We have not yet finished the beginning and the midway point is years away.

War Room

Strategic Operations

To see an impending danger and not defend your nation is to be a coward.
To see an impending danger and defend your nation anyway is to be honored.

Know Your Enemy

This evil enemy exhibits characteristics of the schoolyard bully who never out-grew his need to control and cannot gain a following using legitimate positive issues and objectives. Instead, for purely self-serving goals this enemy hides behind religious tenets he perverts and misrepresents as he romances an uneducated and desperately needy populace that has not yet identified any productive pathway to progress.

This evil enemy embodies all that is stubborn and evil. It emasculates all energies from those followers who innately desire progress and might have been able to lead their countrymen out of their uncivilized age using positive means. This evil enemy redirects those followers' potential energies to serve its bullying, pseudo-leadership's narrow goal of controlling Afghan and Muslim people while destroying the civilized world because civilization is guilty of being successful. This evil enemy cannot identify how to succeed for itself and that is why it must bully the weakened masses using perverted religious tenets, fear and force.

Civilization must handle this evil enemy as any other characterless, narrowly-focused schoolyard bully. This enemy is composed of unguided, weak charactered individuals who, by default, join their local bully brigade. This enemy's followers will not persevere long after it is threatened with force because they are not bound by high-minded principles and positive long-term enriching goals. They will melt into the sands once they experience the violent treatment that they have inflicted with impunity upon others. They have little strength of purpose.

Remember, this bully is just like others: It is a coward and will back down when confronted directly. It uses women and children as shields and seduces men to serve selflessly to sacrifice for its cause. Civilization's challenge is to remove the bully's weaponry, cause defection of his troops, gain control of his territory and capture him. Then the bully must be put on trial so the world hears the evidence against him and his explanation for having committed atrocities in the name of any God. Only then might every civilized person forever understand why this bully cannot be forgiven or allowed to exist.

On War
Carl von Clausewitz, Circa 1818

"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed: war is such a dangerous business that the mistakes which come from kindness are the very worst. The maximum use of force is in no way incompatible with the simultaneous use of the intellect. If one side uses force without compunction, undeterred by the bloodshed it involves, while the other sides refrains, the first will gain the upper hand. That side will force the other to follow suit; each will drive its opponent toward extremes, and the only limiting factors are the counterpoises inherent in war.

This how the matter must be seen. It would futile -- even wrong -- to try and shut ones eyes to what war really is from sheer distress at its brutality.

If wars between civilized nations are far less cruel and destructive than wars between savages, the reason lies in the social conditions of the states themselves and in their relationships to one another. These are the forces that give rise to war; the same forces circumscribe and moderate it. They themselves however are not part of war; they already exist before fighting starts. To introduce the principle of moderation into the theory of war itself would always lead to logical absurdity."

Objective: To Ensure Freedom Endures

The allies must fully satisfy civilization's primary objective: To make global terrorism non-practical for all revolutionists. Over the coming days the allies will pragmatically react to the Taliban and other evil forces within sovereign nations, otherwise the terrorists will be invigorated, adapt, reposition and evolve into future terrorist enclaves waiting to strike against civilization.

A secondary objective: Civilization's challenge is to remove the bully's weaponry, cause defection of his troops, gain control of his territory, capture him, put him on trial so the world hears the evidence against him and his justification for having committed atrocities.

After The October 7, 2001 Initiation Of Retaliation

October 7, 2001 --- Allies initiate retaliation.

October 9, 2001 --- Quality targets are being destroyed. By its nature this enemy had a limited number of traditional "quality" targets. Air supremacy has been attained. Remnant targets requiring intelligence are being ferreted out, targeted and destroyed. Emerging targets are being sought and will develop as enemy soldiers defect, become emboldened to become heroes, and as fear and boredom take hold while they sit inactive in their caves.

Point: Continue on course. Destroy and search for emerging targets and work to defeat the enemy's propaganda outbursts. Terrorist leadership will betray itself as events unfold and all civilized people who are willing to listen and think will understand its motives.

October 14, 2001 --- Adding to our understanding of this evil enemy:

This evil enemy's advantages include:

1.) Its lack of sophisticated intellectual capabilities result in its development of relatively uncomplicated plots (hijacking, bombing, surprising of civilians with asymmetric acts);

2.) It has patiently trained thousands of terrorist fanatics who are willing to die and are dispersed across the world in hundreds of cells.

Point: These factors combined with this enemy's often asymmetric mode make it more difficult for civilized strategists and tacticians to identify its next moves. The generally uncomplicated nature of this enemy's plots and the large number of fanatic cells increase the odds that any one specific attack may be successful.

October 15, 2001 --- Disruption and degradation of enemy communication over the Internet must be addressed. Messages and command orders could be embedded in hyper-text source code. This is efficient, trivial to accomplish and difficult to ferret out. Servers must be located, searched and cleansed and offending site content destroyed or corrupted. These information bases are legitimate targets and must be handled as any traditional enemy resource.

November 1, 2001 --- Allies have established the Coalition Information Center to provide leadership with immediate communication and response capabilities. Center offices will be located at the White House, 10 Downing Street and in Islamabad.

November 7, 2001 --- The expert planners analyzing situations in the War Room have reached their tolerance limits regarding the media's overblown aggrandizing reporting the "skill, muscle & training exemplified by" and "success attained by" the hijackers on September 11. The hijackers, of course, caused massive death and destruction that will never be forgotten.

The media should understand that the hijackers used enough people and repeated enough times a simple hijack plan that has been used over and over by their associates repeatedly for 25 years! They use a simple plan: Carry weapons on board an airplane past inept, uncaring security guards, take control of the plane in flight, and fly it somewhere. They used to fly it to some political base such as Beirut or Cairo. On September 11 they flew three planes into three buildings.

On September 11 they hijacked four planes at about the same time. They failed to hijack others that had been planned. They failed to fly one plane to its target because American ingenuity and guts overcame their evil cause.

They have enough people willing to die while causing significant damage and death. The hijacker gang remains alive and continues to plan and attempt more hijackings. This may have been demonstrated at O'Hare Airport in Chicago on November 3 when a man attempted to carry seven knives, a stun gun, and mace on board a plane.

They continue to plot and we must become more alert and acknowledge that not all people are qualified to be given the responsibility to be security guards at airports.

Point: In the meantime the media should ask itself why it wants to contribute to public misunderstanding and ignorance by making the hijackers appear brilliant. Neither the media nor the hijackers are brilliant.

November 12, 2001 --- Taliban is retreating from Kabul ahead of the advancing Northern Alliance. Be prepared to prevent a swift Battle of the Bulge type reversal by the Taliban. It may be scheming to first dissolve into villages and hills, but then retrieve cached weapons and double back over lost ground for a surprise attack upon the Northern Alliance and U. S. forces. Taliban would lose, but could kill and damage.

Allies follow-up

Battle of the Bulge follow-up March 5

November 18, 2001 --- Regarding the question, "Will the Allies pause their offense during Ramadan?"... to allow the enemy to re-group, re-supply and fortify itself:

The statement by President George W. Bush answers this point fully.

"Evil has no holy days."

November 19, 2001 --- Regarding Allied taking of prisoners:

The policy should require Taliban, its Arab and other foreign invading fighters and supporters to surrender to the Afghan Northern Alliance. Allied forces should continue supporting Northern Alliance progress, train Northern Alliance on tactics and weaponry, but focus on accomplishing the special missions that are most effectively completed by the specially trained and equipped Allied forces.

November 21, 2001 --- Taliban forces, including Arab and other non-Afghani groups, continue to mass in Konduz. Vigilance will ensure that a violent last stand Taliban attack is quickly repelled and does not kill Allied forces or result in territorial gain for the Taliban.

November 23, 2001 --- The Northern Alliance, assisted by U.S. Special Forces, managed to capture and imprison several hundred Taliban members, including Arabs and other foreigners. Within hours the prisoners managed to overtake their guards, obtain enough weapons to rise up and nearly retake the ancient-looking fortress where they where being held. U.S. Special Forces managed to contain the prisoners through rapid reaction and by calling in offensive helicopter gun ships to suppress the escaping prisoners. Hundreds of prisoners were killed. One day later the prisoners initiated another bulging armed revolt with this attempted escape resulting in over two more days of fighting.

Point: U.S. Special Forces must understand the fighting skill limitations of their current allies, the Northern Alliance in order to 1.) Prevent loss of Special Forces soldiers due to inept support from the Alliance, and, 2.) Ensure territory won is held and not regained by the Taliban.

December 9 --- Future American Deaths Should Be Prevented: The al Qaeda has a not-so-clever routine which works repeatedly.

When the Northern Alliance or the Eastern Alliance or some other tribal group fighting as an Afghani contingent has an al Qaeda force trapped it makes a "surrender or die" offer and provides a one to two day period of time for al Qaeda evaluation. During this evaluation period the Afghani contingent sits and waits. The al Qaeda's not-so-clever trick is to use all the time not to consider, but to regroup, fortify and then, at the expiration of the evaluation period, it rejects the offer. At this point al Qaeda members have either escaped or they attack the Afghani contingent and the battle resumes and rages again.

It is obvious that to allow the al Qaeda to escape or fortify today means that it will live to fight tomorrow. Tomorrow's battles will be fought by Americans and other Allied forces. In these battles people may die. If the al Qaeda had been forced to surrender immediately or be taken prisoner instead of given "evaluation time" when the Afghan contingent was fighting from strength, they could not regroup and fortify and they would not be in position to fight. They would be prisoners or dead.

Point: This passive Afghani approach to war will eventually kill Americans and other Allied forces. The Afghani contingents need to understand what war is. It is NOT a career position best fought over one's lifetime and extended over his children's lifetimes.

UPDATE December 17 --- It is reported that bin Laden might have used the Tora Bora "cease fire" period of December 13-14 to shave, dress in western clothes and escape from the cave complex. Trust these people at your own risk.

December 18 --- It appears that the Afghani alliances have permitted thousands of Taliban and al Qaeda fighters to slip away with their weapons.

Point: We believe they will be back to fight again another day....

December 20 --- Individuals in the media continually ask questions demonstrating the media's war focus is on the capture of bin Laden and Mullah Omar. The objectives of the War Against Terrorism include: 1.) Insure homeland safety, and, 2.) Disrupt the terrorists thus making them unable to perpetrate terrorism and forcing them to understand that terrorism is not an option to resolve their dislike of Western Civilization or any other personal problems.

Point: Since media people fail to understand that to accomplish those two objectives will include the eventual capture of bin Laden and Omar as part of winning the war, but not primary objectives, we must repeat war objectives often.

December 29 --- Today's short-term co-fighters or long-term allies? That is an easily answered important point.

Regarding the vast array of wisdom regarding the whereabouts of bin Laden:

The plethora of innuendoes, insights and revelations from Afghani, Pakistani, and other groups' military and political quasi-leaderships is astounding, yet should be expected. We need only think about the history of these peoples and our experiences working directly with them for over (only) two months. Who of today's friends is using the global media's sensationalist reporters --- each of whom is writing his book and building his career --- to distract us from the big picture? Are these national and regional leaderships actually more sympathetic to their neighbors' goals than interested in defeating terrorism locally and globally?

The Western Civilization Alliance should understand why and how we led the rest of the world that chose to follow us as we crawled out of caves into high-rises, invented clean toilets and continue to build devices using technology to make life increasingly better. We must hold firm to our true objective in this War Against Terrorism.

The true objective of this War Against Terrorism is not the capture of bin Laden. Throughout history we should have learned that there are always more 'binladens' waiting behind trees and sitting in caves. Their clothing is of all styles, they come in all colors, they have somewhat differing goals depending their resources and subjugated people. What they all have in common is that they are destroyers of progress and freedoms. Bin Laden will eventually be captured. Dead or alive, it makes no difference to history or civilization. The true objective of the War Against Terrorism has been reiterated by President George W. Bush and other relevant global leadership.

Point: Who is playing whom against his short-term self-interests for day to day support, selling intelligence and extorting money in this ongoing struggle between Civilization and loosely congealed tribal subcultures? Western Civilization must remember that this has always been the mode and always will be the mode of some people. They see high-rises as something to destroy, not the implementation of technology for self-improvement. We cannot ignore their mode. We must be aware of it. We must use it to aid in accomplishing our true objective of this War Against Terrorism.

January 12, 2002 --- Controlling the two sources of money inflow to terrorists and middle east nations.

The two major sources of money funding our enemy in the War Against Terrorism are:

1.) Funding from so-called charity groups and other phony cover organizations.
The allies are waging the War Against Terrorism by cutting off much of this funding thereby cutting off some money inflow to terrorist organizations operating across the world.

2.) Revenue from the sale of oil.
The major source of money inflow to middle east nations is from its sale of oil. These nations have little else to sell globally. They need food, medical technology and infrastructure construction. But instead, many of them buy weaponry with oil revenue.

Point: In order to make our waging of this war more efficient, less costly in terms of our money and time and, therefore, saving valuable allied lives, the allies need to curtail and control money inflow to the region.

This control may be gained by implementing a policy wherein we trade their oil for our food, medical and industrial equipment and supplies, books and so on. This would provide middle east nations with less money to purchase weaponry and support terrorists. They would acquire the essentials for health, education and jobs instead of cash in direct proportion to the oil they export. This policy could work to smooth the flow of oil to industrialized nations and also give those nations a mechanism whereby they could control the quantity of oil available for their import.

This policy should be implemented selectively and with a wise mind so as to prevent destabilization of our allies in the region.

January 26, 2002 --- What do hoards of cockroaches do if, while crawling around in darkness, suddenly bright lights are activated and shine on them? They furiously scatter into holes, crevices and dark openings. The allied retaliatory attacks which started on October 7 turned bright lights on the terrorist groups al-qaeda, Taliban and other lost young men who have no meaningful educations or rational objectives and by default joined the bully brigade. After months of bombings they are likely comfortable living from cave to cave, reading nightly with good friends and bathing once every 2 years even though they don't need to.

Also during these last months of bombings and cave dwelling, their friends, the global munitions providers and sponsors of terrorism, have regrouped and developed new more efficient modes and routes to deliver food and clothing supplies, guns, rocket propelled grenades, land mines and shoulder-held missiles.

The light has been on long enough for the cockroaches to get used to it and adapt. Adapting to these incursions are how cockroaches have survived tens of millions of years through ice ages and dark storms that killed thousands of other species.

The bombing has gone on long enough for the terrorists to get used to it and adapt. Adapting to these incursions are how these individuals have survived the last decades. We believe they have survived very well over the recent months of bombings. They are now positioning with new vigor.

Point: The terrorist al-qaeda, Taliban and related terrorist groups are now re-fortified, re-supplied, planning and nearly ready to resume their struggle against civilization. We must expect new offensive measures to be mounted against allied forces.

Expect Battle of the Bulge type attacks. We expect these attacks to be quasi-coordinated asymmetric attacks. We expect serious danger and allied casualties. Helicopters should be especially vigilant.

January 27, 2002 --- Recent reports indicate that the Pentagon will ask for White House approval to set up a new four-star command having the responsibility of coordinating federal troops defending North America. This is part of an intensified effort to strengthen homeland security.

The move is necessitated by new domestic security demands placed on military forces following the attacks of September 11. This is consistent with the Bush administration meeting the demands and fighting the war on terrorism on all fronts.

The U. S. military organization currently has regional commanders in chief, known as CINC's, who are responsible for Europe, the Pacific, Latin America, and the Middle East and South Asia. None exists for U.S. forces in the United States and Canada. This enhancement would give a single four-star officer authority over domestic deployment of Air Force jets patrolling above U.S. cities, Navy ships running coastal checks and Army National Guard troops policing airports and border crossings.

February 25, 2002 --- Coverage of the War Against Terrorism has devolved into coverage about reporters and ancillary victims of war-time events such as friendly fire and kidnappings.

Point: There is a global war being waged. Reporters should be reporting advances and losses in the War Against Terrorism. Is this a result of the clandestine nature of the War Against Terrorism and because the in-country reporters find that our troops are so dedicated and disciplined that they do not talk about actual fighting? War reporting should be about the war with less quasi-relevant reporter chatter.

Operation Anaconda

Afghan Rivalries Blamed For US Military Setback

March 5, 2002 --- By Charles Clover in Gardez, Afghanistan and FT.com staff, � Copyright The Financial Times Limited

"Local political rivalries in Afghanistan's eastern Pakhtia province appear to have contributed to the initial defeat of the US-led attack on al-Qaeda forces on Saturday and the worst US casualties since the war started last October.

Fighting continued on Wednesday in mountainous territory near Gardez, where US and Afghan forces are trying to force Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters from a network of mountain caves and bunkers.

Militia commanders in Gardez and Kabul said the US may have made the mistake of relying on a few local commanders who, accidentally or deliberately, gave wrong estimates of enemy troop numbers and backed out on pledges to assist in the battle.

Commander Abdul Mateen Hassankheil, whose soldiers are among the 1,500-strong Afghan contingent fighting in Shahi-kot, in mountains near Gardez, on Tuesday criticised the running of the operation.

He said: "The US does not understand our local politics. It does not know whom to trust, and trusts the wrong people."

The battle for Shahi-kot has cost at least eight American lives, including six on Monday, when a US helicopter was shot down.

Commander Hassankheil said the beginning of the battle was badly planned because the US relied on intelligence from Padshah Khan, a powerful local commander ousted as governor of the province weeks ago after clashes with militias in Gardez. He said Mr Khan told the US the enemy at Shahi-kot was less numerous than was actually the case.

Mr Khan had also told American commanders he was engaging the al-Qaeda units when his forces were nowhere near the area.

He said the US led a force of Afghans up the mountain to attack al-Qaeda on Friday night, without proper air support, believing they would assist Mr Khan's forces. Instead they were ambushed on Saturday morning and forced to flee.

Mr Khan had previously provided misleading information to the US, according to many people in Gardez, including the new Kabul-appointed governor Taj Mohammed.

He said: "The US used to rely on Padshah Khan for information but I doubt they will any more."

Many in Gardez believe that Mr Khan is using his US links to have his enemies removed, by implicating them as members of al-Qaeda.

Mr Khan, reached by satellite telephone on Tuesday, denied that he had misled the US, and insists that everyone in Gardez making accusations against him were members of al-Qaeda."

* * * END * * *

March 9, 2002 --- The Battle of Gardez

Reports state that the interim administration of Hamid Karzai has sent ethnic Tajik Afghan warriors to fight in the battle of Gardez. These warriors create potential ongoing ethnic tensions in this primarily Pashtun area.

The provincial commanders in the Paktia area held a council meeting to identify a way to send the Tajiks back to Kabul. A local official, Ahmed Shah, claims that the ethnic Tajiks should leave his area. He went on to say that it is his territory and there is no need for these outsiders and it is his people's area and therefore, they know where to find al-qaeda. He further claimed that the Tajiks were in his area only for their own power gain.

Point: The interim government lead by Karzai must ensure from the highest level that it does not plant the seeds of future Afghan civil wars.

March 9, 2002 --- G.I.'s Forced To Take Lead In Fighting At Gardez As Afghan Allies Retreat

Operation Anaconda was in the planning for several weeks. It was initiated on March 2 and was being executed precisely when al-Qaeda forces mounted a well-coordinated and large counter-attack early on. This strong force prompted Afghan forces to retreat quickly thus leaving American troops to carry on the fiercest self-defense and stabilization fighting.

It now seems that al-Qaeda forces had been tipped off in time for them to plan a surprise counter-attack. Al-Qaeda forces surged from their hideouts to nearly overrun Allied forces.

It was during this confusion that eight American combat deaths and over 40 injuries occurred. As a result of this apparent warning about Operation Anaconda, al-Qaeda force was stronger than anticipated. The U.S. Army's 10th Mountain and 101st Airborne Divisions moved rapidly and heroically to fill the breach left by retreating Afghan soldiers. During this tactical deployment extra 16 AH-64 Apache attack helicopters and five Marine Corps Cobra gunships were called in.

American planning included necessary flexibility to allow immediate protection of our soldiers and continuation of Operation Anaconda. We must constantly re-evaluate our allies' many factions. Our so-called allies' value as fellow combatants is diminished by their shifting self-interests.

Point: All planning needs to account for Quislings and fifth columns of all forms.

March 10, 2002 --- Afghan Force Splits, U.S. Withdraws Troops

Today 400 of the 1200 U.S. soldiers directly involved were removed from active fighting in the eight day old Operation Anaconda at Shahi Kot due to factional divisions amongst the Afghan forces. (See the two stories immediately above.) This in-fighting adds uncertainties for U.S. soldiers who during the heat of battle cannot and should not rely on consistent, coordinated support from the Afghans.

The local Commander Mohammad Ismail, a Pashtun, demanded that ethnic Tajiks recently sent by order of interim government leader Karzai be removed. At a news conference he said, "The point is if the issue of Shahi Kot" battle site "is resolved," Northern Commander "Gul Haider's troops might claim it, which is what we oppose." He continued, "We take this opportunity that the issue of Paktia be purely left to the people of Paktia." Tajiks in control of the Afghan Ministry of Defense two days ago ordered nearly 1000 mainly Tajik forces with 10 tanks and headed by Haider to join the local Pashtuns already in the fight.

Afghan forces under command of General Atiq Alluahuddin are represented by Ismail in Operation Anaconda. When asked about whether the American command agreed with him, Ismail said, "The Americans are not involved in the internal affairs of our country. They are promoting a policy of anti al-Qaeda activity. They have not occupied us and are not our bosses. They are supporting us in restoring stability. I stress they are not our bosses. This is an issue decided by our government."

Commander Ziauddin, who controls about 100 fighters among the 1,000 who arrived with tanks last Friday told Reuters, "I don't see why it has to keep going in this (military) direction. I never favored military means and I still don't, as international resolutions have said that all bloodshed has to cease."

Yesterday Karzai said the U.S.-led forces were near victory and the al-Qaeda would be through in Afghanistan when this battle is ended. He told a news conference, "That (near Gardez) was the last main base. And the last main base is on its way out."

Point: Commentaries and advisories from resident leader-experts coupled with indecisive wins, deals, regroupings and resurgence of fighting are precisely what we have witnessed in this five month U.S.-led coalition involvement in Afghanistan.

Afghan history is filled with pragmatic surrenders and treaties negotiated on site in an ad hoc fashion. These deals soon break down and fighting resumes as soon as forces have a chance to regroup.

These facts, methodologies and manipulations have caused the loss of too many U.S. lives. The U.S.-led coalition should operate from the macro perspective.

'Inadequate' US Troops Pulled Out of Battleground

March 12, 2002 -- From Catherine Philp in Leg Diwawl, Afghanistan, Copyright The London Times Newspapers Ltd.

"HUNDREDS of American troops were pulled out of the ground battle with al-Qaeda forces because they failed to adapt to the guerrilla tactics required for fighting in the mountains, according to their Afghan allies.

More than 1,000 Afghan troops rushed to the front line yesterday to take up the slack after the withdrawal of 400 US troops from the mountains of eastern Afghanistan.

The American military has described the withdrawal as a tactical reappraisal of their battleplan, but Afghan commanders told a different story of inexperienced American soldiers unable to advance through the unfamiliar mountains to track down al-Qaeda and Taleban foes.

“They were not trained for the kind of fighting we do in the mountains and, in these conditions, their kind of fighting is useless,” Commander Allah Mohammed said. “They were weakening our morale, it was better for them to go.”

As dawn broke, hundreds of Afghan fighters mounted their creaking Soviet-era tanks and set off towards the snow-covered ridge of Shahi-Kot, where the remaining al-Qaeda forces are hiding. Belching black smoke, the tanks chugged their way to a mud-walled fort, where troops were assembling around their leader, the Tajik commander, Gul Haider.

The last time that these forces met the Taleban was on the northern Shomali Plain, from where they swept into Kabul as the Taleban fled south. It is hoped their familiarity with the Taleban’s tactics will help them to succeed where American troops failed.

Shah Mahood Popal, their deputy commander, believed it was self-preservation that stopped the Americans from launching a more decisive attack. “They didn’t want to risk losing lots of fighters. Afghans don’t care if they lose lots of fighters, so we are better suited for the task. They should stick to bombing,” he said."

* * * END * * *

Point: You figure it out.

March 15, 2002 --- Operation Anaconda

Afghan commanders reportedly want to strike a deal with remaining al-Qaeda and Taliban forces in Shahi-Kot that would allow them to surrender, leave caves where they recently regrouped, fortified, and are holed up fighting and attempting ot kill Allied forces. Afghani commanders are requesting permission of U.S. forces to make such a deal.

Point: This "let them go - never fight to win a battle" philosophy only results in unending wars growing from an unending string of never finished battles. Afghani factions end battles by allowing so-called opposition forces to walk away. Later the opposition regroups to refortify and the factions get together to fight again. This appears to be the national pastime, national sport and the people's primary reason d'�tre. Is this a nation or a group of tribes with grudges who are happy to skirmish? Are they truly involved in civil war with an end goal of building a sovereign nation with an economy, culture and civilized society productively functioning as a part of the global community?

Their repeated willingness to fail to win, thereby completing battles, supports the theory that they fight to fight and are actually playing out their national sport. It also supports the idea that their only true enemies are outsiders --- including today's U.S.-led Allied coalition. This may become more obvious in the months ahead.

Their repeated "let them go without definitive victory" tactic explains why Afghanistan has been fighting civil wars and has been weakened as a sovereign nation. Ongoing inter-factional fighting leaves Afghanistan open to invasions by outside nations and terrorist groups. Terrorist groups see Afghanistan as an ongoing battle ground. They see it topologically and culturally as the perfect piece of land for on the job training and practice fighting. They come to Afghanistan to prepare themselves for deployment into the world to implement their rehearsed terrorist skills.

March 18, 2002 --- U.S.-led Allied coalition declared Operation Anaconda ended. Searching caves for remnants and identification of results remain.

April, May, June, 2002 --- Activities include continued interdictions at sea, destroying al Qaeda and Taliban nests, closing down domestic terrorist cells, training anti-terrorists forces in other nations, educating the world about the severity and serious nature of the War Against Terrorism. Alliance building and education are slow processes... and sometimes impossible.

July 1, 2002 --- U.S. forces were accused of killing between 40 and 150 people celebrating a wedding. It was alleged that during a military mission a U.S. plane dropped ordnance on an Afghani wedding party. However, within hours it appeared that perhaps significantly fewer people were killed and that perhaps it was not an errant U.S. bomb that inflicted damage.

To paraphrase Dinesh D'Souza, if we were awakened one morning and heard that the Iraqis or Chinese had murdered 5,000 of their people, we would feel sad for a short time and return to our daily activities. That is because we understand from yesterday's headlines that killing masses of civilians is what those regimes do. But if we hear that U.S. forces accidentally killed 150 civilians in the heat of battle in the midst of war, critics are shocked, call for investigations and condemn the U.S. and its policies as inhumane.

The U.S. is held to an unrealizable higher standard by its critics, its enemies and its people. Whatever the facts are about the wedding party body count and whose ordnance caused the deaths, everyone knows, but may not admit, that any civilians killed by U.S. forces were killed in error and every American regrets each lost life.

Victims of the War Against Terrorism reside in four groups: 1.) Enemy soldiers, 2.) Non-American Allied soldiers, 3.) U.S. soldiers, and, 4.) Civilians. Each individual -- no matter his group affiliation -- who dies in this war should understand, as must each survivor of this war, that all deaths and all destruction are the responsibility of the terrorists. It is the terrorists that choose to speak with unbridled violence, destruction and murder instead of rational thought and civilized interactions with Western Civilization.

Summer & Fall, 2002.... Preparation Phase For The Next War Front

Also: Terrorist Cell Identification & Destruction... Ignorance & Arrogance Reign... Homeland Cultural Clean-up Continues Slowly....

Good men, those Special Force-styled Men whose roles were down-played throughout the 1990's, continue to ferret out the inferiors from caves and other hideouts on the front lines. Meanwhile, around the world the coalition continues its attempts at mixing self-interest with survival. Cooperation is being tacitly defined as surviving without upsetting the terrorists too much and without spending too much to support the United States in its war.

The international community does not perceive the threat magnitude. The U.S. continues gyrating in debate over internal wars, including male vs. female, minority rights, gender identities, church abuses, and the populace is busy not stopping at red lights of any kind. Lawlessness, which came to fruition during the 1990's, is in full bloom.

Fortunately the post-9/11 environment is slowly reducing people's tolerance for lying, cheating and criminal behavior. High profile criminals (Skakel) are getting convicted at a higher rate, corporations are getting cleansed from the board room down (Enron, Arthur Andersen & Co.), social institutions (Red Cross) are becoming trustworthy. Political institutions, typically late to acclimate, continue to oscillate in blind, petty political standoffs debating yesterday's issues with apparent belief that to govern a wasteland is better than cooperating for survival. At the grassroots level the terrorist threat is causing reevaluation of who should be entrusted with tasks from menial jobs to top political positions. The question is becoming, "To whom do we entrust this work: the most worthy or the most down-trodden?"

January, 2003 --- In early 1993, terrorists attempted to topple the World Trade Center in New York. Their attack failed to do serious damage. The buildings were repaired. For several years the Clinton administration heard warnings of terrorist activities and threats, was made aware of leadership developments of bin Laden and others, and was warned about al Qaeda and other terrorist group's plans for the United States.

September 11, 2001, terrorists attacked and destroyed the World Trade Center in New York and killed nearly 3,000 people using four passenger airliners as intelligent guided missiles.

Today some people understand that Western Civilization, the free world, the industrialized world, free people everywhere have involuntarily been enlisted into the War Against Terrorism by terrorists. These terrorists are primitive in life style, but capable of using ordinary military weaponry against civilian populations at peace and going about their daily activities. Terrorists label civilized, non-military people living and working in civilian jobs as combatants and, therefore, eligible to be attacked anywhere, anytime.

There is a simple question that Western Civilization must answer. That question is, "Do we defend all that we have built over thousands of years or allow primitive forces to return us to the Dark Ages?"

February 18, 2003: Demonstrate To All Civilized Nations That The US Will Not Be Manipulated

The later stages of military buildup for the War Against Terrorism's phase against Hussein's Iraqi regime have been delayed by Turkey's demand for $30 billion in aid and loan guarantees. That is $4 billion over the $26 billion already offered by the US in return for Turkey's approval to stage US troops on Turkish soil.

The Pentagon stated it can go ahead without using Turkey, but acknowledges it would prefer to use Turkey and thus wage a two-front attack upon Hussein's regime. A vote in the Turkish parliament expected this week has been delayed at least another week while it attempts to increase the US aid package it hopes to get.

The United States should not use Turkey, should remove war resources already in Turkey, and let Turkey defend itself form Iraqi refugees and potential attacks. If an effective second front and follow-up battle plan cannot be developed immediately without Turkish cooperation, the Iraq Phase of the War Against Terrorism should be delayed. Delay is preferable to an attack using a second choice battle plan that could put the mission and US troops in danger.

The United States of America should delay the war rather than be extorted by Turkey. Other nations are watching and learning how and what can be extorted from the United States in various situations including trade, human rights, humanitarian aid, and military support.

February 19, 2003: Civilization's ongoing retaliation, specifically the phase against Hussein's Iraqi regime, continues to be delayed by diplomatic wrangling between NATO members France, Germany and Belgium. Also, the wrangling amongst the same nations in the UN continues to distract the world from a major terrorism threat: Hussein's weapons that are capable of killing millions whenever he decides to use them.

February 20, 2003: Strategic Planning & Tactical Facts Dictate Changed War Plan

Turkey was to be the location of the second front in the liberation of Iraq. If Turkey fails to permit US and allied forces to base and stage on its soil, and another basing and staging location cannot be established, Iraqi forces will not be forced to split. Instead, Iraqi forces will be allowed to concentrate on the Southern front.

If Turkey is wise enough to understand what is in its own best interest and thereby permits basing and staging for a second front, the US and its allies should continue on the current course.

If Turkey, Germany, France and Belgium continue to resist what is in their best long-term interests for short-term financial gains, within two weeks the US and its long-term allies should:

1.) Delay the Iraq liberation offensive until staging and weather conditions can again be optimized;

2.) Identify the current phase as "Containment." That means deployment of military assets solidly around Iraq to prevent Hussein from attacking neighboring states and supplying terrorists with weapons.

3.) Re-deploy excess military assets not needed for the Containment of Hussein Phase to serve homeland defense and deterrence duties. Military assets now in Germany, France and other nations who are apparently not too concerned about Hussein's Iraq should be re-deployed to serve domestically. These US troops and equipment should be assigned to patrol the Canadian and Mexican borders and East and West coasts to stop the inflow of terrorist elements and illegal immigrants.

4.) Re-deploy military assets now stationed on the DMZ guarding South Korea. These assets should serve in a new configuration with additional assets to more effectively protect South Korea. The existing configuration served for 50 years and should now be recalculated in today's context to meet current threat aspects.

These re-deployments should demonstrate to civilized nations and terrorist forces everywhere that the War Against Terrorism's phase against Hussein's Iraqi regime is: 1.) Defensive and ongoing, 2.) Retaliatory when the US deems appropriate, and, 3.) The US and its allies are pragmatic enough to recognize and prioritize dangers.

Also, those terrorist forces that have been planning to continue their terrorism under the guise of retaliation after a US attack will be frustrated and forced to attack preemptively or contain their actions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

March 1, 2003, 12:56 am, EST: Today the Turkish parliament voted 'yes' to accept US and allied forces on its soil for offensive action --- a second front against Iraq. The vote was 'yes' with a margin of 14 with 19 abstentions out of the nearly 600 member parliament.

Turkey has delayed deployment of US forces by more than three weeks while it distracted US diplomatic efforts in the UN and in the region in order to deal a larger financial package for itself.

We must factor into all future activities in the region this self-interest displayed by Turkey. Turkey caused a diplomatic and financial pre-war battle out of self-interest.

It negatively impacted the effectiveness of any eventual US troop and equipment deployment, since there is now less time to move military assets into optimal positions. US military assets (including tanks, aircraft, APC's, munitions, 60,000 personnel, and a myriad of supplies) will be more rushed and have less time to fine tune strategic and tactical positioning.

Also, Turkey weakened the US and UN hands against Hussein during this period and set a perspective for future negotiations with all nations. Certainly Hussein was observing this delaying rift and thereby identified weaknesses in the alliance --- the same alliance that he may soon have to defend himself against.

Some will say in the end Turkey is a good friend and did allow offensive deployment and basing. Turkey simply negotiated by taking advantage of the US when it was in a weak position in order to get its best financial deal. Others will more correctly point out that with the success of the mission against Hussein at stake, Turkey was disdainful of the US, extorted extra money from the US at a moment when the US was vulnerable, and Turkey was unconcerned for the safety of US troops --- and even its own security in the event of an Iraqi attack. By delaying deployment of US offensive forces Turkey demonstrated a lack of concern for risk to US personnel in the mission against Hussein and the mission's ability to achieve optimal success.

Turkey's maneuvering cost time, and will result in what will likely be a less than complete deployment of US troops and equipment in Turkey for offensive strikes into Iraq. Their deal-making and self-interest must be factored into every phase of the War Against Terrorism involving Turkey.

Turkey has exposed its political and economic priorities.

March 1, 2003, 1:16 pm, EST: Ankara, Turkey (AP) — Turkish Parliament Rejects Basing 62,000 U.S. Combat Troops

"In a serious blow to U.S. plans for a possible war with Iraq, Turkey's parliament speaker nullified the legisature's vote Saturday to allow deployment of 62,000 U.S. combat troops to open a northern front against Iraq. Speaker Bulent Arinc voided the vote on constitutional grounds, ruling that a majority of legislators present had not voted in favor. Arinc then closed parliament until Tuesday.

The vote was 264-250 with 19 abstentions, four short of a simple majority."

Now rethink the Modified War Plan above.

March 5, 2003: Plan for at least one veto in the UN Security Council. France will veto even if Russia votes to support force. However, France and Germany are likely to remain committed to their current veto positions. Today US planning is factoring in the strong likelihood of at least one veto and probably not getting the nine votes needed to pass a potential use of force resolution. The United States should plan to not have UN support to proceed with the next phase in the War Against Terrorism, the Liberation of Hussein's Iraq.

Perspective: At the absolute last minute, March 1, Hussein started selecting UN mandated illegal medium range missiles to destroy. These missiles (about 20 of his oldest missiles so far) are being destroyed in private by Hussein's operatives with no weapons inspectors present to verify that key elements such as guidance systems and warheads are also being destroyed. Simultaneously with this token destruction Hussein is known to be ordering the building of more missiles. We do not trust that there is any substantive decrease in Hussein's ability to deliver chemical and biological war heads into neighboring nations. Hussein can cause chaos even from his death bunker by ordering those missiles fired to disperse WMD --- or even conventional explosives --- in Israel or any Arab state. He is known to still have 90 missiles and probably more hidden. Hans Blix has failed to call Hussein's last minute, inadequate actions a material breach of resolution 1441.

The United States will defend itself by carrying the War Against Terrorism to the next front, Hussein's Iraq, without UN approval if factions in the UN make near-unilateral force necessary.

March 6, 2003, United Nations' Security Council: Great Britain introduced an amendment to resolution 1441 stating that Hussein's Iraq must disarm by March 17 or face disarmament by force. France immediately said that it will not support the amendment; France insists that Hussein's Iraq be given at least four more months... and perhaps more time after that. Reports that France has in recent weeks been selling contraband weapons and spare parts to Iraq via a front company operating in the United Arab Emirates must be factored into our understanding France's stubborn position. France is doing business with Hussein's Iraq and biding for time under the label, "Give peace a chance." More significantly, France is attempting to grab leadership at this point so as to be seen a leader within the EU.

If the attainment of peace through cohesive UN efforts is the ultimate objective, if to demonstrate to the civilized world that the UN can keep it safe, if demonstrating to terrorists that the UN is a cohesive force and committed to ending terrorism, it makes no logical sense for any nation to obstruct disarmament of Hussein's Iraq after 12 years and 17 UN resolutions. France's failure to give in, to stand up for disarmament and accept the British amendment at this stage is not logical. Instead, France stubbornly holds fast as Hussein's shield, doing business, and buying time for Hussein's regime to strengthen.

France surely understands that to delay forced disarmament of Hussein by even two months makes the military operation more difficult and actually impossible before early next year. Weather conditions impose demands upon military operations in that region and make a summertime war unwise. Three hundred thousand allied troops and the force of civilization are on the line in this confrontation with Hussein.

Any nation refusing to accept this amendment has other motives and priorities above disarming Hussein's Iraq. France is flailing. Its greatest remaining power is its UN Security Council veto. For France to squander its position as a UN participant and weaken the UN's position as a world force in order to strengthen its own power and protect its business dealings with Hussein's Iraq, is to be blind to the future.