- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
Ships from: Toledo, OH
Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Ships from: Toledo, OH
Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Lock your doors-or at least find a secluded spot where you can be alone without fear of interruption. What I'm about to say may send shockwaves through your conservative sensibilities. You will either feel a jolt of clarity provoked by my Savage Truth, or you will be scandalized. That is the risk I must take. Ready?
On January 30, 2005, Iraq held their first free election in fifty years. Without question this is a great victory for democracy. More than 70 percent of eligible Iraqi voters-95 percent in several Baghdad neighborhoods-yes, Iraqis by the millions, braved suicide bombings and threats of mayhem to register their vote for freedom. While it is yet to be seen whether the ancient divisions can be forgotten, the Iraqi people are celebrating freedom today because of the sacrifice and the determination of our men and the coalition forces.
Having said that-and here's the difficult part-I believe the Iraq War will be recorded as one of the greatest of military miscalculations.
Before you dismiss me as a flag-burning pacifist, let me be clear: Team Bush won Operation Iraqi Freedom in a most spectacular fashion. Using sophisticated, high-tech weapons, our courageous warriors proved once again that they are the brightest and the best soldiers on the planet. Period. Their enormous superiority on the battlefield was unmatched-a lesson not missed by the world community.
Take Russia. Our previous Cold War adversary was scrutinizing our every move. Former deputy defense minister of Russia, Vitaly Shlykov, observed, "The Iraqi Army was a replica of the Russian Army, and its defeat was not predicted by our generals." Vladimir Dvorkin, who heads the Russian Defense Ministry's strategic nuclear think tank, was equally stunned by our military might. He confessed, "The gap between our capabilities and those of the Americans has been revealed, and it is vast."
So, why do I insist the historians and the cadets at West Point will look back on the war in Iraq as a gigantic miscalculation? Bush won the initial conflict in a brilliant display of strength. However, he struggled to maintain the peace in Iraq because he didn't have an overall strategic plan to eliminate the pockets of resistance and establish immediate control of the streets. Fighting a politically acceptable pacification does not work.
In January 2005, Iraq's new intelligence chief, Maj. Gen. Mohammed Abdullah al-Shahwani, said as much. By his estimates there are "between 20,000 and 30,000 armed men operating all over Iraq, mainly in the Sunni areas where they receive moral support from about 200,000 people." These are terrorists skilled in warfare and include former members of the Ba'ath Party, army holdouts, and Islamic extremists with a death wish.
Remember how quickly Saddam's "mighty" Republican Guard threw down their arms and evaporated? Where did they disappear to? They withdrew like termites into the woodwork of the general population. While I'm not a military tactician, it's clear they wanted to sucker the Americans into thinking the battle was over. In truth, we still had to fight the real war, a guerrilla war-something our nation does not have the stomach for, not after Vietnam. We won the ground war, but they've been winning the psychological war-at least so far. That's number one.
Second, liberalism has so warped the sensibiiilities of Mr. and Mrs. America, Bush got trapped trying to fight a politically correct war while America's Marxist media militia, armed with zoom lenses, waited to pounce on any PC violation. As I wrote in my bestseller The Enemy Within, Bush's Operation Iraqi Freedom was actually fought on two fronts: He had to fight the war overseas as well as the media's war on the war effort at home.
That said, here's a prime example of their trickle-down PC stupidity. As the coalition troops were preparing for battle, one lieutenant colonel who shall remain nameless advised those under his command: "Iraq is steeped in history. It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood, and the birthplace of Abraham. Tread lightly there."
How exactly does an Abrams tank tread lightly?
Is this a police action or a war? His view sounds like what we heard during the election of 2004 from Demoncat presidential candidate John Kerry. Kerry picked the UNITY 2004 Conference to proclaim, "I believe I can fight a more effective ... more sensitive war."
What does that mean? Rubber bullets? Padded handcuffs and chaise lounges for POWs?
Such PC-think only gets our men killed.
Ironically, the very war John Kerry had promised is the exact war George Bush is fighting. So, rather than firebomb the Iraqi holdouts back to the Stone Age, Bush sent our boys into the rat's nest of Fallujah on a door-to-door basis as if they were selling Avon. You cannot fight a politically correct war and expect to win it. Nor can you fight a politically correct occupation and win it.
The fact of the matter is there was only one solution to Bush's problem-it was the same solution that's been used in warfare since the beginning of time: Total domination of the enemy, one that obliterates, neutralizes, and demoralizes the opposition.
For General George S. Patton, arguably the greatest military commander of our day, this was Job One. Patton would have used air power to flatten Fallujah-the headquarters of operations for terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi-and pulverized probably the entire Sunni Triangle while he was at it. Then and only then would he have sent in the infantry for the door-to-door "clean up."
PUMMEL OR PLACATE
I understand that you might not know the difference between Patton and mutton primarily because today's history textbooks don't tell you about Ol' Blood 'n Guts Patton. About all the clipped-hair, mean-faced czarinas of education teach is how to knit flags of the United Nations and play patty-cake with your enemy.
Never a person to mince words, Patton understood the principle of domination. As he told his troops, with a cigar clamped between his teeth, "There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
Does that sound harsh?
It is, and it should be.
War is hell, not a video game.
When I hear our generals or the CIA or the FBI speak about the war on terrorism I have to wonder: Why do they speak in such soft, vanilla terms? Where is the fury? Frankly, we need more generals who, like Patton, recognize that "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
Just once I'd like to see Donald Rumsfeld fire off a line like that one. Instead, Rummy made the rounds on the various talk shows talking up the war effort and how great everything was going in Iraq. He smiled for the sheeple and assured us that the provinces were subdued and the people would be voting. The next day flames flared all over the country as the suicide bombers hit the police stations, the oil installations, and U.S. military convoys.
Thirty were killed one day, forty killed another day.
Our leaders are living in a sheltered dream world, like ancient kings and queens, happily living with their cloistered delusions of success in Iraq. They continue to put out happy, cheerful news about how good everything is going while each day scores of innocent civilians are murdered by radical Islamists. Instead of taking the approach that needs to be taken, namely, a devastating air campaign against the pockets of hate, they continue to send our boys in as walking targets.
The whole Sunni Triangle should have been cleared out with leaflets in the native tongue giving civilians three days to flee to safety, and then bombed. That's what we did in World War II. What the hell is the difference between leveling cities in Germany back then and our need to demolish the terrorist hotbeds in Iraq today? Nothing. Either you're at war or you're not at war.
So why, then, are we fighting in hand-to-hand combat? For political reasons, that's why. There's no reason for our boys to be doing that, not with today's military options including the precision laser-guided bombs, the unmanned drones, and the technology that allows us to see a guy pass gas from 20,000 feet overhead.
And so our troops are stuck in a no-win situation. Not for lack of technology. Not for lack of valor. Not for lack of training or leadership in the field. But for a lack of spine from the politicians in Washington who, seeking to placate Petter Jennings and Katy "Koran" Couric of our Jazeera TV, refuse to allow our military to do what must be done in Iraq. Instead, the troops and the military budget remain stretched to the breaking point. Current estimates place the cost of our Iraqi presence at a breathtaking $4.5 billion per month.
The president must take off his red baseball jacket and put on his flight jacket. We don't need a shortstop; we need a commander in chief. Unless he uses his bully pulpit to silence the media yappers while giving the order to hammer the holdouts, our boys will remain sitting ducks. Which goes back to my original view that this war has become a political military miscalculation.
What the frat boys in Washington apparently haven't learned from their pie charts and the latest PowerPoint presentation is that you must crack down on the enemy with an iron fist. We needed a swift and severe "Patton action" to squash the "insurgents" (lib-speak for terrorist scum). We got a bush-league response instead.
You're dealing with a primitive people here who lived in terror for thirty years and who understand only one thing: brute force. Actually, if you were to trace their history, you'd find that they've lived in a nightmare state for more than a thousand years, ever since the Mongols destroyed the water system that supplied Mesopotamia. Which is why they fear and respect only muscular force.
If Patton were leading our troops today, he'd probably tell the president you can't fight a guerrilla war with Mr. Rogers in a helmet. Nor can you enter a war zone acting benevolent. If you do, you leave in a six-foot pine box. At the end of the major conflict in Iraq, Bush should not have been worried about bad press; he should have immediately sent in the Bees-the B1, B2, B17, and B52 bombers-and flattened the filthy rats in dirty nightshirts in the Sunni Triangle, putting the fear of Allah in anyone who dared to resist. It's the same thing he should have done in Afghanistan-maybe then, instead of looking for a lease on a new cave, Osama would be in U.S. custody already. Or dead. I don't want to be choosy-I'd settle for that one too.
Then and only then can benevolence and democracy take root.
You see, before a country can be occupied, it must be neutralized. That was true both in Germany and in Japan. It's true today in Iraq. History teaches us we couldn't have occupied Japan until their army had been defeated and two bombs had been dropped breaking the will of the people to fight. That's how you gain the psychological advantage over your enemy. As Sun Tzu wrote in The Art of War, "Kill one, terrify a thousand."
That has yet to happen in Iraq because we haven't razed any major area of the country; we're far too concerned about chipping a flake of paint off of the dome of a Mosque than crushing the terrorist crustaceans cowering inside. Nor did we round up the Iraqi military leadership and toss them into POW camps. Instead, we let them go, which is why they melted into the general population.
Imagine what would have happened in World War II if Patton had rolled into town, captured the enemy, and then sent them home with their weapons the way we did in Iraq? We would have been fighting a guerrilla war in Germany for twenty years, that's what!
Thank God Patton gave his men clear marching orders to pummel and not placate the enemy. He barked, "The Nazis are the enemy. Wade into them. Spill their blood. Shoot them in the belly. When you put your hand into a bunch of goo that a moment before was your best friend's face, you'll know what to do." In the end, 400,000 Russians had to die in Berlin before Nazism was defeated.
Does that sound scandalous to your modern ears?
Have you forgotten the Nazis gassed six million Jews? That Saddam killed over one million Iraqis?
You see, the mental disorder of liberalism has hoodwinked Americans into embracing the fairyland view of resolving conflict articulated by singer Sheryl Crow: "I think war is never the answer to solving any problems. The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies." Somebody should call Condi Rice with that hot tip. Crow is wrong. There are times when war is the only road to peace.
WEREWOLF: FIGHTING TOOTH AND CLAW
Even with Patton's aggressive action it took the better part of two years to ferret out the pockets of resistance. Why? In the fall of 1944 the Germans amassed a "death squad" called Werwolfs (which means "military wolf" and are also referred to as Werewolves). An estimated 6,000 diehard Nazis, Hitler youth, elite SS troops, and members of the Gestapo were specially trained to conduct guerilla attacks against the Allied Forces as well as assassinating Germans who were caught cooperating with the U.S. military.
This notorious fighting unit was taught to engage in ambushes, sniping attacks, sabotage, the roadside bombing of cars and trains, and arson. They were credited with a number of high-profile attacks including the assassinations of Dr. Franz Oppenhoff, mayor of Aachen and an outspoken anti-Nazi, Field Marshal Major John Poston, and General Berzarin, the Soviet commandant of Berlin, while also battling Soviet troops and bombing U.S. military barracks.
There is some disagreement as to the effectiveness and scope of this Nazi guerilla organization. Some have argued that the "Werwolf amounted to next to nothing" and that the "Werwolf itself was filled not so much by fearsome SS officers but teenagers too young for the front." Others recognized their role in successful attacks against allied forces, but assert that "Werwolf was far weaker than many other historically significant guerrilla insurgencies, e.g. those in Vietnam and Iraq."
Whatever their strengths, the similarity between the guerrilla war stratagem of the Nazis and the ongoing insurgent struggle in Iraq is difficult to ignore, a fact I pointed out on my radio show. It was likewise highlighted in several speeches before the Veterans of Foreign Wars in San Antonio, Texas, by then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and by the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld said:
One group of those dead-enders was known as "werewolves." They and other Nazi regime remnants targeted Allied soldiers, and they targeted Germans who cooperated with the Allied forces. Mayors were assassinated including the American-appointed mayor of Aachen, the first major German city to be liberated. Children as young as ten were used as snipers, radio broadcasts, and leaflets warned Germans not to collaborate with the Allies. They plotted sabotage of factories, power plants, rail lines. They blew up police stations and government buildings, and they destroyed stocks of art and antiques that were stored by the Berlin Museum. Does this sound familiar?
The problem with the Rummy-Rice Werwolf discussion was that they only told half of the story. Yes, the comparison with the guerilla insurgency in Iraq is a good one. However, the rest of the story was left out. What did Patton's army do when they caught a Nazi Werwolf? They shot him, that's what. The Werwolfs were tied to a lamppost and shot in the field. Our boys didn't bring them back to America to lecture at the Kennedy school of government.
But then again, there were no Ted Kennedys or Chuck Schumers holding congressional hearings to bray about the Geneva Convention. It was total war and Americans wanted it over. No, Patton had them tied to a post and shot their brains out with a seven-man firing squad. I believe that we are very near the same national attitude today, and that special El Salvador-style death squads would be approved by the American people if put to a vote.
Excerpted from LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER by MICHAEL SAVAGE Copyright © 2007 by MICHAEL SAVAGE. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.