Thursday, June 30, 2005

Be careful what you ask for ...

This is chilling ... downright chilling.

Go here (today, before it gets moved off the page) and LISTEN to what retired General Thomas McInerney has to say about the consequences of pulling out of Iraq ... the alternative to our present strategy, recommended by not only and others in the loony Left, but supposedly more rational people like a certain United States Senator (from The Indepundit). (There, you can also listen to commentary from Mary Matalin about a favorite, related subject of mine ... the penalty of INACTION.)

I have two great uncles who are farmers in west-central Missouri, about 150 miles due west of St. Louis -- about 60 or so miles east of Kansas City. My parents live about an hour south of them. If you had driven through the area adjacent to their farms before the early 1990's, you would have seen several areas that looked rather out-of-place there ... fenced-off areas about 50 yards square, out in the middle of some farmer's field, with power and a gravel road going to them ... but no buildings within.

If you were to get closer, you would have seen mostly gravel and concrete -- particularly, a large, hexagonal slab of concrete that looked two or three feet thick, with steel tracks sticking out from underneath it in one direction.

You would have also seen signs on the fence, declaring that the area inside the fence was the property of the United States government, trespassing was prohibited, and the use of deadly force was authorized.

If you haven't figured it out already, what you would be standing next to was a Minuteman missile silo -- the garage for a three-stage, solid-fueled intercontinental ballistic missile with three independently-targetable nuclear warheads, each with over ten times the power of the Hiroshima bomb. That missile was kept there for one purpose ... to give the Soviet Union the incentive needed to NOT launch their equivalents at us.

The presence of these missiles put my uncles in the bullseye, for these silos would be the first targets in a Soviet first strike.

As I grew up and drove through this area on several occasions (particularly after watching the 1980's TV movie "The Day After"), I often thought about what it would be like to see those vapor trails going up ... knowing full well another set would be coming DOWN within less than thirty minutes.


Today, were you to drive through the area, you would see that these fenced-in areas are now either obliterated, or wrecked ... the results of Reagan-era and GHW-Bush-era arms negotiations with both the Soviet Union, and the Russian Federation that replaced the Soviets. That replacement, the subsequent removal of these silos as operational assets ... and therefore the removal of the bullseye from the homes of my uncles ... did not result from setting timetables, or even negotiation alone. These events were the result of the confrontation of evil by Ronald Reagan ... a confrontation that was both decried and politically opposed by that certain Senator above, along with his Leftist fellow-travelers.

History has proven their methods and geopolitical viewpoint wrong, time and again ... yet they persist in the same errors that brought down South Vietnam, prolonged the Cold War, and allowed the rise of a virulent Islamofascism that, as the General describes, desires the nuclear fire for its own brutal uses.

This week, my President said it best:

"We know that if Evil is not confronted, it gains in strength and audacity and returns to strike us again."

General McInerney is now issuing a prophetic warning ... if we pull out of Iraq now, we will be setting the stage for a remake of the Cold War, against a reconstituted Islamic caliphate that:

> Will be able to cripple the global economy through its totalitarian control of the Persian Gulf oil fields, which will not only replace progress with misery in the Third world, but will give the caliphate the leverage it needs to acquire the technologies that can light the nuclear fire.

> Will have the ability to strike -- not just with human bombs, but with ICBMs -- Israel, Asia, western Europe ... and eventually, North America.

> Will be far more likely to strike, than the Soviet Union at its most belligerent, for it lacks the rationality of the old Bear. Islamofascism instead has the irrational fearlessness of the fanatic, that is willing to not only kill others outside its borders, but is willing to see those inside its borders killed to further its causes.

> As a result, the United States and other rights-respecting nations will once again be caught with both a crippled economy and an arms race ... except that this time, Mutually Assured Destruction will probably not be sufficient to prevent a nuclear exchange, for the fanatic considers his life worth losing.

The Leftists often decry the casualties of today's American bombing as an atrocity ... despite the use of expensive precision-guided munitions and associted targeting policies that minimize noncombatant casualties while still killing the enemy.

If the Left gets its way, and we pull out of Iraq, those weapons and policies may be rendered useless ... and the casualties of today will be rendered insignificant in history's calculus.

We will then be boxed into two choices ... either SURRENDER (and the expansion of Dar-al-Islam and Sharia law, which does not embrace Leftist "tolerance" in any sense), or NUCLEAR DESTRUCTION OF THE CALIPHATE, as we suffer the same in multiple areas of the Western world.

Be careful what you ask for, MoveOn and Senator Kerry ... you might get it.

Good post and quite interesting. you know, until I saw "the day after" as a teenager in the 80's, I never had a fear of nuclear destruction. I didn't understand its true destructiveness.

What I remember as interesting, also, is that no one here really blinked about having those silos here. There were certainly some folks in town that kept pointing out that the missiles here made us a target and they wanted them to go, but I remember that the answer was "if not here, then where? who should we make a target to keep us from being a target?"

Then I remember the east and west coasts declaring themselves "nuclear free". That was so laughable. History does repeat itself doesn't it?

You know, I'd like to add to the assessment about the caliphate controling oil and natural gas that would ruin the economy. That is one factor. One that people continue to insist can be resolved by development of new resources or technologies and disengagement. They truly do not understand how vast and intertwined our survival is with all the other nations and how transfering to this mythological technology would be decades, not a few years and "presto" we are magically oil free.

Second, people also tend to forget that huge amounts of raw materials and finished products, including food, metals, materials, grains, beef, chicken, clothes, shoes, coffee, cars, luxury items and necessities all move through the shipping lanes that would be encompassed by this "caliphate". It would be more than an energy or financial crisis.

Remember in WWII that the Nazis controlled the mediteranean and the atlantic while the Japanese had the Asian pacific. They had effectively cut off support to Europe and Britain through every corridor from their traditional allies within their colonial powers. No member of the commonwealth could stave off the coming starvation of fortress Britannia.

Enter the United States with liberty ships and billions of tons of shipping (before we declared war).

In essence, the development of the caliphate is about total control, not just oil and ecnomic. Once they control any part of that area, one part of the secularized world is in danger and would require that the siege be broken.

That is why, what you see is a slow concentrated effort to Islamisize and radicalize these differing areas at the same time. In order to actually make this happen, they have to take over three points simultaneously. After that, control of the other areas comes easy because they will have strangled trade and resources.

The three points are: 1) The Levant/Egypt control the Suez Canal; 2) indonesia/malaca straights to control the eastern most shipping lanes; 3) Saudi Arabia which is the major power in OPEC, produces the most oil in the region and controls entry into the Persian gulf and Red Sea.

I believe they believe that Saudi Arabia is theirs for the taking, it's the other two points that will be more difficult but represemt tje ability to expand and control greater areas.

Imagine how fast Europe would collapse in financial disaster if the Suez Canal and the mediteranean were cut off.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?