In May of 1945, after VE Day, Allied intelligence debriefed a number of high-level government Nazis regarding their knowledge of their departments. Primary amongst these officials was Albert Speer, originally Hitler's official architect, who rose to the level of Minister Of Armaments in the regime. The information Allied interrogators gleaned from the debriefing was eye-opening, to say the least. Speer had communicated to the Allies that contrary to their intelligence reports, Allied bombing sorties, which numbered in the tens of thousands over a two year period and cost the Army Air Corps 26,000 men (not to mention thousands of British RAF personnel) had made but a negligible dent in the German military-industrial capacity. Interrogators were stunned, but Speer was smart enough during the war not to centralize German industrial production, and thus, negated the efforts of Allied bombers to destroy German industrial might. Seems the Americans in particular, who lauded the effectiveness of daylight precision bombing, had it all wrong. Speer also went on to say that the Germans were operating at 80% industrial capacity right to the very end, particularly in regards to German aircraft production. What was ironic about this was that the primary focus of the American bombing campaign was specifically to target the German's ability to produce Luftwaffe aircraft; clearly this aim was not achieved. What WAS achieved was that the Germans, as a result of unsuccessfully attempting to ward off all these bombing sorties, wound up burning out and/or losing all of their fighter-interceptor pilots through attrition. Too many Allied bombers, not enough German fighter pilots to take them down. Allied intelligence never even picked up on this until after Speer told them post-bellum. The Allies didn't stop the production of aircraft; they destroyed the supply of pilots to fly them.
Which brings us to Iraq.
The Left have blathered their usual crap about how our presence in Iraq has made the Islamo-terrorist threat more acute, though they have nothing to base this theory on, save their own anti-American feelings. That said, there's really no way to know for sure if they're right or not. I happen to think they're full of it (not a stretch; they usually are), but there's no statistical way to know, not one that anyone can cite, that is. Perhaps our presence in Iraq has created "1000 bin Ladens" as some have said, but I'd say it actually has dissuaded, more than persuaded, potential jihadists, particularly since the jihad in Iraq is failing so egregiously. And how would I know that? Perhaps it might have something to do with the al Qaeda documents that were intercepted by our forces in Iraq. Here's what these docs had to say:
"At the same time, the Americans and the Government were able to absorb our painful blows, sustain them, compensate their losses with new replacements, and follow strategic plans which allowed them in the past few years to take control of Baghdad as well as other areas one after the other. That is why every year is worse than the previous year as far as the Mujahidin's control and influence over Baghdad."
Is this a de facto admission on the part of the jihadists in Iraq that they're losing? (By the way, al Qaeda isn't in Iraq, the war in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism or Iraq....or 9/11, and it's all about cheap oil for our gluttonous SUVs and Hummers...no wait, it's al about making oil expensive to line the pockets of Bush's oil company buddies...no wait...doesn't compute....) Maybe, maybe not. It could be a psychological ploy, a forgery, as some on the Left have said, put out by our own military intelligence. I'm not willing to dismiss that outright, but I doubt it. Almost five years after 9/11, and the jihadists haven't been able to launch a successful attack on American soil. Some say it is because they're lying in wait, but I doubt that. Bin Laden's last few recordings keep on making the charge that a big attack is coming, but nothing seems to have happened. My theory is that all the jihadists are losing their lives in Iraq, and all of the money and support is drying up. How do I know this? I don't, and least not factually. Like all of us, I'm going to have to get my answers when the war is over.
If the Left had any brains, they would too.
But then, I'm a trained historian. I take the longview. I'll get my definitive, factual answers to this after we win in Iraq, the Islamic world is liberalized (if not democratized), and their government's files are opened. (Can't wait to read what was going on behind the scenes in Syria and Iran; that'll be quite a read.) Then we'll see, from primary source documents, what really was going on in Iraq. Already the American military has seized documents from the Saddam Hussein era which clearly articulate a working relationship with al Qaeda dating back to the mid 90's. Of course, you probably didn't read that in the mainstream media....did you....
The history of this administration, this war, and this era has yet to be written. Two decades after the Reagan era, even liberals are now heaping encomiums on the man. Bush might have the last laugh yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment