MY Grande Strategy...

This is harder than you'd imagine...

First off, NO, I would not have invaded Iraq. Not because Saddam didn't pose a real and measurable threat to the US, but because he wasn't the BIGGEST threat to the US in the region. Unless Bush was privy to knowledge that still hasn't been made public (something I very much doubt), then nothing I have seen, either before or after March of '03, has led me to think he was the threat to peace that Bush and Co. made him out to be.

That said, I can't say I'd have immediately invaded Iran or North Korea, either. Both (in my opinion) are a greater threat than Iraq has been since Jan of '91... but neither has made any overt actions against the US to the degree that would justify an invasion in my eyes... and I would need that justification to do what Bush did. I couldn't, in good conscience, commit 150,000+ troops to combat unless I KNEW the threat was real and measurable at every level.

Now, if it were to become measurably apparent that a nation like Iran WAS, in fact, aiding and assisting terrorism against the US or its allies, then I would categorically strike that nation with sufficient force to bring home the message that the support of terror carries a high price. I feel these strikes should always be retaliatory in nature, but should be directed to industrial or military targets. This has the added benefit of hurting the combat-effectiveness of the terror-aiding nation AND showing the local population (and the world) that we DO NOT attack civilians intentionally... unlike the terrorists.

I understand that there is merit to the question of "Why wait?" It seems simple to remove the threat before it is realised or utilized. My concern has always been the "what if?" question... what if we are wrong? What if they didn't do what we said they did? It is very difficult to look down on Israel when she retaliates for terror attacks by the Palestinians, as long as the Israelis keep the high ground and don't make mistakes. As much as it pains me to say it, Reagan's attack of Libya in the '80s is a great example. Gaddafi got out of the hostage and hijacking business in a hurry when his family compound was targeted by a couple of F-16s carrying 2500 lbs of "Bob's your Uncle", didn't he? The other side of that coin is what we have in Iraq now... the whole world questioning our authority to enforce and defend US interests abroad because we "dropped the ball" on the WMD issue. No one is doing that about Afghanistan, because we DIDN'T compromise our principals with pre-emptive mistakes in policy and procedure.

My next course of policy-action would be to take what we know to be the single greatest strength of our most successful alliance to date (NATO) and incorporate it into a new anti-terror coalition. Any signatory state agrees that a terrorist attack on ONE member is an attack on ALL members, and ALL members contribute resources, intelligence and manpower to remove the threat once and for all. Since the question posed by Ryan was specifically concerned with the threat of "radical Islam", this would be most helpful if it were made up mainly of Muslim nations. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Libya, Morocco, Pakistan, Yemen, Algiers, and Lebanon would be the corps nations, as all have already voiced some interest in such an agreement. Obviously, the BIG name that can't be here is Israel... but that might change, someday.

Now, understand that I am not expecting miracles here... I know that these nations aren't going to be able to contribute much in the way of men or materials that we would really need to fight terror. What it gives us, though, is a degree carte blanc that we DON'T have now, when it comes to fighting terror and the states that support it. For example, Lebanon determines that the bombings happening in Beirut are Iranian-supported, and we see the evidence as undeniable, then it is the US that strikes at the new reactor facility 65 miles south of Tehran to show what kind of business we mean, rather than the UN Security Council meeting to draft yet another resolution that does nothing meaningful to stop the bombings.

All the best planning in the world become obsolete the minute hostilities commence. This is an age-old fact of warfare, and I don't deny that some of this factored into the Iraq invasion, as well. However, knowing this to be a factor in general ground combat operations SHOULD have entered into someones thoughts in the months leading up to the March invasion date. To commit even 1/3 of the 488,000 troops initially called for by the Army planning and strategy staff to defeat and remove Saddam and his regime is an undertaking that was entered into far too lightly, in my opinion. Our success in '91 was seen as a blueprint for how it would happen in '03... but we weren't creating a political vacuum in '91. We were fighting to remove Iraqi forces from a sovereign state. In '03, we were removing every single element of command and control in a society of 26 million people that have NEVER experienced personal political freedom in the 3,600 years of recorded history... and we were doing it with no international consensus and no long-term planning or resources in place.

No... the Administration took this far too lightly.