 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! November 10, 2006 A "Referendum on Iraq" (Part Two: So Long, and thanks for all the Fish)By GreyhawkIf the 2006 U.S. elections were a "referendum on Iraq" - who won? "The Democrats" of course - that's an easy answer. But here we've always asked the tough questions, and the full answer to that one isn't so obvious. This is part two in a series - part one is here. More will follow Last April a group of six retired generals made headlines with a call for the dismissal of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Other retired senior officers quickly countered with endorsements of the Secretary - but while their positions were subsequently ignored, in the months that followed few stories about any aspect of Iraq would lack a quote from one of the "gang of six". But last April, even as the original six generals explained that their efforts were independent and uncoordinated, and expressed their surprise that their fellow retired leaders had chosen the same moment to express their own misgivings, Senator Hillary Clinton called for Senate committee Hearings: That request was voted down. But working quickly in response, Senate Democrats were able to arrange unnofficial hearings a mere five months later - just a few weeks before the U.S. elections: Shunned by the Senate Armed Services Committee, Batiste and two other retired officers spoke before the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, a rump group with little legislative clout but access to a proper Senate hearing room. And Batiste made up for lost time. Strangely enough, although the anti-Rumsfeld generals had been frequently quoted over the intervening months, and the elections were looming large on the American calendar, the "show trial" received scant notice in the American media. One likely reason? The generals were able to give more specific information regarding what they would do differently than Secretary Rumsfeld - and those actions were not to the liking of their assumed supporters:
Go back and read the first links I've provided above and you'll discover - if you didn't know already - that the generals' criticism of Donald Rumsfeld was little more than the sort of inter-service competition for defense funds that has defined the upper levels of the Pentagon for years (and that Rumsfeld tried to eliminate). While this year's rhetoric admittedly rose to new and desperate levels, the underlying argument was perhaps thinner than most previous "peace time" funding debates. The eternal reality is that all services could use more money - the Air Force is currently attempting to slash 40,000 active duty members from it's pay rolls to enable funding of new systems - even as retired Army generals insist that their service is being short changed in favor of another. Although getting Rumsfeld out of the picture was only step one, media coverage of the demands of those particular retired generals will probably vanish now that half their goals have been achieved - the remaining steps of the plan are an embarrassment to those who previously offered a large platform and amplification system for their call to arms. But a "new direction" has been promised, and now it must be found. So Democrats are rapidly seeking a voice to fill the silence left now that "their" generals have been sent home with "mission accomplished". Here's one contender:
McGovern hints that he's talked to some other retired flag officers while researching a new book (on sale now for less than 10 bucks a copy
Perhaps not what the "gang of six" had in mind, but their part in the play is over. So long, and thanks for all the fish. Posted by Greyhawk / November 10, 2006 1:49 PM | Permalink 29 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
- get yours today):
Do you think that set of generals were aware that they would be used rhetorically in this manner? Was it political naiveté? I ask because it seems like they could not but know that they would be used for soundbites, and thus harm the war effort, yet given their advice it their actions do not seem to be out of malice except perhaps towards Sec. Rumsfeld.
I wish everyone would stop talking about winning the war because we won the war in Iraq. We went in, dismantled their military, and then eventually arrested Saddam. WE WON THE WAR IN IRAQ! What we are not winning is the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Right now we are in the middle of an occupation. The country is ripe for civil war and I think we would do well to make all those contractors to actually deliver the services they have been paid millions to perform. There is a huge amount of waste and fraud going on over there. It demands investigation. Our troops are in harms way. They are doing a fantastic job but they really don't need to be there. This administration has had over three years to get Iraq back on it's feet yet it's basically in the same condition it was in June of 2003. Weapons have gone missing. Millions of dollars have gone missing. Instead of hiring Iraqis to do many of the jobs foreigners were brought in instead. Can anyone understand the resentment these people must feel? Let's get Iraq stabilized as best we can. If it means more money and troops in the short term then I'm all for it but if Iraq wants to indulge in a bloody civil war we mustn't lose anymore American lives trying to stop it. It's their country. Let them sort it out.
I don't believe leaving Iraq vunerable to Islamic Fascist invasion is a worthy answer. They need time to build their own defenses, it won't happen in five minutes like happy endings do in the movies.
What the Gens had to say may be true. It would take another 10-15-20 years to, maybe, get Iraq back up and running. Like it has ever really run?
I don't have a hard and fast on this. I'm for cutting bait, and getting out. Put Saddam back in charge, and let him put things back in order. Trust me, whoever gets the power over there will just be another Saddam. They have been fighing, and killing, and setting up governments, and tearing down governments, in that part of the world for a lot longer than we have been a country. The idea of self rule is not in the minds of most Iraqies.
As for Rummie being replaced, I'm sure he has not lost any sleep over it. Pretty sure that he is really happy to be out of the light over all this mess. Will any of the new players find a way out? I doubt it. Iraq is now like being half way through the swamp. Either way you go, it's still alot of swamp to have to go through to get out.
Gee, who in the region has a large, relatively effective military force, that could be relied upon to subdue the insurgency in Iraq.
Oh, I know. Iran. Think the Revolutionary Guard could cough up a half dozen divisions and some secret police if we asked nice? What the hell, I bet they've already anticipated our request, and have prepositioned operational elements in Iraq. Y'know, just trying to be helpful...
Jay writes: "Do you think that set of generals were aware that they would be used rhetorically in this manner? Was it political naiveté?"
Perhaps, given the gang of six's involvement in the upper echelons of the Pentagon, the infighting that has always gone on there and the knowledge of how the SecDef must balance the needs of all branches it wasn't naiveté it was just plain ole stupidity.
Grayhawk, you have it right sir, "Thanks for all the fish."
I have a feeling that more soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who have been giving their best in Iraq and Afghanistan will repay these generals' politicking with the homeland's military foes by also saying "So long, and thanks for all the fish", by not re-enlisting.
Expressing disent is one thing, playing along with those who despise the military so that your voice gets magnified is another.
Time to watch re-enlistment rates closely.
McGovern. Right. The guy who publicly swore he would "crawl on his knees to Hanoi" if elected President in 1972.
Why the hell are Democrats always looking for someone to surrender to?
So the "New Direction" is 'back to the future' McGovernment? "You want fries with that pullout?"
Flag officers can't imagine being manipulated and refuse to think that anything has changed since the last time they heard shots fired in anger (probably when they were lieutenants or captains). The one utterly asinine adaptation of the 80's & 90's was the concept of management replacing the quality of leadership. These PPRs (power-point rangers) would probably be halfway decent executives in mega-corps except their "management style" was cultured in an environment where disobedience could be punished by a lot more than "you're fired!" Even with that, there are few competing jobs with the same level of purpose.
I think that they actually thought that the Dhimmicretins were interested in what they had to say, or even more foolishly believed that if they had the right "hook", they would get all of their message out.
Do I think the war has been conducted well? No, but then again, I'm no politician, just an old, beat-up retired SF troop. A commenter above said the war was won, I beg to differ. Victory only occurs when you have destroyed the will to resist so thoroughly that anyone that might bring the attention of the soldiers will be turned in or shot by his/her own compatriots to avoid the known consequences. An old saying when I heard it in RVN in the 60's. "When you've got'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow."
We've been trying to win this war like most of my generation has raised children, with less discipline than is needed to housebreak a puppy.
Management is not the way to win this. Leadership in violence is. Let's do away with Carters EO that extended the previously banned "political assassination" to just "assassination" and start playing whack-a-mole with these "militia leaders" and "clerics" until we have a group more wanting to survive than to impose their will on anyone else. Maybe then they will quit piddling on the carpet.
"Why the hell are Democrats always looking for someone to surrender to?"
Because they really don't believe the U.S. and its interests, including national security, are worth defending. After all, they are the natural home of "Why do they hate us?" and "it's America's fault."
Electing Democrats to protect the nation is like hiring a child molester to babysit your kids - gross negligence of the most extreme kind. Sadly, it will take a significant, near-fatal defeat in the war on Islamic Fascism before most Americans realize that our enemy is out to destroy us and that Democrats are utterly incaple of defending us. The Iranian Mullahs sure are pleased with us electing Democrats, so we're probably closer to that apocalyptic event than anyone (besides al Qaida and the Mullahs) would wish.
The one example in modern times of a successful counterinsurgency is Malaya. John Nagl has been trying to get the Army to learn from that experience and the British tried to teach the US Army in Vietnam. I wonder if they are ready yet.
The Philippines are another example but that was a century ago. We had better learn this or learn Arabic. Rumsfeld understood. McGovern doesn't.
The post WWII Huk counterinsurgency in the Philippines was another success. It required some brutal action but was successful.
"created an environment where U.S. troops "are doing unconscionable things."
Could you imagine Patton or LeMay talking like this. These guys are a bonch of pussies. They should have defended their troops at Abu Ghraib,
M in Boston: "Why the hell are Democrats always looking for someone to surrender to?"
French DNA?
Tim has the quote of the day. I am so depressed that we are on the knife's edge of repeating the dishonor of pulling out of Vietnam. What nation, what people, would ever again put their trust in us to protect them?
I have tried and tried to get it through to my friends, some with strong military ties and friendship with Batiste et al., that the choice was never between waging the war and waging it better, but between waging the war and not waging it at all.
I hope and pray that, with the responsibility of power, the Democrats will blink at the edge of the abyss. But, I'm getting my parachute ready and moving to the countryside so that I won't be here when the emboldened jihadis carry out their next apocalyptic attack. Ironically, those cities that are most vulnerable are the very ones where voters overwhelmingly want to cut and run. So long, and thanks for all the fish. Indeed. We all know what happened after the dolphins left and it wasn't pretty.
The Iraq war has been rendered mission accomplished.
The Iraq war ended November 8, 2006
The only winners I see are the MSM and the democratic party.
Pull into a Kurdistan and let the Sunni and Shia's murder each other.
Let the Saudi's and the Iranians kill each other over what's left in Iraq.
Islam and democracy are not compatible.
We can fight Islam but our Government won't let us.
Islam can kill us and convert us and Our government will help them.
That's what you get when you let a bunch of clowns handle the guiding of the nation, Maclosers and submission.
Reid, what makes you think us country boys are gonna let you city refugees in?
stay where your at we don't need no more immigrants LOL
Reid, Just kiddin' bubba ya'll come on down and bring some guns we will need all the help we can get ;^D
Our enemies won't need any devastating attacks that risk waking us up. They're getting everything they want out of the West through intimidation and exploiting our legal, education and media institutions. We're being slowly, drip-by-drip, 'Finlandized.'
For various reasons, our so-called leadership classes aren't up to the task of meeting this challenge -- if they recognize it at all.
Nations and individuals around the world are recalibrating and recalculating. Why wouldn't Japan, South Korea and Taiwan simply follow their money -- reach accommodation now with China, their largest market and soon-to-be superpower, rather than risk alliance with an unreliable American partner?
And people thought George Bush was damaging this country's image abroad. Being perceived as weak is not a virtue. Those who wanted to 'punish the GOP' or, for reasons of moral vanity, political expediency or naked partisanship think leaving Iraq will carry few repercussions best not have their retirement funds tied up in dollar denominated assets.
Unfortunately, every nation in the West can't be Switzerland. Somebody's got to watch the door. That was the burden given to us in exchange for all the blessings we've received. Now we think those blessings are an entitlement.
Hell's cellar door is ajar. I hear Everbank offers renminbi accounts.
He wouldn't remember me, but I had an acquaintance with Gen Batiste back when he was a Major (as did a lot of other infantry officers). He was a highly capable and effective officer back then in a demanding job, marked by all as destined for higher rank.
I don't necessarily agree with what he did but that doesn't mean he didn't publicly undertake to disagree with Rumsfeld for the most patriotic and selfless of motives. From what I gather, he was destined for higher (3 star) rank before he choose to voluntarily retire and go public; hardly the actions of a "power-point ranger".
> I don't necessarily agree with what he did but that doesn't mean he didn't publicly undertake to disagree with Rumsfeld for the most patriotic and selfless of motives.
"He meant well" isn't praise, it's an insult. And, selflessness is no guarantee of anything (suicide bombers are selfless).
It doesn't matter what he intended or why he did it, what matters is what he accomplished.
Well said. Any general dumb enough to allow himself to be used like this we're well rid of. Why should they even care who the SecDef is once they're collecting their own pensions.
Another group I'd love to bid farewell to are all those Congressional heroes who figured that the war was an opportunity to load up on pork, because the President needed their votes to fund the fight.
As for McGovern, Fox News reported that part of his proposal was to assemble a "Muslim Brotherhood" force with troops from Egypt, Syria, and other Muslim states in the region to enforce peace in Iraq. Does he know the difference between Sunnis and Shias? These countries are probably funding the sectarian violence already.
And invoking the name of the Muslim Brotherhood made me wonder if the good Senator knows anything about the terrorists at all. The Muslim Brotherhood is closely linked to Al Qaeda and other radical fundamentalist groups.
If he hadn't been just as daft when he ran against Nixon, I'd suspect that he'd been bought off.
AST, above, implies that McGovern doesn't know the difference between Sunnis and Shias. Rumsefeld, Bush, Cheney and the rest of you asslickers staggered drunk and blind into a war in Iraq without Clue fucking One about neither Sunnis, Shias, Kurds or Little Miss Fucking Muffett or Mammy fucking Yokum.
The owner and the commentors are bereft of any insight regarding Iraq that isn't colored by their addiction to right-wing crap radio and TV and wretched blogs like the Mudville Gazette. You simply have a Post-Traumatic Stress Hambone up your butts. ANd you love it.
AST and the rest: stick to "supporting the troops" and stop trying to sound like little masturbating Pentagon shitheels. The fact is, you like to blow shit up, same as al-Q'd'a. I've seen the kind of handiwork you Blackwater asslickers love to tout as patriotism. It's sick shit and you dudes drink it every day and think it's liebfraumilch.
You know the idea of Egypt and Syria keeping the peace in Iraq might not be a bad one. If it can be pulled off. The fire works ought to be lovely from a safe distance.
OTOH making our surrender contingent on finding a sufficient muslim force could be designed as a face saving deal breaker.
You know we are very lucky to have picked our enemies so well.
They will keep kicking until they get a response.
Since we are somewhat more attuned to the kicks than previously the Ds will have to respond if kicked and double what any R could get away with in order to prove their toughness.
History has a way of unfolding.
Israel had a similar problem. After sufficient stupidity they wised up. Most Ds will too. Eventually.
Wow Bloodstomper2. I think if you dropped the f-bomb a few more times we might actually think you have something intelligence to say. Or is that the new democratic talking points?
How about next time showing us your insight instead of a stream of expletives?
"AST, above, implies that McGovern doesn't know the difference between Sunnis and Shias. Rumsefeld, Bush, Cheney and the rest of you asslickers staggered drunk and blind into a war in Iraq without Clue fucking One about neither Sunnis, Shias, Kurds or Little Miss Fucking Muffett or Mammy fucking Yokum."
"The owner and the commentors are bereft of any insight regarding Iraq that isn't colored by their addiction to right-wing crap radio and TV and wretched blogs like the Mudville Gazette. You simply have a Post-Traumatic Stress Hambone up your butts. ANd you love it."
"AST and the rest: stick to "supporting the troops" and stop trying to sound like little masturbating Pentagon shitheels. The fact is, you like to blow shit up, same as al-Q'd'a. I've seen the kind of handiwork you Blackwater asslickers love to tout as patriotism. It's sick shit and you dudes drink it every day and think it's liebfraumilch."
Posted by bloodstomper2 at November 12, 2006 04:51 AM
Let's see. Calls us chickenhawks -- check
Uses more four letter words than a sailor on liberty (and I ought to know because I are one) -- check
Implies we are all gay and like anal sex -- check
Says we are all bloodthirsty killers and by implication too stupid to understand Kerry's joke -- check
Says we support commission of atrocities by mercenaries who are only in Iraq to make billions and billion of dollars while killing babies and filming their handiwork for ChimpyMcBusHitlerHalliburton -- check
Opinons stink, like an unwashed ass -- check
It's a Dhimmicrat
Subsunk
I must be extremely simplistic as I only see 5 major faultlines crossing throughout the Middle East, all of which have been held in relative stasis since, really, the end of WWI but definitively since 1948. And religion is ONE of those, and while important, thinking of it in terms of Sunni/Shia disregards the inter-sectarian strife within those major divisions. In Iraq, alone, there are at least 3 major subdivisions within the Shia community, and the most hated of that is the Khomeinist version, which is why the Shia's signed up in droves during the Iran/Iraq war. This does nothing to address the major Sunni divisions, and the minoritarian off-shoots of that in Syria, which is represented by the ruling family who follow the Alawite belief. So that single faultline fractionates all on its lonesome across the Middle East, but the major nexus point of that is: Iraq.
I could go on, but I will spare the good folks here the recounting as it is relatively dull to have to recount ethnicity, tribal and familial divisions, cultural divisions both modern and ancient, and the educational aspect both secular and religious as Iraq is also a central learning focus for the Middle East. All of these divisions focus through Iraq due to geography. Nothing was going to move in the Middle East because all of the faultlines were kept in stasis by the Cold War and then by Saddam after that. The question was not *if* they would move, but *when*, *how fast* and to what direction. By being on the ground the US can help guide those changes... by retreating our enemies who have fine Empires they want to set up will start THAT process.
I, on principle, detest Empires, as they generally lead to subjugation of individuals, loss of liberty and freedom and the diminishment of the individual to the State. And understanding *that* and that the religious zeal of our current enemies is a reflection of similar western zeal in ages past, one can look to how *that* ended to start formulating what Peace in the Middle East would look like *if* you wish to keep this idea of Freedom and Liberty for the Individual alive. Yes, so very simplistic to take the past lessons of history and apply them forward and come up with Goals, but no End State as we are forever tinkering with things as humans. Peace is a relative state of being rarely seen on the planet in an absolute form, but best measured in a relative form.
Taking all of that into account, and that the current set of enemies is not *acting* like rational actors on the global stage, nor are they adhering to the rules and laws of war, and that they wish to actually destroy the concept of Nations, with all that one might then formulate a plan that address what to do next and how to do it, but only if you are willing to play some hardball and bust up a few places with the help of a few other players that need some cajoling into it. With that, and the Goals in mind, and understanding the background of the region, you can actually make a plan to stabilize Iraq.
It obviously starts, of course, in Syria.
But that really is too simple, I guess... to uphold liberty and freedom and try to change things for the better by getting the reluctant players off the side-lines because, left unchecked, they will be consumed by this Empire FIRST.
There is no end in fighting for Liberty and Freedom, because there always seems to be some group or Nation somewhere that is willing to kill to remove it from you.
But then, that is obviously too simple for the 'nuanced' thinkers on this globe.