Recent Articles Assessing the War on Terrorism Click here for more articles by Lt. Col. Burkert About Lt. Col. Michael Burkert Michael Burkert retired from the United States Army at the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. Click here to email Lt. Col. Michael Burkert

Lt. Col. Michael Burkert

Assessing the War on Terrorism
July 29, 2008

One of the realities of the War in Iraq is the failure of many to understand that this is only one battle in a worldwide effort by radical Islamists, to defeat the entire “infidel world.”

Let me try and put this conflict in proper perspective. You need to understand that the current battle we are engaged in is much bigger than just Iraq. What happens in the next year will affect this not only our country, but the State of Israel, Great Britain, Canada and all of the Commonwealth nations.  The war will determine how our children and grandchildren live throughout their lifetime, and beyond.

Radical Islam has been attacking the West since the seventh century. They’ve been defeated in the past and decimated to the point of taking hundreds of years to recover. However, they can never be totally defeated!  Certainly not by the United States of America!

Our enemy’s birth rates are so far beyond civilized world rates that in time they always recover and make new efforts to once again dominate and rule over all others.  There are eight terror-sponsoring countries that make up the extreme threat to the West. Two, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, just need firm pressure from the West to make major reforms. They need to decide whom they are really going to support and commit to that support. That answer is simple. They both will support who they believe will persevere until the end, and win.

We’re not sending very good signals in that direction right now, thanks to our Liberal-Socialists in Washington.   The other six terror sponsoring nations, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya will require “regime change” or a major policy shift. Let's look more closely at some of these nations. Afghanistan and Iraq have both had regime changes, but are being fueled by outsiders from Syria and Iran. We have scared Khadaffi to the point where he voluntarily gave-up his nuclear weapons research and development.  While Libya, is by no means our friend, I don’t think that they are much of a threat.  North Korea (the non-Islamic threat) can be handled diplomatically by buying them off. They’re starving.  Plus, I doubt that Kim Jong-Il is as nutty as he makes himself out to be.

That leaves Syria and Iran. Syria is like a timid lamb. Without the support of Iran they will join the stronger side. So where does that leave us? Sooner or later, we are going to be forced to confront Iran, and it better be before they gain nuclear capability.  Essentially we have a choice, face down Iran, with or without, NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Thanks to the idiocy and naivete of Jimmy Carter a militarily strong, wealthy and radically anti-American Iran has emerged.  Not only does Iran pose a serious threat to the United States, but to Europe and the British Commonwealth as well.  Mahmood Ahmadinejad has repeatedly threatened to destroy tiny Israel.   The Israelis take this threat very seriously and will not stand idly by and allow their destruction.

 
Europe is beginning to realize that she will not be able to sit this one out.  The recent Papal visit to the United States is a clear indication of Pope Benedict’s concern for the encroachment and threat of Islam to his native Europe.  Despite Benedict’s stated opposition to the war in Iraq, make no mistake about his growing alarm over the spread and influence of Islam.  Either he will soon take a strong stand against Islamic encroachment on Europe, or his successor will.  

For eight years in the 1980’s, Iran and Iraq slugged it out in a very atrociously fought war.  They killed hundreds of thousands of their people.  Neither side gained much at all except the deaths of a multitude of young men.  Both were fighting “in the name of Allah.”  Do you know why they were willing to suffer horrendous casualties and destruction of their cities and towns? They were fighting for control of the Middle East and the ENORMOUS OIL RESERVES.

At that time, both sides were preoccupied with their internal problems as well and could care less about dominating the “infidel” west. Oil prices were fairly stable and we didn’t see an immediate threat. The worst part of what we have done as a nation in Iraq is to do away with their military capability.  What I saw in the 1991 Gulf War was a worn-out Iraqi war machine, yet it was still better than that of Iran’s.  Even at the end of Gulf War I, the Iraqi Army was still intact.  Although wounded, the Iraqi Army still held the key to keeping Iran in check.  Unfortunately for us, that’s no longer the situation. 

Now, Iran has a clear field to dominate the Middle East, since Iraq is no longer a threat to them. They’ve turned their attention to the only other threat to their dominance, they are convinced they will win, because the US is so divided, and the Democrats (who now control Congress and may control the Presidency in 2009) have openly said we are pulling out.  Our allies in the Middle East fear our withdrawal and retreat from the region, despite their bombastic rhetoric to the contrary.  

Do you have any idea what will happen if the entire Middle East turns their support to Iran, which they will obviously do if we pull out? It is not the price of oil we will have to worry about. Oil will not be available to this country at any price!  I personally would vote for any presidential candidate who did what JFK did with the space program; declare a goal to bring this country to total energy independence in a decade. Yes, it is about oil.

The economy in this country will collapse if that Middle East supply is cut off right now. Oil is what drives our economic engine.  Without it, we won’t simply have a recession. It will be a depression that will make the 1930’s look like the "good-old-days".

Here is the bottom line up front: If Iran is forced to end her support for the insurgency in Iraq, the fighting will end over night, and our joint US/Iraqi nightmare will be over. One way or another, Iran must be forced to end her medieval attitude and join the modern world and the global community. It may mean a real war - if so, now is the time, before we face a NUCLEAR IRAN with the capacity to destroy Israel or badly damage Europe and begin a new ice age.

Many of our most experienced and astute general officers, our senior military leadership, see this quite clearly. 

On the other hand, we have several very angry retired generals today, who evidently have not achieved their lofty goals, and insist on ranting and raving about the war. They are wrong, and doing the country great harm by giving a certain political party reason to use them as experts to back their anti-war claims. You may be one of those who believe nothing could ever be terrible enough to support our going to war.

If that is the case I should stop here, as that level of thinking approaches mental instability in this day and age. It’s right up there with alien abductions and black helicopters flying around so you can be taken off to some camp!  The human race is a war-like population, and if a country is not willing to protect itself, it deserves the consequences.  We afterall, did not start this war.  To not finish it on our terms and not the enemy’s, will prove disastrous.

The only difference between the United States and the South American, third world, dictator infested and ever-changing South American governments, is our US Constitution. Our American Republic is the longest standing the world has ever known, but it’s vulnerable. It would take so little to change it through economic upheaval.

There was a time when politicians could disagree, but still work together. We’re past that time, and that’s the initial step toward the downfall of our form of government. I think that many view Bush-hating as payback time.  The Republicans hated the Clintons and now the Democrats hate Bush.  So, both parties are putting their hate toward willingness to do anything for political dominance to include lying and always taking the opposite stand just for the sake of being opposed. Just how good is that for our country?

In my lifetime, after serving in uniform for Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush again, I have a pretty good feel for which party supported our military, and what military life was like under each of their terms. And, let me assure you that times were best under the Republicans.

Service under Jimmy Carter was devastating for all branches of the military. We had aircraft that wouldn’t fly; armored vehicles that wouldn’t run; coupled with empty fuel tankers all across Europe and Asia, wherever US Forces were stationed.  Spare parts were non-existent.  We scrounged from the Germans for lugnuts for our tanks!  Our Armed Forces were literally broken.  No repairs were offered from Washington.  It was the one and only time when the Soviets could have launched a pre-emptive strike on us, with impunity.  Jimmy Carter would not have retaliated and has so stated this position a number of times since leaving the White House. 

Ronald Reagan was elected and saved our Armed Forces.  You may listen to our “enlightened” newscasters and foolish people like John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry (who incidentally served in Vietnam), Michael Moore, Jane Fonda, Harry Reid, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and on-and-on to include the useful idiots in Hollywood if you like.

These people are putting their own personal interests ahead of their country.  They have an unquenchable thirst for power and place victory in the 2008 elections far ahead of the nation’s best interests.

The United States has started to soften by not enforcing its laws, which is another indication of a Republic about to fall. All of our Liberal-Socialists, along with the Hollywood elite, are sending us headlong into a overall defeat in the Middle East, which will finally give Iran total dominance in the region.

A lack of oil in the near future will be the final straw that dooms this Republic. However, if we refuse to let this happen and really get serious about an energy self- sufficiency program, this can be avoided. I am afraid, however, that we are going in the opposite direction. If we elect Barack Obama and a Democrat-controlled congress, they may well carry through with allowing Iran to take control of the Middle East.  Can the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate be far behind?

If our liberal-socialists continue to refuse development of nuclear energy, refuse to allow drilling for new oil, in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) and at proven reserves containing billions of barrels of oil offshore, we will succumb to economic destruction.  If our congress continues to do nothing but oppose everything Bush, it will be over in terms of what we view as the good life in the USA.

Now that Mr. Obama has completed his own version of the “Magical Mystery Tour,” he remains firm in pandering to the anti-war, anti-American crowd.  If he is elected and fulfills his promise to unconditional withdrawal from Iraq, a major war will inevitably result.  An emboldened Iran as well as other emboldened enemies will ratchet up tensions immediately following our departure from Iraq.  The results of appeasement have never brought about any form of lasting peace.   Can anyone say “Neville Chamberlain?”

With Mr. Obama in the White House, we should expect regional war in the Middle East within the first two years of his presidency.  Incidentally, we may well be facing regional war with a nuclear-armed Iran.  Make no mistake about it; Mr. Obama has no plan or intention of confronting Iran over the nuclear issue.  He sees this issue as none of our business.  If Iran wants nukes, so be it.

It is to the detriment of our nation, that the mainstream media has failed to realize and report accordingly, just what we will face by allowing the Islamics to win in Iraq.  Despite amazing successes in Iraq, brought about by he “surge,” Democrats continue to claim that it was an ill-conceived operation that should never have happened.  Mr. Obama, even under the heavy hand, of the “perky-one,” Katie Couric maintained his stand that he would not have voted for the surge, even if he had known it would succeed so brilliantly.   To do so would alienate his hardcore leftist base.