Thursday, August 25, 2005

How is this War Different

When you are fighting a Country, the war becomes clear as to how to prosecute the strategy.

But when the war is against an ideology, such as Wahabism, and that ideology is in many countries, then how can you defeat them?

To defeat any opponent you usually must have both an offensive policy and a defensive policy. I know that defense wins championships, but the offense must get the ball and score some points.

In Vietnam, it was mostly a defensive war; occasionally we would venture out on “sweeps” to engage the enemy. That was the offense policy. It was the goal of the Democrats, Kennedy and Johnson, as well as the Republicans, Nixon, to train the South Vietnam Army to be able to stand upon their own two feet and defend their own country.

But alas we pulled our monetary support and they began to loose because of supply and maintenance failures. Then we pulled out. And if we would have maintained our support monetarily and militarily for about one more year, we would have been able to see them do the job.

So, what is our offensive policy today against another non-uniformed enemy? Draw the enemy to the sandbox by showing them we will take away one of their prized possessions, 25 million possible converts to Wahabism, called Iraq citizens.

This means that they will spend their efforts in an area where they hope to have the highest percentage chance of reaching their goals of:

1. Convert as many Arabs to Wahabism as quickly as possible.
2. Kill as many Saturday people, (Jews), as possible.
3. Kill as many Sunday people, (Christians), as possible.
4. Kill as many Secular people, (the rest of the non-Wahabi people), as possible.


To most thinking people it is a good strategy, because their ideology is set in stone. It is not negotiable. They will be here blowing up people and places here if they were not in Iraq doing the same thing because it is their goal, their idology, not because they hate America! They hate all non Wahabis, and that will never change.

9 Comments:

At 7:09 PM, Blogger Roseville Conservative said...

Good Job FAR... thanks for stirring it up on my blog, too...

 
At 10:29 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

My Pleasure.

If only I could get some JJ's and Joe Patriot's here to futher engage them.

I love to battle for the truth!


FAR.

 
At 12:06 AM, Blogger Roseville Conservative said...

FAR... Congratulations on being inducted into the Western Alliance!

Sacto will be e-mailing you, soon.

 
At 8:57 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

Yahoo!


Thanks for the confidence. I won't let us down.


FAR.

 
At 3:03 PM, Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

What? The only country that is dominated by Wahabiism is Saudi Arabia and we all know how much the Bushes love Saudi Arabia. If you think the solution to the world's ills is eradicate Wahabiism, ask your good buddy Bush if he would be okay with bombing his homies in Saudi Arabia.

Iraq was a secular nation under Saddam Hussein and the rest of the Arabs think Saudis are crazy.

What's your point?

 
At 3:24 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

Intellectual insurgent:

The idea was/is to draw the bad guys into a secular country and kiil them there.

They will get less support from the citizens than they would have if we would have gone to Saudi instead.

They would have received much more support in Saudi because Wahabism is the state religion there.

Plus the Saudi Kings were not in favor of giving the Wahabis nukes and Saddam was.

And that/is the main reason we went into Iraq. Not because of WMD's per se, but because Saddam was openly building WMD plants so he could give them to the Wahabis.


FAR.

 
At 4:19 PM, Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

I have never heard that explanation for why the U.S. invaded Iraq. Can you please send me a source for that one?

Saddam was trying to give WMD's to Saudi Wahhabis?

 
At 5:50 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

ii,

I mis-spoke on the WMD's...I should have said, "the fear" was that he wanted to give them to the terrorists, i.e., the Wahabis.

I'll look for the links on that later tonight.

Here is a good one to start with... here
that just talks about Saddam wanting to meet with Bin Laden.

Saddam was the only head of state that openly "cheered" when 9/11 happened and it was no secret that Al Zwarhere(sp) was given state residence in the palace as a diplomat.



FAR.

 
At 5:55 PM, Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

I am not trying to defend a crazy dictator (in contrast with many in the Bush Administration who supported him for years), but it's not shocking Saddam Hussein cheered after 9/11 in light of the 10 years of sanctions that starved the country and the American betrayal of selling arms to Iran when the U.S. was supposedly supporting Iraq.

That's not a reason to bomb the country.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home