|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
The Odd 'Quadrennial Report' Lev Navrozov
On Feb.6, the Pentagon released its "Quadrennial Defense Review Report" (that is, its four-year) report. The last was released in 2001. The current "Report" is supposed to review the defense of the United States from 2001 — up to 2025! The key subject is the war in Iraq, which the "Report" defines as a "crucial battlefield in the long war against terrorism." (See page 10.) According to the "Report," terrorism, and not the annihilation of the United States as a whole by Sino-Russian post-nuclear superweapons, is the big threat up to 2025, and its "crucial background" is the war in Iraq. It wouldn't be amiss for the Pentagon authors to read — at lest occasionally — the American mainstream press for its coverage of Iraq. Not that this coverage is profound or far-sighted. But it is better to read it than to be steeped in pure self-centric imagination. For example, on the same day that the "Report" was released, Feb. 6, the New York Times carried a huge dispatch (the size of a full New York Times page) from Salman Pak, Iraq's Sunni town - policed by Shiites! Of course!
Story Continues Below
According to my "World Almanac" Shiites account for 60 percent to 65 percent of the Iraqi Moslems and Sunnis for 32 percent to 37 percent. So a Shiite majority have elected a Shiite-majority government, which has created a Shiite police and Shiite special troops. An American soldier (according to the New York dispatch of Feb. 6) entered a room where Shiites "questioned" Sunnis and saw "two Sunni prisoners hanging upside down during questioning." A Sunni, held in Salman Pak by Shiites (his first name was Sadiq, and his last name he was afraid to give), said that he had "been tortured for 16 days. He said his captors chose from an array of techniques so commonly used that each of them had a name. "In the 'Abachi' pose, Sadiq said, he was hung from the ceiling by the wrists with his hands behind his back. In the 'Kuzi,' a prisoner's hands and feet were tied together and then he was hung from the ceiling. "'They hung me by my hands, and they hit me on my knees,' said Sadiq, sitting with his mother, who was crying. 'I told him, Please let me down, and I will say whatever you want. He kept hitting me. At that moment I thought, I will die now.'"
Fortunately, in Salman Pak there were still American advisers. "The worst of the abuses stopped only after the small team of American advisers, the only American presence in the town, intervened. The Shiite general in charge was eventually removed." But who will remove such a Shiite general when the Americans are gone? What if the United States legitimizes the Shiite torture of Sunnis? The situation in Iraq could be predicted in 2003. Shiites hailed the U.S. invasion in order to dominate Sunnis, whom Shiites now torture and finally may annihilate when the Americans are gone. This is why Sunnis had launched a guerrilla war in 2003, which Shiites have been hoping to crush with the help of U.S. troops. If the Sunni guerrilla war is crushed, and the United States leaves, a Shiite majority will be a fanatical fundamentalist foe of the United States, which Saddam Hussein, relying as he did on the less fundamentalist and more secular Sunnis, never was. In the Pentagon's "Report," the survey, headlined "Iraq" (p. 10), has no more to do with reality than would have a nightingale's song. The very words "Shiites" and "Sunnis" are nowhere to be found in the survey. Its centerpiece is an idyllic photograph: "Iraqi women display their ink-stained fingers as proof that they voted." Well, a majority of the Palestinian people voted for Hamas. A majority of the Iraqi people (that is, a majority of Shiites) voted for Shiites eager to torture Sunnis whenever the American advisers look away. The Pentagon has not been waging in Iraq the "long war against terrorism." It is time for the Pentagon to learn at least one pertinent military term which appeared in the English language about 200 years ago: "guerrilla war." The Pentagon has not been waging in Iraq the "long war against terrorism," but it has been waging the "long war against Sunni guerrillas," which war the Pentagon never predicted, and which war the Pentagon does not want to name even in 2006. Ironically, what Shiites practice with respect to Sunnis is terror, which may become state terror when the Americans are gone. Whatever might be the goal of fighting against Sunni guerrillas, the Pentagon has demonstrated that it is not capable of fighting against guerrillas about 200 years after the word originated. Napoleon fought against Russian guerrillas in 1812. However, the Sunnis number a tiny fraction of the population of Russia in 1812, and their weapons are no more advanced than were those of 19th-century guerrillas. Yet the Pentagon's war against them has, indeed, turned into a "long war," which has probably already cost $2 trillion. As for "war against terrorism," or "war on terror," there have been many such figurative phrases: "war on hunger," "war on illiteracy," "war on crime," etc. This figurative use of the word "war" has nothing to do with war. Thus, 19 Moslems, 15 of whom were from Saudi Arabia, committed a suicidal terrorist act on Sept. 10, 2001, since they were genetically inclined to suicide, which they "sublimated" into their heroic death for Islam and against the hateful United States. This has nothing to do with the Pentagon but is a matter for the police and the FBI. On the other hand, wars like the invasion of Iraq or the contemplated bombing of Iran enhance Islamic suicidal terrorism. The Islamic world numbers 1.4 billion Moslems. The population of every country produces a certain number of genetic suicides. In the Islamic world they "sublimate" their genetic death wish into a suicidal terrorist act, which they hope will transport them to the eternal deflowering of ever virginal beauties in Paradise. So much for the Pentagon's treatment of the war in Iraq. Would you believe that China is mentioned in the Report? Not in a separate survey as is Iraq, but after a remark (p. 28) that states, "the choices of major and emerging powers, including India, Russia, and China [in that order!], will be key factors for determining the international security environment in the 21st century." The following paragraph (p. 30) is addressed to "all major and emerging powers": "The United States will work to ensure that all major and emerging powers [including China!] are integrated as constructive actors and stakeholders into the international system [how charming!]." "It will also seek to ensure that no foreign power can dictate the terms of regional global security [never, ever!]. It will attempt to dissuade any military competitor [such as China in alliance with Russia?] from developing disruptive or other capabilities that could enable regional hegemony or hostile action against the United States or other friendly countries, and it will seek to deter aggression or coercion. Should deterrence fail, the United States would deny a hostile power its strategic and operational objective." So the United States is very courteous, but if its courteous persuasion fails, the United States turns to be as omnipotent as a heavily armed policeman with respect to mischievous little children: The United States will simply "deny a hostile power its strategic and operational objectives." Surely a country's military power depends on the superiority of its weapons? By 1945, the United States had developed nuclear weapons, which Japan did not have. So Japan surrendered unconditionally. Suppose China (in cooperation with Russia in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization) will develop, for example, molecular nano weapons, expected to be as superior to nuclear weapons as the latter were superior to conventional firearms (see Chapter 11, "Engines of Destruction," in Eric Drexler's study of 1986 "Engines of Creations"). All books and articles of Eric Drexler, the American founder of nanotechnology, are on the Chinese Internet. On June 15, 1996, the Chinese magazine "National Defense" carried an article written by Major General Sun Bailin of the Chinese Academy of Military Science entitled "Nanotech Weapons in Future Warfare." On the other hand, the U.S. Congress has not allocated a cent to Drexler and/or his Foresight Institute. Instead of being annihilated or surrendering unconditionally, the United States will "deny a hostile power [China in cooperation with Russia] its strategic and operational objective." Imagine the United States, including the Pentagon, reduced to atoms by molecular nano weapons. But here the atoms of the secretary of defense declare: We "deny a hostile power its strategic and operational objective which has reduced us to atoms." You can e-mail me at navlev@cloud9.net
Editor's note:
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Print Page 
Forward Page 
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2009 NewsMax.Com |