Let's Fight Russia Instead
By James T. Moore (02/20/07)
I know, I know, the Cold War is over, the Soviet Union is kaput, what's left of Russia is just a huge cumbersome land area, with lots of leftover missiles, and a pipsqueak named Putin now running the show. But don't shove this information under the rug. Russia still has plenty of schmozzle when it comes to military might.
There are 21 million Russian men and 90,000 Russian women available to do battle with the enemy, whoever that may be. And they have a nuclear armed bomber force with some 16,000 warheads. Although the “new” Russia is painfully moving more into the nuclear age, their vast arsenal inventory is still mired in conventional weaponry, and this is causing many a headache for Russia’s top officers.
It might also be noted that, although the mess media (oops, mass media) tells us zilch about Russia’s part in the Middle East, it is a fact that Russia has been America’s stiffest competition for influence in this hottest of the world’s hot spots, and has been for years. In fact, Russia still supplies Iran and other Arab nations with technology, weaponry, advisers, etc., much of what finds its way into Iraq. Just what we need.
So why are we bothering to fight with a nation that has done us no harm, but is in fact defending itself against a superpower awash in space age technology and weaponry, with bush-league guerrilla warfare, antiquated military tactics, hit-and-hide techniques, weapons that went out with WWII, and not a chance in hell of winning the war?
But then, we have no chance of winning either.
For four years we’ve been blowing up buildings, shredding utility sites, killing insurgents, installing a shadow government with subservient officials, and in spite of Washington’s breast-beating about winning the war, we’ve been playing a goofy game of Pentagon roulette by losing ground and sending in more troops at the same time.
A more sensible (and winnable) war would be to get out of Iraq post haste and pick a fight with the Russians,
Because an incredible dichotomy exists here: we’d be fighting somebody our own size for a change, and it would take a lot less time to win the war than the four years we’ve blown in Iraq.
You see, Big Russia couldn’t even beat Little Afghanistan, and now, 18 years later, Big America is trapped in the same kind of deep sewer with Little Iraq. The “game” is the same, only the players are different. Call it history repeating itself.
Think not? We went into Iraq to disarm a dictator and establish a democracy; Russia went into Afghanistan to save communism. The Russians, 120,000 strong, went into Afghanistan with flowers and smiles, and proceeded to lose 1,300 soldiers a month. We went into Iraq 120,000 strong, with flowers and smiles, and to date have lost 3,200 soldiers and Marines. And we both recognize our wars as total disasters. Why? Because we both fought nations who are experts at resisting foreign occupiers. The same as we would do.
Retired Gen. Victor Yermakov, who headed the Soviet’s 40th army, says this about the U.S. warring in this hostile area: “All the future holds for American forces there are dead soldiers, and they will die for nothing. There is nothing positive to be accomplished in Iraq. My advice is simple: Leave. Leave now.”
So, in closing this article, I would like to suggest a “new” way to resolve our war in Iraq. We should pull out of Iraq immediately, invade Russia instead, and try to establish a democracy in that country. By doing so, we would have several things in our favor.
One, we would be fighting an enemy with “conventional” weapons instead of getting our butts kicked in guerrilla warfare. Two, we would be helping to rid the world of Communism, which was our objective many moons ago. Three, we would surely win that war because at the present time Russian soldiers are demoralized, defecting, and would therefore be easily defeated by superior American forces. Fourth, if conventional weapons didn’t do the trick, and both countries went nuclear, we would surely win the war, because America has a much larger nuclear arsenal then Russia. (And we also have a more eager finger on the trigger.)
Of course, much of the Middle East (if not the whole world) would be devastated, and the nuclear fallout might make it uninhabitable for centuries, but even that has an upside: What sense does it make to destroy the Earth in dribbles and drabs?
James T. Moore
(Printer friendly version) Email: James T. Moore
