The first act of WW3 ?

[CharlesHarris]

Sulemani has been a problem for a long time. Much like bin Laden, we were prohibited from whacking him by NSC/White House directive. That was 2006-2007. Definite links to Badr Corps and al Sadr networks. Much cash, weapons, and training passed into southern Iraq via Quds Force.

In fact, a couple of guys I knew that have gone on to become multi star generals actively supported leaving Sulemani and his network in place as a stabilizing element. A friend and mentor of mine was harshly reprimanded for disagreeing, which is probably one of the reasons I wasn’t selected for advancement from Colonel to Brigadier.

I would like to see sanity prevail. Rolling up the rest of that well documented terror support network would be nice.

Personally, I’m a fan of WT Sherman’s approach to managing a conquered territory. He summed it up in an 1863 letter to Halleck after the fall of Vicksburg. Essentially, dispossess and Lock up the oligarchy (plantation owners), give purpose and jobs to the rest who will swear fealty to the victors, and finally one must ruthlessness chase down and kill the dead Enders who have no stake in society (he specifically mentioned Nathan Bedford Forrest, another superb leader who understood war well).

Sherman’s advice is timeless, dating from the days of Julius Caesar in the British Isles. The US failed miserably in following it from the time that Paul Bremer was put in charge of CPA. It got worse under Zal Khalilizad.

The only thing more horrible than war is losing in war. I’m not sure that our politicians appreciate or understand this fact. Thus we get half measures and vested interests obstructing the way to ensuring victory and temporal peace. It’s best that the enemy know they’ve been defeated and fear a resumption of hostility. That view isn’t widely held Inside the Beltway and originates from the Leavenworth School of Advanced Infantry Studies and not the Carlisle School of Political Correctness and Beltway Success.

The bungled Iraq war has left some real scars. Much more so than A-Stan, where we never really tried to win.

While I loathe wanton destruction of innocents; what is advocated here is not wanton, and as for the decapitation strike, I support it. We cannot permit Iran to possess nuclear weapons. Period. An effectie course of action is in fact akin to the excision of a malignant disease, by which action the main body of the people can survive. Until there is a fundamental alteration to Islam itself, eschewing all practice of deceit, of violence, of elitism, of claiming God is responsible for personal actions and choices, this type of excision will be required over and over again. The only alternative if such action is not enjoined is for evil to become normative everywhere.

Not exactly my idea of paradise. For those of you who will disagree, once Iran has a bomb they can use to target anywhere in Europe, what is your plan B?