An American Lawyer's Perspective On Iraq War.

[Chinahand]

I was emailed the below.

 

If anyone has any comments I'd be interested in their views.

 

I like the historical perspectives, think it is interesting in its attempts to show how minor the Iraq war has been in the grand scheme of things (note I say interesting: not right!!), but I basically think it is flawed in its view that by focusing the fight the Iraq war was worthwhile.

 

As ever its long!

 

Enjoy!

 

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

 

A California Lawyer's Perspective on Iraq War.

 

Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat, and had sunk more than four hundred British ships in their convoys between England and America for food and war materials.

 

Bushido Japan had overrun most of Asia, beginning in 1928, killing millions of civilians throughout China, and impressing millions more as slave labor. The US was in an isolationist, pacifist, mood, and most Americans and Congress wanted nothing to do with the European war, or the Asian war.

 

Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, which had not attacked us. It was a dicey thing. We had few allies.

 

France was not an ally, the Vichy government of France aligned with its German occupiers. Germany was not an ally, it was an enemy, and Hitler intended to set up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally. It was intent on owning and controlling all of Asia. Japan and Germany had long-term ideas of invading Canada and Mexico, and then the United States over the north and south borders, after they had settled control of Asia and Europe.

 

America’s allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia, and that was about it. There were no other countries of any size or military significance with the will and ability to contribute much or anything to the effort to defeat Hitler’s Germany and Japan, and prevent the global dominance of Nazism. And we had to send millions of tons of arms, munitions, and war supplies to Russia, England, and the Canadians, Aussies, Irish, and Scots, because none of them could produce all they needed for themselves.

 

All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the east, was already under the Nazi heel.

America was not prepared for war. America had stood down most of its military after WWI and throughout the depression, at the outbreak of WWII there were army units training with broomsticks over their shoulders because they didn’t have guns, and cars with “tank” painted on the doors because they didn’t have tanks. And a big chunk of our navy had just been sunk and damaged at Pearl Harbor.

 

Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England that was the property of Belgium and was given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler - actually, Belgium surrendered one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day anyway just to prove they could. Britain had been holding out for two years already in the face of staggering shipping loses and the near-decimation of its air force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later and turning his attention to Russia, at a time when England was on the verge of collapse in the late summer of 1940.

 

Russia saved America’s butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany.

 

Russia lost something like 24 million people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow, 90% of them from cold

and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a million soldiers. More than a million! Had Russia

surrendered, then, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire campaign against the Brits, then America, and the Nazis would have won that war. Had Hitler not made that mistake and invaded England in 1940 or 1941 instead, there would have been no England for the US and the Brits to use as a staging ground to prepare an assault on Nazi Europe, England would not have been able to run its North African campaign to help take a little pressure off Russia while America geared up for battle, and today Europe would very probably be run by the Nazis, the Third Reich, and isolated and without any allies (not even the Brits), the US would very probably have had to cede Asia to the Japanese, who were basically Nazis by another name then, and the world we live in today would be very different and much worse. I say this to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things.

 

And we are at another one.

There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so.

 

France, Germany, and Russia, have been selling them weapons technology at least as recently as 2002, as have North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan, paid for with billions of dollars Saddam Hussein skimmed from the “Oil For Food” program administered by the UN with the complicity of Kofi Annan and his son.

 

The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs – they believe that Islam, a radically conservative (definitely not liberal!) form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world, and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, purge the world of Jews. This is what they say. There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East - for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas.

 

Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation today, but it is not yet known which will win - the Inquisition, or the Reformation. If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, and the OPEC oil, and the US, European, and Asian economies, the techno-industrial economies, will be at the mercy of OPEC - not an OPEC dominated by the well-educated and rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis. You want gas in your car? You want heating oil next winter? You want jobs? You want the dollar to be worth anything? You better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.

 

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away, and a moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.

 

We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda, the Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. We cannot do it nowhere. And we cannot do it everywhere at once. We have created a focal point for the battle now at the time and place of our choosing, in Iraq.

 

Not in New York, not in London, or Paris, or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we did and are doing two very important things.

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist. Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

 

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad guys there and the ones we get there we won’t have to get here, or anywhere else. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a! catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed. The Euros could have done this, but they didn’t, and they won’t. We now know that rather than opposing the rise of the Jihad, the French, Germans, and Russians were selling them arms - we have found more than a million tons of weapons and munitions in Iraq. If Iraq was not a threat to anyone, why did Saddam need a million tons of weapons? And Iraq was paying for French, German, and Russian arms with money skimmed from the UN Oil For Food Program (supervised by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and his son) that was supposed to pay for food, medicine, and education, for Iraqi children.

 

World War II, the war with the German and Japanese Nazis, really began with a “whimper” in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years before America joined it. It officially ended in 1945 - a 17 year war - and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again .. a 27 year war.

 

World War II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year’s GDP - adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars, WWII cost America more than 400,000 killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action. [The Iraq war has, so far, cost the US about $160 billion, which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost about 1,800 American lives, which is roughly ½ of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad snuffed on 9/11.]

 

But the cost of not fighting and winning WWII would have been unimaginably greater - a world now dominated by German and Japanese Nazism. Americans have a short attention span, now, conditioned I suppose by 60 minute TV shows and 2-hour movies in which everything comes out okay. The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. Always has been, and probably always will be. If we do this thing in Iraq successfully, it is probable that the Reformation will ultimately prevail. Many Muslims in the Middle East hope it will. We will be there to support it. It has begun in some countries, Libya, for instance. And Dubai. And Saudi Arabia. If we fail, the Inquisition will probably prevail, and terrorism from Islam will be with us for all the foreseeable future, because the Inquisition, or Jihad, believes they are called by Allah to kill all the Infidels, and that death in Jihad is glorious.

 

The bottom line here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away on its own. It will not go away if we ignore it. If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then weave an “England” in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can worktop help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates.

 

The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. And now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless we prevent them. Or somebody does. The Iraq war is

 

expensive, and uncertain, yes. But the consequences of not fighting it and winning it will be horrifically greater. We have four options -

 

1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.

2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran’s progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).

 

3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East, now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.

 

4. Or we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe. It will be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier then.

 

Yes, the Jihadis say that they look forward to an Islamic America. If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.

 

We can be defeatist peace-activists as anti-war types seem to be, and concede, surrender, to the Jihad, or we can do whatever it takes to win this war against them.

 

The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.

 

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

 

In the 20th century, it was Western democracy vs. communism, and before that Western democracy vs. Nazism, and before that Western democracy vs. German Imperialism. Western democracy won, three times, but it wasn’t cheap, fun, nice, easy, or quick. Indeed, the wars against German Imperialism (WWI), Nazi Imperialism (WWII), and communist imperialism (the 40-year Cold War that included the Vietnam Battle, = commonly called the Vietnam War, but itself a major battle in a larger war) covered almost the entire century.

 

The first major war of the 21st Century is the war between Western Judeo/Christian Civilization and Wahhabi Islam. It may last a few more years, or most of this century. It will last until the Wahhabi branch of Islam fades away, or gives up its ambitions for regional and global dominance and Jihad, or until Western Civilization gives in to the Jihad.

 

Senator John Kerry, in the debates and almost daily, makes 3 scary claims:

1. We went to Iraq without enough troops. We went with the troops the US military wanted. We went with the troop levels General Tommy Franks asked for. We deposed Saddam in 30 days with light casualties, much lighter than we expected. The real problem in Iraq is that we are trying to be nice - we are trying to fight minority of the population that is Jihadi, and trying to avoid killing the large majority that is not. We could flatten Fallujah in minutes with a flight of B52s, or seconds with one nuclear cruise missile - but we don’t. We’re trying to do brain surgery, not amputate the patient’s head. The Jihadis amputate heads.

 

2. We went to Iraq with too little planning. This is a specious argument. It supposes that if we had just had “the right plan” the war would have been easy, cheap, quick, and clean. That is not an option. It is a guerrilla war against a determined enemy, and no such war ever has been or ever will be easy, cheap, quick, and clean. This is not TV.

 

3. We proved ourselves incapable of governing and providing security. This too is a specious argument. It was never our intention to govern and provide security. It was our intention from the beginning to do just enough to enable the Iraqis to develop a representative government and their own military and police forces to provide their own security, and that is happening. The US and the Brits and other countries there have trained over 100,000 Iraqi police and military, now, and will have trained more than 200,000 by the end of next year. We are in the process of transitioning operational control for security back to Iraq. It will take time. It will not go with no hitches. This is not TV.

 

Remember, perspective is everything, and America’s schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.

 

The Cold war lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Forty-two years. Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany.

 

World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan. World War II resulted in the death of more than 50 million people, maybe more than 100 million people, depending on which estimates you accept.

 

The US has taken a little more than 2,000 KIA in Iraq. The US took more than 4,000 Killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism. In WWII the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week for four years. Most of the individual battles of WWII lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.

 

But the stakes are at least as high . . . a world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law). I do not understand why the American Left does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis. In America, absolutely, but nowhere else. 300,000 Iraqi bodies in mass graves in Iraq are not our problem. The US population is about twelve times that of Iraq, so let’s multiply 300,000 by twelve. What would you think if there were 3,600,000 American bodies in mass graves in America because of George Bush? Would you hope for another country to help liberate America?

 

“Peace Activists” always seem to demonstrate where it’s safe, in America. Why don’t we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places in the world that really need peace activism the most?

 

The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multi culturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation! of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy.

 

If the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism. Everywhere the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism. And American Liberals just don’t get it.

 

Raymond S. Kraft is a writer and lawyer living in Northern California.

[P.K.]

I liked this:

 

Remember, perspective is everything, and America’s schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.

[Rog]

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away, and a moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.

 

And in that sentence lies the problems.

 

Islam can’t tolerate or respect other religions of the world. Despite all the guff about peaceful co-existence between Jews, Christians in fact once the mohammedans got in charge there were substantial drawbacks in being non-islamic ranging from cash penalties to limitations on what a non-mohammedan could do in a mohammedan ruled state or city.

 

Then there is the whole concept of a ‘moderate’ muslim. There is no such thing – there can not be as the implication is that a person who was such would not follow all of the dictates of islam. Such a person is at once in real danger of being said to be committing a sin of kufr or even of being apostate.

 

For islam to ‘modernise’ is simply impossible. The moment that it does it ceases to be islam. The option of a latter day islamic version of Jesus or some prophet to move the religion beyond the savagery of the desert tribalism of 1300 years ago (never mind the 10th.C – that’s missing a very important point regarding morality) is likewise ruled out by the words of old mo who claimed that allah had told him so.

 

I’ve come to believe that unless and until there is an act by the mohammedan empire that prints an indelible impression on the world as a whole no progress against this evil will be made.

 

I think there will be an islamic bomb and it will be used. Maybe then when it is too late to have a clinical excising of the cancer that is islam the sickness will be confronted.

 

I fear for the patient, I really do.

[ian rush]

This from a native of a country which sat out three years of WW1 and two years of WW2....

 

Identifying turning points, my arse.

[ian rush]

A fine grasp of Irish history he has to. Ireland was no-one's ally.

[Lonan3]

The kind of 'history' that someone like David Irving would approve of - totally selective.

 

No mention, for example, of the crippling economic tariffs imposed by the Americans on Pacific rim countries before Pearl Harbour that tried to strangle other countries and produce complete American dominance of the area.

 

Later - no mention of the massive amount of arms supplied to Iraq by the USA.

 

BUt what do you expect - the truth, from a lawyer?????

[P.K.]

It is impossible to judge if US economic activity in the Pacific rim actually forced the Japanese into Manchuria. But at the end of the day it's just commerce. As to sending arms to Iraq again so what? Old news that's been pretty much beaten to death.

 

This from a native of a country which sat out three years of WW1 and two years of WW2....

 

Identifying turning points, my arse.

Your arse is a turning point?

 

Well, he does point out that WW11 started with the Japanese invasion of China. Japan actually started out by invading Manchuria. The "Worlds Policeman" at the time, if you like, was the League of Nations. The League ordered the Japanese out of China. The Japanese did not leave so it was then left to the two major powers in the League to use force. Like the US after them Britain and France did not use their military might to force the Japanese out. After all, the war was on another continent a long way away. This gave the Japanese a clear hand in Asia and sent a very strong signal to one Mr A Hitler that the League was a bit of a paper tiger and you can get away with using force.

 

A fine grasp of Irish history he has to. Ireland was no-one's ally.

He also mentions Scotland in the same sentence. I somehow don't think that particular sentence has anything to do with studying Irish history - and why would he?

 

I think a lot of it makes sense. I've always maintained that I would far rather let the Yanks et al take on the religious nutters in Iraq than them target us over here. The more that go pop in Baghdad the better as far as I am concerned.

[Dave the Cardboard Box]

Well, he does point out that WW11 started with the Japanese invasion of China.

 

 

Actually - World War II started with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles at the end of the Great War. It emasculated Germany so much that the the country and economy collapsed and had little chance of prosperity. A rich seedbed for the rise of Hitler and his cohorts was the result.

 

A better and more just peace may have stopped that.

 

Japan and Manchuria were just one of many side-shows leading to WWII

 

The lessons of history are the only lessons we have - and they keep being ignored.

[Albert Tatlock]

Actually - World War II started with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles at the end of the Great War.

I always thought World War II had 'officially started' on 3 Sept 1939 when Britain and France jointly declared war on Germany.

 

...otherwise you could also say it started on Hitlers birth-day etc. etc.

[P.K.]

China invaded Manchuria in 1931. Hitler became Chancellor in 1933.

 

I don't see how you could have a World War without including the world's most populous nation.

 

In any event, it would seem they didn't emasculate Germany enough...

[Dave the Cardboard Box]

...otherwise you could also say it started on Hitlers birth-day etc. etc.

 

 

Actually I did go on to say that it started when Gaviro Princep's mum and dad got together, but then I started thinking about their parents, and so on.... I got back to 1538 in my thought processes and realised I would have to list about 8198 people, so I gave up and and in the end I edited it out....

[mollag]

Enter, stage right---Senator J Mc Arthay with a series of senate commitee hearings.

 

This is Deja- moo, weve heard this bullshit somewhere before