Tom Kovach
The fourth Iraq
Proposed Democratic "plan" snubs key factors
By Tom Kovach
Despite having been directly involved in politics since a few months after the end of my military career, I continue to be amazed at some of the "plans" that politicians foist upon the American people. And, I continue to be amazed at how the "mainstream" news media (MSM) accept some of those "plans" and other "ideas" as worthy of serious consideration. Of course, who creates the plan determines which plans the MSM will accept. As most conservatives are well aware, the Democrats get a free ride when it comes to any logical analysis by the MSM.
Before getting to the meat of this column, I will present an example from not-too-distant political history. We often hear the term "October surprise" in discussions of pre-election events — especially events that could suddenly sway the predicted outcome of an election. But, many voters this year were not even born when this modern term came into being. So, before examining a proposed plan that could have the effect of an "October surprise," I will show younger voters the origin of the term.
In the 1980 presidential elections, the key issue was the "Iranian hostage crisis." Fifty-two of our American Embassy employees, diplomats, and military personnel were held hostage after the embassy in Tehran, Iran, was stormed by a large "mob" of college-age insurgents. (Many were likely members of the Iranian military, dressed in civilian clothing.) The embassy was stormed on 04 November 1979. Among the insurgents that stormed the embassy was a man named Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is now the president of Iran. At the same time that the siege started, Iranian radicals here in the United States stormed the crown of the Statue of Liberty, and held a burning American flag out for the world to see on the evening news (via the MSM helicopters, which must've had advance notice). Our embassy hostages were held for 444 days, and were released two minutes into the inaugural speech of President Ronald Reagan. (The Iranians were terrified of Ronald "Ray Guns," of blessed memory, and rightly so.)
In between the November election and the January inauguration, the Democratic Party made an astonishing accusation. They claimed that Ronald Reagan's running mate, George H. W. Bush, had stolen the election. How? They clam that Bush had flown in an SR-71 spy plane from Washington to Paris to have a secret meeting with Iranian officials. They made this claim because the spy plane was the only means fast enough to "prove" that Bush could have attended the meeting in Paris, yet had time to be at a publicized function in Washington later that evening. The facts that Bush was in his sixties at the time, and that the SR-71 rattles the body while flying at three times the speed of sound on the edge of space did not prevent the Democrats from making this ludicrous assertion. The Democrats alleged that Bush had asked the Iranians to hold onto the hostages until after the election — to make President Carter look bad (as though he needed help in that department). Thus, the alleged Bush meeting in Paris came to be known as the "October surprise" that handed the 1980 election to Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.
Now, as the 2006 elections approach, the Democrats claim to have a "plan" that has all the persuasive power of an October surprise. They claim that their "plan" will prove that they are the masters of foreign policy. Thus, they claim that they will win the elections, based upon the "failed" Bush record in Iraq. (I have some disagreements with President Bush; but, the bottom line is that he had four goals for invading Iraq, and we have met all four goals.) The Democrats claim that their "plan" will be especially effective in giving victory to Congressman Harold Ford, Jr., in the race for the US Senate seat from Tennessee. (That race is one of the key "battleground" races for majority control of the Senate.) Now, I have a "surprise" for the Democrats.
Their "plan" makes them look like idiots.
What is their plan? They want to bring "peace" to the region by dividing Iraq into three autonomous zones. One zone for the Shiite Muslims, one zone for the Sunni Muslims, and one zone for the nomadic Kurds — who are mostly Muslims, but are still persecuted by the ethnic Arabs that make up the majority of Iraq's population. Now, on the surface, the plan seems fine (like most Democratic plans). But, the three-Iraq plan has a major flaw (like most Democratic plans).
Their plan ignores the people most likely to be allies of the United States.
You see, in Iraq there are two groups of people that are scarcely mentioned by the MSM shills for the Democrats. Those two groups are the Assyrian Christians and the Mizrahi Jews. Both groups live mostly in northern Iraq. The majority Muslim population of Iraq persecutes both groups. (When things were going badly for Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War, he had his henchmen round up Christians and crucify them in the allies of Iraqi cities. I've seen the photographs.) Both groups have a longstanding historical presence in Iraq. (Christianity is 600 years older than Islam, and Judaism is 1,500 years older than Christianity.) The Christians have been there since the missionary journey of Saint Paul into the Arabian lands. The Mizrahim have been there since the Babylonian Exile. Thus, if anyone should have a "minority role" in any new government of Iraq, it should be the Muslims! This is especially true when considering that the United States was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles. Thus, both the Assyrians and the Mizrahim are likely to be more loyal allies of the United States than either branch of Islam. (You know, that "religion of peace" that refers to our country as The Great Satan. Yeah, the ones that have been killing each other for 1,400 years over who should be in charge of that "religion of peace.")
So, now you can see that the Democrats have gum on their shoes. They have already publicized this plan widely as their October surprise. So, they are stuck with it. But, it could hold them in place — second place, politically.
Ignoring our potential allies is not a new theme for the Democrats. During the time that they claim things were going "well," when Bill Clinton was president, our country got involved in a three-sided religious war. (For details, see my column "Louder Than Words".) The MSM called it "ethnic cleansing," but all three sides come from the same ethnic stock: the South Slavs. What separates the Serbs, the Croatians, and the Bosnians (who all speak the same language) is religion. The Serbs are Orthodox Christians, the Croats are Roman Catholic Christians, and the Bosnians are Muslims. The Muslims have been attacking the Christians in the Balkans for almost a thousand years, since the sacking of Constantinople. When the Christians finally decided that they had run out of "other cheeks," and fought back, Bill Clinton decided to bomb the Christians. Surprised? If you are, then ask yourself why he simultaneously ignored the wholesale slaughter of almost a million Christians in Rwanda, but kept troops to protect nearby (Muslim-controlled) Somalia.
So, what's missing from the Democrat's three-zone plan for "peace" in that part of the world? They're missing "the fourth Iraq." And, because of that, the Democrats should be missing from Washington after the elections.
© Tom Kovach
Despite having been directly involved in politics since a few months after the end of my military career, I continue to be amazed at some of the "plans" that politicians foist upon the American people. And, I continue to be amazed at how the "mainstream" news media (MSM) accept some of those "plans" and other "ideas" as worthy of serious consideration. Of course, who creates the plan determines which plans the MSM will accept. As most conservatives are well aware, the Democrats get a free ride when it comes to any logical analysis by the MSM.
Before getting to the meat of this column, I will present an example from not-too-distant political history. We often hear the term "October surprise" in discussions of pre-election events — especially events that could suddenly sway the predicted outcome of an election. But, many voters this year were not even born when this modern term came into being. So, before examining a proposed plan that could have the effect of an "October surprise," I will show younger voters the origin of the term.
In the 1980 presidential elections, the key issue was the "Iranian hostage crisis." Fifty-two of our American Embassy employees, diplomats, and military personnel were held hostage after the embassy in Tehran, Iran, was stormed by a large "mob" of college-age insurgents. (Many were likely members of the Iranian military, dressed in civilian clothing.) The embassy was stormed on 04 November 1979. Among the insurgents that stormed the embassy was a man named Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is now the president of Iran. At the same time that the siege started, Iranian radicals here in the United States stormed the crown of the Statue of Liberty, and held a burning American flag out for the world to see on the evening news (via the MSM helicopters, which must've had advance notice). Our embassy hostages were held for 444 days, and were released two minutes into the inaugural speech of President Ronald Reagan. (The Iranians were terrified of Ronald "Ray Guns," of blessed memory, and rightly so.)
In between the November election and the January inauguration, the Democratic Party made an astonishing accusation. They claimed that Ronald Reagan's running mate, George H. W. Bush, had stolen the election. How? They clam that Bush had flown in an SR-71 spy plane from Washington to Paris to have a secret meeting with Iranian officials. They made this claim because the spy plane was the only means fast enough to "prove" that Bush could have attended the meeting in Paris, yet had time to be at a publicized function in Washington later that evening. The facts that Bush was in his sixties at the time, and that the SR-71 rattles the body while flying at three times the speed of sound on the edge of space did not prevent the Democrats from making this ludicrous assertion. The Democrats alleged that Bush had asked the Iranians to hold onto the hostages until after the election — to make President Carter look bad (as though he needed help in that department). Thus, the alleged Bush meeting in Paris came to be known as the "October surprise" that handed the 1980 election to Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.
Now, as the 2006 elections approach, the Democrats claim to have a "plan" that has all the persuasive power of an October surprise. They claim that their "plan" will prove that they are the masters of foreign policy. Thus, they claim that they will win the elections, based upon the "failed" Bush record in Iraq. (I have some disagreements with President Bush; but, the bottom line is that he had four goals for invading Iraq, and we have met all four goals.) The Democrats claim that their "plan" will be especially effective in giving victory to Congressman Harold Ford, Jr., in the race for the US Senate seat from Tennessee. (That race is one of the key "battleground" races for majority control of the Senate.) Now, I have a "surprise" for the Democrats.
Their "plan" makes them look like idiots.
What is their plan? They want to bring "peace" to the region by dividing Iraq into three autonomous zones. One zone for the Shiite Muslims, one zone for the Sunni Muslims, and one zone for the nomadic Kurds — who are mostly Muslims, but are still persecuted by the ethnic Arabs that make up the majority of Iraq's population. Now, on the surface, the plan seems fine (like most Democratic plans). But, the three-Iraq plan has a major flaw (like most Democratic plans).
Their plan ignores the people most likely to be allies of the United States.
You see, in Iraq there are two groups of people that are scarcely mentioned by the MSM shills for the Democrats. Those two groups are the Assyrian Christians and the Mizrahi Jews. Both groups live mostly in northern Iraq. The majority Muslim population of Iraq persecutes both groups. (When things were going badly for Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War, he had his henchmen round up Christians and crucify them in the allies of Iraqi cities. I've seen the photographs.) Both groups have a longstanding historical presence in Iraq. (Christianity is 600 years older than Islam, and Judaism is 1,500 years older than Christianity.) The Christians have been there since the missionary journey of Saint Paul into the Arabian lands. The Mizrahim have been there since the Babylonian Exile. Thus, if anyone should have a "minority role" in any new government of Iraq, it should be the Muslims! This is especially true when considering that the United States was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles. Thus, both the Assyrians and the Mizrahim are likely to be more loyal allies of the United States than either branch of Islam. (You know, that "religion of peace" that refers to our country as The Great Satan. Yeah, the ones that have been killing each other for 1,400 years over who should be in charge of that "religion of peace.")
So, now you can see that the Democrats have gum on their shoes. They have already publicized this plan widely as their October surprise. So, they are stuck with it. But, it could hold them in place — second place, politically.
Ignoring our potential allies is not a new theme for the Democrats. During the time that they claim things were going "well," when Bill Clinton was president, our country got involved in a three-sided religious war. (For details, see my column "Louder Than Words".) The MSM called it "ethnic cleansing," but all three sides come from the same ethnic stock: the South Slavs. What separates the Serbs, the Croatians, and the Bosnians (who all speak the same language) is religion. The Serbs are Orthodox Christians, the Croats are Roman Catholic Christians, and the Bosnians are Muslims. The Muslims have been attacking the Christians in the Balkans for almost a thousand years, since the sacking of Constantinople. When the Christians finally decided that they had run out of "other cheeks," and fought back, Bill Clinton decided to bomb the Christians. Surprised? If you are, then ask yourself why he simultaneously ignored the wholesale slaughter of almost a million Christians in Rwanda, but kept troops to protect nearby (Muslim-controlled) Somalia.
So, what's missing from the Democrat's three-zone plan for "peace" in that part of the world? They're missing "the fourth Iraq." And, because of that, the Democrats should be missing from Washington after the elections.
© Tom Kovach
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
