How President George W. Bush Made the Middle East Safe for the Expansion of Iranian Revolutionary Terror

Bush's decision to policy of appeasing the Iranian terror regime by handing Iraq over to Iranian proxy control was continued by Obama and Biden making the US and Israel far less safe and secure

President George W. Bush doing his best to one-up his father in being “a war President” and getting rid of Saddam Hussein who he falsely alleged tried to kill his father.

This article was originally published as a two-part series on multiple news and opinion websites in December 2005. I am reposting it because I believe the Iranian proxy Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel highlight the foolishness of Bush’s decision to invade and destroy the secular Iraqi state in his illegal, unjust and unprovoked invasion in March 2003 in which he repeated the mistakes of World War Two in destroying the regional balance of power between Iran and Iraq and destabilizing the region unnecessarily. Bush did absolutely nothing to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons during his presidency nor did he retaliate against Iran when it brazenly helped their Shiite Islamist proxies to steal the 2005 Iraqi national election, helped their Shiite militias kill 800 US troops in Iraq and Iranian troops engaged in artillery barrages of US troops along the Iranian border.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has been the greatest state sponsor of terror in the world since the 1980s. Saddam fought a war against Iranian terror on our behalf from 1980-1988 which is why President Ronald Reagan wisely vowed he would not let Iraq lose the war providing Iraq with intelligence and logistical support to help Iraq be victorious. Saddam was Iran's number one enemy and the only country that stood in the way of Iran sensing its armies to Israel's borders. Everything Bush falsely claimed Iraq was doing was false about Iraq and true about Iran including using chemical weapons against the Kurt's. That's why, in the months preceding the US invasion of Iraq, I wrote a dozen articles opposing Bush’s plan to invade Iraq, advocating the US engage in massive air and missile strikes against Iran instead.

The war in Iraq was publicly opposed by eight retired three and four-star generals and almost every international relations professor in the country but only thirty percent of the American people while only six Republicans in the House of Representatives voted against the authorization to use force against Iraq. Bush lied about Iraq’s WMD program but did nothing while Iran finished developing nukes during his Presidency

Obama’s and Biden’s continued Bush’s foolish policy of empowering the Islamic Republic of Iran and expanding its empire westward towards Israel and transforming Iraq into an Iranian-client state while making Iran the regional hegemon of the Persian Gulf. As a result, the Israel-Hamas war, which some are calling “Israel’s 9—11/Pearl Harbor” has a potential to escalate into a direct war between Israel and Iran that could include a nuclear exchange between the two nuclear powers. Bush’s mistaken Global War on Terror cost the lives of 35,000 Americans including military suicides and over $6 trillion as well as nearly a million Muslims. One can only imagine how many more innocent people will die as the result of their tragic mistakes. Here are links to Part 1 and Part 2 of my two-part series. I published a twenty-year anniversary article about the importance of learning the lessons of the war in Iraq earlier this year.

Bush Repeating Mistakes of World War Two in Iraq

Our nation's commemoration of Pearl Harbor Day this past week brought to mind our need to honor our World War Two veterans who are slowly fading away and passing on. Neoconservatives who support fighting the war in Iraq today against nameless enemies until hell freezes over attempt to paint the war as some kind of classic World War Two–style slugmatch between good and evil lack any historical memory. They ignore the fact that World War Two was not a clear-cut fight between good and evil as the US under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt fought side by side with the most genocidal dictator the world had ever seen, Josef Stalin and supported or acquiesced in Soviet aggression including his annexations of parts or the whole of seven eastern European and one Asian country and his occupation and enslavement of many more.

In justifying its invasion and occupation of Iraq, the Bush administration has attempted from time to time to connect Saddam Hussein to Adolf Hitler. At one point, the administration resorted to releasing an unofficial indictment of Saddam Hussein accusing him of killing 1.5 million Muslims. How the administration came up with this highly inflated number is anyone's guess. A more reasonable estimate is that Saddam Hussein only killed 300,000 Muslims in Iraq, most of whom were Islamist Shiite fanatics such as we find alternatively killing US soldiers and leading the increasingly brutal fundamentalist Islamist Iraqi government today. In fact, Saddam's Iraq did kill hundreds of thousands of Iranian soldiers in a war fought on behalf of the Reagan administration and the United States aimed at overthrowing the world's first terrorist-supporting Islamist regime in modern history (and the model for Iraq's current leaders) and preventing the spread of Iranian terror and revolution to its secular-led neighbors in the Middle East.

In what has to be considered an unprecedented attempt at justification for a modern war, the Bush administration used Iraq's over two decade-old invasion of the Islamic Republic of Iran as part of its unofficial indictment of Saddam Hussein along with a laundry list of equally dated accusations, many if not most of which long predated even the First Gulf War. It was as if the US invaded Nazi Germany in 1938 in response to Germany's 1914 invasion of France. Its attempt to justify its invasion of Iraq in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks executed by Saudi and Egyptian members of Al Queda was kind of like invading Britain in response to an aggression committed by Germany. The one had nothing to do with the other and moreover were longtime enemies as Bin Laden had volunteered as far back as 1990 to wage a jihad or holy war against Iraq when Saddam invaded Kuwait. In World War Two, Nazi Germany killed over five million Red Army soldiers, who might otherwise have been used to spearhead Stalin's once-planned invasion of Europe which according to Soviet and German sources was planned for fall 1941 or early 1942 at the latest and was codenamed by the Soviets – Operation Groza (Thunderstorm) or might have been used to invade Western Europe after the war had ended.

Apparently discarding the moral principles, it claimed to champion in deposing Saddam Hussein from power, the Bush administration is today employing US troops in direct support of a murderous Islamist Shiite regime which tortures its own people using the exact same unbelievably horrendous methods and torture prisons used by Saddam and which employs its Interior Ministry militia forces as death squads to assassinate its Sunni political prisoners. In addition to this, as the Islamist Shiite leaders of Iraq, many of them former terrorists themselves, are closely allied to the Islamic Republic of Iran – our most determined terrorist enemy – it should be obvious to all that the war in Iraq is much less a matter of good versus evil than was World War Two.

Aerial view of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 which occurred nearly seven months after General MacArthur intercepted five Japanese surrender offers on the same terms as the US ended up imposing on them after the atomic bombings

The Second World War was a just war, but it was a war that was not always justly fought. Indeed, as my extensive research into the war for the alternate World War Two book series, “Empires at War”, I am writing has increasingly driven home, it was the most terrible and dreadful war in world history. Considerations of Christian morality and the laws of war protecting innocent civilians from deliberate acts of genocide from terror bombing from the air and concentration camps (both in Germany and Soviet Siberia) were thrown out the window by both sides in their rush to achieve a swift and crushing military victory. Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Leahy, drew attention to this fact when he denounced the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as barbaric, declaring,

"It is my opinion that the use of the barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan … The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons … My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

While the Second World War ended in total military victory for the United States, it was also a very temporary and in many ways Pyrrhic victory as the Soviet Empire seized control of the eastern half of Europe, and most of the old Japanese empire (China, northern Japan, northern Korea and subsequently Indochina). Churchill, who had declared that his lifelong goal was to preserve the British Empire, in deciding to reject Hitler's call for a truce in spring 1940 and continue to fight the war to the bitter end, merely succeeded in guaranteeing the empire's more rapid demise. At the end of the war, the destruction of the Japanese Empire and more especially Germany which had long served to contain aggression from its more murderous and threatening neighbor to the east – the Soviet Union – created a vacuum in power which the evil Soviet empire rushed to fill thus making the world safe for Communism and Communist revolution. Similarly, the Bush administration's destruction of the secular Iraqi state has resulted in a vacuum in power which its more aggressive, terrorist and threatening neighbor to the east – the evil Islamic empire of Iran – has rushed to fill, succeeding in getting its own Islamist proxy revolutionaries elected to lead the Iraqi government earlier this year.

As General Wedemeyer and other great American political and military leaders concluded, the only real victors in World War Two were the Communists. Today we see history repeating itself as the only real victors of our smashing of the secular Iraqi state are the Islamic Republic of Iran (and their terrorist proxies in Iraq which have since been elected to lead the new Islamist Iraqi government), Al Queda and other jihadists. The reason is that we have not only overthrown their longtime enemy, Saddam Hussein; we have enabled them to establish a terrorist haven, base of operations and most disturbingly a training ground for terrorists to spread Islamic revolution throughout the region and perhaps plan and stage future terrorist attacks against the United States homeland.

Without World War Two and our unbelievably massive and unquestionably immoral direct military and military industrial assistance to the Soviet Union (an action frought with so many evil consequences, it caused our great country to lose part of its collective soul I think for generations to come), it is highly questionable that it would have been able to become a nuclear and military superpower as early as it did. As Churchill belatedly admitted in late 1945 in exclaiming "Gentlemen it appears we have killed the wrong pig," the Soviet Union was a much more dangerous and long-lasting enemy than Hitler’s Germany. Likewise, it is clear that the Islamic Republic of Iran could never have become regional hegemon of the Persian Gulf (reportedly only a few months away from developing nuclear weapons for its medium-range ballistic missiles) so long as Saddam Hussein remained in power in Iraq to check the spread of Iranian terror and revolution to its neighbors.

The Soviet Union certainly could not have become a superpower without FDR and Churchill's shameful appeasement of Stalin (who was by far the greatest mass murderer in history at the time) at Yalta where they sold over 200 million human beings into Communist slavery and genocide (among other related war crimes they committed like Operation Keelhaul in which they forcibly returned 2–6 million anti-Communist resistance fighters and their families to the Soviet Union to be slaughtered). FDR and Churchill were perhaps the greatest appeasers in world history, a fact which has been largely whitewashed from the historical record by liberal and generally Soviet apologist historians of the immediate post-war period as well as FDR and Churchill's liberal and neoconservative apologists today even though several excellent traditional conservative authors in the 1940's and 1950's pointed this out. The comparisons between President Bush and the late British Prime Minister Winston Churchill that the neocons are so fond of making are much more unflattering than they would care to admit as the Bush administration continues to appease rogue state leaders in China, North Korea, Sudan, Iran and now Iraq.

Immediately following the war, life in Germany became apocalyptic as over a million more Germans (and Romanians) were made slave laborers with FDR and Churchill's support, while the Red Army proceeded to rape hundreds of thousands of German women and the vast majority of the 3.5 million captured German army soldiers at the very end of the war were marched back into Soviet Russia to Siberian gulags never to return. Meanwhile in western Germany, the Western Allies began implementing the genocidal Morganthau plan, the brainchild of Soviet agent and then-Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Harry Dexter White supported by Churchill, which called for the forced deindustrialization of Germany leading to the planned deaths of tens of millions of Germans by starvation until President Harry Truman decided to scrap it in what is unquestionably the most enlightened decision of his entire Presidency. The US invasion and more especially its seemingly never-ending occupation of Iraq, has brought unprecedented violence and Islamist fanatic extremism and terrorism to that hapless country as those the administration has described as terrorists engage in 500–700 attacks on US forces and civilian targets each and every week. Much as the Allied destruction of Germany and Japan in 1945 had the undesired result of making the Soviet Union the undisputed hegemon of the Eurasian supercontinent, the US destruction of Baathist Iraq in 2003 has served to expand Iran's Islamic Empire westward, which has caused increasing alarm in Israel.

US Leaders Use Propaganda to Mislead America Into War

As an avid amateur military historian, I have to say that the contention of many that our way of life would have been adversely affected had we lost World War Two is simply not born out by the facts. It has been a timeworn tradition of war Presidents and national leaders to propagandize their citizens to believe such things to inspire them to fight with greater determination and fervency as well as to drum up support for wars whether or not fighting them was in the national interest. As a case in point, former US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was reportedly fond of pointing to a map tracing an arrow from Germany to French North Africa to Brazil up north through the Panama Canal to the United States as allegedly indicating how Hitler planned to evade US naval superiority and invade the United States. The US had the mightiest navy in the world with 100 aircraft carriers by 1945 including about 34 fleet carriers. The Germans never had any aircraft carriers during the war. Adolf Hitler did not even have a Navy and no long-range bombers capable of bridging the North Atlantic. Earlier this month, Congressman Ron Emmanuel (D-IL), the Chairman of the House Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee all but admitted then in lying the American people into war, Bush was following in the footsteps of past (Democrat) presidents presumably referencing FDR and LBJ.

This brings to mind the Bush administration's dubious allegations that Saddam was plotting to drop biological weapons on the US homeland using weapons and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles that he did not even possess despite the fact that then CIA Director George Tenet had written in October 2002 that Iraq "appears to have drawn a line in the sand" against attacking the US with terrorist or WMD attacks. In any case, Hitler had no desire to continue the war beyond the Archangelsk-Astrakhan line in western Russia anyway and had no quarrel with either the US or the British Empire which he had long admired for its unparalleled successes in subjecting "the lesser races of the world", his unbelievably idiotic decision to declare war on the US on December 11, 1941 following the US declaration of war on Japan notwithstanding. Likewise, the Japanese never posed a threat to the continental USA as they never occupied any territory east of Wake Island or the Alaskan islands of Attu and Kiska. Obviously, none of these facts takes away anything from the justness of our cause in World War Two, an essential foundation for going to war, which is noticeably lacking today with regards to the continuing no-win counterinsurgency war in Iraq.

Secretary of State Colin Powell addresses United Nations urging them to take action in response to what he knew to be bogus allegations that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction. Powell later admitted that these claims were “wrong, inaccurate and, in some cases, deliberately misleading” A colleague of mine who was working in the DoD policy directorate resigned over Bush’s manufacturing of intelligence.

In the run-up to the Iraq war, top members of the Bush administration distorted the facts in an attempt to justify their planned invasion of Iraq. Condi Rice made a shameless attempt to scare Americans with statements like "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" while Vice President Dick Cheney's made a knowingly bogus accusation that "Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear weapons" which of course he never had. We know that Iraq posed far less of a threat to the United States than Nazi Germany, seeing that Saddam had destroyed his own chemical and biological weapons arsenal at least five years prior to our invasion and had only a handful of short-range ballistic missiles according to the CIA's Duelfer report. I recently received an E-mail quoting Air Force Reserve Major General Chong stating that the war against terror including the present war in Iraq represents the greatest threat which America has ever faced in its entire history ignoring the fact that during the Cold War, the Soviet Union and the Russians today could and can annihilate our country with thousands of nuclear warheads on a whim. The threat of nuclear attack from KGB-led Russia, Communist China and Stalinist North Korea, each capable of killing millions of Americans poses a much greater and immediate threat to this country then the threat from Islamist terrorists today.

As has been the case with most wars and certainly the present-day war in Iraq, World War Two could have been avoided had men of vision led the Western nations during this turbulent period in world history. Had FDR not conspired to incite the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor and sink our Pacific Fleet battleships as a back-door to US entry into the war against Germany, the US would have remained neutral. US neutrality was in accordance with the wishes of 80% of the American people who most agreed at the time had been lied to and deceived into fighting World War I by President Wilson and his chief war propagandist George Creel against their national interest. From 1935-1939, British Prime Ministers' Baldwin and Chamberlain's policy was to allow Hitler to pursue his longtime plan to drive east and invade the Soviet Union after Poland in an attempt to destroy Bolshevikism once and for all as he outlined was his plan in his autobiography Mein Kampf and as was subsequently reported by British intelligence.

Had Britain and France continued this foresighted policy, instead of guaranteeing Poland and declaring war on Nazi Germany prematurely while doing nothing to prevent it from being overrun by the Wehrmacht, it is likely that the Nazi Germans and the Soviet Communists would have bled each other dry. The final outcome would likely have been the Red Army forcing a German withdrawal back to their pre-war starting line or perhaps even the overthrow of Nazi Germany without a shot ever having been fired by the Western allies. This same policy was supported by America First Committee supporters and future US Presidents Harry Truman and Gerald Ford prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

If Britain and France had agreed to Hitler's proposal to export Europe's Jews under German occupation to a Jewish homeland in French Madagascar or even British Palestine, then the Jewish Holocaust might have been entirely avoided as well. Indeed, had Churchill and FDR supported the noble German resistance in their eighteen recorded attempts to overthrow or assassinate Hitler from 1938-1944 which enjoyed very high-level support by many of the most senior generals of the German Army (including at various times eleven different German Field Marshals including most notably Erwin Rommel), then World War Two might have been entirely avoided and Nazi Germany might have been liberated from Nazi rule without war. Unfortunately, these facts have been largely suppressed by liberal establishment historians who have largely succeeded in revising the record of actual history to further their ideological presuppositions. (This is part of what makes an unbiased study of history so exciting as it involves discovering truths, which are not widely recognized or accepted.)

New revelations have recently come to light that the Bush administration misled and manipulated this nation into an unnecessary war of choice in Iraq at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of dead American soldiers against a country that posed it no threat. It is unfortunate that our leaders today continue in employing Wilson's and FDR's tactics of resorting to propaganda and lies to deceive the easily persuadable American people into supporting wars not in their national interest particularly when the primary effect of those wars is to further the cause and strengthen our most determined and dangerous enemies. America's leaders ignore the lessons of history at their peril.

How to win the war in Iraq

I originally published this article on November 21, 2005 on a number of news and opinion websites providing a proposal to win the war in Iraq by splitting Iraq into a Sunni Iraqi Federation in northern Iraq and a Shiite Islamic Republic in southern Iraq to ensure that nearly sixty percent of the country remained free of Iranian-proxy control and Iraq’s remaining Christian population would be protected against Islamist terrorist attacks. The implementation of my plan would have blocked Iranian land-based supply routes to its Syrian ally including Hezbollah helping to increase Israel’s security. Here is a link to the original article.

There have been many articles published of late concerning what we must do to win the war in Iraq. Leading Republican presidential pretender, Senator John McCain wrote such an article entitled, "Winning the War in Iraq," on Veteran's Day and has proposed that we increase the number of our troops in Iraq by 10,000 troops to about 170,000. Yet McCain's ‘plan' to win the war notably fails to provide for any strategy of success or any milestones, which could be utilized as the basis of an exit strategy for US forces in the Iraqi theater of operations as required by the Reagan-Weinberger-Powell doctrine.

An acquaintance of mine recently proposed a plan, which would necessitate increasing the number of US troops to two to three times what we currently have in Iraq and a fifty-year occupation of that country, which I noted would cost trillions of dollars and probably cost the lives of tens of thousands more of our troops. Frankly, the United States Army has nearly been broken under the increasing strains of fighting the seemingly endless counterinsurgency war in Iraq with the lowest readiness, recruitment, and procurement levels in decades. It is currently far too small to accommodate such a proposal. In the latest blow to the US Army, an inexcusable Rumsfeld Department of Defense cut to its budget totaling $11 billion in a time of war will force it to downsize its combat strength even further from 44 mini-brigade combat teams to 39 -- the equivalent of a mere nine divisions under the pre-existing Army force structure.

Many experts have correctly pointed out the fact that the US occupation itself is feeding the insurgency. Accordingly, one of the best ways to take the wind out of the insurgency would not be to send more troops but to decrease our military "footprint" in Iraq. Specifically, we need to do a better job of differentiating our enemies from innocent bystanders in Iraq as retired COL Douglas MacGregor wisely stated during a PBS interview a few months ago following President Bush's address on Iraq early this summer. When we arrest tens of thousands of Iraqis of which we estimate 90% are not associated with the Iraqi national resistance groups, we turn a lot more Iraqis against us and increase the recruitment of the insurgency. Such actions violate the basic principles of Counterinsurgency Warfare 101, which has as one of its principal tenets the winning of the "hearts and minds" of the national populace and thus remove it as a base of support for the resistance. Widespread reports of US military torture of suspected insurgents at Abu Ghraib and other US military prisons also have gone far to turn the people of Iraq and the Middle East against us and has resulted in a surge of new recruits by the insurgency dedicated to killing Americans.

The main problem with all of the plans to win the war proposed by various members of Congress and media pundits is that they focus on bringing democracy to Iraq for its own sake and as an end in itself, which does nothing to further US national security interests in the region or further our prospects for victory. Experts agree that the passage of every artificial administration deadline on democracy has done nothing to stem the insurgency. In fact, given the fact that the fundamentalist Shiite-led government of Iraq passed their Islamist constitution over the opposition of 80% plus of the disenfranchised Sunni population, its passage will likely worsen the present Iraqi civil war. These plans tend to focus almost exclusively on a military solution to the conflict, which is not how this war can be won as our debacle in the Vietnam War demonstrated..

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei—the biggest winner of Bush’s invasion of Iraq

Most importantly, the authors of these various plans seem to ignore the fact that our Iran-allied Islamist Shiite enemies have already seized control of the Iraqi government and with the passage of the new Islamist constitution have officially succeeded in making Iraq an Islamic republic right under the noses of 158,000 occupying US soldiers. The leader of the Shiite resistance to US forces in Iraq, Muqtada al-Sadr, the second most popular figure in Iraq after Grand Ayatollah Sistani himself, recently announced that he plans to run a full slate of candidates in the December 2005 elections for a permanent Iraqi government. Al-Sadr's bloc is expected to receive the largest bloc of votes in this election putting him in a position to claim a top post in the next Iraqi government should he want one so the Islamicization of Iraq is likely to get worse following the December elections not better.

Any plan to win this war that ignores the fact that to the US needs to get rid of the current Islamist government of Iraq and replace them with pro-US secular leaders with a secular constitution that protects minority rights is a plan for both perpetual war and ultimate defeat. It is particularly important that the new Iraqi constitution protect the exercise of basic religious freedoms, which the current Bush administration-supported Islamist constitution most certainly does not. It would also help if our leaders publicly recognized that the Islamic Republic of Iran is the real enemy we are fighting in Iraq, not just a small number of Baathists and foreign fighters coming in from Syria. Iran is the country that is providing the most support for the Iraqi resistance with an increasingly large amount of funding, weapons and fundamentalist fighters sent care of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps whose Quds (Jerusalem) Corps is tasked with exporting Islamist revolution abroad and killing as many Americans and Israelis as possible.

Thus, the only way we can truly win this war is to depose the current Islamofascist fundamentalist Shiite-led government in Baghdad, appoint secularists to power, provide Iraqis with a new freedom-guaranteeing constitution based on our own, ban the Islamist parties, hold new elections in which the secularists are elected to power, then declare victory and get out of Iraq proper while keeping troops in Kurdistan and Kuwait to guard against a future Islamist/Iranian takeover of the country. Lastly, we need to declare an end to these liberal Clintonian and neocon nation-building schemes like the Bush administration has attempted to implement in Iraq, as they are diametrically opposed to the American foreign policy and just war fighting tradition.

It is important for Bush's conservative supporters to realize that there never was anything remotely conservative about invading Iraq and occupying it indefinitely in the first place. This revelation should come as a surprise to no one since Bush is not a conservative President -- a fact which many conservatives had long suspected and which they finally came to realize following his disastrous Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination. Pre-war Iraq was a country that posed no threat to the United States, had no weapons of mass destruction, and had no record of support of al-Qaida or any other terrorist group whose goal was to kill Americans. President Ronald Reagan would never have committed such an egregious error of judgment and wisely kept a tight rein on the few radical neoconservatives who occupied the lower ranks of his administration during his Presidency.

An alternative plan, which would serve to appease Iraq's Shiite majority and end the ongoing Iraqi civil war would be to divide Iraq into two states -- one Sunni consisting of the Kurdish north and the Arab center and one Shiite consisting of the southern half of the country. Sunni support for such a partition of Iraq would be all but assured as it would ensure the retention of oil producing centers in Iraqi Kurdistan in their region of Iraq and they would retain the majority in the new northern Iraqi state. The Kurds could likely be persuaded to come around to support it as well, particularly if we could provide them with a secular constitution to guarantee the election of secular government.

The downside to this plan to bifurcate Iraq is that southern Iraq would remain under the control of Iran's Islamist proxies and would still be in a position to destabilize the nominally pro-Western Saudi, Egyptian and Jordanian governments and support their replacement with Iranian-backed Islamist fundamentalists like themselves. Of course, the Bush administration's plan to democratize the region would accomplish much the same result. This is evidenced by the recent democratic victories of Hamas in the Palestinian elections, where it was elected to serve as the governing majority in the Gaza strip and the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which tripled its representation in the Egyptian parliament. Nevertheless, this plan to divide Iraq into two states would still be far better than what we are doing right now. At this point by keeping Iraq united and allowing the Islamists to implement their Islamic revolution in Iraq, we are allowing the entire country rather than merely a part of it to fall into the hands of anti-American Islamist fanatics allied with our greatest terrorist enemy -- the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Unless the administration restores a secular government to Iraq, sooner or later Americans will have to confront the unpleasant reality that our intervention in Iraq has transformed it into a haven and training ground for Islamist and al-Qaida terrorist and accordingly a much more dangerous threat to the US than it was before we invaded. Prior to the war, Iraq was ruled by a secular dictator, whose brutality was focused primarily against Islamist Shiite extremists, and who spent the dozen years prior to our invasion trying to appease the US and avoid another war, which he knew could only end in disaster for him. In fact, according to the CIA's Duelfer report released late last year, Saddam Hussein had been trying in vain for years to persuade the US government to allow Iraq to return to its Reagan-era role as a US proxy in our quarter century-long fight against Iranian Islamist terror.

With the ascension of the Islamist regime of Prime Minister Ibrahim al- Jaafari, leader of the Islamic Call Party, to power this past May, Iraq, which has since concluded a military alliance with Iran, has all but joined the Iranian terror side of the conflict. The present Iraqi government has thus, by default, become our enemy in the war against terror whether our leaders are willing to recognize that or not. The result of the administration's connivance in allowing this Islamist Shiite takeover and their implementation of their Islamist revolution in Iraq appears to be shaping up into a strategic defeat of the first order in our ongoing war against Islamic terror and a major victory for America's enemies -- the Islamic Republic of Iran, al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden. 

Recent Media Interviews

August 18th—Interview with Jonathan Hollerman on EMP Task Force Channel to discuss the EMP threat from the Sino-Russian alliance and the likely outcome of the war in Ukraine.

August 22nd—Interview with Carlos Carrillo on the Living Hope Esparanza Podcast discussing the chances of whether the war in Ukraine will escalate to World War III with Russia. Here is a link to the interview.

August 25th—Interview with former Polish Sejm Deputy Mateusz Piskorski to discuss the war in Ukraine and how to end it before it escalates to a full-scale war between Russia and NATO.

August 26th—Interview with Jon Twitchell on the Republic Broadcasting Network discussing the death of Wagner Chief Yevgeny Prigozhin and the latest developments in the war in Ukraine. Here is a link to the interview.

September 8th—Studio Interview on Jason Preston’s “We Are the People podcast focusing on the threat from Communist China and how to win America’s Cold War with them. Here is the link to the interview.

September 14th—Two-hour long presentation to the Utah Citizens for the Constitution and Cache County Conservatives on the history and future of US Foreign & National Security Policy

September 16th—Interview with Dr. Pascal Lottaz on his Neutrality Studies podcast to discuss my new China-Taiwan Compromise Peace Plan. Here is the link to the interview.

September 27th—Appearance on the Committee on the Present Danger-China webinar “Memo to the Senate: Stop the Marxist Take-down of Our Military” discussing the importance of opposing woke cultural Marxist indoctrination of the U.S. Military and opposing the nominations of US military leaders who support it. Here is a link to the interview.

September 28th—Interview with Brannon Howse on his Worldview Weekend Broadcast Network to discuss a number of important topics including the recent Iranian launch of a satellite in orbit at the optimum altitude for a super EMP attack that could destroy the US in minutes. Here is the link to the interview.

October 5th—Interview with Brannon Howse on his Worldview Weekend Broadcast Network to discuss Putin’s recent threats to conduct an above-ground nuclear test in violation of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and nuke the US if it attacks Russia directly. Here is the link.

October 9th—Interview with Nima Rostami Alkhorshid host of the Dialogue Works show to discuss the prospects for peace in Ukraine and Israel and avoiding a larger and more destructive war.

Upcoming Interviews

October 10th—Interview with John Twitchell on his “Talk with John” show on KTALK AM 1640 discussing the wars in Israel and Ukraine and China’s plans to invade Taiwan.

October 11th-Interview with Greg Allison on his podcast to discuss the prospects for escalation up to and including US military intervention in the Israel-Hamas War, whether we could win a tactical or strategic nuclear war with Russia or China and how we can use diplomatic negotiation to ensure America’s national survival.

October 12th-Interview with Chayse Leavitt on his “We Are Here” podcast to discuss the war between Israel and Hamas terrorists.

November 3rd—I will be giving a presentation to the Highland Meeting Group about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well as the conflict between Ukraine and Russia.

© David T. Pyne 2023

David T. Pyne, Esq. is a former U.S. Army combat arms and Headquarters staff officer, who was in charge of armaments cooperation with the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Africa and the Americas from 2000-2003, with an M.A. in National Security Studies from Georgetown University. He currently serves as Deputy Director of National Operations for the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and as a member of the Committee on the Present Danger-China. He recently co-authored the best-selling new book, “Catastrophe Now--America’s Last Chance to Avoid an EMP Disaster” and his new book “A Nuclear Posture Review for Advanced Technology Weapons” will be published in spring 2024. He also serves as the Editor of “The Real War” newsletter at dpyne.substack.com and as a contributor to “The National Interest”. Here is a link to his interview archive. He may be reached at emptaskforce.ut@gmail.com.