Let’s focus on victory, energy independence
By Stan Gudmundson | Guest view

In 1990, Adm. Johnathan Howe was the commander of NATO’s Allied Forces Southern Region, which encompasses Turkey, Greece, Italy, the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. As the Soviet Union began to break up, he became increasingly concerned about non-Soviet threats bordering his area of responsibility.

Like other military commanders, he presented his view of the area in something called a command briefing. Classified, it lasted 45 to 60 minutes and included upwards of 200 supporting slides. An hour discussion usually followed. This briefing was given to senior NATO general officers and admirals and country officials to include Ministers of Defense, U.S. senators and representatives and so on. For two years, my job was to write and present that briefing.
Howe’s replacement was an admiral by the name of Boorda. It was a fascinating time made even more interesting because, unlike the previous admiral, he provided almost no “course correction” or other guidance for the roughly 18 months I worked for him. I continually updated this briefing to reflect what we had learned in our research and included not only contemporary events but also pertinent historical, demographic, political, military and economic information.

In the early ’90s we began to comprehend the now-realized potential for escalating European strife caused by declining native populations along with rapidly growing non-native populations and immigration pressures that included an influx of Muslim immigrants who weren’t assimilating — not that they were even being asked to.

We expected to see violence in Bosnia and Kosovo, and it came. We watched with concern the behavior of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. We began to see radical jihadists and former “freedom fighters” from the conflict in Afghanistan fighting in Bosnia and later in Kosovo. We also noted radical movements and violence in Chechnya as well as other troubling conflicts bordering the region. Consequently, I have been observing, with considerable interest, the events around the area and adjacent areas for almost 18 years.

It was very obvious to us that the radical Muslim movement was going to be a very serious problem. I have not been surprised by anything that has happened since then with two exceptions. We underestimated both the scope and scale of what has since transpired.

When the Muslim religion expanded out of the Arabian Peninsula, these small forces defeated Byzantium and Persia, the two superpowers of the day. A relatively small fighting force also prevailed against one of today’s superpowers, the Soviet Union.

The jihadists don’t look at it that way, though. They are convinced that Muslim forces of old and of today were and are too small and weak to have accomplished what they did. They believe that Allah gave them victory and that he will give them victory over the United States as well.

If we do not win and we leave in any manner, that would support their belief that Allah has once again prevailed, and the world will have only begun to see the killing and misery these radicals will ultimately inflict on this earth. They also believe Allah gave them oil resources specifically to be used as a weapon against the West.

Were we to decide not to fight the jihad and pull our troops out of Iraq immediately, I am cautiously certain that the United States could carry on for some time without significant untoward consequences. Based on what I understand, however, I will bet dollars to horse manure that the long-term consequences will then be much more severe and extraordinarily bloody.

If we cut and run, we will reinforce their belief that Allah controls all and we will pass on the problem of a subsequent rapidly expanding and vicious utopian movement to generations that follow. They will curse us for not having the foresight or the strength or courage to defeat today’s threat.

Whining about why we went into Iraq, bashing President Bush, watching deceptive left-wing “documentaries,” highlighting heartbreaking and terrible wounds, broadcasting the erroneous views of a very few flag officers and inaccurate and misleading editorials will not change the fact that this is a nasty long-term fight.

We have only one option, and that is victory. Trotsky’s observation remains valid. He said, “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”

This fight is not optional.

There are additional things we should be doing. With something like 5,000 to 6,000 years of carbon resources available, we are the world’s carbon energy reserve. We should be building coal gasification plants along with more refineries and exporting the products in significant quantities. We should be completely energy-independent and should be gaining extraordinary riches like other mega-oil producers. We must build more nuclear power plants. When there is little demand for nuclear-generated electricity, we could use the excess power to manufacture hydrogen fuel — for almost nothing.

It is essential that we harness the power of fusion. What we do not need is gas-bag politicians pushing government schemes that mess up the market place or pie-in-the-sky initiatives like alternative energy. But if our focus remains earth first and people last, none of this will happen.

Gudmundson lives in Rushford, Minn., and is a retired colonel in the United States Air Force.

Advertisement