Senator Reed's Retreatism & The Zarqawi Letter

The Zarqawi letter explaining Al-Qa'eda strategy in Iraq of winter 2003-2004 written to Oz bin Ladin has thus far worked it's bloody goals purposefully upon the Democratic Party of the U.S. Congress as it seeks to flee a 'civil war'. Zarqawi sought to foment a Sunni-Shi'a civil war with indiscriminate attacks on Shi'a prompting reprisals upon Iraqi Sunni's compelling Americans to withdraw from "an untenable position" (page 234 'The Occupation of Iraq' by Ali Allawi-ref. chapter named 'The Fires of Sectarian Hatreds'). The Democratic isn't contributing much intellectually to the victory of winning a peace for Iraq, and effort is necessary in the presence of a determined opponent.

The Bush administration is fighting a financially asymmetric war in Iraq against terrorists perhaps not readily extinguishable by conventional military power by an Army of occupation. Without long-range residence goals the odds of outlasting regional terrorists by American forces aren't good. The administration spends nearly a billion dollars per day in Iraq to oppose a terrorist force that hasn't comparative combat financial criteria perhaps able to conduct a 'subsistence war' with leftover and concealed munitions, donations from outsiders and support by commercially financed terrorist mercenaries. The 'blowback' consequence of the asymmetric financial conflict is ongoing defeat for the domestic U.S. economy and pragmatic opportunity costs. A protracted financial thumping of the U.S. Government by Al Qa'eda in Iraq and other clandestine terrorists including possible the government of Iran does significant present damage to an already challenged congress co-opted by global corporatist subversion of democracy. Corporatism is a parasite on democracy that eventually kills the host through such means as an amnesty bill for 20 million illegal aliens with a right to bring 150 million relatives into the U.S.A., exclusive control of mass media by corporatist non-democratic collectives, and compulsory national dependence on foreign cars and fossil fuels to tithe Mecca and Dubai at the pump.

The financial defeat in Iraq is deepened by the corporatist co-opted federal government of the United States quest for more fossil fuel profits from the 200 barrels of untapped new oil fields in the deserts of Iraq. Iraq may hold the world's largest untapped reserves of crude oil and decades of profits for administration oil corporations and oilfield services corporations. Oil as a primary transport fuel for the U.S.A. guarantees decades of future U.S. debt both public and private.

The United States might well have had a better military tactic for Iraq in 2003 if the public had known how defective the administration's post conflict planning was. Some people believed in error that the administration was competent at post conflict follow-up, but the administration was co-opted by the pursuit of corporatist agenda and unable to work toward an actual democracy in Iraq of high efficiency.

An alternate military tactic would have been to simply let the Air Force take out the Baath Government resources and let the Shi'a and other parties revolt to establish their own 'peace' with American forces limited to support for Kurdistan on the ground. The 1991 Shi'a revolt against Saddam Hussein might have succeeded had Bush 41 provided air support in a 'no fly zone'. The Shi'a thereafter developed a distrust for the United States and the Bush administration perhaps being aware of their ties to Sunni oil producing royalty of the Persian Gulf States. The Da'awa Party and the Sadrists' tradition of militancy against Saddam Hussein and other traditional oppressors of the Shi'a centered in Iraq continued onto American forces recently, yet not irrevocably perhaps. If the U.S. Government advocates that Iraq's oil be distributed to real private citizen ownership by the government of Iraq in the form of equal shares for every citizen including women and children through a publicly created oil company some sort of non-socialist democratic basis for trust in the government issuing the stock by all Iraqi including the Shi'a might be created.

Corporatism corrupts democracy and non-democratic goals are pursued with inevitably deleterious results. Corporatism is another form of authoritarianism in a subtle mode without rational empirical goals principally beyond abstract profit and power. Power and profit are subtle things for-themselves existing in a complex social and empirical world too often trampled upon to serve some largest possible organizational collective goal of absolute power. Regardless of the circumstances by which individuals are assaulted by collectivist propaganda from theocracy to socialism or corporatism individuals suffer and are compelled to choose between undesirable losing for-themselves choices such a the republican or democratic parties platforms in the U.S.A. present when they are co-opted by corporatism; each side works to control alternatives for the profit of non-democratic agenda such as corporatism desires.

The Bush administration should work with a bi-partisan commission of Iraqi peace development tactics with the goal to progressively reduce the cost of the conflict in order to defend the financial standing and reduce opportunity costs for the United States. The administration should be able to spend no more than 100 billion dollars on the war in Iraq in 2008. If the administration had heeded prior calls to create an SFBOP cadre of 50,000 members for counter-insurgence perhaps 30,000 of those would have sufficed for the Iraqi operation. Military tools are ineffective in the absence of rational political application of the service persons as so many fallen dictators have discovered. Military commanders in the U.S. Democracy do not have the right to choose what political elements of foreign belligerents to ally with or oppose-those are political decisions that the U.S. Congress must decide as a fine-tuning of it's declarations of war in real-time; to simply permit a corporatist co-opted President unlimited power to war for more than 90 days upon any foreign belligerent organization as he or she chooses is another abrogation of responsibility by the U.S. Congress.

In Iraq there are many ongoing civil organizational relationships and relationship restructuring. If the U.S. Congress uses a drunk and trust in the President posture toward the complexities of choosing how to spend money on the "War in Iraq" with their own alternative of 'stop giving him a blank check' instead of more intelligent, soberly structured directives of what spending should be on civil projects, what spending on military support for the Iraqi Government, micro-declarations of war or terrorist anathema declarations toward not only Al Qa'eda but whatever other organizations congress has deemed threats to American security vital interests at least so far that the congress will take responsibility for engaging in direct belligerence with them how can foreign policy objectives be conceived or accomplished by a congress giving its will and purse to an executive branch for accomplishment of 'fore mentioned objectives? If congress gives a corporatist a 'blank check' instead of a 'dedicated check' how can they expect such an individual not to spend the money for corporate profits through favorite military-industrial-oil services contracts that cannot 'win the war'? In corporatist theory all public debt is good...the socialist laborers will need to be wage-slaves to pay for it, and it will only do them good to get their lazy butts working.

The present congress is so daft that it attached a minimum wage increase to the 100 billion dollar bill to fund four more months of 'war' in Iraq in order to time a 7 dollar an hour wage for the 20 million illegal aliens it is seeking to give amnesty a legal residents. When the Democrats lose congress in 2008 and a Democratic President has a recession with 20% out of work but 20 million new Mexican residents in the soup kitchens and free medical clinics the corporatist media will report the pathos and hatred of he Democratic policies of course, and the public will yearn for the next Republican President to lead them toward the promised land...

Corporatist theory permits public spending on war and 'defense' but not on construction for the public good. Socialist theory in affluent societies permits no foreign construction spending in Mexico that would create a better Mexican infrastructure there to reduce pressure to migrate illegally to the U.S.A. The absence of rational democratic government in the U.S.A. and it's replacement by socialists and corporatists neutralises the philosophy of democracy and applications of public spending goals that are in the interests of the people of the United States from public policy too much. Iraq too might have better moved toward peaceful stability with far more environmentally reconstructive public projects funded instead of just 'war'. Combat engineers might have found a natural synthesis with ecological reengineering of Marshes and new Venetian style security canals in Baghdad.