Best advice on Iraq!

“The first rule of foreign policy is if your enemies are killing each other, don’t step in to stop them.” – KT McFarland

Best advice yet on what to do about Iraq comes from the always astute KT McFarland lays out our national interests in Iraq, clearly and succinctly. Bravo KT, the first pundit/analyst who got it 100% right.  Her piece, which she put in simple Mom terms, we can all understand, describes how to apply this forgotten test:

 “An important but often forgotten test for American foreign policy decisions is what is in our country’s national interest. It’s not about what is best for Iraq or Afghanistan or anyone else. The question is what’s best for America. We have three sustaining vital strategic interests in the Middle East: oil, terrorists and Israel. We want their oil, we don’t want their terrorists and we want Israel to survive in an increasingly dangerous neighborhood.”



Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, History, Islam, Military, Politics

4 responses to “Best advice on Iraq!

  1. Kinnison. Frankly, we’re suffering from a huge deficit of sound strategic thinkers, particularly in the military and geopolitical strategic realm. Lots of yahoos want to advocate military action based on “talking points” memos or quoting some lame-brained TV military “expert”. I, your strictly amateur military strategist, am sick to death of all of them frankly!

    Here’s my inexpert opinion, first we need a strategic vision, where serious historians, geopolitical experts and military experts brainstorm what our national interests are. Once we’ve got that vision part (defining victory in the big picture) nailed down, then we move on to serious military and geopolitical strategic planning (real war planning).

    Real war planning is a complex, multifaceted exercise of adding up your assets, weighing the costs, and seriously considering potential disasters with ways to mitigate these potential problems, and as many foreseeable roadblocks that could hinder a successful war operation. This isn’t a simplistic “I vote let’s launch air strikes”, instead it’s a carefully thought out process whereby we lay down the war time mission, in short, medium and long range planning, write up as many contingency plans as possible, game as much as we can, and then step back and take a hard-look at where we are and how we are going to array our troops, materiel, funding into battle and we’ve got to make sure we consider supply lines, so we can streamline resupply, because history is replete with commanders who failed miserably by outrunning their supply lines.

    Finally, the ultimate DUTY this country owes it warriors, who volunteered their lives to defend the Unites States of America from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, is the due diligence to do our very best to craft a military strategy that leads to successfully completing the mission laid out in broad terms, mentioned above (strategic vision) and juxtaposed next to that is the duty to plan out the very best force protection protocols into our military strategy. We owe it to our troops, to avoid unnecessary casualties, through lazy, sluggish military strategic-thinking.

    So, Bill O’Reilly it’s more than a talking points memo – it’s a complex, multidisciplinary, multi-tiered process – but thanks anyway for your bloviations on the subject: And, oh, I have no Harvard degree, spent most of my life as an Army wife and I work in a big box store – so take that as my most inexpert advice.

  2. Minta Marie Morze

    Boy, are you right, Liberty!! The Progs seem to think that war is just sending the manpower and ammunition to a locale—instantly, of course—and using it right away to bomb and shoot “the enemy”, who can be clearly identified by their uniform and the shape and design of the markings on their equipment. If our military gets hungry, a trip to the nearest grocery store is necessary, and when we run low on fuel, the nearest gas station will no doubt serve. Actually, I’ve given the Progs too much credit—I doubt they ever even think about identifying an enemy on a battlefield. (I remember when our coalition went into Kuwait to free it from Iraqis, some in the press were going to print stories about the special paint formula being used on the symbols on coalition tanks, etc. It never occurred to the reporters that being able to use an optical instrument to determine whether a painted mark was real or counterfeit was, like, a secret.)

    To get back to our immediate Reality, to put it in simple terms: we shouldn’t send a few hundred of our best special ops and other advisors into a hellhole sectarian war where there is no possible way to tell friend from foe; we shouldn’t go where we have none of our own reliable logistics; and, we shouldn’t be wasting our weaponry—the world isn’t going to get less dangerous, and we need to conserve what we have and make each shot count, which means we need to go for high-gain targeting.

    • Wow, Minta, fantastic points you’ve made! I bet you didn’t learn about high-gain targeting from your Southern California alma mater in the 1960s, lol. You amaze me with how how much you know about so many topics. I didn’t know about that paint for tanks either, but I am clueless on actual military equipment and materiel – I would defer to subject matter experts (usually my husband in this house). I think more at the big picture strategic level. Thanks for your thoughtful comments!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s