President George W. Bush, vilified by many, supported by some,
is a hero to me.
Why do I say that? It's not because I agree with the
President's domestic agenda. It's not because I think he's done a
perfect job in the White House.
George Bush is a hero to me because he has courage. The
President does what he believes to be in the best interest of the United
States. He sticks with his beliefs, no matter how intense the criticism
and invective that are directed against him every day.
The enormous defeat President Bush suffered with the loss of
both Houses of Congress has not caused him to retreat from his position
that the U.S. alone now stands between a radical Islamic takeover of
many of the world's governments in the next 30 or more years. If that
takeover occurs, we will suffer an enslavement that will threaten our
personal freedoms and take much of the world back into the Dark Ages.
Our major ally in this war against the forces of darkness, Great
Britain, is still being led by an outstanding prime minister, Tony
Blair. However, Blair will soon be set out to pasture, which means
Great Britain will leave our side and join France, Germany, Spain and
other countries that foolishly believe they can tame the wolf at the
door and convert it into a domestic pet that will live in peace with
them.
These dreamers naively believe that if we feed the wolves what
they demand, they will go away. But that won't happen. Appeasement
never works. The wolves always come back for more and more, and when we
have nothing left to give, they come for us.
Radical Islamists are very much aware that we have shown fear.
For example, we have allowed the people of Darfur — dark skinned
Africans — to be terrorized, killed, raped and taken as slaves by the
supporters of the Sudanese government, radical Islamists. The countries
surrounding Iraq — Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan — made up of Sunni
Arabs, know that for them, the wolves who are the radical Shia are
already at their door. The New York Times reported on December 13,
2006, "Saudi Arabia has told the Bush administration that it might
provide financial backing to Iraqi Sunnis in any war against Iraq's
Shiites if the United States pulls its troops out of Iraq, according to
American and Arab diplomats...The Saudis have argued strenuously against
an American pullout from Iraq, citing fears that Iraq's minority Sunni
Arab population would be massacred...The Bush administration is also
working on a way to form a coalition of Sunni Arab nations and a
moderate Shiite government in Iraq, along with the United States and
Europe, to stand against 'Iran, Syria and the terrorists."
This Saudi response will take place notwithstanding that until
now, according to The Times, "The Saudis have been wary of supporting
Sunnis in Iraq because their insurgency there has been led by extremists
of Al Qaeda, who are opposed to the kingdom's monarchy. But if Iraq's
sectarian war worsened, the Saudis would line up with Sunni tribal
leaders."
The Times article went on to state the opinion of an Arab
expert, Nawaf Obaid, who was recently fired by the Saudi foreign
minister after Obaid wrote an op ed in The Washington Post asserting
that the Saudis were prepared in the event of an American pullout to
engage in a "massive intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias
from butchering Iraqi Sunnis." Obaid went on "suggest[ing] that Saudi
Arabia could cut world oil prices in half...a move that would be
devastating to Iran."
The Times reported, "Arab diplomats...said that Mr. Obaid's
column reflected the view of the Saudi government." When writing about
affairs of state in distant places, unless you are on the scene talking
to knowledgeable participants, the most reliable sources to support
conjecture with "facts" are the superb reporters of the great
international newspapers like The New York Times.
Surely this turn of events in Saudi Arabia undoubtedly
replicated in other Sunni-dominated countries — Sunnis are 80 percent
of the world's Muslim population. This will give support to my
proposal, advanced nearly a year ago, that we tell our allies, regional
and NATO, that we are getting out of Iraq unless they come in. That may
well work, and they will come in, in large part and share the casualties
of combat and the financial costs of war.
Doing what I suggest is far better than simply pulling out,
which is the direction in which we are headed, notwithstanding the
President's opposition. I think at the moment simply getting out and not
making an attempt to bring our allies in is supported by a majority of
Americans and would be supported by a majority of Democrats in the
Congress. For me, staying is clearly preferable, provided we are not
alone and are joined by our regional and NATO allies, aggressively
taking on the difficult but necessary task of destroying radical Islam
and its terrorist agenda if we don't want to see radical Islam destroy
the Western world and moderate Arab states over the next generation, or
as long as it takes for them to succeed.
Two other requirements are needed to bring the war in Iraq to a
successful conclusion: first, require the Iraqi government to allow
greater autonomy for the three regions — Kurd, Sunni and Shia. The
second requirement is that the national Iraqi government enact
legislation that will divide all oil and natural gas revenues in a way
similar to that of our own state of Alaska.
The Alaskan state government takes from those revenues all it
will need to finance government and provide services and the balance is
divided among the population of Alaska, in a profit sharing program.
That would settle the major Sunni problem which has been being cut out
of oil revenues because the country's oil is located only in Kurdish and
Shiite areas. If the Iraqi government refuses our demands, our reply
should be "Goodbye. You're on your own." This proposal was suggested
to me by Mike Sheppard in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
It won't be easy to implement this proposal. But President Bush
has courage. Now is the time to use it.
