I am writing because I see the facts surrounding the Middle East conflict quite differently than most. I spent 20 years in the U.S. military, a good deal of the time in the Middle East, and up until a few years ago continued working with go
vernments in the region (under U.S. auspices), so I have been exposed. Before you condone with silence our current illadvised course, I want you to have some feel for, "the other side of the story", a.k.a. my view of the facts.
First, it is clear that we can not win. Some of the basic reasons why: (1) They have the desert on their side, a powerful ally. (2) They have morale on
their side. They are fighting for their homes and their very existance, and they are fighting their arch enemy Israel, for to all in the East, the U.S. and Israel are one in the same. (3) They are at home and have lived there in their des
ert for 5,000+ years without significant imports. The embargo is more of a burden on the rest of the world than it is on Iraq. Saddam is laughing at the impact that the embargo is having on ther rest of the world. He knows that we can
not maintain the embargo. It hurts the rest of the world far more that it hurts him. (4) They understand the American mentality, respect its strengths and know how to take advantage of its weaknesses. We do not understand Islam and have no
respect for its strengths. We tend to belittle and under estimate our enemies. We tend to confuse reality with our own propaganda.
Second, Islam does not allow one to bow to threats and force, for that is cowardice, particularly when the source is a foreign intruder. Negotiate, yes. Give in, no.
Third, the only oil problem is the one we created with the
embargo. We overreacted.
Fourth, the Kuwaities
(and Saudi's) are bullies too. Ask Jordon, Egypt, the Palestanians and Saddam. Of course their weapons are financial, thus less visible and far less bloody.
Fifth, re
cognize that we are dealing here with a truly ruthless opponent. I don't think that our military has been psychologically prepared for a ruthless, direct contact, bloody ground war. We are more prepared for a high tech, push button
conflict where maiming and death occur at a distance. Without blinking, Saddam lost 400,000 men and took 1,000,000 casualties in direct combat over the past few years. If any country was ever psychologically prepared for a bloody ground war,
these guys are. Yet, our leaders think that they can overwealm their 1,000,000 man force in a few days.
Lastly, Saddam's offensive scenarios ve
rsus our defensive posture (instead of our offensive plans and his defensive capability) must be realistically apprised. After we start the war by dropping the first bomb, as soon as Saddam is sure that it is clear to the world that
the United States "started it", he will promptly put us on the defensive. He will probably level Kuwaiti oil facilities, igniting rivers of oil as an impediment to our recovery of Kuwait. Ever try to land an amphibious force on a burning beach
? Bring firefighers, not Marines.
Concurrently, he will probably send three or four armored divisions, along different routes, to physically level Riyadh (not j
ust its command and control and air support facilities). Other armored divisions will be directed to physically occupy, and destroy as necessary, Dhahran air support facilities. Saudi's eastern oil fields and facilities will be captured.
Unless we agree to a cease fire and negotiations, they will also be leveled.
Your experts will tell you that our air power
makes such a scenario impossible. We seem to beleive that Saddam is as awed as we are by our potential air power. Obviously, he is not. He respects it and knows that it will certainly slow him down initially. But can we sustain the l
evel of combat air support necessary to contain him? Initially, maybe. A couple of weeks into the war? I doubt it. Refueling, rearming and lack of repair parts and maintenance facility inadequacies are even now limiting our training ex
ercises. Under the pressure of combat, with Iraqi forces attacking in six or seven different geographically areas, I doubt it.
The purpose of this letter is to introduce you to "Cong", a computerized Congressional locator and administrative support program.
Using a PC, "Cong" lets you and your staff immediately locate any member of Congress by name, state, party, district, body, committee or sub-commitee. Once a member has been selected, the member's telephone number, building, offic
e number and other details are displayed. The member's committee and subcommittee assignments are also immediately available for review, as are the names of other members of the member's committees and subcommittees. In addition, m
embers can be "tagged" for automatic group mailings. Memos, notices, invitations, letters, etc., can be created and edited within "Cong", and "Cong" produces addressed, ready to mail correspondence for tagged members at the pre
ss of a key.
"Cong" correspondence is designed to utilize windowed envelopes, thus minimizing your administrative burden. As a matter
of fact, "Cong" is so easy to use that you, personally, can generate and send sensitive notes to your colleagues without any assistance, thus with complete confidentiality (as long as you fold the pages and stuff the envelopes yourself). Imagi
ne being able to send a note to 100 colleagues in complete confidence in less than thirty minutes. (I generated and printed this letter myself using "Cong".)
A copy of "Cong" is available for your use and evaluation. No charge. Call 800-777-1630 for your copy or if you have any questions.
I am very disappointed in the way the budget thing was managed.
You and your associates made it look like the only!
choices were higher taxes or cut medicare. That made me sick. Why didn't you trade off some foreign aid instead? Now I'm hearing
about all the special interest "goodies" in the budget!
I'd like to know how you feel about this mess, if you have a position, that is. And don't bother passing this to my
congressman for a response. I want to hear from you.
(.txt)