Bill Sykes' - In Retrospect
V.
(January 2007)
Bill
Sykes looks back in retrospect at material which has
been published in previous editions of "View from
America", in an attempt to determine whether the
subject matter written then is still applicable in
today’s world.
Introduction to Article V.
(Trying to understand the American people in
general and the current President and his Administration
in particular.)
Preface:
I think that perhaps I will dedicate this
edition to certain aspects of the American way of life
as seen by an ex-Brit over the last forty years by
taking a look back at the apparent, "Win at all
costs syndrome", the "I’ve gotta
have it syndrome", and the "Anything goes
syndrome".
Perhaps you may be a little confused as to
how these articles fit into the current Iraqi situation
which I describe below but if you read on you will
see that somewhere along the line they all fit into
the American way of life scenario.
The current Iraq Situation:
As part of the "Win at all
costs syndrome", or perhaps
I should say the, "Appear to win at all costs
syndrome", it would be amiss of me if I didn’t
associate the current situation in Iraq with the Vietnam
situation where in the final days of that war the American
Administration stated that the American troops had
won the war and that the South Vietnamese army was
now fully trained and capable of defending South Vietnam
against any onslaught from the North and within a couple
of weeks or so of the American forces departing South
Vietnam the North Vietnamese army invaded South Vietnam
and the South Vietnamese army fell apart and capitulated
and everyone that was still alive lived happily
ever after!!!
Mr. President just in case you need to be reminded
58,226 American soldiers lost their lives in fighting
an un-winnable war in Vietnam, so will the same scenario
occur when the current American Administration declares
that the Iraqi forces are now fully trained and capable
of defending themselves, (The question then arises:
When, and against whom - perhaps against themselves?),
America may then consider pulling its troops out of
the region.
Before we leave this subject I must remind the reader
that the United States still has xxxxx troops in the
forgotten war in Afghanistan and the question still
arises as to when are we going to get them out of that
barbaric and hostile country.
America loves to think of itself as a winner and hates to be known
as a loser.
How quickly we forget. So let us take a walk down memory
lane and remember some of the ill planned, badly executed,
and deadly military skirmishes that America
has got itself into over the years when they were involved
in foreign wars that really was none of their business
and then congratulated themselves as coming out a winner:
Firstly the Korean war (1950-1953), which commenced
when North Korean forces invaded South Korea. The
United States eventually got involved and the loss
of life that America suffered in the Korean war was 33,686
killed and 103,000 wounded.
Fifty plus years later the United States still has
over thirty seven thousand troops deployed in Korea
on the border at Panmunjom - so could this be considered
an all out victory?
An American involvement in Lebanon in October 1983
ended in a rapid withdrawal by what was left of the
American forces when on the 23rd of October, 241 American
Marines were killed in Beirut when two car bombs destroyed
their barracks.
The Contra Scandal, (1983-1988), when the United States
illegally sold weapons to Iran in an attempt to free
American hostages held by pro-Iranian terrorist groups
in Lebanon. The proceeds from the sale, $48M, was
then transferred to Nicaragua in Central America where
a war was in progress between the Government (?) and
the Sandanista rebels, or was it the other way round
between the Sandanista rebels and the Government (?)
and what part did El Salvador play in this comedy of
errors? Now the question arises as to whom the
American Government were supporting and the reasons
why. This is certainly not very clear in the documents
that I have researched - so I give up, still wondering
what dirty business did we have in Central America
at that time anyway. Perhaps Lt. Colonel Oliver North,
as a participant in these covert actions, knows all
the secrets of this clandestine affair.
The Mogadishu, Somali, incident, (October 3rd/4th 1993),
included the deployment of American Assault Forces
comprised of nineteen aircraft, twelve vehicles, 160
troops, who entered into Somalia, for whatever reason.
During the operation two US MH-60 Black Horse Helicopters
were shot down and three others damaged.
The American forces during this short battle sustained
18 soldiers killed and 73 wounded before their rapid
withdrawal.
Mr. President a Mogadishu problem is back on the front
pages - may I suggest that we certainly do not
need or want to be involved again in a no win situation.
Are there any other incidents that I have failed to
mention where America got involved in so called foreign
wars and declared themselves to be the winners?
How about the attack on the city of Panama on
the 19th of December 1989, where the reason given was
loosely stated as to oust General Manuel Noriega
who was considered to be a drug king-pin controlling illegal
drug trafficking in and through the city. Twenty four
thousand US troops were involved in Operation "Just
Cause" but the American Government never
gave the American public a plausible reason as to why
they attacked Panama. In the fighting that ensued around
5,000 Panamanian citizens were killed and the city
was virtually destroyed.
General Noriega was captured and transferred to an
American prison and has never been seen or heard from
since.
Perhaps the United States attacked Panama "Just
Cause Panama was there", or did the
United States have an ulterior reason because the control
of the Panama Canal was to come under their control
by the year 2000 and America would lose its justification
for still retaining and maintaining a military presence
there.
By the way the flow of illegal drugs into America was
not stopped by this action and as far as I know still
continues to this very day.
Then we have the ill fated Haiti incident were the
President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was elected to power
twice in 1990 and 2000 and each time was deposed mid-term
and forced into exile. The first time in 1991 he was
assisted back into power by the United States military,
much against the will of the people of Haiti. (Once
again the United States backed the wrong horse).
Then we have the audacious landing of American troops
on the Caribbean Island of Grenada.
On October 25th 1983 a United States fleet, (destined
for Lebanon), was diverted to the small island of Grenada,
(which had been a colony of Great Britain until 1974),
to assist various neighboring Commonwealth states to
unseat the Revolutionary Military Council which had
been established six days earlier following the murder
of the Prime Minister Maurice Bishop.
The British Government were both surprised and angered
by the intervention of American forces who stormed
the beaches and were met not by a crescendo of gunfire
but by a gaggle of American press photographers who
had landed there two days earlier.
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, publicly broadcast
her views that a Western Democracy should not use
force to walk into other peoples countries, and the
British Government stated that they had been deliberately
kept in the dark as to Washington’s intention
to invade Grenada. Shall we say another political blunder
or just shear arrogance?
Summary:
Since World War Two ended in 1945, there are still
47.000 American troops stationed in Japan - and around
another 50,000 in Germany.
Eight thousand troops are apparently still stationed
in Saudi Arab. (Protecting the Saudi Royal Family -
or maybe American oil company interests in that area).
Forgive me if some of the American troop numbers are
not correct or up to date but I’m sure that you
get the message that it is about time we stopped getting
involved in situations abroad in which we have no business
to be there in the first place and cut our losses and
bring the American troops back home to defend our own
shores instead of the shores of dissident nations who
show no gratitude for having us there to so say protect
them. (Note: Even though the numbers quoted above came
from published sources I cannot guarantee there accuracy).
The Iraq study group.
A study group was recently formed and tasked with the
objective of finding out what had gone wrong in post
war Iraq during the three years since the American
armed forces destroyed the Iraq Army and captured
Saddam Hussein and how the United States can try
to correct the situation and come out of this morass
with some degree of dignity - if that is possible
at this stage.
The report was released by the Washington Exploratory
Committee on Wednesday the 6th of November.
The group comprised of ten members, which included
five Republicans and five Democrats under the joint
Chairmanship of
James A. Baker (R) (Former Secretary of State)
and Lee H. Hamilton (D). (Former United States
Representative).
There are far too numerous recommendations provided
by this committee’s report for me to mention
in this document and so here is a very brief review
of the salient points.
The report provided damning details of this Administrations
inept handling of the post war Iraq situation and calls
for scaling back the goals which apparently had been
set, and for ending the President’s open ended
commitments to this war torn country on the basis that
the situation in Iraq is grave and rapidly deteriorating.
Through out the report the two co-chairmen scolded
this country's leaders for not being candid and forthright
with the American public and also criticized the Bush
Administrations for its lack of diplomacy, unrealistic
foreign policy, and a disastrous military approach
to the post war Iraq situation, and suggested, (in
as many words), that if a radically different approach
had been made - possibly it could have been beneficial
to both America and Iraq.
Note: A current poll of the Iraqi people, when asked
it they were better off now than they had been under
the Saddam Hussein
regime - 80% of the people polled answered in the negative.
The overall position of the report appeared to condemn
the inflexibility of President Bush, Vice President
Cheney, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who
were all in some way responsible for having bungled
any and all diplomatic channels that may have been
open to them by their unrealistic objectives to try
to install American type democracy in Iraq.
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld comes in for much criticism
with respect to his inflexible position with respect
to his civilian type handling of military decisions
which in my opinion should have come under the jurisdiction
of the military commanders.
He also was taken to task for apparently not listening
to the requirements and recommendations of the military
top brass with respect to manpower required to curb
the post war Iraqi insurgency.
President Bush’s response to the recommendations of the Washington
Exploratory Committee Report in general:
Note: The reaction of this petulant, irresponsible,
traveling salesman of a President in a sort of temper tantrum fostered perhaps
by the White House anger at the Washington exploratory committee recommendations
has stated that he is in no hurry to implement any of the recommendations put
forward by the Iraqi Study Group.
The report recommends that most of the United States combat forces be withdrawn
from Iraq by the beginning of 2008.
Note: President Bush has the audacity to suggest, (against
the will of 70% of the American people who want American troops pulled out
of Iraq), that he intends to send another twenty thousand plus troops to Kuwait
for potential use in Baghdad in a futile attempt to win a war that most people
now consider to be an unwinnable.
Sending more American troops into Iraq is courting further disaster and
could increase the death toll of young American soldiers considerably.
Perhaps this President is kow-towing to Saudi Arabia
who threatened to finance and provide armaments to
the Sunni insurgents if America pulls its troops out
of Iraq.
Comment: No matter how many American
troops President Bush sends to Iraq I would predict
that as soon as America pulls its complete contingent
of American troops out of Iraq, Iraq will revert back
to a civil war damaged Islamic State and will never
be a democracy built in the image of American democracy
as the American White House and its Administration
would like it to be.
May I suggest that after the American withdrawal, the
Saddam Hussein acts of tyranny will be replaced by
the actions of a high ranking Shiite cleric, and Iraq
will become a haven for terrorists - something that
it was not, at the time of the September 2001 incident.
No wonder we the American people are paying the price
of our disastrous venture into Iraq by the loss of
the lives of over three thousand young Americans and
thousands of other American casualties in order to
support America’s desire to retain its Middle
East oil supplies and also in the name of maintaining
the overall security from terrorist activities on American
soil.
The American economy is also being severely depleted
in the process with many of the billions of dollars
being supplied to American contractors and others,
which were meant to be used for reconstruction purposes
not being accounted for and which have just disappeared
without any trace.
The report also urges that high level talks be held
with Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia
These diplomatic talks to be held without any pre-conditions
in order one would presume to get the three countries
involved in rebuilding not only the Iraqi infrastructure
but also to put pressure upon the three Iraqi religious
sects, Shi'ite, Sunni, and Kurd, to try and get them
to co-operate with each other in the rebuilding of
Iraq.
Note: Seeing that President Bush
named both Syria and Iran as part of the axis of
evil, and vowed that he would never enter into direct
communications with the officials of either country
I would think that this could be a particular stumbling
block as I’m sure that neither of these countries
wish to enter into discussions with this inflexible
individual either.
The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has little
reason if any to come to the aid of the United States
in solving the current civil war problem in Iraq due
to the United States opposition to the Iranian nuclear
programs and I’m sure that the Iranian
President has other plans for the people of Iraq -
in fact I would go so far as to say that Iran now has
a stronger position in Iraq than the United States
- so can one say that it is Iran who is winning the
war in Iraq not the United States, and seeing that
90% of the Iranian population of 70 million people
are Shi'ite then can one consider that there is a better
chance of Iraq, (with a 60% majority of its population
also being Shi'ite), becoming part of an Islamic Republic
than becoming a democracy.
I don’t suppose that Israel is very happy about
the possibility of the United States considering making
a pact with Iran - but surely the time has come for
Israel, (the odd country out in the Middle East), to
be taken down a peg or two as they have had their own
way long enough.
This President and his supporters who advocate that
the winning of this war is a prime requisite in fighting
global terrorism are swimming against an unstoppable
tsunami rip tide which is likely to sweep them all
out of power and into a black hole of oblivion within
the very near future.
Question?:
Did lies and deception play a major part in the decision
by America’s to go to war with Iraqi, or was
it just plain ignorance, arrogance, and stupidity on
the part of an American President and his Administration?
May I suggest that it was a combination of all
three?
Perhaps you the reader must be wondering what on earth
has the current Iraqi situation got to do with the
"Win at all costs syndrome" article that
will be part of this Compendium edition? Please read
article #5A carefully and I’m sure that you will
see why.
This edition of Bill Sykes looks back in retrospect
will include articles extracted from the following
previously published articles of "View from America"
in an attempt to understand America and its people.
The articles included in this edition are as follows:
Article #5A.
Extracted from the May
2005 Edition of "View from America".
Articles entitled: "The win at all cost
syndrome", and
"The
I’ve gotta have it syndrome".
"The
anything goes syndrome".
Article #5B,
Extracted from the Mid-Summer
2005 Edition of “View
from America”.
Article entitled: "An imaginary conversation between
an American father and his son".
Eric (Bill) Sykes. (Southern California).
January 2007.
We welcome feedback about any of the contents
of these articles. Please send all correspondence
to bill_sykes@huddersfield1.co.uk
|
