It is too early to make a historical judgment on whether it was right or wrong to go into Iraq. (I am not discussing the moral right or wrong, but the policy right or wrong.) That will come with time. We won't know whether our national security and foreign policy were enhanced or degraded by our invasion, over the long term. It will depend on whether Iraq comes out of the current chaos a stable, pro-western, nation or it fails. Only time will tell.

What we can judge is what we did immediately after the invasion. History will judge our post invasion efforts to have been incompetent at best, criminal at worst. The U.S. Government made a difficult situation even more difficult by instituting stupid policies that alienated the population of Iraq, by not understanding realities on the ground and refusing to understand them, by not listening to people who could help, and by allowing ideology to supersede logic and practicality. We made it harder, we needlessly killed Americans and Iraqis by our arrogance and stupidity.

The U.S. Auto Industry

There has been much discussion about “saving” the U.S. auto industry, loaning GM and Chrysler billions on top of billions to help them survive. Why? Why do we need to continue pumping billions into an industry that clearly is unable to compete in the modern economy? And who decreed that Chrysler, GM and Ford must exist for the health of the U.S. economy? Take the emotion out of the argument, take away the fear and let’s look at it in the cold light of day.

The U.S. auto industry, as currently configured, is a drain on the U.S. It requires billions of dollars from the U.S. taxpayer every decade or so, which we never see a return on. During the present economic crisis, the U.S. auto industry continues to seek billions of dollars, and when asked for plans on how to restructure and become more efficient and productive, they present plans that depend on U.S. tax payer bailouts. The U.S. auto industry is a drain on the U.S. budget and the economy. They lack the vision, imagination and creativity to adapt to the changing world. Their leadership, frankly, sucks, and is incapable of leading the industry out of the storm to safe shores.

In a truly capitalist economy, we would let these companies go under because they are unable to compete. We cannot instill policies like the old Soviet Union, where inefficient and non competitive companies are allowed to continue operating with government assistance.

The U.S. auto industry as currently configured is holding us back in many areas, such as producing efficient, green vehicles. I recommend that we let Ford, Chrysler and GM go under. Let them file for bankruptcy, restructure and if they can, come back more lean and better focused. In the meantime, take the billions of dollars that would otherwise go to the big three, and give it to the smaller companies in the U.S. that are trying to develop more fuel efficient cars. Let help these companies take the place of the big three U.S. automakers.

These smaller companies are more efficient and better focused. By aiding them we can start down the path to lessening dependence on foreign oil much faster. We can also ensure a vibrant and robust U.S. auto industry by helping these companies rise to prominence. Who says that the face of the future U.S. auto industry must be Ford, GM and Chrysler? Why shouldn’t it be a different face?

Where did we leave off last time? If we are to successfully combat the Islamic insurgency then we need to adapt our tactics to the threat. Once again I point out that we should not be fighting terrorism any more than we fought against the blitzkrieg or the surprise attack in WWII. Terrorism is a tactic. We are faced with a classic insurgency in many respects, intent on changing the existing political order in the Middle East. It is not a monolithic insurgency, centrally controlled and driven by a central goal, such as we faced in Vietnam in the 1960's. Al-Qaida provides a sort of central voice to the various groups, and some political philosophy and legal justification (more on this later). The Muslim Brotherhood provided early political and legal justification for political jihad, but in the end, there are various groups, ranging from sophisticated, organized entities like Hezbollah, to groups as unsophisticated as a few men unhappy with their lot in life taking it out on a group of tourists or the local government. Our concern must be the larger groups with world wide appeal and capabilities. They pose the threat to US interests.

First of all I would like to say that I do not believe that these extremist groups, as currently constituted, pose a major national security threat to the US. By this I mean they lack the capability to destroy the US, reduce our national territory, and bring down our government or economy. They do, however, pose a threat to US national interests and pose a threat to US lives, both at home and abroad. We were the nation that stood up to the Germans and Japanese simultaneously during WWII, and defeated them. I think we should be able to meet the Islamic insurgency and defeat it just as easily. So America, stop being afraid, stop being terrified by every man with a long beard, every woman with a headscarf, and stop crapping your pants every time a brown person speaks in a foreign language. We are Americans. People are afraid of us, not the other way around.

Now how do we combat the Islamic insurgency? Let’s treat it like an insurgency. First off, stop calling this thing a war. If it was really a war we would mobilize America. That would entail reinstating the draft in order to increase the military to 2-3 million + personnel to really fight a war. We would harness American industry to producing much more military hardware than we produce now. In short, we would replicate what we did in WWII. We are not fighting a war, and politicians use the term war (War on Poverty, War on Drugs) to show they are serious. This is a counterinsurgency, a serious one, but one that we can deal with without going to war. Using the term war makes the American people feel better that the politicians are doing everything possible to keep them safe.

This is also not a Law Enforcement action. I have heard people say how we should treat terrorist acts as criminal acts and give the lead to Law Enforcement Agencies (LEA) to develop criminal cases and prosecute them. I disagree with that viewpoint. LEA have a critical role to play at home in keeping the streets safe from terrorism, but law enforcement by its nature, develops cases against criminal enterprises when they pose a threat to American lives, an most often, after the fact of the crime. This counterinsurgency requires us to not only defeat the insurgents before they attack, and without recourse to the US justice system, but it requires us to defeat the insurgent organizations overseas. LEA cannot do this.

To defeat and insurgency you must first separate it from its source of support, the people. Insurgencies die when they have no support from the populace, which the insurgents need to provide recruits, supplies, funds and intelligence. Once that is done, the insurgencies days are numbered. If you fail in that effort, your days are numbered. The US needs to put a great deal more emphasis on the root causes of the insurgency and the legal underpinnings. Let’s look at the latter first.

Not to over simplify but Islam is a legalistic religion. The Quaran and supporting Hadiths lay out a legal frame work for every day life for the observant Muslim. Without that legal backing actions and activities can be viewed as illegitimate. That is why organizations like al-Qaida issue fatwahs, to provide the religious/legal justification for their actions. That is why the ideological underpinnings of the Islamic insurgency are so important. In order to get recruits and the support of the people, the actions of these groups must be supported by the legal backing of the Quaran. I believe, in order to strip away support for these groups, we must focus on discrediting the religious and legal backing for terrorism and the insurgency, and replace it with the moderate interpretations of main stream Islam. (More to come)