pture of Moscow would conclude hostilities, they had the advantage of superior technology and strategy but failed miserably with knowledge and intent. They failed to grasp Russia’s size and assumed that the Russian people wouldn’t fight for communism or Stalin. They wouldn’t and they didn’t they fought for Russia, what we in the west call world war two Russians refer to as the great patriotic war. To the Nazis the intent was to destroy and subjugate Russia to the Russians the intent was for national survival.

The American military went into Iraq with superior technology over a degraded Iraqi military. The strategy could be called quasi blitzkrieg for the US to take the Iraqi capital as quickly as possible. The Iraqis for their part knowing the US held every technical advantage fought only small group holding actions, the US captured the capital without actually defeating the Iraqi mil

War is the great decider, President Bush can claim that mantle for himself but the sad reality is that it is war that decides. The equation for victory varies from conflict to conflict, be it force of numbers or technology or courage. Eventually victory or defeat depends on the leaders of the troops in a word strategy. Strategy to fool your opponent of your true intentions, to plan your enemies’ destruction with brains not brawn. Hannibal’s elephants brought new technology to war and assured victory centuries later Nazi blitzkrieg almost accomplished the same effect.

Robert E. Lee fought with inferior numbers and equipment yet stung the union forces with defeat time after time. Lee would never let himself be drawn into a pitched battle the retreat and escape were planned well before the attack commenced. He used the Union’s size against them, their numbers made them to slow and cumbersome in pursuit. Provided Lee didn’t get bogged down in a set piece battle his strategy would allow him to continue indefinitely. Lee was following the strategy George Washington had pursued in our own war of independence with Britain. George Washington could count his victories on one hand while his defeats would fill a book. Congress would tear at their clothes and gnash their teeth over Washington’s exploits.

George Washington was the original cut and run general, Washington was seeking survival and victory through the passage of time. Using time as a weapon to weaken the British soldiers, politically, physically and militarily. Washington never attacked unless he had every advantage possible and even then if it began to turn south to run for it at the first opportunity. North Vietnamese generals employed the same strategy one hundred and fifty years later. Leading four star general Vo Nguyen Giap to say George Washington was his role model. Technology and strategy are key elements of victory but knowledge of your opponent is vital

Wellington had studied Napoleon’s campaigns like a textbook and to him they were he was the greatest military leader of the age. Months before the battle Wellington had reconnoitered the Belgian countryside and had appreciated the advantages of a waterloo setting. To Napolean it appeared Wellington was outnumbered and without reinforcement He never missed an opportunity to destroy a weaker opponent. He was defeated as much by Wellington’s knowledge of topography as he was by his firepower. The adage fools rush in where angels fear to tread should be a mantra all generals.

In ancient times victorious generals had the choice of putting the defeated to the sword or sparing the inhabitants, they had no qualms about killing thousands of innocents and thus killed any insurgencies at birth. In our dyslectic notions of humanity we have declared non-combatants to be off limits while increasing the force of the weapons a thousand fold. We deplore Nazi atrocities in occupied lands while the 8th air force firebombed Dresden to ashes. I make this statement not to praise or denounce anyone only to make the point of intent; the 8th air force’s mission was to stop Nazi atrocities. The Nazi’s had engaged in a war of aggression and would only be stopped by superior military power, war is the decider.

So we have technology, strategy, knowledge and intent, from these a balanced equation must be derived to formulate victory. Deficiency in any of these areas spells defeat, the Nazis used the same blitzkrieg tactics all across Europe but when used in Russia they failed. The Nazis underrating the Russian size incorrectly assuming capture of Moscow would conclude hostilities, they had the advantage of superior technology and strategy but failed miserably with knowledge and intent. They failed to grasp Russia’s size and assumed that the Russian people wouldn’t fight for communism or Stalin. They wouldn’t and they didn’t they fought for Russia, what we in the west call world war two Russians refer to as the great patriotic war. To the Nazis the intent was to destroy and subjugate Russia to the Russians the intent was for national survival.

The American military went into Iraq with superior technology over a degraded Iraqi military. The strategy could be called quasi blitzkrieg for the US to take the Iraqi capital as quickly as possible. The Iraqis for their part knowing the US held every technical advantage fought only small group holding actions, the US captured the capital without actually defeating the Iraqi mili

some in pursuit. Provided Lee didn’t get bogged down in a set piece battle his strategy would allow him to continue indefinitely. Lee was following the strategy George Washington had pursued in our own war of independence with Britain. George Washington could count his victories on one hand while his defeats would fill a book. Congress would tear at their clothes and gnash their teeth over Washington’s exploits.

George Washington was the original cut and run general, Washington was seeking survival and victory through the passage of time. Using time as a weapon to weaken the British soldiers, politically, physically and militarily. Washington never attacked unless he had every advantage possible and even then if it began to turn south to run for it at the first opportunity. North Vietnamese generals employed the same strategy one hundred and fifty years later. Leading four star general Vo Nguyen Giap to say George Washington was his role model. Technology and strategy are key elements of victory but knowledge of your opponent is vital

Wellington had studied Napoleon’s campaigns like a textbook and to him they were he was the greatest military leader of the age. Months before the battle Wellington had reconnoitered the Belgian countryside and had appreciated the advantages of a waterloo setting. To Napolean it appeared Wellington was outnumbered and without reinforcement He never missed an opportunity to destroy a weaker opponent. He was defeated as much by Wellington’s knowledge of topography as he was by his firepower. The adage fools rush in where angels fear to tread should be a mantra all generals.

In ancient times victorious generals had the choice of putting the defeated to the sword or sparing the inhabitants, they had no qualms about killing thousands of innocents and thus killed any insurgencies at birth. In our dyslectic notions of humanity we have declared non-combatants to be off limits while increasing the force of the weapons a thousand fold. We deplore Nazi atrocities in occupied lands while the 8th air force firebombed Dresden to ashes. I make this statement not to praise or denounce anyone only to make the point of intent; the 8th air force’s mission was to stop Nazi atrocities. The Nazi’s had engaged in a war of aggression and would only be stopped by superior military power, war is the decider.

So we have technology, strategy, knowledge and intent, from these a balanced equation must be derived to formulate victory. Deficiency in any of these areas spells defeat, the Nazis used the same blitzkrieg tactics all across Europe but when used in Russia they failed. The Nazis underrating the Russian size incorrectly assuming capture of Moscow would conclude hostilities, they had the advantage of superior technology and strategy but failed miserably with knowledge and intent. They failed to grasp Russia’s size and assumed that the Russian people wouldn’t fight for communism or Stalin. They wouldn’t and they didn’t they fought for Russia, what we in the west call world war two Russians refer to as the great patriotic war. To the Nazis the intent was to destroy and subjugate Russia to the Russians the intent was for national survival.

The American military went into Iraq with superior technology over a degraded Iraqi military. The strategy could be called quasi blitzkrieg for the US to take the Iraqi capital as quickly as possible. The Iraqis for their part knowing the US held every technical advantage fought only small group holding actions, the US captured the capital without actually defeating the Iraqi mil

Vo Nguyen Giap to say George Washington was his role model. Technology and strategy are key elements of victory but knowledge of your opponent is vital

Wellington had studied Napoleon’s campaigns like a textbook and to him they were he was the greatest military leader of the age. Months before the battle Wellington had reconnoitered the Belgian countryside and had appreciated the advantages of a waterloo setting. To Napolean it appeared Wellington was outnumbered and without reinforcement He never missed an opportunity to destroy a weaker opponent. He was defeated as much by Wellington’s knowledge of topography as he was by his firepower. The adage fools rush in where angels fear to tread should be a mantra all generals.

In ancient times victorious generals had the choice of putting the defeated to the sword or sparing the inhabitants, they had no qualms about killing thousands of innocents and thus killed any insurgencies at birth. In our dyslectic notions of humanity we have declared non-combatants to be off limits while increasing the force of the weapons a thousand fold. We deplore Nazi atrocities in occupied lands while the 8th air force firebombed Dresden to ashes. I make this statement not to praise or denounce anyone only to make the point of intent; the 8th air force’s mission was to stop Nazi atrocities. The Nazi’s had engaged in a war of aggression and would only be stopped by superior military power, war is the decider.

So we have technology, strategy, knowledge and intent, from these a balanced equation must be derived to formulate victory. Deficiency in any of these areas spells defeat, the Nazis used the same blitzkrieg tactics all across Europe but when used in Russia they failed. The Nazis underrating the Russian size incorrectly assuming capture of Moscow would conclude hostilities, they had the advantage of superior technology and strategy but failed miserably with knowledge and intent. They failed to grasp Russia’s size and assumed that the Russian people wouldn’t fight for communism or Stalin. They wouldn’t and they didn’t they fought for Russia, what we in the west call world war two Russians refer to as the great patriotic war. To the Nazis the intent was to destroy and subjugate Russia to the Russians the intent was for national survival.

The American military went into Iraq with superior technology over a degraded Iraqi military. The strategy could be called quasi blitzkrieg for the US to take the Iraqi capital as quickly as possible. The Iraqis for their part knowing the US held every technical advantage fought only small group holding actions, the US captured the capital without actually defeating the Iraqi mil

of innocents and thus killed any insurgencies at birth. In our dyslectic notions of humanity we have declared non-combatants to be off limits while increasing the force of the weapons a thousand fold. We deplore Nazi atrocities in occupied lands while the 8th air force firebombed Dresden to ashes. I make this statement not to praise or denounce anyone only to make the point of intent; the 8th air force’s mission was to stop Nazi atrocities. The Nazi’s had engaged in a war of aggression and would only be stopped by superior military power, war is the decider.

So we have technology, strategy, knowledge and intent, from these a balanced equation must be derived to formulate victory. Deficiency in any of these areas spells defeat, the Nazis used the same blitzkrieg tactics all across Europe but when used in Russia they failed. The Nazis underrating the Russian size incorrectly assuming capture of Moscow would conclude hostilities, they had the advantage of superior technology and strategy but failed miserably with knowledge and intent. They failed to grasp Russia’s size and assumed that the Russian people wouldn’t fight for communism or Stalin. They wouldn’t and they didn’t they fought for Russia, what we in the west call world war two Russians refer to as the great patriotic war. To the Nazis the intent was to destroy and subjugate Russia to the Russians the intent was for national survival.

The American military went into Iraq with superior technology over a degraded Iraqi military. The strategy could be called quasi blitzkrieg for the US to take the Iraqi capital as quickly as possible. The Iraqis for their part knowing the US held every technical advantage fought only small group holding actions, the US captured the capital without actually defeating the Iraqi mil

pture of Moscow would conclude hostilities, they had the advantage of superior technology and strategy but failed miserably with knowledge and intent. They failed to grasp Russia’s size and assumed that the Russian people wouldn’t fight for communism or Stalin. They wouldn’t and they didn’t they fought for Russia, what we in the west call world war two Russians refer to as the great patriotic war. To the Nazis the intent was to destroy and subjugate Russia to the Russians the intent was for national survival.

The American military went into Iraq with superior technology over a degraded Iraqi military. The strategy could be called quasi blitzkrieg for the US to take the Iraqi capital as quickly as possible. The Iraqis for their part knowing the US held every technical advantage fought only small group holding actions, the US captured the capital without actually defeating the Iraqi military. Once ensconced the US immediately sets guards on oil fields and terminals and the Iraqi oil ministry this speaks more to intent than a politician could say in a lifetime. For they left undefended nuclear sites, ammunition dumps and the Iraqi army headquarters along with museums and historical sites. This was in direct contradiction to their declared reasons for the invasion What they achieved was Pseudo victory, for all outward appearances they had won the war but in fact that hadn’t yet defeated the enemy or even fought the war.

The American administration was jubilant in their minds they had accomplish every goal, They established Paul Bremer as Viceroy, but rather than rebuild Iraq they began to deconstruct Iraq, for the intent was to build the corporate colony of Iraq. The CPO illegally sold off the assets of the country, illegally changed their constitution. The Americans were greeted as liberators but as the US intent became obvious, conquest and exploitation not democracy and facilitation. Once Bremer had sold off oil rights, water rights and established the principle that the Iraqis are due only what we give to them only then was it then time to establish democracy. Now that the US could control the economic assets of the country only when this was done could the Iraqi’s then have their Quisling democracy.

Of all the glaring failures of the administration of knowledge and strategy The failure of intent looms largest, pundit’s partisans and politicians can talk until blue in the face about the ethicasy of this war. The search for WMD’s the search for democracy the death of the soldiers the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians say what ever you wish but The intent of the US ham handed snatch at the wealth of Iraq says you are all liars. It has often been said that in war truth is the first fatality so therefore the resurrection of truth must be the first step in the long road home. Like a thief caught in the act the US must return what they have stolen, they must declare all contracts made by the CPO to be voided or subject to renegotiation with an Iraqi national government.

The US must announce a complete and total military pull out contingent on the secession of insurgent hostilities against coalition forces with in twelve months, in return the US agrees to no further offensive operations or detentions for other than civil offences.

A demilitarized zone should be established, and all parties must agree to allow safe passage for all plenipotentiary’s to a peace conference to be established and moderated by independent third parties. The US will have no part in the conference.

The conference will set forth conditions for post occupation Iraq, there will be no preconditions to be established by any faction or force, other than the US will be withdrawing and this will be their one chance for peaceful reconciliation. It should weigh heavily on all parties that this conference will be one of the most profound times in Iraq’s long history and their grandchildren will praise them or curse them accordingly

The decisions of the conference will be binding on all parties including the current Iraqi government, which will abide their decisions and will be held harmless for all past actions.

At the conclusion of the conference an interim Iraqi national unity government will be seated and the US will complete its pullout with in ninety days.

The intent is for a fair and peaceful resolution of the conflict, the strategy is to trust the Iraqis themselves to work out their differences by themselves.