Frequently I'm asked -----

Since I'm a retired General Officer, some people think I must have a strong opinion regarding just what the strategy should be in Iraq. Well, I don't!! It's been 20 plus years since I was actively involved militarily in anything and in that 20 plus years things have changed exponentially. What I also suspect is that not many of the "talking heads" and the written news media know what they are talking about either relative to the strategy of the war. Most of those individuals are "liberal" in their philosophy and most favorable action is contrary to their personal thinking. Their job is to report the news and their idea of "news" is if it's something good, bury it, and if reflects badly on the effort, exploit it. I pay very little attention to any of them. I'm also suspicious that very few of our congressional representation are as concerned with what's happening in Iraq as they are busy trying to determine the direction the resulting political wind is blowing at any given moment.

One thing I am sure of, is that on September 11, 2003, the United States was attacked insidiously by Islamic terrorists. This was an attack, not primarily on a military installation, but on defenseless civilians,without warning and without regard for human life. Nearly 3000 lives were lost, as well as untold millions of dollars in property. Immediately following that event, our newly elected president stepped up to his leadership responsibilities as he should have. In a speech following that terrible event, he said that we were at war with the terrorists, whether we wanted it or not, and that we were going to do our best to avoid further attacks on our homeland by taking the fight to the terrorists, and if any other entity chooses to harbor terrorists we were taking the fight to them. This we have done. When all of the intelligence agencies agreed that Iraq was harboring terrorists and attempting to develop a nuclear bomb, he and his staff argued we needed to do something about it. In fact, the United Nations and our Congress agreed we needed to do something about it. We declared a preemptive attack on Iraq to find and destroy the WMD (Weapons of Mass destruction). Our military, with a few fair-haired friendly nations, won that battle in less than 30 days, with minimal loss of life and injury to our troops. (That was good military strategy!) No WMD were found, however, that is the result of faulty intelligence, not poor decision-making on the part of the president, or the United Nations, or the Congress. (Let's not forget that our CIA was decimated by liberal thinking and policies of the 70's, 80's, and 90's and that human intelligence could be replaced by technology and artificial means. Technology and artificial techniques are at best a supplement to human intelligence.) I still would not be surprised to see the WMD appear.

Following the actual war, mopping up, hunting down and shooting Saddam's despot sons, and Saddam's capture, the guerrilla war began. Guerrilla warfare is a tough, difficult, and time consuming kind of war to fight and you must be completely merciless in combating the guerrillas. Even then, it can last a long time. (Look back to the Revolutionary War, the Vietnam War, the Civil War, etc) No one was prepared for this particular type of guerrilla warfare and no one anticipated it happening with such indiscriminate intensity. At first it was fueled by fanatical outsiders from terrorist cells of El Quaida of other arabic countries and then they were joined by religious fanatics from the various Suni and Shiite sects in Iraq. Who would have thought that the suicide bombers would think so little of killing 50 of their own countrymen in order to kill one or two American soldiers at a time. That's what the roadside bombs and the suicide bombers have sunk to. We seldom get to confront an enemy force and fight them. When we do, we win!

During the Civil War we lost 60,000 soldiers in one engagement alone and on DDay in WWII we lost 6000 soldiers in one day. The loss of one soldier, airman, or sailor is a tragedy to the nation and every commander mourns and regrets their loss. But lets stop and consider that up to now, we have lost less than 3000 servicemen and women to the Iraq war and most of the losses occured since the guerrilla war started. Every time President Bush or Secretary Rumsfield were asked by the Congress or insinuated by the press and "talking heads" whether more troops should be sent to Iraq, they responded that the minute the commanders on the ground asked for more troops, they would be sent. Lets put things in perspective. I live in Indianapolis. Last year we had somewhere in the neighborhood of 160 murders in Indianapolis alone. In the entire state of Indiana we have had less than 80 deaths attributable to the war in Iraq since the war began. No one wants to see our young people die whether its due to the war in Iraq or murders in Indianapolis, but lets put the emphasis where it belongs. President Bush has said it could take a long time to win the guerrilla war in Iraq. My attitude is that we need to believe him, be patient, and support him and the military, and pray that it is over as soon as possible.

And now I see that so-called experts have published a "study" that supposedly provides the solutions to get our troops home. From what little I've read, they have offered very little new. The study group was made up of politicians, no military strategists or military representation. They claim to have interviewed and consulted a large cross-section of experts for advice, but I suggest that they, like most committees, listened to what they wanted to hear. "Bring the troops home in 2007," but how do we disengage without "cutting and running"? To "cut and run" only means that the troops that have already given their lives died for nothing. "Consult with and involve Syria and Iran in bringing peace to the region?" If that's not "letting the fox in the henhouse" I don't know what you'd call it. They're a major part of the problem to begin with. All of these so-called "experts" and "pundits" have all kinds of criticism regarding the President and the way he's conducting the war in Iraq, but I never hear any really new or constructive suggestions on ending the war and bringing our troops home from either party.

I think Prsident Bush's idea of thrusting more and more responsibility on the Iraqi leadership and training their army and police force to step up to the business of of saving the integrity and sovereignty of their own country is the best solution I've heard so far. Its not a short term solution and I guarantee its going to take some time, but until someone comes along with better solutions to the problems in Iraq, I'm supporting the President and the current military strategists.

I told you I had no strategy of my own to offer!!