Make your own free website on
The BCC Archives
December 02, 2003 - commentary
Commentary March 27, 2007
Commentary August 27, 2006
July 4 2006 - Commentary
June 29, 2006 - Commentary
April 22, 2006 Commentary
April 02, 2006 Commentary
August 09, 2005 Commentary
September 21, 2004 Commentary
September 05, 2004
September 04 2004
September 03, 2004
May 02, 2004 - Commentary
January 03, 2004 - commentary
December 31, 2003 - commentary
December 29, 2003 - commentary
December 02, 2003 - commentary
November 26, 2003 - Commentary
November 08, 2003 - Commentary
October 26, 2003 Commentary
October 12, 2003 - Commentary
October 04, 2003 - Commentary
September 27, 2003 Commentary
Septmember 21, 2003 - Commentary
September 15, 2003 - Commentary
September 04, 2003 - Commentary
September 01, 2003 - Commentary
August 27, 2003 - Commentary
May 2003 - Response to a Letter
August 25, 2003 commentary

                                                                           December 2, 2003


                      Who Stands to Lose With a Free Iraq?

Ever since the defeat of Saddam Hussein we have witnessed acts of violence and terror. At first it was just the looting of stores, public and government buildings.  In view of recent events it would not surprise me to find out that many of these initial acts were planned well ahead of time by agents of the former regime left behind as moles as you will, to incite public disorder and to give the impression that the situation in Iraq was not as the Bush administration would want it. 

Next you had the first acts of guerilla/terror warfare by the first casualties after major combat operations were declared over. If one remembers correctly they were basically sniper attacks at first, then increasing to ambushes, then to suicide car-bombings and other assorted acts of terror.  At first these attacks were directed mostly at the U.S Military, but as of late they have been more towards the citizens, towards the Iraqi people and additionally to other nations as well such as the recent bombings in Istanbul Turkey. About two weeks ago two U.S Servicemen were brutally attacked and then their bodies were desecrated by the same murderers, ala Somalia. Also many of the attacks have been against U.S. coalition allies such as Italy and just the other day Spain wherein several Spanish diplomats were killed. 

ALL of these acts were designed to force the U.S. and the world to recoil in fear and loathing, thereby forcing withdrawal. They were half successful in so far as the loathing part. Certainly these attacks have strengthened American resolve due to the very nature of their ferocity.  If it is one thing Americans will NOT abide by is the dishonoring of the dead.

Now the question remains who stands to lose by this resolve to not cut and run in Iraq.


Well of course the Terrorists stand to be the biggest losers simply because they will have been shown that the determination to see the job through is more than they can hope to overcome. Remember a strong and free democratic Iraq would bring about a major change in the Middle East[1].

Firstly it would be the second true democracy in the region, Israel being the other. But more importantly, it would be backed by U.S Military power, and re-armed by America. That means access to the most recent military hardware this country has to provide. If you notice Israel even though it is a small nation has been able to defeat armies much larger than it simply because it had more sophisticated military hardware to bring to bear on its enemies. A re-armed Iraq, with the latest and best in military hardware provided by the United States, would be a horror to many of the nations that currently surround it. Secondly Iraq could become a major staging base for further U.S. operations should the need ever arise.  All of this brings me to my next major loser in the region.

                                                              Saudi Arabia

The Saudi's have been having it their way for a good number of years now. I remember reading that US Service personnel could not even bring bibles into that country, nor could the women stationed there leave the military compounds unescorted. All of this for fear of "offending" the Saudis. I wish the President would basically remind them that it is the US that kept them from  becoming the next Kuwait prior to the Gulf War, and it is the US that put them in a position of power and it can be the US that takes them down as well.

It is true that while their oil is needed it is not absolutely necessary. We get a good deal of oil from other sources. With the disposing of Saddam Hussein and his thugs, the Iraqi oil fields will someday be producing at full capacity. The Saudi's would be wise to take note, that as we may begin to buy more oil from Iraq, they may not have so large a market to depend upon.

 Nor would the United States find it necessary to maintain bases in that nation, that so flagrantly violates the human rights of its own people, and denies basic good will towards the very troops that serve to protect it.

I wonder if the President has had this vision, so to speak, and has already figured that into the equation in the War on Terror. That is to say that without US dollars buying Saudi oil, there is little chance of them funding terror groups.

I also believe that they are reaping the whirlwind, in so far as, they had funded these terror groups for so long, and now that they have backed off a bit, and are looking into having some form of elections there, that the terror organizations have targeted the Saudi's as a reminder as to whose side they are supposed to be on.

I can fully appreciate the fact that they are caught between a rock and hard place. Good for them, it is something that they brought upon themselves. As the old saying goes;
"when you sleep with dawgs, you wake up with fleas"


                                                             Syria and Iran

Iran has recently made the headlines due to its nuclear weapons programs. And once again the nations of the world seem to take the usual big talk and no action stance. However action is not what is needed here. Again Iraq could be used as a staging base for the growing pro-democracy movement that is beginning to surface in Iran. It is small and yet in its infancy. However covert operations might be possible to bring down the repressive regime. I would recommend that a voice of America station be placed at every possible location on the border with Iran. Broadcasting 24/7/365, showing and speaking of the benefits of democracy.  Certainly this nation has the technology and the will to do something along that line.  With a constant call in the U.N. for the stepping down of repressive regimes and the VERIFIABLE inspections of their nuclear facilities,  I believe that the leaders of such nations as Iran would eventually be forced into stepping down to avoid being taken down. 

This leaves Syria as the only other real major player as a supporter of terror in that region. It has long been suspected that many of Saddams WMDs were secretly moved into Syria prior to U.S. combat operations, although in all honesty it cannot at this time be proven.  And it has been believed that Syria has been allowing terror groups such as AL-Quida Hamas, and others pass through their borders into Iraq to reap havoc, in addition to funding said organizations.

Here again there should be no need for major combat operations. Should the dominoes fall, and I believe they will, due to a free Iraq AND Iran. Syria would be left with only a two bit military in place, and be placed in a position to either go the way of Iran OR, at the least is rendered toothless.

                                                                North Korea

One may wonder why I have included them. Well for starters, just prior to the Iraq War, Kim Jun(k) II had been rattling his saber demanding unilateral talks from the United States. And demanding the continuation of the very treaty he had broken along with ever more concessions. Suddenly shock and awe was put into place and viola! He eased his stance and decided it might be to his advantage to have other nations included in these talks. So far, nothing has been given to him, except the obvious stern lessens from Iraq. That said lesson being we can take you down ANYTIME!, and at our own choosing.  The swiftness and complete destruction of the Iraqi military, I am quite sure was very much noticed by the leaders of North Korea.

                                                                 And Finally;

The last group of losers in a successful Iraq will be the French, the Germans and the Democrats. All have spoken against this operation, all predicted massive casualties, all wanted to continue the policy of appeasement. Each had their own reasons.

Since there seem to be other nations in Europe that would be willing to support the coalition of the willing perhaps the 100,000 some odd troops that are protecting it from nothing could be used elsewhere. (Perhaps along the DMZ in Korea?). I would imagine that the citizens of the aforementioned nations would be more than happy to have their taxes raised that much more to support a fully and effective military to defend themselves.

As for the Democrats it seems that just about anything that is good for America is bad for them. Basically you have to hope the war and the economy tanks and that Americans are hurting enough in order to present a new face. 

Note I didnt say NEW ideas or solutions just a new face. 




[1] As of this writing, yesterday US Troops killed some 54 Iraqi guerrillas in an ambush set up by them. The US military is now taking the war to them. Instead of just setting back and fighting from a defensive position they are taking the battle to them and responding with superior and overwhelming force. THIS sends a very clear message to these groups and others that are tied to them. The message being, you will be killed, plain and simple.