Baron, I accept your invitation!
Directing administration policy is a very complicated affair, and not much gets done overnight, which is probably a good thing.
We must first put persons, groups, and nations into appropriate categories: (Understanding that this is a sweeping generalization)
- Enemy: Actively Opposed to us.
- Leaning Hostile: opposing us, but not willing to openly bear arms against us. Would benefit from our failure.
- Neutral: Want no part of us or anyone else involved in the conflict.
- Leaning Friendly: Willing to provide some measure of assistance, would benefit from our success.
- Ally: Will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with us come what may.
I will survey the main Middle Eastern Players, because it is there The Great Jihad must be stopped.
Here are the reasons why I will focus on this area:
- This is where the greatest concentration of muslims, jihadis, and their shrines, are located.
- In any conflict, armed, diplomatic,ideological, or intellectual, whoever determines the battlefield has an initial advantage.
- It will force the opposition to devote more resources to that battlefield, and delay planned excursions out of theater.
- Oil is the economic engine of Western Civilization, and the engine of The Great Jihad. Whoever controls the oil, wins.
SITREP
Our main forces are deployed in the Iraqi theater, engaged in what might be described as suppressive fire operations, while local friendlies are built up to take the baton.
Foreign fighters, or jihadis, are being infiltrated onto the battlefield from multiple nations. They are: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, and Iran. More come from elsewhere, but these will be the main focus for our purposes here.
These infiltrators are denying our forces the opportunity to effectively clear an area of combatants because more arrive from elsewhere. This is an obvious borrowing from the Viet Cong. We should handle this situation.
POLICY DECISION
Use the various available methods to reduce the flow of foreign fighters onto the battlefield.
- Use the State Department to send a sternly worded message about the border crossings and any perceived “assistance” they have rendered the jihadis. Since I am aware that most employees in the State Department may or may not be “on our side”, my first goal will be to convince them that if they aren’t successful in communicating to their opposites, bad things will happen if our warning isn’t heeded. We would be forced to take the view that their nation was being used as a supply depot for our enemies, and a friend of our enemy is…
- Use spy satellites, drones, humint, and military assets to track the movements of jihadis. This would allow military and/or intelligence assets to intercept and “roll up” their networks, both inside and outside of Iraq. Covert means would be used to take key players out of the game inside and outside Iraq no matter where they are to be found, using appropriate force.
- Position forces where it would not be a hardship to move them across the border in pursuit of hostiles and get the message out to these nations that we are sooo close to having “had enough”.
I believe that about covers what I would do about the foreign fighter problem. I imagine it would take at least six months or so for this plan to begin to see some perceptible fruition, and perhaps some changes on the part of nations neighboring Iraq. Or at least they would severely cut back on their overt support.
End of first part
Okay, lemme know where I dreamin’!
Thunderpig's Mirror 