conservatives within Iran, who argued U.S. intentions in the Middle East were clear, and that only the deterrent coming with nuclear weapons could protect them.

8- North Korea's example shows clearly that once a country possesses nukes, the U.S. drops the veiled threats and wants to talk.

9- The US Military has been recently overused and over-deployed. There is the real danger of over-stretch.

10- Spreading itself too thin (overextension) means that the Army and Marine Corps cannot sustain the current operational tempo without "doing real damage to their forces." It is impossible to wage two or three regional wars at the same time, even though such a thing has been suggested in theory at the beginning of 2003.

11- All the above allowed the rise of a Jihadistan where five years after the Afghan invasion, the Taliban are fighting hard to carve out a sanctuary where they—and Al Qaeda's leaders—can operate freely.

12- The Bush administration reacted to the terrorist attacks of  9/11 by declaring a “War on Terror”. Terror, however, is a tool in any potential enemy’s arsenal. Military force, essential to victory in war, must be used as part of an appropriate strategic vision. The enemy cannot be a tool or sets of tactics, it has to be more closely defined than that. Who exactly is the enemy humanwise? The whole of Islam? Only a few Islamic regimes? These questions should have been asked before going to war.

13- In fact, in those days the United States were at war with Al-Qaeda and with regimes and groups that supported it. At first, Iraq was never truly one theater belonging to that war.

14- In Iraq, the insurgency is "being contained militarily," but it is "quite active" leaving Iraqi civilians feeling very insecure. What happens next, when it cannot be contained anymore? First a retreat to the capital (Saigon, Baghdad) up to the point when the enemy cannot be contained by indigenous troops, then evacuation of all foreign citizens from the city, then evacuation by helicopters of all embassy personnel, and last evacuation of the marines still guarding the embassy and the surrounding compounds.

15- Henry Kissinger claimed that the United States had essentially won the war in 1972, only to lose it because of the weakened resolve of the public and Congress. Therefore, as "Lessons for an Exit Strategy," Kissinger wrote that "Victory over the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy". Victory has to be the goal, he told all. Don't let it happen again. Don't give an inch, or else the media, the Congress and the American culture of avoiding hardship will walk you back. Is is not stubbornness and could it lead to a greater disaster still?

16- Some believe that the eventual outcome in Iraq is more important than Vietnam has ever been. A radical Islamic, Taliban-style government would be a model to challenge the internal stability of key countries in the Middle East and elsewhere. If Vietnam had collapsed like a house of cards it is because they have made the mistake to entertain the idea of partially withdrawing troops. The idea of withdrawing any troops could create again a momentum for an exit that is less than victory. So, President Bush is condemned to resist all pressure to withdraw American troops and say that the only meaningful exit strategy is victory. This is a vicious circle then, if the policy of "Vietnamization" turning the fight over to the South Vietnamese military only increased pressure to end the war because the American public wanted a quick resolution, it may be argued also that troop withdrawals would only encourage the enemy. "It will become harder and harder to maintain the morale of those who remain". Therefore, the troops can never leave, they have to wait that defeat forces them out.

BACK

Some may invoke George Santayana’s 1906 words now: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. It is thirty years since the North Vietnamese forces hoisted a Viet Cong flag over the Presidential Palace in Saigon; will the flag of the insurgency be raised soon over Baghdad?

For leftists, the Vietnam War was, at best, a case of good intentions gone bad. The United States foolishly coupled its strategic interests to a regime with dubious legitimacy. Defeat in Vietnam resulted from a pattern of imperialism begun by the Monroe Doctrine, defined in the Manifest Destiny and matured in the wake of the Spanish-American War with imperialist involvements from the Caribbean to the Philippines. Military intervention in Korea and Vietnam sprung from the Judeo-Christian assumption that America is “A city on a hill, a light and beacon to all mankind”: the new Jerusalem.

Had President Bush “learned the lessons of Vietnam”, US forces wouldn’t be catching hell in Iraq today. If one remembers such things as the re-education camps, the distress of half-a-million boat people, the millions slaughtered in Cambodia, the persecution in Laos, etc..., there shouldn't have been much incentive for yet another American intervention. The historical lesson was rather to avoid foreign entanglements, especially those where military force must be used to support interests that are not necessary vital.

Misused history was to raise the Munich analogy to justify involvement in Vietnam and, more recently, Iraq. General William Westmoreland captured the central lesson of Vietnam in stating that it took the full weight of the Tiger to kill the rabbit. True as it may be, there is a general feeling though that both in Vietnam and Iraq, a pernicious press and the anti-war movement betrayed battlefield victories. There is some truth in this. Another historical lesson: don’t fight unless you mean to win.

The exaggeration now would be to pretend that the United States are engaged in World War IV with an enemy intent on destroying Western civilization along with its Judeo-Christian values. This war may be a struggle between competing worldviews, but to say that it is a holy war of good Vs evil, of freedom Vs totalitarian Islam is oversimplistic. Victory will not be achieved by the superiority of Western values. If it happens it will be because the politicians have retained their good sense.

The fighting in Iraq is not fundamental to determining the strategic paradigm for the twenty-first century. It is more an embarrassing side show for which the troops were ill prepared. To have the courage of getting out of there is a prerequisite to fight the real battles that lead to the greater victories of the future. Pulling out means a little bruise to the ego and a momentary loss of face, but these things don't last for long. There is no shame in extracting oneself from a swamp or quagmire. The stupid thing is to stay there and sink further. If you wait too long, it might be impossible to get out!

Saigon To Baghdad

For over thirty years the American left raised the specter of Vietnam to oppose US military interventions from Central America to the Balkans. Since history has the advantage of being fact-based, what can Vietnam teach us about the ongoing war in Iraq?

First of all, rhetoric is important. The U.S. saw itself as the bastion against communism and the protector of South Vietnam 30 years ago. Today the White House proclaims the U.S. to be the bastion against terror and the liberator and protector of Iraq. So, nothing changes: bastions all over the place and amazing display of words!

Both wars took place on the other side of the world, in places with inhospitable climates and topography. Just as the war in Vietnam was part of the larger Cold War, the fighting in Iraq is part of a global struggle to redefine international parameters. Like Vietnam, Iraq is bordered by countries willing to aid the insurgency. The world community is no more supportive now of American intervention in Iraq than it was of America's war in Vietnam.

As for military analogies: Early in the Vietnam War, in November 1965, the American Army was winning the month-long Battle of the Ia Drang Valley. Similarly, Operation Iraqi Freedom began with a three-week drive on Baghdad that led to the collapse of the regime.

While operational and tactical excellence is important to battlefield victories, superior strategy wins wars. The United States lacked a strategy appropriate to the war in Vietnam and put its prestige and power in the balance to help an ineffectual Saigon regime. To keep Iraq from becoming such a quagmire, the United States must have avoided such a pitfall.

In Vietnam, the North Vietnamese had a robust army and Hanoi mobilized its society to "liberate" the South. The situation was different in Iraq. Elements of the Saddam Fedayeen and other Iraqi elite units escaped the battlefield defeat and faded away to fight another day as an insurgent force. As guerrillas, they have adopted an attritional strategy focused on killing Americans similar to what was the case in Vietnam.

With definitive goals like taking Baghdad and other major cities accomplished, the US military measured success quantitatively. Numbers of Iraqi "suspects" detained or killed and weapons "confiscated" had a hauntingly familiar ring for those who remembered the body and weapons counts that resulted from "search and destroy" missions in Vietnam. This is an attritional strategy bound to fail. The American public may say enough after 5000 dead or wait until the toll reaches 50000. The war in Iraq, like the one in Vietnam, aims at breaking the enemy's will. The only question is whose resolve will be broken first.

The US Army cannot win the war against Iraqi insurgents without suffering steady casualties, risking demoralization, and alienating a majority of Iraqis. To win this war and keep it from devolving into a Vietnam-like quagmire, the United States must first devise a winning strategy: i.e. build an indigenous force. Then only an indigenous force can win in Iraq. If the building of a new Iraqi army fails, like the Vietnamisation of the war failed in the 1970s, the war is already lost. This indigenous force is the only protection the new government of Iraq can count on in the long run. If it cannot be built, the war can never be won. Therefore, the training of an Iraqi Army is being pushed at a frantic pace today so that the US can withdraw, much in the same way President Nixon's ''Vietnamization" was supposed to prop up Vietnam so that the armies could be brought home.

The U.S. troops expected to be regarded as liberators. Instead, the resentment and hatred of the population for foreign occupiers was much stronger than any gratitude it might have felt for the downfall of a brutal dictator. The frustration on the part of the soldiers on the ground in Iraq is reflected in a more sinister attitude: because troops cannot get timely information on the when and where of attacks, they come to regard every Iraqi as suspect and untrustworthy. Such a psychological mindset was widespread in Vietnam, where it played out in many gradations ranging from murderous massacres like My Lai (1968), Thanh Phong (1969) and Quang Ngai and Quang Nam in the Central Highlands (1967) through the abuse, torture, and murder of prisoners.

Compounding the frustration of U.S. officers operating on the ground is a shortage of forces to control the infiltration routes in the area stretching from the Syrian-Iraq border through Haditha, Hit, Ramadi, and Fallujah to Baghdad. This is tantamount to issuing an invitation to anyone opposed to the U.S. to use this vast area as a route from Syria to the Iraqi capital. If the Pentagon were more attuned to disquieting contexts, it might consider pulling out records and maps of Vietnam. The 25th Infantry Division occupied a base camp at Cu Chi, a district headquarters in Hau Nghia province. Hau Nghia was created in the 1960s from other provinces in an attempt to thwart infiltration from the North via Cambodia, across the Mekong River to the Capital Region and Saigon. The Viet Cong and North Vietnamese units avoided combat as much as possible because the province was an important transit route to which they did not want to draw attention. While tunnels and Viet Cong underground living quarters would be uncovered later, the Viet Cong insurgency in the province was never controlled. The 25th Division soldiers then were frustrated just as much as 25th Division Soldiers are today.

Some say that if the result of the war in Iraq was to hand over dictatorship from Saddam to Islam, it was not worth it. Although the Bush administration takes pains to deny it, the comparison with Vietnam keeps creeping into the national conversation, and the dreaded word ''quagmire" comes back.  For reporters who covered the war in Vietnam, a trip to Baghdad cannot help but bring back memories. And that old Vietnam chimera of the ''body count" is creeping back into usage -- as if the number of insurgents we kill today has any bearing on whether we are actually winning the war. Then as now, the insurgents melt away before the advancing troops and come back again when they have passed on. And somehow they always seem to know when troops are coming.

America fought in Vietnam to contain communism. In this war the reasons for fighting keep shifting, but the central idea is to create a friendly democracy in the heart of the oil-producing Middle East that could transform the region by example. Forty years ago the brightest minds got America into Vietnam to prevent other neighbouring countries from falling like dominoes, so the theory went. The brightest this time around believe in the transformative power of democracy.

Both Vietnam and Iraq were wars of choice. Neither Saddam Hussein nor Ho Chi Minh threatened the United States directly, but in both cases Washington took the road to intervention to further perceived American interests. If there really was a communist threat in Vietnam, Islamic extremism was not a problem in Iraq before the troops got there, nor did Saddam Hussein had the means to really harm the US.

In Vietnam then and in Iraq now, the administration finds itself engaged in a war it is unable to win, and the American people are walking away from it. Talk of troop reduction though is only a reflection of this domestic pressure, and not of conditions in Iraq. If the Bush administration had its way, it would increase the troops. Why? Simply because, like all administrations before it, it is understandably reluctant to admit defeat.

Bush today, as did Lyndon Johnson before him, vows to fight on until victory, and some of the same ridiculous rhetoric prevails -- such as that we are fighting them there so we won't have to fight them at home. Both Vietnam and Iraq saw monumental miscalculations on the part of the war leaders. It seemed inconceivable to both Johnson's and George W. Bush's defense departments that those weak opponents could stand up to America's modern arms. In both cases it was thought that the Americans could prevail quickly and go home.

It is clear that this war is putting tremendous strain on the US Army. It took years for the US Army to recover from Vietnam, and it will take years for it to recover from the strains put upon it in Iraq. But the most haunting parallel is that it will be possible to win every battle in Iraq and yet lose the war. US involvement in Iraq may not end with American helicopters flying from the roof of the embassy, but it may end badly with Iraq split among ethnic and sectarian warlords. The war would then have destabilized the Middle East instead of transformed it.

BACK

From 1965 to 1967, American troops in Vietnam thought they were merely doing police action, then came the Tet offensive. Is a Tet offensive possible in Iraq in a foreseeable future? Is it possible that the actual low intensity war that is going on (with an average of 60 dead a month, 800 a year) be changed into a high intensity one (with much higher casualties, reminiscent of Vietnam, Korea, WW2)?

To get the equivalent of the Tet offensive, it is necessary that the US troops are not anymore attacked by small groups using hit and run tactics (like roadside bombs) but that they be engaged by at least battalion strength elements. Later divisional strength elements can engage both the occupation troops and the Iraq's regular army. For that it is necessary that Syria sends troops to assist the insurgency. But what is the use of a Tet like offensive? The main problem is that the war could drag on for decades before Vietnam comparable casualty levels are reached and the hostilities could end. At the actual rate of dead (800 a year), it would take 70 years to reach the 58000 dead toll mark of the Vietnam war.

Something has to be done to increase the intensity of the fighting so that the level of public disgust with the war can be raised more rapidly, reaching the point where everybody says ''enough'' and the peace may be concluded. In short, raising the intensity of the fighting could shorten the war. Therefore the usefulness of the equivalent of a Tet offensive!

After the early Battle of Khe Sanh, and throughout 1967, American commanders were justifiably impressed with their success, and  the attitude was one of "containment"; the war would never be ended due to direct military action, but it would be reduced to such a low level that the term "police action" would no longer be ironic. From the U.S. point of view, the main battle for South Vietnam was over, and the U.S. public was informed of this repeatedly.

Something had to be done! The real Tet offensive pitted the Viet-Cong insurgency and the North Vietnam's People's Army against South Vietnam's Army (ARVN) and the United States military (and other allied forces). So, clearly we need another actor in Iraq, either Syrian foreign troops or Iranian's. The Tet Offensive is widely seen as a turning point of the war in Vietnam, in which the NLF won an enormous psychological and propaganda victory leading to the loss of popular support for the War in the United States and the eventual withdrawal of American troops.

But public opinion about the war in those Vietnam days was more consistent than generally believed despite a tide of negative press. The American involvement in the war was still seen as a "mistake," but it is erroneous to suppose that most were de facto antiwar. What they criticized of the Johnson’s war policy was that it should have been clearer: "win or get out". After the Tet Offensive, the main issue of public debate was "how to securely withdraw" from the war without losing a "hearts and minds" battle against the then-enemy.

The same situation prevails today. A minority is still asking how to win, while the majority is more preoccupied with the ''how to get out of there'' question. The solution may be a Tet offensive as an accelerator, an incentive to budge and a decision making facilitating factor.

BACK

September 11 changed the world, so the small group of people who did it are important individuals in a way. How and what are we going to call them? Remember that they are 19 in all. What names were given to special groups of people in the past? There are famous examples: like the three musketeers, the four horsemen of the Apocalypse, the 5 riders in Silverado, the magnificent seven (starring Yul Brynner and Steve Mc Queen), the 7 samurai, the twelve apostles, the dirty dozen (with Lee marvin & Terry Savalas) and finally the famous 47 Ronins in Japan. What are we going to call our 19? The magnificent 19? (I already hear the loud protests). I suggest the terrible 19. Somehow, it is fitting.

Now what have these 19 accomplished exactly? A lot, you'll see! They have changed America and the world in a way we never expected.

1- Compliant Congress passed the misnamed USA Patriot Act (an affront to many rights guaranteed by the Constitution and ingrained in US criminal procedure).

2- In the name of spreading democracy abroad, President Bush has done things that tend to destroy it at home.

3- By endorsing such un-American activities as holding suspects indefinitely with no charges or tapping domestic phone lines to monitor international calls without a judicial warrant, America's leadership has changed the very nature of the country and how it is perceived now: it is not the land of the free anymore. Some say: ''want some freedom? Go to Europe or Australia''.

4- There is no question that 9/11 demanded retaliation, but only against those directly responsible for the attacks. The culprits were Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda followers. They were given refuge in Afghanistan; therefore, a US attack on Afghanistan was appropriate. But there was no reason to attack any other country, no matter how offensive its government.

5- The president's long-standing desire to attack Iraq after getting the CIA's phony intelligence about nonexistent weapons of mass destruction had serious repercussions: 3 years later it created two quagmires for the price of one, a bargain. Now America is lucky enough to have two Vietnams for the price of one. All this done without enough troops, stretching its forces thin and making them unavailable for other duties (there may be not enough boots on the ground now to invade Iran if the need should arise).

6- Except for Britain all important allies of the Cold war era have been alienated, the United Nations treated with contempt.

7- In 2001, public support was called for and received in good measure, but the public began to tire when the war in Iraq began to drag on. It was a mistake not to call for public sacrifice right from the start on all parts of society (rich and poor alike), if it was indeed going to develop into a world war on terrorism. On the contrary, cutting taxes and aiding the rich didn't produce the much needed solidarity to fight such a war.

8- Bush says now that the war on terrorism is nothing less than “a struggle for civilization”, the true ‘Calling of our generation’, and must be fought to the end. He says defeat would surrender the Middle East to radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons, that “We are fighting to maintain the way of life enjoyed by free nations”.

9- The problem is that much has changed since 2001. The President of the United-States is not anymore the undisputed ''leader of the free world''. This expression that was still taken for granted in the 1990s doesn't necessarily work now. But if the President is not anymore the leader of the free world, who is? Germany maybe, or the President of France, things are not that clear anymore! When George W. says that the international community thinks this or that, or wants this or that, people of other nations listening are far from impressed. Can the President still say ''I speak on behalf of the international community'' and be taken seriously abroad, or even at home now? When Eisenhower said the same thing in 1955, everyone believed him, then it was true. But now? This is among other things the direct result of the 9/11.

10- Taking a flight to the United-States is a nightmare nowadays because of the security measures. On the contrary, taking a flight to Europe or Asia is a breeze. What would you prefer for your next holiday trip, the hassle of trying to get to the US of A (by the way, crossing the Canada-US border could be quite an adventure, murder really) or the perspective of roaming freely through Europe (the continent without borders, 25 countries to choose from, fine cuisine, rare wines, etc.)?

11- Now that the US has become a fortress, it is more complicated and more costly to do business with it. I know of a Canadian lumber company and a furniture manufacturer who did 70% of their business with the United-States in 2001. With all the new taxes, dues and fees now charged at the border and fights with the US customs, they figured that is was not anymore too costly to sell and ship all their production to Europe and Asia. Before 2001, the transportation costs to Europe and Asia were much too high, now it is much cheaper to send everything to Europe. Now these two companies do 0% of their business with the United-States, a direct result of the 9/11.

12- Emigration has not diminished that much in the US. It is its composition that has changed. People of Asia or Eastern Europe for example do not dream of America anymore. Their final destination would rather be Europe, Australia or Canada. What has changed is that the US is not seen as the promised land anymore. They would prefer now to start a small business in Italy or work in France and Germany rather than cross the Atlantic. This is another result of the 9/11. If the Americans themselves do not believe anymore in the American dream, how can people on other continents be expected to still believe in it.

13- As one politician put it two years ago: "We just need tougher border laws and security laws... and we're working on it". You got them now. The result: nobody wants to go there anymore.

BACK

<<Some observers point out that, since the anthrax attacks in the immediate weeks following 9/11, there have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.>> ...and that is the starting point of the theory. The leadership of Al-Qaeda expressed the wish at the end of 2001 that no more attacks should be conducted on American soil. Attacks against Americans should be carried out outside of America. Furthermore, they agreed on a list of countries that should never be targets: Canada, France, Germany, even England.

Why is that? They wanted America to look ridiculous with all its monthly orange to red alert levels. Second, countries with large Muslim populations, great potential for fund raising, or  useful diplomatically and to get positive publicity should be spared. And third, sparing most G-8  countries would confuse both the issue and the enemy. It is largely why there have been no attacks on certain countries, and not because their security was so good. It was deliberate.

And England? The attack on the London subway and the latest London bomb plot seem to contradict the theory. The only answer to that is that the first was carried out locally without help or approval from the historical head of Al-Qaeda and it is doubtful that the second one received approval either.

BACK

Do you remember November 2001, during the initial phase of the invasion of Afghanistan, when Kabul, Herat and dozens of others cities were taken very easily, without a fight, because they had been evacuated beforehand by their defenders. There was no resistance, the enemy had fled.

At the time, I thought it was a trap and was worried for the troops of the coalition, until I heard the truth. One year later, what had really happened leaked through Russian intelligence, which still had good liaisons in the region. The Taliban leaders had been bought, huge pay offs given by special forces agents to everyone: tribal leaders, Taliban leaders, even to entire local units. So that's why there was no fighting, entire cities left undefended, the enemy had been bought! This reminded me of Napoleon's tactics in Italy, but he only bribed a few key generals of the other side. What had happened here on the contrary, so it appears, was done on a much larger scale.

If one asks the two obvious questions: why and was it a good thing, the answers are not easy. Why? After 9-11, fast results were called for, the US forces had to look decisive, the American public was screaming for retaliation, demanded victory, so the temptation to take shortcuts was very strong. The secret wish of having it both ways (eat your cake and keep it) at the core of the American dream resurfaced. But there is no easy way to victory, and making war on the cheap usually ends in failure.

So, is it so bad to try to buy the enemy? Surely, Machiavelli would not recommend it. The thing is, the people you buy will do your bidding for the time being, but what's next? In this case, they kept their word, went away, got into hiding or on vacation on remote resorts, but they also kept their weapons. After a year or two they came back, and it was in the news again in 2003 and 2004: the Talibans are back in Afghanistan. If they should ever succeed in regaining power in Kabul in a few years, the world could see this as a US defeat, and a second invasion could be called for: back to square one again. But for now the insurgents seem quite happy to play a waiting game with the coalition forces. The moral of this, if there is any, seems to be that buying the enemy only buys you time. Victory unfortunately cannot be bought, it has to be won.

BACK

Using foreign local wars to test one's new weaponry is a practice that probably does not go far beyond the first world war. The first very well documented occurrence that everyone has in mind is no doubt the Spanish civil war (1936-1939), when Germany experienced extensively with its new tanks and armour tactics on Spanish soil. Further famous examples in the seventies were Vietnam,  Afghanistan and dozens of others, where all sides (china, Russia, the US) experimented their newest toys (special gears and ammo, chemical weapons, etc...): the so-called proxy wars.

These wars served as a useful proving ground to test equipment and tactics that would later become standards. Now, is the same thing happening in Iraq? Are there any indications that, for instance China or Russia, could be sending some specimens of their newest weaponry to the insurgency for evaluation purposes? Some isolated incidents seem to point in that direction. When Apache, Cobra and Nightstalker helicopters are shot down by newest and modified versions of old Russian stingers, the question is not only if Russian and Chinese shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles found in these shootings in Iraq and Afghanistan are pointing in the direction of some remote involvement, but what happens when for instance French weapons are discovered, or evidence that a major European weapons' dealer is leaking stuff to the insurgency? Has Iraq (and for that matter Afghanistan) already become a testing ground for the weaponry of major foreign powers?

BACK

Directly after the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, political authorities and the military asked and answered two important questions: WHO did it and HOW could we retaliate? Nobody though (not even the intelligence community) ever seriously bothered to ask the third one: WHY? The best that the press could come up with at the time was something like: ''these Islamic extremist groups are jealous of our way of life". Impressing!

But perhaps, if you come closer to answering the WHY, you come closer to finding a real solution as well. Let's see.

1945-1965 Terrorist attacks against France and French interests, a lot of guerrilla activity, especially in the British colonies.

Solution: agreements with North-Vietnam and independence granted to Algeria, Pakistan and India. Decolonization.

1965-1985 World terrorism sponsored by Moscow, daily attacks against France, Germany, Italy (remember the red brigades, the Bader-Meinhof gang, etc...).

Solutions: improved police methods, negotiations at the political level with the various autonomous ethnic groups and national independence movements in all countries concerned (some demands are granted), pressure against the sponsor (Moscow).

Results: following the collapse of the Soviet Union, terrorism as a whole has substantially diminished in Europe since 1985, it has stopped in France almost completely since 1990.

It seems that to win the battle you have to address the causes, like was done in the past. Fight the enemy, weaken his cause by removing his reasons (this is usually done by negotiations) and remove his sponsor (fight him or cut a deal).

We are not suggesting here to give in to every demand made by armed groups, but one thing is sure (almost everyone that counts in the Middle-East agrees with that):  a durable peace reached between Israel and the Palestinians and the situation stabilized in Iraq with a successful exit of the troops would deal a fatal blow to Islamic terrorism in its present form. Problem solved!

A solution must be found to the Palestinian problem! It may prove difficult and complicated to do so, but it is in no way impossible. Israel and Egypt have reached a modus vivendi that has ensured decades of peace, the same thing with Jordan, even Syria: many years of peace. An agreement must be reached mainly because of the incredible cost of it all over the years.

Too much damage has been done worldwide in the name of the Palestinian cause: 30 years of terrorism in Europe (but it has stopped there), in Israel and against American interests. It has stopped in Europe, particularly in France, largely because Europeans were involved in most of the peace efforts in the Middle-East and foremost because they never supported one side (Israel) unconditionally.

Too much damage has also been done in the defense of Israel. So much so that this unconditional economic and military support of the Jewish state could be the doom of America in the long run. The resurgence of war against Israel has been avoided for over 30 years because the surrounding countries know that to take Israel out, they have to win a war against the US and the United Kingdom as well: against all three together! Not an easy thing to do, but in no way impossible over a few decades. Who knows, the next contender as world superpower could be an entire continent, not a single country. Everything is possible.

If you ask anyone in the streets of an Arab town the big WHY, what they have against America, the answer could be:

1- the unconditional military support to Israel,
2- the uninterrupted bombing against one country or the other in the Middle-East since 1983
3- and especially the arrogance (yes the arrogance could be a big factor like it was for France 1805-1812 and Germany 1914, 1934-1944): "We will bomb them back to the Middle Ages" Colin Powell 1991, and of course the "We will bomb them back to the stone age" of 2001-2002.

There is no way around it: the Palestinian question must be solved. Of course it will be difficult and take time. But like all situations that have been left to rot for a long time (in the hope that the problem would disappear or solve itself), and have developed into a real cancer or blood poisoning, action must be taken, fast! This Israeli-Palestinian problem is like a life-threatening disease: no less than the survival of the Western World is at stake, certainly the survival of America (but in the long run, don't panic now, we're talking about decades here).

You think we are exaggerating! Look at the costs: 30 years of terrorist attacks on 3 continents and two wars recently that cost billions of dollars to tax payers and the US Treasury, and especially the loss of business, prestige, the damage to foreign relations, to the image of the country as a whole, etc... all this cost money... and jobs. If in America everything is money, then this Israel-Palestinian question is a very bad business and must be solved. Both sides are bad business, even the Israeli. For starters the US should make the support to any side in the region (that includes Israel) conditional to real peace efforts and resume negotiation with all parties.

Of course the agreement must be accepted by the Palestinian people and the Palestinians are divided. It has always been easier to reach agreements with major players in the region than with the smallest of players: the Palestinians. It has always been so, then small players are paranoids. To negotiate with one government is easy enough (not always), but to try to do the same with populations divided in dozens of armed factions borders on impossibility! The problem is that those governments lack effective control over their population. But it must be done nevertheless, too much is at stake!

But what if we don't reach a peace in the region after many years of negotiation? While your negotiating, you will probably notice that the number of terrorist attacks is diminishing; it will diminish even more if you cut the unconditional economic and military support to Israel. But any president doing that will incur the wrath of the Jewish lobby, he will lose their votes and their contributions (and we know that they contribute a lot of money)! It is either doing that or lose everything in a few decades.

The other solution would be to disengage totally. Get the troops out of the region and stay away from Israel. In that case negative impact also: loss of face, loss of morale and anger of the Jewish lobby. It seems that for the short term, America has only a choice between bad options, but to stay on present course would lead to a quagmire in Iraq and other difficulties (especially budgetary). A good captain is never afraid to change course, if only to avoid a reef... or an iceberg.

Past experience shows that to win the battle against terrorism you have to answer both questions HOW and WHY. And for that matter, why not all the five questions of journalism school: WHO, WHAT, WHEN, HOW and WHY?... keeping in mind that the WHY is the one that is the least spectacular, least profitable, harder to find, painful, but with deeper implications and that pays off only in the long run. But it does pay in the long run... a lot!

Solution: the solution is COMPOUND WARFARE but in a broader sense than that used by Dr. Thomas M. Huber of the Combat Studies Institute. There are at least three sides to the problem: Al-Qaeda striking in Europe, Asia and America, the Palestinian conflict and the situation in Iraq. So, a solution may involve doing several things at the same time.

A Compound Solution would be: make the support to Israel conditional to real peace efforts, stop the greed about oil, decrease the military presence but only gradually, and ask yourself before making any decision to keep or dismantle a military base in the region: is it really necessary? But above all stop the arrogance! Involve Europe and the United Nations in Iraq, but you'll have to give them both ''a piece of the cake'' for that. But if it is what it takes, go ahead, share the pie (the oil)! But the present government of Iraq would never allow new foreign troops on its soil! Perhaps if they realize that they are only replacement for leaving U.S. troops, yes. And almost certainly, if they are paid to accept!

Do not relinquish military efforts in the Exit phase though (until relief comes, you will have perhaps to do the same job with less people for a time). Meanwhile set the diplomatic machine into full gear, cut deals, renew peace efforts. Of course all of this will cost you in the short term: you will relinquish direct military control, lose a bit of influence, but never the economic control. So in the long run you will certainly reap substantial benefits, certainly more than if you had allowed this quagmire situation to take place.

LAST REMARKS

The uniqueness of the Palestinian conflict compared with others, say the one in Northern Ireland, is that nobody will place a bomb in Germany, highjack a plane in New York or abduct people in Cairo to further the cause of the IRA, but they did such things in the name of the Palestinian cause. The Palestinian conflict with Israel may be a regional one, but it has had an international impact for much too long.

It may be interesting to remember how it all started at the end of 2001. Something unprecedented happened when the Taliban government of Afghanistan, upon receiving the US demand to hand over the terrorists,
1- confirmed that they were present on its territory
2- admitted that they supported- and sided with them
3- and bluntly refused to hand them over.

Now, nobody has ever acted quite like that in the past in International Relations! Normally, a government (Lybia for instance) would deny any involvement, say that to the best of its knowledge the persons on the wanted list are not on its territory and protest that it did not sponsor the group and support the hit. This bold admission and refusal to hand over the terrorists precipitated the war and rendered it unavoidable. In fact both wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) sprang from there.

Exit, extraction, these words have been introduced in the military vocabulary probably during the Vietnam war. Before, (WW1,WW2, Korea) it was like this: the army goes there, does the fighting, wait until relief comes, relinquish power to the civil authorities and goes home. Mission completed.

When we talk about exit strategies and extraction, it could mean only two things: the enemy has not been entirely subdued (population not pacified) and the environment is still hostile (not secured). I agree that the nature of war has changed, but when we glorify spectacular missions, very high-tech, with limited objectives, corresponding to the popular motto "get in-get out'', we may be practicing spectacular tactics, but perhaps rotten startegy. Remember that war is not a video-game, and that in WW2 nobody ever heard of- or planned an exist strategy. If you would have talked of extraction to the troops then, they would have thought that you were a dentist!

Guerrilla warfare and terror tactics have been used by ethnic groups and populations in the past mostly to fight against

1- foreign invasion and occupation (Japan, Germany)
2- colonization by European Powers (XVIth century onwards)
3- the US and Russia (the new economic and ideological colonization of the world).
In the third world, the US is often seen as the successor of European colonization, and as such is the enemy.

There is another form of terrorism though, perpetrated by governments this time against ethnic groups and local populations, called state-terrorism. The first examples that come to mind historically are those central-American and South-American dictatorships blessed by Washington, Russia (the former Soviet Union) and China, and of course the state of Israel.

If the definition of ''terror'' is broadened enough, it could be said to be perpetrated not only by guerrilla groups and irregular fighters, but also by regular armies, police forces and governments, and certainly by the organized crime (the link between guerrilla groups and criminal organizations needs to be explored more than ever these days since state-sponsered terrorism has fallen out of fashion). Now we're talking about real reasons and THE BIG WHY!
BACK

History never repeats itself completely, but some say (among them one of the best strategist-theoreticians America ever had, i.e. Professor Barbara Tuchman, yes a woman, refreshing for a change!) that governments and administrations tend to repeat the same mistakes. In her much publicized work "The March of Folly" (first published in 1984), she calls stupidity or folly the habit of certain governments to refuse to change a policy that with time shows itself to be unfruitful or contrary to the nation's best interest.

According to her, the stupidity or folly is not so much to make mistakes, even  big ones (everybody makes mistakes) but to stubbornly refuse to acknowledge them and change policies when necessary. This refusal of change is stupidity according to her!

She calls stupidity an insane and perverse persistence to follow a policy that clearly becomes unmanageable and fruitless, and her favourite example is the Vietnam War: the refusal to disengage and withdraw until it's too late.

But why do governments refuse to act on time?

They analyze a given situation with prefixed notions without taking into account any fact that is inconsistent with these. When reality contradicts the theory, reality is proven wrong. But in the end, reality has a way to catch up with them, and then there it is : a disaster. Is the same thing happening in Iraq ?

Has a comparison of the present situation in Iraq with what happened in Southeast Asia a few decades ago any validity at all?

Is it true that the only people who compare Iraq to Vietnam are old liberals with a Nostalgia for the 70s who have yet to understand Vietnam let alone Iraq? Is it true that there are little similarities except in the minds of Democrats, anti-war protesters and those who want to believe in conspiracies or wishful thinking? Let's see!

The situation IS different in many instances:
1- this is a desert country
2- No foreign power openly supply arms to the other side (there is no Ho-Chi-Minh trail to my knowledge)
3- and the guerrilla activity is quite different in nature now from what it was 40 years ago

Apart from claiming that this is no-win situation, a nightmare !, is there any sense in comparing the present situation with what happened in Vietnam ? Maybe.

1- Attacks on occupation troops are reported daily;

2- There is no sense of exactly how big the armed opposition is (the size of the insurgency);

3- Clearly there is steady enemy infiltration at the border (weapons and guerrilla fighters are getting in in great numbers); also a cross-border flow of Funds.

4- The situation is chaotic. The impossibility to pinpoint who exactly the enemy is and its location, that is reminiscent of Vietnam! The opposition is fragmented, we know, but how many groups ? of what nature (religious, political, old Baath party, financed by Iran, Syria, etc.)? No one knows exactly.

5- Similarities in Rhetoric: Predictions of doom. The domino theory: if Vietnam falls, the whole of Asia will become communist.
U.S. might face "Ultimate Nightmare" in a united Middle East where Shiites control most of World's Oil and is independent.

6- Remember that the invasion of Iraq took place against an extraordinary international opposition. The Vietnam war continued to its bitter end in spite of international protests and domestic opposition.

7- Both wars seem to have increased terrorism.

8- On both cases the United States were accused of being a dominant threat to everyone else.

9- Similarities in the News
Daily reports of heavy fighting near Hue, Danang, Delat or in the suburbs of Saigon
Daily reports of heavy fighting near Fallujah, Mosul, or in the suburbs of Baghdad
High enemy casualties, we control the situation, victory is near!
High enemy casualties, the guerrilla wiped out, resistance in other regions will easily be brought under control.

10- The presence of foreign insurgents in Iraq: Sudanese, Jordanians, Syrians, etc., like was the case in South Vietnam (Russian and Chinese instructors, north-Vietnamese guerrilla fighters).
In both cases: Accusation of neighboring countries of interference in internal affairs (religious interference from across the border, funding and arms smuggling).

11- THE MEDIA. Referring to the deteriorating situation: claim that the problem is created by the media. “They are exaggerating the situation in Iraq." 40 years ago it was:
“They are exaggerating the situation in Vietnam."

12- U.S. forces insisted that Fallujah was the center of Iraq's guerrilla organizations, and claimed that if U.S. troops wiped out the guerrillas there, resistance in other regions would easily be brought under control. Since then, they have taken Fallujah twice and the fighting has not subsided and Iraq has not become more stable.

13- U.S. authorities continued to offer completely incorrect analyses (reminiscent of Vietnam) such as 'the guerrillas are not a strong force, they belong to Al-Qaida's foreign terrorist group (and not the underground Baath Party).

In reality, the Baath Party had gone Underground. In March-April 2003, when U.S. troops attacked, a sizeable amount of Hussein's forces did not engage them and went immediately underground, becoming guerrillas. Many years prior to the invasion, the government had chosen an underground operations' strategy in case of such an attack, and had taught key members of the secret police guerrilla warfare tactics, including the skills of improvising bombs, using explosives that can be acquired easily.

After U.S. troops occupied Baghdad, insurgents looted, destroyed, and set fire to various Iraqi government offices, telephone centers, and power stations. These acts were organized by remnants of the Hussein government, with the intent of making American rule difficult by destroying administrative information and the economic infrastructure necessary for governance.

In May 2003, when general Bremer, the chief of the CPA, purged the members of the Baath Party (with a membership of 400,000) from official positions and dissolved the Iraqi police and military, the final mistake was made. The Baathists had the essential skills to maintain security and rebuild the country. To ban them from office was the antithesis of previous successful U.S. occupation policies during the 1940s (Japan and Germany), when the entire bureaucracy was kept intact.

As a result of this policy, the number of Baathists who joined the guerrillas suddenly increased.

14- The capture of Saddam Hussein has not changed anything.

15- The failure of the occupation policy has made the majority of the Iraqi people anti-American, increasing support for the guerrillas. This suggests that these guerrillas may have considerable power. They have not exhausted their resources, and we can anticipate that they will gradually expand terrorism and test the limits of U.S. troops.

16- The concern was raised that U.S. information has been leaking out via spies who penetrate U.S. facilities. The U.S. may be now lagging behind the guerrillas in information gathering (which is very similar to what happened in Vietnam).

17- In the media, they are asking now exactly the same questions as 40 years ago:
Should we increase the number of troops or withdraw from Iraq? Some say: ''to prevent further depletion of the national resources, we should withdraw the troops soon.'' Others say: ''if the U.S. troops were to withdraw, Iraq will fall into civil war. As the Iraqi security force cannot be trusted, there is no other choice but increasing the number of US troops.''

When even conservatives say that the U.S. should not increase the number of troops but withdraw because they oppose further waste of American resources, doesn't this remind you of something? But if this administration increases the number of US troops in Iraq   leading to a long-term occupation, this move may require conscription. Young men will be drafted. Does this perhaps remind you of something ?

18- Some say America cannot win. They point out that if the U.S. increases the number of soldiers, guerrilla attacks will become more extreme, prolonging the fighting. For them the  occupation of Iraq will not succeed. The longer it takes, the more national resources will be squandered, with the side effect of loss of U.S. position as world hegemon.

Others say that it may succeed, but for that the Iraqi people would have to support it. Increasing the number of U.S. troops will have the opposite effect. To win, America needs allies more than ever, and powerful ones! The chief difference between Vietnam, which was waging an administrative war without declaring it, and Iraq is that this time WAR HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY  DECLARED. This war may not be kosher, but it's legal this time.

This is a key point. War had never been officially declared against North-Vietnam and the American public had never been properly prepared, i.e. informed of the reasons WHY. This time, it is quite different. War has been officially declared against terrorism and the population has been prepared and informed (even so some might say misinformed and the reasons given for invasion not valid). But the point is that this time everybody knows WHY, and this makes all the difference in the world ! That is why one might still say that this war is winnable even if you don't increase significantly the number of soldiers. Probably it is much more winnable IF YOU DON'T increase the number of troops there.

There may be similarities with Vietnam, but history never really repeats itself. So the situation IS different and this war IS still winnable. In fact the war has already been won on April 9th 2003, it is the peace that still needs to be won!
BACK

The season of all dangers took place between September 2002 and April 2003. As you know, the war on Iraq begins on 3/20/2003. This point in history clearly marks the end of 57 years of US foreign policy towards Europe and Asia and a new beginning in international relations. A beginning to what ? No one knows exactly. But the world has changed, and everybody can sense that.

It is the relationship with the former allies that seems to have changed drastically. Postworldwar II alliances are dead, the Cold War is long over, the Warsaw pact has been dissolved and even NATO has lost its meaning and importance (half of the nations and countries in NATO are unsympathetic to the American cause in Iraq). NORAD still exists, but all these institutions inherited from the Cold war are shaky at best and will eventually disappear, leaving America... alone.

But what happened between September 2002 and April 2003 ? The unthinkable, according to postworldwar II and second half of the XXth century's standards ! France and Germany toying with the idea that in the next war, maybe they would fight on the other side! France and Germany issuing joint statements on foreign policy matters, worse France, Germany and Russia issuing joint statements and holding a well publicized conference in St-Petersburg in May 2003, exposing the rift between the EU and the American vision of the world. Worse still: Russia and China issuing joint statements disapproving of the invasion of Iraq and the worst of all: China, Russia, France and Germany (all the four of them !) devising how they would oppose Washington in the next international crisis.

If all the old alliances and former ties with Europe are not quite dead, one thing is certain: THE SITUATION IS NOT CLEAR ANYMORE. Anything is possible at this point. Among the wildest speculations possible, let us evoke but a few:

1- the next superpower (opposing the US) will not be a single country but a continent or half a continent,

2- the 3 contenders as superpowers are the European Union, Eastern Asia and Islam. Moslem countries are poor and not high-tech for the most part, so the most dangerous opponent would be Eastern Asia. China, Russia and India (all three of them being nuclear powers) should they unite someday, would pose the most serious threat. It is no coincidence that the emerging missile shield is pointing eastwards.

3- in the next world war, the better part of Europe (among which France and Germany) could fight on- or belong to the opposite camp.

These things were unthinkable five years ago. There goes to show how much the world has changed since, if they can be uttered or contemplated now.

You're imagining things ! Well, you only have to read the CIA facts sheets, facts books and annual reports. These guys are scared. It shows !

The magical moment of 1989, the Fall of the Berlin Wall and the hope of a <<peace for our time>> is definitely gone. What has killed the peace is not so much the 9-11 which is undoubtedly an act of provocation and a ''declaration of war'' of sorts by extremists, but the response given to it. In short: the military expedition in Afghanistan was justifiable, the invasion of Iraq was not. Another response to the 9-11 and slightly more patience might have saved the peace. The possibility of a new world war (which had been completely forgotten since 1990) has resurfaced. We just don't know who the enemy will be...
BACK

Susan's theory
From: giskhan  (Original Message) Sent: 25/02/2004

Mrs. Susan is a topnotch analyst on intelligence gathering systems working as a consultant both for the Military forces and the National Police Department of a G7 Western country. She developed last year a conspiracy theory that is both original and plays on a greater scope than the usual ones found on the Net and elsewhere. However we do not share Susan's view in its entirety, some contentions seem far-fetched, it sometimes smells of exaggeration.

Here it goes

1- The war on Iraq has been decided long before 9-11. The Americans had every intention of securing the oil resources of the Middle-East, and that since at least 1973. Invading Iraq, initiating or encouraging a change of regime, has always been seen as an option by Washington. As soon as he came to power, George W. Bush worked very hard to accomplish this. His wish was granted in a little bit more than two years.

But why ? On top of the obvious economic reasons, are there personal motives as well ? Why did Bush have this thing about Saddam? Has his condition as an alcoholic something to do with this ? Can we talk about personality disorder here ? Arrogance, religious fanaticism coming from his involvement in a Christian sect, the desire to cleanse the Universe, to purge it of everything that is not pure (according to his definition)

Paul O’Neill, the former Secretary of the US Treasury who also sat on the National Security Council, says about George W. Bush’s plans to overthrow Saddam in Iraq that September 11 provided the justification: “from the start”. He was building the case against Hussein and looking at how he could take him out and change Iraq into a new country… and was about finding a way to do it, when providence sent him 9-11. But was it really providence ?

2- The 9-11 could be a frame-up. Seen as the victim of a terrorist attack, this makes the USA look better to the rest of the world. In search for attention and compassion, it makes the American empire look less dangerous, weak, and gives the impression that such a thing could easily happen elsewhere. It builds sympathy.

Of course everyone has heard about this crazy anti-Semitic theory according to which 5000 Jews didn't show up to work at the World Trade Center that day, and that therefore September 11 was a Mossad operation. At best, not only Israel but also the CIA or any kind of covert operation section in the US military was probably involved in this. Such a theory is of course absurd, sheer fantasy !

Such speculations occur only because of a definite inconsistency in numbers in what happened on the WTC that day. The average number of visitors in the World Trade Center on working days: 50000, the number of victims in the rubble: less than 3000, and the number of people that had time to evacuate the twin towers before the big collapse: 3000 to 4000. According to these figures, a few thousand people were either missing, didn't show up, are unaccounted for... Put it as you wish, there is definitely something fishy here. Could it be that the few thousand Americans that didn't show up that day on the WTC were government employees and tipped-off about what was going to happen (the CIA had even an ops. office in the building) ?  9-11 could bear the mark of a US special section's covert op. . This is a distinct possibility.

3- Saddam's capture may have been delayed because they had to choose the best date for full media impact (it happened just after the worst series of guerrilla attacks against the coalition forces). They knew all along where he was.

And how come did they not kill him as they had first said ? Just before the main attack, they had tried to kill him in a surgical air strike. In the first moments of the war, they were blatant about it: they would kill him or have him killed (on top of destroying his regime). But the discourse changed as time went by... and it became obvious that this war was a nonsense...

Or did they perhaps believe that capturing Saddam at this point would stop the guerrilla movement that had broken out since the month of June ? The guerrilla movement, as we understand it today, consists of at least twenty (20) factions: religious groups, ethnic groups, and the remnants of the Baath party are not even the strongest one of these. To believe that Saddam may have any influence on the guerrilla warfare as it is practiced in Iraq today, that is wholly unrealistic. The situation can be accurately described as chaotic.

4- Ossama bin Laden may have been captured two year ago and be an American prisoner since. He could be turned out conveniently just before the November election. He could have been captured in Tora Bora and never have left Afghanistan, or he could be detained in one of the many secret military facilities that the US still owns in the region.

It is even possible that the rich Saudi businessman was paid by the US to plan, organize and recruit the suicide commando-units that carried out the 9-11, and it is further possible that he has been the ''privileged'' prisoner of the US since, awaiting further service... But he may have also been so naive, as to perhaps think that he could enjoy the same prestige as George W. Bush. Their initial agreement failed and he could be very well an embarrassment now: either they terminate him or stage his dramatic capture for October 2004.

It could have worked out, and Iraq would be rebuilding itself very fast now. Prosperity assured for the region! It would have been the greatest of victories for Bush and Blair. Bin Laden, with a huge amount of US $, would be living his days comfortably in a holiday resort, in the country of his choice.

Another possibility would be that Bin Laden is not a prisoner at all, not even an <<honored guest>> of the US government. The Americans know where he is, they monitor him; but according to their agreement, Ossama is still a free man... for now ! They could very well decide to sacrifice him soon though, and to stage his spectacular capture just before the November election.

In that case:

1- Will Ossama bin Laden be tried and sentenced in the United States ?
2- How could he be guaranteed an impartial trial ?
3- Could he be sentenced to death ? If yes, is a public execution advisable ?
4- Could he be assassinated even before his trial begins ?

A lot of questions ! The two most important of these are: what is the American interest, what do they get out of this deal with Bin Laden ? The answer is obvious: they increase their influence on- and mastery of the region. What does Bin Laden get out of it ? Money (they give him a cut on the oil profit) and a chance to expand Al Qaeda's influence worldwide. The rift between old and new Al Qaeda is a sham. In spite of the severe blows dealt by the US and their allies (numerous arrests and seizure of money, assets frozen, putting moslem charitable organizations on black lists and terrorist's lists), Al Qaeda as a whole is still growing, getting stronger.

Apart from this, Bin Laden benefits personally. He is gaining stature, building his own myth ! The man started to become a legend in the mountains of Tora Bora in 2002. Who knows, he may become the true Mahdi (saviour) for the Moslem masses in years to come, and Tora Bora may well be turned into a holy ground: a place of pilgrimage.

5- George W. Bush is a '' reborn Christian '' and this brand of religious ''evangelists'' is prone to crusades, missions, all kind of excesses and exaggerations. The ''reborns'' always think that they have experienced enlightenment in accepting the new Jesus as their personal saviour, that they hold a higher truth and are from now on clean, pure, endowed with a mission. And what other mission is there than to cleanse the world of everything that is not pure ?

The President may have had a religious war in mind, a war against Islam, East Vs West. Good against evil. Therefore, after the ''evil Empire'' of 1984: the <<evil Axis>> in 2002. This could be seen as << self-fulfilling the Nostradamus prophecy >>, but let's not confuse the issue here by invoking clairvoyants and the like.

a <<dry drunk>> ?
Several writers have recently likened Bush’s personality characteristics to those of a person described in AA parlance as “dry”, but whose thinking is not really sober. Grandiosity, rigidity of the mind, intolerance towards ambiguity, and a tendency to be obsessed with certain things are among the traits associated with the <<dry drunk>>. The dry drunk quits drinking, but his obsession with the bottle is replaced with other obsessions. The Twelve Steps program helps its members modify their all-or-nothing thought patterns, which are associated with the disease of alcoholism. The slogans “Easy does it” and “One day at a time”, and especially the serenity prayer help persons with addictive tendencies to curb their excesses.

“Saddam tried to kill my Dad,” the President once explained. But is there more to this unnecessary war than that ? In Bush’s irrational patterns of thought lie the clues to his single-minded obsession with Iraq. His vendetta against this one country is linked to the meaning that Iraq seems to hold for his father. The father is considered a big hero, naturally his first-born son identifies with him. Especially as he was set up to follow in the exact footsteps of the father. Sent to the same prep school, he cannot equal his father’s accomplishments (in sports or his academic achievements). His drinking bouts and drug misuse start because he has to compensate and forget about his unability to cope.

His father, for all his success, experienced three failures.
1- He was widely criticized for not finishing the job in Iraq,
2- he failed to get his bill passed to fund a NASA flight to Mars
3- and finally, he lost his bid for re-election.

A unique opportunity has fallen George W. Bush’s way. He could prove himself to his father and even beat him at his own game. He chooses the same men from his father’s regime for his cabinet and key advisers. He chose people who would be favorable to a “crusade”, a return to Iraq. Given his past history and tendency towards obsessiveness, the temptation to achieve heroism through a re-enactment of his father’s war was too much to resist. He throws caution and international diplomacy to the winds, lies convincingly to the American people, threatens allies, bullies members of the United Nations and dresses in full military regalia. Targeting Iraq has always been one man’s personal crusade.

The study of "dry" alcoholics can provide insights into the rigidities of the US president's behaviour. Brain studies show that long-term alcohol- and other drug's use changes the chemistry of the brain: thinking is clouded and individuals tend to go to extremes. So, people in recovery must work on their destructive thought processes. Witness the extreme language that coloured Mr Bush's speeches in 2002. First, there were the expressions: "crusade" and "infinite justice" that were later withdrawn. Next came "evildoers", "axis of Evil", and "regime change".

Exaggerated self-importance and grandiose behaviour are symptoms, but the president of the US possesses awesome power.  Consider his readiness to inflict "regime change" on another nation without any consideration that other countries might want to do the same. As governor of Texas, he presided over hundreds of executions; in Iraq he ordered the firing of thousands of missiles into populated areas. The all-or-nothing thinking of the addict ("Either you're with us or you're with the enemy") leads to extreme behaviours and risk-taking.

And what is alcoholism according to Chapter 5 of the Big Book of the ''Alcoholics Anonymous''? It is: <<...a life run on self-will... [alcoholics] are almost always in collision with something or somebody, even though [their] motives are good. Most people try to live by self-propulsion. Each person is like an actor who wants to run the whole show; is forever trying to arrange the lights, the ballet, the scenery and the rest of the players in his own way. If his arrangements would only stay put, if only people would do as he wished, the show would be great. Everybody, including himself, would be pleased. Life would be wonderful. In trying to make these arrangements our actor may sometimes be quite virtuous. He may be kind, considerate, patient, generous; even modest and self-sacrificing. On the other hand, he may be mean, egotistical, selfish and dishonest. But, as with most humans, he is more likely to have varied traits. What usually happens? The show doesn't come off very well. ... the alcoholic is an extreme example of self-will run riot... [the alcoholic] has ...to quit playing God....  liquor was but a symptom...>>.

Further, the AA say that a life which includes deep resentments leads only to unhappiness. In that case, the world and its people really dominate you. The wrong-doing of others, fancied or real, has the power to actually kill you. With the alcoholic, when he harbours such feelings, he shuts himself off from the sunlight of the Spirit.  Although a religious man, George W. Bush may have forgotten that <<faith can do for you what you cannot do for yourself>>, <<trust infinite God rather than your finite self>> and that <<self-will blocks you off from God>>.

6- The impassibility of the President when he made certain speeches directly after the tragic events. Some say that if he showed no emotions in his speech, it was because he knew well in advance what was going to happen. Therefore the frame-up theory for 9-11.

Further fabrication could be the motives put forward to accuse the East of being the ''evil Axis'', the reasons, alleged facts and justifications to ask for international support, and the basis of this whole crusade against terrorism.

Then comes the war, when Bush claims to have definite proof that Saddam owns Weapons of Mass Destruction, and that he intends to use them first. The ties with Al Qaeda that were never established, allies of the United States that were threatened, NATO that was at risk, further allies in the region that could be immediate targets (Kuwait, Iran, Turkey). All this looks so ridiculous now, that the very theory of a massive fabrication gains much in likelihood and credibility.

7- Who is behind George W. Bush ? Yes, is there something more to this than meets the eye? Who started all this and is still in charge the conspiracy (of project <<Back to Iraq>>), who desperately wanted mastery or perhaps revenge. Only one name comes to mind: George Bush. What ? Yes, you heard it right George Bush: the Old man. This is the revenge of the old man. But, wait a minute ! This means that the old man:

a) felt that the Gulf War 1 was not really a victory,
b) he even took it as a personal defeat that he could not remove Saddam,
c) he lost the next election just after the war (1992).
d) Saddam was still defiant, he took it personally, craved for revenge,
e) he couldn't do it by himself,  he thought about his son,
f) Bill Clinton was in the way, so Monica Lewinsky was perhaps a set-up, not a fabrication but a clever trap,
g) the election was not easy to win, so the conspiracy was never <<a sure thing>> from the start: it could have failed,
h) but George W. was elected, so negociations could begin or resume with Ossama bin Laden,
i) September 11 was upon America and you know the rest.
 

What ? Are you out of your mind ? What you suggest is absurd ! THE REVENGE OF THE FATHER ! Perhaps, but Kennedy's assassination and the <<landing on the moon>> were too... before they happened. After that, it was just history.
 
 

1- That the Americans wanted to secure the oil reserves in the Middle-East, such a contention is well known, credible and documented.

2- However, to believe that the 9-11 could be a frame-up, this belongs to the realm of science-fiction.

3- To claim that Saddam's capture could have been staged, delayed and organized as a media coup brings us closer to political Wonderland;

4- And the deal between Ossama and some authorities in Washington could be the ideal plot for a political novel. None of this could be real; it just sounds too fantastic.

How come:

i - federal employees were killed too in the rubble of the WTC: were they sacrificed ?

ii - if Bin Laden is a prisoner, how do you account for the videotapes and audio-documents that were regularly given to the press and released ? Are these messages from the religious leader fabrications too ? Conveniently provided by some American intelligence agency ?

iii - a religious war between Islam and the USA, a cultural war between East and West, and all that fueled by the iron will of a former alcoholic and psychotic personality: is that not a little bit too much ?

iv - The 9-11 was planned by the American intelligence community, there was a secret pact between Bin Laden and Washington, Saddam's capture was staged. These things could be theoretically possible of course. But in practice, what happens, is that there is always a leak along the chain of command. Something big like this could not remain a secret, not today ! How come the regular media never heard about it ? And where is the proof ? documentation please !

v - as for George W. lack of expression and emotion in his speeches following September 11, has anybody though that he was perhaps so overcome with emotions as to be in a state of shock ? or that he was just another shy quiet man from Texas ?

vi - the piece about <<the revenge of the father>> would be great stuff for a movie, but very hard to believe. Something like that does not happen in real life ! Or does it ? What if ...

Susan's theory is a brilliant piece of work. It puts together rumors, speculations and newly emerged urban legends from all parts of the world and all political horizons. It organizes these scattered fragments of speculation in a logical sequence as to produce a seven parts' theory that challenges even the most difficult minds. Bravo. The worst part about it is that it could be true.

It is sometimes useful to look at the other side of the coin to know what they are thinking. They, who are they ? The Gooks, the Geeks (remember Vietnam ?), the subhumans, the opposition: the other side. But what does it matter what they think ? A lot. You'll see !

Word of caution:

If reading this post starts to make you angry, STOP IMMEDIATELY.

If at any time you feel your certainty, even your patriotism threatened: STOP READING !

But if you are curious about what the other side thinks, if you can keep your cool confronting opinions you do not share: CONTINUE TO READ.

THE EVIL EMPIRE

The first to make use of this expression was President Ronald Reagan in 1984. It is assumed he was talking of Russia at the time. An aid to the president, speechwriter and proofreader found a new one fifteen years later and EVIL AXIS became popular overnight, when Georges Bush used it in 2001.

The only problem is that since 1990, there is only one Empire left on the planet: the U.S. of A. In 1938, there was a famous axis, made of three Powers: Germany, Italy and Japan. Now the Rome, Berlin, Tokyo AXIS of old has been replaced by a new one: Washington, London and Tel Aviv.

This is how things stand today: one Empire (America) and one Axis (U.S., Israel and Britain). So, when Americans talk of evil empire today, do they mean their own country ? And when the evil axis is mentioned, do they refer to the special ties between Washington and Israel ? One wonders !

GEOGRAPHY

If America has never been invaded, occupied, its cities never bombed, it is not due to American valour but to the fact that it is protected by two oceans: the Atlantic and the Pacific ocean. It has nothing to do with hard work, superior morality or being the best in the world: it is a gift from "mother nature". The Americans have used and abused this fact for a century in overseas wars: <<we can hit you, but you can't hit us ! >>.

Things are about to change though. Especially during the Vietnam era, they could spread fire and destruction everywhere abroad and then still come home to a safe place afterwards. These days are over now, and its payback time. Beware ! If you commit atrocities, say a massacre in some remote village, the hell that you unleash there can now follow you home. That's the big difference. Two wide oceans are not a total protection anymore, they can get to you if they want to !

VALOUR

After the crushing defeat in Vietnam in 1975, the morale of the armed forces and American confidence in general were at an all-time low. They had to rebuild confidence. So they choose a small target: the tiny island of Grenada and invade in 1983. Success ! What a pleasant surprise to find that you still can take a small island ! The high command was overjoyed.

What would be next ? The confidence was coming back but they still had to play it safe. So, not too big a country, not so hard a target, yes Panama, perfect ! So they invade in 1989, secure the Canal and remove the dictator that they had themselves put there in the first place. Success again but don't get cocky !

The next one will still be a third-world country, but a middle-sized one this time: Iraq (1991). The American confidence has been totally regained by then and they are now ready to take the world. So it seems.

A small question though. Iraq was exhausted after a long war of eight (8) years against Iran. Afghanistan was exhausted after a long eleven (11) years' war with Russia. WHY DO YOU ALWAYS MAKE WAR TO SMALL (Grenada, Nicaragua, Panama) OR EXHAUSTED (Iraq, Afghanistan) COUNTRIES ? Why don't you pick a well rested country next time: a country approximately your size with a decent army for a change ? Afraid ?

FIGHT IN A SCHOOLYARD

Remember your school days ? Well, let's explain what the world thinks of it in simpler terms. There is this big kid, not a kid really, not anymore. A BIG BULLY. How old ? Twelve, fifteen ? No one knows. Anyways, he picks on small kids half his age. He terrorizes and beats up small children of six to eight years of age. There comes the local policeman who asks the big bully: <<why do you always pick on small kids, why don't you fight someone your size ?>> The big bully replies: <<yeah, and who's gonna make me ? >>. The policeman is the UN, children are third-world countries and the bully is of course the U.S. of A.

THE REAL CAUSE OF WAR (IRAQ)

Iraq has probably been destroyed, abused, deceived and betrayed (the right word in US dialect being <<screwed>>) three times over by the Americans. First, the eight years war with Iran fought to help the Americans contain the Ayatollahs. Second, they ask permission to invade Kuwait. The American ambassador (April Glaspie) assures them that there is no problem: they can invade. Anyways they had three (3) good reasons:

1- Kuwait had been part of Iraq in the past.

2- They needed money to pay for the long eight years war with Iran (the Americans didn't want to pay, even though the war had been fought on their behalf and Iraq was an ally).

3- Kuwait was side-pumping in the Iraqi oil reserve.

So, they invade thinking they had the green light from Washington.

They got screwed a second time when the coalition destroyed half the country in 1991.

They got screwed a third time when economic sanctions meant that they had to sell their oil just to get something to eat and 4000 babies were dying each month as a consequence. And they got screwed a fourth time this year by a world power that claims to be benevolent.

The Iraqis did not profit from oil. Their country was destroyed because of it ! Only a certain bald eagle will profit from it. The question that puzzles America for more than a decade is WHAT IS OUR OIL DOING UNDER THEIR SAND ?

NO HONOUR (An eagle not to be trusted)

Iraq invaded because they thought they had the green light from Washington. It was a lie.

The retreating convoy of 60 000 men was bombed out of existence two days after the conditions for a cease-fire were established. Most of them were burned alive (operation called <<Highway to death>>). The rule was broken.

In 1991, Kurds and Shiites were induced to revolt against Bagdad and were promised support. As it turned out, no support was ever provided. The firsts were gassed, the others killed by the thousands. Screwed again !

They said Saddam must disarm. The Iraqis destroyed 48 to 70 Al-Sammud missiles in compliance to what Hans Blix and George Bush were asking. But still the Americans invaded.

They served an ultimatum to Saddam: you have 48 hours to get out of the country. But they immediately add to it: <<even if you do get out: we will invade>>.

The use of a traitor or traitors to bomb Saddam or to assassinate him, kill him in his sleep, says something about the very ones using such tactics. There are conquerors with honor (Genghis Khan receiving such an offer of someone ready to betray his master would have had the traitor beheaded on the spot) and others with none. Those dealing with traitors or systematically using them have no honor. It is a matter of trust.

It is now clear to anyone that Americans now simply cannot be trusted. They are not the ones of WW2 or 1950. This new breed, the ones that came after 1985, has no honor. They don't keep their word.

GODS AND MENTALLY INCOMPETENTS

<<You are either with me or against me>>  Jesus-Christ

<<Entweder sind Sie mit uns oder gegen uns>> (Either you are with us or against us)

Adolf Hitler

<<You are either with us or against us>> George Bush

This is the kind of sentence that can only be uttered by Gods or mental patients. Which one is George ?

MAKE A LIST

If America should ever seriously inquire to find the real reasons behind 9-11, it would have to make a list. A list of its enemies around the world which is similar to the one of its military- and political foreign involvement since 1898. Then it could attempt to draw up a list of its friends and allies. But this is tricky since an allied government does not always mean a friendly population. The perfect example being Saudi Arabia: cooperating government officials but an hostile population.

The question is: how many countries and people have you <<screwed>> (economically and militarily) in the last century ? The answer will make you come pretty close to the truth: WHO and WHY and HOW MANY THEY ARE.

Virtually every government of Africa and, for that matter, Central- and South America has been either put there or overthrowned by American money. To undermine foreign governments and pay to elect this one or have that other one kicked out has always been a sport practiced with skill by the elite club in Washington. Before 1990, the excuse was a clash between big business and socialism.

All this is well known to the world and documented. A word of caution though to Americans: either peacenicks, normal citizens, Washington decision-makers, etc... BEFORE establishing this database of foes, list of enemies, call it what you like, you will have to make distinctions. There are those who like you, those who dislike you, those who really hate you and the others (the neutrals) that are pretty indifferent to all this. Don't get sore at all the planet !

On the contrary you should cheer up, because people don't hate you half as much as they hate past dictators, including those of the former Soviet Union. What you did was smart: never getting directly involved most of the time (with the notable exception of Vietnam), always fighting your wars by proxy, financing the wars or revolutions but never getting directly involved (deniability), smart !

The problem is that this way of doing war makes just as much victims: millions of dead. <<But it's not our fault, it's civil war, they are fighting among themselves>>. Beautiful deniability, it's smart and so beautifully American (dirty tricks, the doctrine of which was developed 'round 1930, covert operations and psyops).

But back to the list ! There are officially 145 countries divided in approximately 400 semi-autonomous territories and principalities on this earth. Roughly 100 of these really hate the U.S. as a result of a century of American military and political intervention since 1898. 100 have only a slight dislike of you but can conceal it. 100 more are neutral. What about the 100 that are left ? No one knows. One thing for sure, the U.S. have only three (3) true allies now: Great-Britain (but part of its population is hostile or non-cooperative), Spain (but many have not forgotten 1898) and Israel. In fact, it is very much possible that Israel proves to be the US only true friend (no matter what).

So, with a list of at least 100 foes and enemy countries, the Database in those Washington computers must be huge. Considering the fact that with any significant blunder the list could go up to 200 or 300, the United States should increase the capacity of their monitoring systems, then they will have to watch soon half the planet.

Since 1950, the U.S. bombed so many people in so many places that they forgot about it. But the local population in hundreds of places has not forgotten. Those who had a son, a brother, a mother, a grand-father killed in those often senseless bombardments have not forgotten. It is very well possible that the Americans have enemies they know nothing about.

Here is a list of those involvements and of today's enemies.

1- THE SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR 1898 (started on a false pretext)

2- PHILIPPINES 1901  The wiping out of the independence movement (so much for democracy !)

3- PANAMA 1903  American warships help rebel forces to secede from Colombia. The treaty of the Panama Canal is signed in the following days.

4- NICARAGUA 1912-1933  American marines help topple the nationalist government. They will stay there 21 years

5- HAÏTI 1914-1934  A 20 years occupation following popular uprising. Landing U.S. marines declare they have to teach democracy to the Haïtian people.

6- RUSSIA 1918  5000 American troops sent to Bielorussia

7- GREECE 1947-49  U.S. supports and directs extreme right in civil war.

8- PHILIPPINES 1948-54  CIA directs war against leftist Huk Rebellion.

9- PUERTO RICO 1950  Nationalist insurrection challenges American occupation; US command operation puts down rebellion.

10- KOREA 1950-53  A justified war. The U.S. joins South Korea and other allies to fight China and North Korea.

11- IRAN 1953  A military coup backed by the CIA to overthrow president Mossadegh and install Shah. Establishment of a series of military bases in the region.

12- GUATEMALA 1954  Another coup backed by the CIA to oust the socialist president; military junta installed.

13- SUEZ CANAL 1956  Americans force the British-French coalition to get out of the Canal

14- LEBANON 1958  Another landing of the American marines on the shores of Lebanon to protect American citizens and ''assist'' the Lebanese government. US occupation ends under UN Observer Group.

15- CUBA 1959  American setback. Castro seizes power. The later attempted invasion fails at the Bay of Pigs

16- BAY OF PIGS 1961  A covert operation orchestrated by the CIA ends in disaster.

17- VIETNAM 1954-1975  Secret help to the South at first, then open commitment. War spreads to Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam. More than 4 million killed, including 58 000 Americans.

18- LAOS 1962  Green Berets active in training, military buildup, support of rightist forces during guerrilla war.

19- PANAMA 1964  Control of Panama Canal Zone challenged; rioting against US forces.

20- INDONESIA 1965  President Sukarno driven away by General Suharto with American help. Army coup assisted to an unknown degree by CIA; between 250,000 to 1,000,000 lives lost.

21- DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965  30 000 marines and paratroopers landed to protect the local military dictator from its angry population. Troops invade during election as pre-emptive action against leftist rebellion or communist government.

22- CONGO 1965  Bloody coup by Joseph Mobutu backed by the U.S.

23- GUATEMALA 1966-67  Command operation; Green Berets aid in combat against leftist rebels.

24- CAMBODIA 1969-75  War against leftist forces; intense bombing; up to 2 million killed.

25- OMAN 1970  US directs Iranian invasion in support of Omani government against Marxist "Dhufar rebellion."

26- LAOS 1971-73  US directs South Vietnamese invasion.

27- CHILE 1973  The CIA helps the military junta of General Pinochet bring down the newly elected socialist President Allende

28- ANGOLA 1976-92  CIA assists South African-backed rebels.

29- NICARAGUA 1979-1990  The CIA helps the Contras fight the communist government of the Sandinistas; US forces plant mines.

30- IRAN 25th april 1980   A Special rescue mission to free the 52 American hostages fails miserably

31- LYBIA 1981-1989  Destruction of Lybian military planes on several air-raids and attack of an Iranian ship in 1987

32- EL SALVADOR 1981-92  Advisors aid government forces against leftist rebels.

33- LEBANON 1982-84  Marines help police negotiated evacuation of Palestine Liberation Organization; US forces combat Muslim and Syrian fighters in support of Christian government.

34- LEBANON (october-december) 1983  Navy Bombardment of the Syrian held positions in Lebanon

35- GRENADA 1983 American marines invade

36- HONDURAS 1983-89  Military bases established for US-backed "Contra war" with Nicaragua.

37- LYBIA 1986  Bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi after terrorist attacks targeting Americans.
Air strikes against a nationalist government suspected of terrorist links.

38- BOLIVIA 1986  Operation Blast Furnace; US troops and Bolivian police face peasant resistance in cocaine-producing regions.

39- IRAN 1987-88
 U.S. Intervention on side of Iraq in war against Iran.

40- PANAMA 1989  Invasion again: 26 000 American soldiers seize power and capture the man they had formerly put there: General Noriega. More than 2,000 people killed.

41- U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989  Troops restore order after civil unrest spurred by Hurricane Hugo.

42- PHILIPPINES 1989   Armed US aircraft support constitutional government against failed coup.

43- IRAK 1991  Heading an international coalition, they force a former ally to get out of Kuwait. 200,000+ killed. No-fly zone ongoing; periodic bombing.

44- SOMALIA 1992-1995  They try to re-establish law and order after a pro-American government has been overturned. Another setback.

45- YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94  US troops in NATO operation to enforce sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro.

46- BOSNIA 1993-95  Operation Deny Flight patrols civil war no-fly zone; air combat, Serbs bombed.

47- HAITI 1994-96  Troops restore elected leftist president to office three years after coup.

48- CROATIA 1995  American and NATO forces attack Bosnian Serb airfields prior to Croatian offensive.

49- SUDAN 1998
Pharmaceutical factory with terrorist links bombed; retaliation for terrorist attacks on US embassies in Africa.

50- AFGHANISTAN 1998  Bombing of Islamic fundamentalist military camps; retaliation for terrorist attacks on US embassies in Africa.

51- KOSOVO 1999  Bombing campaign by NATO airplanes to stop <<ethnic cleansing>> carried out by Serbian forces helps topple President Milosevic.

52- COLOMBIA 2000  Special Forces train anti-narcotics and anti-rebel battalions, supply combat aircraft.

53- MACEDONIA 2001  US forces in NATO's Operation Essential Harvest partially disarm Albanian rebels.

54- AFGHANISTAN 2001  Taliban fundamentalists are targeted by President Bush in his <<war against terrorism>>. In retaliation for terrorist attacks in New York, US forces attack bases linked to Islamic militant Osama bin Laden. A quick invasion doesn't improve things in a country that was already in shambles, then the Talibans are back.

55- IRAK 2003   Invasion as always. The fate of America lies there.

In the eyes of the world, these are 55 good reasons that justify 9-11, to a certain extent at least.

As for the real reason for attacking Iraq, to say it is to remove a terrible dictator is not very credible. Why ? Simply because the successive American administrations have always loved dictators in the past, financed them, supplied them, helped them in many other ways, even befriended them ! As long as they were anti-communists and protecting America's economic interests ! Suharto, Pinochet, Duvalier, Marcos, Mobutu even Saddam Hussein were all applauded in their time in Washington. <<Millions of dead mean nothing, as long as it is in the national interest>>, that has always been the motto on Capitol Hill, why this sudden change of heart and care for the Iraqi people ? It's not very convincing. Aren't they Geeks and Gooks (inferior, that is) just like the North Vietnamese were 40 years ago ?

DENIED

Just like the list of enemies, you could make a list of countries where it is not safe anymore to do business or to travel to. American tourists could soon have to disguise themselves as Canadian citizens and put Maple Leafs on their bags just to feel safer. A forged or fraudulently obtained Canadian passport is also an asset for any American traveling in Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, especially the Middle East and South America, to get out of difficult- and sometimes dangerous situations.

There is talk (or is it just another urban legend ?) that the American government has issued a special security-emergency kit to its embassy personnel, military personnel members of special units (Delta Force, Special Forces), personnel of intelligence agencies abroad (CIA, NSA), etc... This emergency case includes sets of Canadian I.D. (social security cards, drivers licences, medicare cards) a valid (?) Canadian passport, Maple Leafs tags and a Canadian flag. Question: if you're so proud of your own country, why put on disguises when you're on foreign soil ?

The answer is obvious. What should worry you though, is that not only countries could be unsafe but that YOU COULD BE DENIED WHOLE CONTINENTS in the future. Could an American citizen feel safe now anywhere in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, even South America ? A good question, don't you think ?

NO ONE IS SAFE