The specific implementation of that goal was to have guerrilla-striking forces adjacent to all major foci of US military strength, and then simultaneously, to attack all of them on and at a pre-arranged time--in this case the Tet New Year, which is why it was called the Tet Offensive. They shrewdly reasoned that, should their initial effort be dramatically successful, then the American military, completely disoriented, would beat a hasty retreat, in view of this and of the general public's dissatisfaction. They were absolutely right. After all is said and done, the last battle determines the war, not the first ones.
I get the impression that to a limited extent the Iraqis are beginning to realize this truth, and that is why their sudden guerilla attacks are so effective. Even if one in hundred is successful, that is all that is needed to demonstrate our vulnerability.
Now, let's consider Iraq:
In the Iraq debacle, the decision to leave will be when and if the Neocons decide that they have achieved as much as they can and that further efforts will not be in their best interests. Popularity or public dissatisfaction now no longer is a significant factor, as the Administration controls the ballot box, Congress, and the candidates.
This presumes of course that we have any intention of leaving Iraq. This is worth considering, for the simple fact that we have set up a massive enclave on the eastern border of Iraq, and it would appear that we have no intention of departing from it, unlike the case with Saigon, or more recently, Okinawa.
Iraq is a tribal culture; and therein lays its greatest strength and greatest weakness: Tribal cultures characteristically feud, one with another. At the same time, they demonstrate remarkable cohesiveness when dealing with a common enemy.
The discovery of the perfidy of Blackwater and other corporative military forces in the slaughter of Iraqis will easily be forgotten, and identical or comparable corporate troops will remain in Iraq, or worse yet, will return to the US to control the public. I will have more to say about this later.
I stated previously that one of the weaknesses of tribal cultures is their propensity to feud, one with another; however, in that structure also lies their greatest strength:
The only significant event that could reverse the tide and fortune of Iraq would be the appearance on the scene of a true Mahdi-a savior, one who could rise above sectarian differences. This actually occurred with the unifying strength of an outsider, Lawrence of Arabia, who achieved just that.
The Neocons are hoping to maintain control over the puppet government in Baghdad; but if ever such a figure arises, and if he can unite Shiite and Sunni, God help our troops, and God help the rest of us.
I started out by saying that these two conflicts, in consideration of the similarities and differences, are part of a wider and deeper and more sinister plan. In order to understand this statement, we have to accept the notion that conflicts are not chosen for the idealistic and stirring reasons given by our leaders, but by far more cynical and inhumane ones:
All of our so-called wars since and including WWII have always been for all or several purposes, in varying combinations. WWII had the added benefits of:
1) facilitating both aeronautical and mind-control experimentation,
2) damaging Europe terminally, leading to the establishment of the European Union, and
3) destroying the Jewish people, both to obtain their wealth and to keep an agreement with the Vatican, prior to the latter's move to Jerusalem for the nominal leadership of the New World Order. (This last goal was delayed by the unanticipated survival of the Jewish State in 1948, 1967 and later 1973.)
The standard reasons for all of the conflicts involve the power to;
1) control oil
2) control drug trade
3) have a listening post on our enemies as well as our friends
4) build a permanent forward position from which to launch any further operations, military or intel or what-have-you.
And to these, we can now add a fifth, which is critical:
I get the impression that to a limited extent the Iraqis are beginning to realize this truth, and that is why their sudden guerilla attacks are so effective. Even if one in hundred is successful, that is all that is needed to demonstrate our vulnerability.
Now, let's consider Iraq:
In the Iraq debacle, the decision to leave will be when and if the Neocons decide that they have achieved as much as they can and that further efforts will not be in their best interests. Popularity or public dissatisfaction now no longer is a significant factor, as the Administration controls the ballot box, Congress, and the candidates.
Iraq is a tribal culture; and therein lays its greatest strength and greatest weakness: Tribal cultures characteristically feud, one with another. At the same time, they demonstrate remarkable cohesiveness when dealing with a common enemy.
The discovery of the perfidy of Blackwater and other corporative military forces in the slaughter of Iraqis will easily be forgotten, and identical or comparable corporate troops will remain in Iraq, or worse yet, will return to the US to control the public. I will have more to say about this later.
I stated previously that one of the weaknesses of tribal cultures is their propensity to feud, one with another; however, in that structure also lies their greatest strength:
The only significant event that could reverse the tide and fortune of Iraq would be the appearance on the scene of a true Mahdi-a savior, one who could rise above sectarian differences. This actually occurred with the unifying strength of an outsider, Lawrence of Arabia, who achieved just that.
The Neocons are hoping to maintain control over the puppet government in Baghdad; but if ever such a figure arises, and if he can unite Shiite and Sunni, God help our troops, and God help the rest of us.
I started out by saying that these two conflicts, in consideration of the similarities and differences, are part of a wider and deeper and more sinister plan. In order to understand this statement, we have to accept the notion that conflicts are not chosen for the idealistic and stirring reasons given by our leaders, but by far more cynical and inhumane ones:
All of our so-called wars since and including WWII have always been for all or several purposes, in varying combinations. WWII had the added benefits of:
1) facilitating both aeronautical and mind-control experimentation,
2) damaging Europe terminally, leading to the establishment of the European Union, and
3) destroying the Jewish people, both to obtain their wealth and to keep an agreement with the Vatican, prior to the latter's move to Jerusalem for the nominal leadership of the New World Order. (This last goal was delayed by the unanticipated survival of the Jewish State in 1948, 1967 and later 1973.)
The standard reasons for all of the conflicts involve the power to;
1) control oil
2) control drug trade
3) have a listening post on our enemies as well as our friends
4) build a permanent forward position from which to launch any further operations, military or intel or what-have-you.
And to these, we can now add a fifth, which is critical:
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
