Yesterday I watched and listened to the commentary made by two media political analysts, one a former CIA Counter Terrorist Expert, another a retired Army Colonel. They were discussing the pros and cons of Iran's participation in the war against ISIS, a participation that apparently we welcomed. They both agreed that Iran's involvement was not a good thing politically, that our prestige in the region has suffered tremendously, while Iran has gained ground. The retired Army Colonel also added that we have no business in the region and that we should just get out! Was he suggesting that we take on an isolationist policy? I am not sure what he meant by that, but we just cannot stay out of world affairs, we are the super power, the leader in the world. At least that is how we are perceived by the rest of the world, true or not! If we decide that we don't care what happens to the rest of the world, we could probably cut ourselves off from everyone....under a lot of criticism! Are we willing to do that? I was rather surprised by that comment from the so-called "expert" media political analyst!
Our Joint Chief, General Dempsey, made a statement to the effect that "anything Iran can do to help defeat ISIS is a good thing." Both the Secretary of State and Defense echoed Dempsey's sentiments. Where do we get these clowns? Do any of them have any brain cells that are still alive? With such leadership in two of our key government branches and the JCS, no wonder we are having problems! It seems that for the last couple of decades we have had nothing but a bunch of "yes men" among the generals and admirals in the Pentagon. The generals and admirals are supposed to provide their expertise to our civilian leaders, not just be "yes men," and nod their heads eagerly in agreement whenever civilian leaders suggest some plan!
Generally speaking, you do not advance to the rank of general/admiral if you do not practice politics. Unfortunately, that is our system in the military. Up to 0-6 level you can get by being just a good soldier. But beyond that point, you have to be either very lucky or be very aware of politics of your organization! There were some in the past, like General Norman Schwartzkopf, "Stormin' Norman" of Gulf War fame. Schwartzkopf made it all the way to four stars, but he was never the Army Chief or got that brass ring, the Joint Chief, the most coveted position in the military. "Stormin' Norman" had a tendency to shoot from the hip, so to speak, and it often got him into hot water. During Gulf War, on several occasions he said some things that did not agree with what Pentagon or his boss, General Colin Powell was saying. It was obvious that Schwartzkopf was not going anywhere after the war. Another example was General Eric Shinseki who was the Army Chief of Staff and was in line for the Joint Chief job. However, he butted heads with the Secretary of Defense and the Assistant Secretary over the strategy for Gulf War. He was retired!
So now we have Dempsey and company who will say anything, often stupid things, as long as it doesn't rock the official boat! The public is not aware of generals that have been fired over policy disagreements. We hear quite often about those that got involved in scandals, usually some form of indiscretion that involved poor lack of judgment. But there were several that were fired because of their disagreement with the conduct of war either in Afghanistan or Iraq!
Now, it seems Iran has taken over for us in Iraq. It also appears that Iran will be successful in leading the Iraqi militia (some say that they are mostly Iranians!) in retaking Tikrit. If and when they do, it will be a tremendous boost in prestige for Iran in the region and the entire Muslim world! It seems we didn't think about that or didn't care when we gave Iran the green light to go into Iraq and help the militia to fight ISIS. Dempsey's words that "anything Iran can do to defeat ISIS is a good thing" indicates to me that he is not concerned with the after effects, namely Iran's rise in power in the region. Is it because we think we can control Iran? What makes us think that we can control Iran if we haven't been able to do so for the last 35 years?
What is more disturbing is that we have been trying to avoid a sectarian war, Sunni against Shiite, in the region. By allowing Iran and the Iraqi Shiites take over, we have alienated the Sunnis in the region. On top of that, we might be creating an ethnic war! Saddam Hussein's war against Iran was an ethnic war, not a religious war, as was his attempt to annihilate the Kurds. Neither Iranians nor the Kurds are Arabs! Saddam was a Shiite but he was not a religious man and kept both the Sunnis and the Shiites in Iraq under a tight reign. He was not concerned so much with religious aspects of his society, and although he did favor the Shiites, it was just his rule against everyone else! Now, despite what Maliki and others say, it is basically Shiite majority vs. the Sunni. Ironically, the only ones that are capable of fighting ISIS are the Kurds, who are mostly Sunni. The Peshmergas are Sunni and non-Arab! Now the Iranians, also non-Arabs, are in the mix! To me, this smells of not just a sectarian war, but a soon to be ethnic war!
No comments:
Post a Comment