Anti-Subjugator

My war plan in 2002 was based on an incorrect assumption that 90% of people living under a dictatorship would be overjoyed at being liberated. I couldn't comprehend how anyone other than the same fringe ratbags we have in Australia (that support communism or anarchy or whatever) would want to live under a sadistic dictatorship rather than be free. Instead, Iraq was split 50/50 between feeling liberated and feeling humiliated. Even the whole "humiliation" thing was an unexpected result. I was looking for a 95/5 split between liberated/preferred being a slave actually. Instead half the country felt humiliated, presumably by the fact that they lost a war. I wouldn't feel humiliated if the Japanese had beaten Australia in WWII. I certainly wouldn't like it, but there's no reason to be humiliated by the scientific fact that stronger powers are technically able to devour weaker powers.

So, rather than quickly move on to Iran as I assumed we would do, we instead needed to figure out what was going wrong in Iraq. To explain what was causing some Iraqis to be allied with us, while others were trying to kill us. We needed an explanation for this vastly different behaviour from people who had essentially identical upbringing. Zeyad from Healing Iraq was the first to provide the feedback, and reported that he supported the war while his uncle living next door opposed it, and they had a bitter falling out over the issue. Anyway, after much diligent research I had an explanation for the seemingly strange behaviour on 2004-09-11.

Unfortunately the antidote that I created to correct the strange behaviour did not work. As far as I can tell, other humans are lacking a fundamental trait to try to get their brain operating as rationally as possible, and also lacking empathy. Fortunately this doesn't apply to our governments. Collectively, western humans have been able to create near-impeccable governments. Especially with regards to their treatment of their citizens. Concern for the human rights of foreigners is dismal. They instead cling to a dogma that "war is bad, peace is paramount". Even after having been given a spanking by Mr Hitler, they still haven't learnt. So anyway, my antidote which was designed to liberate the rest of the world without a fight failed, so we unfortunately need to continue to use military force (it is still the least worst option). Here is what needs to be done.

The Iraqi security forces are expected to have taken over in November 2007. I don't think we should make any moves until that has happened. Unfortunately that means that Australia will be out of the game. Australian elections are due about November 2007 and according to the latest polls, the treacherous Labor Party (left-wing, anti-war) is leading 55% to 45%. So, my dying wish is for the US to continue without its hitherto staunchest ally. It would be strategic for Australia to issue a unilateral declaration of war on Iran before the elections are lost, but it appears that the reputation that Australians have does not match ground reality, and that such a declaration of war would not be appreciated by the public.

What that means is that by the time the Iraqi forces are ready, the US will be alone, and have just 1 year remaining before the treacherous Democrats take control of the US military. Technically, that is all that is required to accomplish the task, so it's not the end of the world. As many countries as possible need to be liberated in that remaining 1 year.

Deciding which countries to liberate and in which order and by what method is not a straightforward calculation. Multiple things need to be taken into consideration. Scary weapons like Pakistan's nukes are a high priority. But even higher priority is enemy governments. We aren't quite sure what damage enemy governments can inflict on the free world, but it's better to have it out with them now, before they acquire any more capability. Damage limitation so to speak. We could have done this decades ago if we didn't have to deal with the Soviet Union, but we need to deal with the world as we find it, not what we would wish it to be. We also need to take into account what price we need to pay to liberate a country. We need to take into account whether democracy is likely to replace a friendly or neutral government with an enemy. We also need to take into account the reactions of other countries - we really want to liberate people in such a manner that a hostile coalition is not formed against America, e.g. the US getting kicked out of NATO. The goal is to create a world full of rational, humanist, non-subjugating government, and rational, humanist, non-subjugating individuals. If this can be achieved via democracy, that is ideal as it is self-managing. Otherwise we need to keep an eye on the dictator.

Bearing all this in mind, and looking at all the countries in the world today, Iran stands out as the most sensible target to choose next. There are multiple reasons for this.

1. We get to preempt them developing nukes.

2. We get to take out a country with an official slogan of "Death to USA" and that has openly threatened to wipe Israel, another member of the free world, off the map.

3. Indications are that the regime is deeply unpopular. That is why the dictator doesn't dare allow free and fair elections and freedom of speech.

4. They are sponsoring terrorism (Hizbullah).

5. They have access to oil revenue which gives them revenue to fund anti-free-world activity.

6. The regime is abusing human rights, including such things as cutting out people's eyes and raping girls so that they don't go to heaven when executed.

7. Putting Iran's oil revenue into the hands of the Iranian people means that we can improve the lives of the Iranian people in an instant.

8. The Iranians will spread the word that Islamic dictatorship is not all it's cracked up to be. In fact, there may be a general collapse of Islam in Iran, perhaps a defection to Zoastrianism.

9. It is geostrategic - we may get a launch pad into Pakistan.

10. If we're lucky, the Iranian people will be as enthusiastic about their freedom as the Baltics are, and take over leadership of the free world, or at least join in on future liberations.

11. Indications are that the Iranians are sensible people who don't live in the Arab Parallel Universe (partly because they're Persian, not Arab!).

12. We don't need to install a dictatorship there, whatever they come up with via democracy will be fine. This means that no troops are required to stay in Iran.

13. The Iranian military is conscript so reflects the population at large. It doesn't have a history of carrying out atrocities against the Iranian people. Therefore it can be reused. Thus there is no security vacuum and the transfer of power should be clean.

14. In a showdown on the Taiwan Strait, Iran may be willing to halt oil shipments to China, collapsing their economy.

15. The forces needed to do the job are already in the area (Iraq).

16. It is easy to liberate Iran. It will be a turkey-shoot and they have no way of responding.


So here is what America needs to do. To avoid spooking all the other dictators that need to be liberated, make sure that the reasons you give for liberating Iran are restricted to just Iran. That means concentrate on the nukes and the sponsoring of terrorism. Only mention human rights abuses in passing, even though spreading human rights is a long-standing US goal and is going to be the most beautiful aspect of the liberation, something which everyone on the planet should be supporting. Next, assemble a coalition. Working with a coalition is great, as it shows that multiple countries have independently come to the conclusion that toppling Iran's dictatorship is something good for the world. It is a real stretch to imagine that every member of the coalition is there because of a super-secret agreement to steal oil or enrich Halliburton (although that doesn't stop the moonbats from trying that argument anyway).

Now this war is also an opportunity to refine military doctrine. Specifically, there is a huge difference between a war of conquest and a war of liberation. We found in Afghanistan that something like 85% of the people were on our side. In Iraq, the figure was hazier. Although 50% felt liberated, the remainder (who felt humiliated) do not appear to have actually fought, and also turned out to vote in large numbers (70%). I'm expecting the Iranians to be smarter than both the Afghans and the Iraqis, so something like 90% support for liberation. The Iranian army is conscript, so should reflect the general population, which means 90% of the soldiers want to be liberated too. We have experience in Iraq of Iraqi generals turning over their bases during the war. As soon as they knew they had US firepower to protect them, they defected. The same should happen in Iran, although the only way to find out is to try it.

There are 4 ways we know of to get a government to change:

1. revolution.

2. military coup.

3. external invasion.

4. leadership has a change of heart.

Number 4 has been worked on for decades without success. Number 1 was tried in 1999 and the revolutionaries were slaughtered by automatic weapons. But when we're ready to liberate Iran, we should try to jump-start numbers 1 and 2 at the same time as doing (or preparing to do) number 3. The Iranian people may well rise up if they know they don't have to face government forces with automatic weapons, because they are protected by US air power. They also need a rallying point. The US can provide this by dropping a couple of noise bombs on Tehran at lunchtime on a work day, while simultaneously broadcasting to the Iranian people to rise up and take their freedom.

At the same time, the US can drop leaflets on Iranian bases, asking everyone to initiate a coup, and that they will be protected by US air power. It is not really possible to plan much further ahead than this, because we need the feedback from this action. The plan should be to REACT to whatever we find there! However, let's say we have trouble getting Iranian bases to defect. We should try assaulting one Iranian base at a time with special forces, to see what percentage of the soldiers want to fight us, what percentage want to go home, and what percentage want to join us. Hopefully give them a chance to fight for their own freedom instead of just having it handed to them on a platter.

We may find that people aren't willing to defect unless they see ground forces moving in with tanks. If this is the case, then a proper invasion needs to be mounted. But try doing it with a small number of forces, such as 30k. Iraq was liberated with 60k troops I think (since the 4th ID had been refused entry via Turkey). The Iraq liberation was a cakewalk with 60k troops, so let's see if 30k is also a cakewalk. Getting it down to 30k gets us into the realm of an international force doing future liberations, with the US only needing to provide 10% of the troops instead of 90%. International troops have managed to muster that sort of number in Afghanistan.

If 30k troops turns out to not be enough, then the number of troops in Iraq should be reduced to 20k, and the forces freed up can join the battle in Iran. It could be argued that even if 30k troops take Iran, it doesn't prove anything, because the Iranians always knew we had 100k troops waiting in reserve in Iraq, and even more troops waiting in reserve in the US. But alas, there is not much we can do about that. Let's start by proving how many troops we actually need in theatre to win a war.

If the US needs to fight its way in, as it did in Iraq, then we are probably looking at a 4-week battle. At the end of that battle, we should reuse the old army instead of disbanding it. We should put Iranian reformers (the same guys that held a sit-in at parliament, plus dissidents from jail)in power, with a directive to hold free and fair elections. We should also ask the nuclear scientists where the nuclear program is and dismantle it. In the case of a future Iranian coup, we don't want the nukes to fall into the wrong hands. After that there is no need to hang around. The Iranians can fend for themselves. So Iran will be wrapped up in just a few weeks.

It would be ideal if a non-US, non-UK country stepped up to the plate to lead this endeavour. I have already asked Australia to unilaterally declare war on Iran. Via IRC I have also asked people in other countries to petition their governments to do the same. I didn't get very far. I did get a few people to say that they would send letters, mostly other Australians. If we could get someone like the Philippines to lead this charge, that would be great. If I were an Iranian soldier I would trust the intentions of the Philippines more than that of the US. The Philippines has no baggage at all. Australia has the disadvantages that we are predominantly white (and there's a lot of anti-white racists out there), and we are sort of associated with the UK. We do have the advantage that we're actually competent, while the Philippines has enough trouble just taking care of its own territory. Other non-white candidates (Taiwan, South Korea, Japan) all have either baggage or difficulties at home.

If someone else does step up to the plate, they should say that they are doing it for human rights, no other reason. Let America be the one to say "we're only joining this coalition because of security concerns, all you human rights abusers needn't be afraid". For me personally, security of the free world (including Israel) is paramount, and when evaluating threats I take a cold, hard, dispassionate, rational view. However, once a decision has been made to liberate someone, I switch to the entirely humanist aspect of seeing liberated people with their happy faces. I'm so much looking forward to reading the blogs of FREE Iranians.

Then we should move on to Syria. Don't bother trying the same thing that was tried with Iran. In Syria we are definitely dealing with nutcases. They need to be conquered, not liberated. So use 100k troops. Tell the Allawies that they will be left in charge of the military so they don't need to fear revenge from the majority non-Allawies. The Syrian people need to continue to be oppressed. These are dangerous creatures, enemies of the free world. Stick in some reformers and give them a directive to set about de-Nazifying the country. This guy can probably do the job. Leave 10k US troops in Syria to ensure the Syrian military doesn't overthrow the reformers. Force Syria to sign a peace treaty with Israel, and allow Israel to keep any territory it feels it needs for its security. All this can be done in a few weeks. Next stop Lebanon.

In Lebanon, the Syrian-installed President needs to be deposed, and Hizbullah needs to be defeated. Then force Lebanon to sign a peace treaty with Israel. The population also needs to be de-Nazified, so force the Lebanese government to change its education system. The politicians who are already in power should be able to do this. Shoot any of them who disagree. Leave 10k troops there. All this can be done in a few weeks too. And use 100k troops to do the job.

Next move on to Sudan. Another case of conquest rather than liberation. So once again use 100k troops. Install reformers, including people from Darfur. Put Darfurian soldiers in charge of the military and heavy equipment. Don't bother hanging around. Once again, wrap it up in a few weeks.

Then move on to Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe needs to be liberated, not conquered. The opposition already exists in the form of the MDC. We need to empower them. This should be done with special forces dropped in to MDC-dominant areas of the capital and asking the people to rise up and seize police stations. See what eventuates from that, and react. If it doesn't work out, start sending in ground forces. With a bit of luck, everything should be over in 24 hours.

Then there are 3 important places left. Gaza, which needs to be turned into an independent country (it sort of is already), but needs to be de-Nazified. Amost the entire population is voting for terrorist organizations. There is Pakistan, which needs to be dismantled - the tribal areas (which have never been conquered) going to Afghanistan, and the remainder going to India. And North Korea which needs to be reunited with the South. I do not know which order these should be done in. I would probably say North Korea, then Pakistan, then Gaza. North Korea actually has an enemy government, unlike Pakistan.

To take North Korea, withdraw all of the US soldiers from the kill zone. Then bomb their oil pipeline from China and see what happens. It is really difficult to see how the North Koreans can solve that problem. But let's say they manage to stay in power somehow and we need to use military force. See if we can bribe Russia to let us enter North Korea from its territory. Failing that, concentrate all firepower on some north-eastern port in North Korea and then land 100k troops. After Pyongyang is captured, the South Korean army can take over, and all US troops can immediately depart. This will probably take 2-3 months to accomplish, although obviously we're hoping for a collapse in a couple of days.

Next move on to Pakistan. With a bit of luck, Iran will let us use their territory. If not, enter via a southern Pakistani port. Land 100k troops to conquer the Pakistani forces. Find and remove the nukes. Split Pakistan as I previously mentioned. Don't mention in advance that you intend to split Pakistan. In actual fact, ensure that it is not mentioned in government offices to ensure there is plausible deniability. Have that discussion after winning the military battle. With Indian troops taking over Pakistan there is no need to keep US troops there. However, the tribal territories, now in the hands of Afghanistan, and harbouring Osama Bin Laden, do need to be conquered so that Afghan law can be enforced. There is not much choice but to use US troops to do this. Use the 100k troops that were used to defeat the Pakistani military. With a bit of luck, Afghan troops can also be used. Either way, leave Afghan troops in charge of their own territory after the territory has been conquered, so that the US troops can withdraw.

Next move to Gaza. Leave 50k troops there. You need to protect the minority who support a civil society and are willing to sign up to the new security forces. The bulk of the population has been totally brainwashed, even more so than the German Nazis. A massive ideological change is required. Children need to be educated along European lines instead of being filled with hatred. There's probably going to be a lot of resistance to this, so prepare for a bloody battle. Zones need to be set up. There should be zones where the people are sending their kids to European-style schools and zones where the people are insisting on being able to commit child abuse. Choke off oil supplies to the latter zones. It's far more leniency than was shown to the people of Dresden. When they've had enough, they are welcome to crawl out, without weapons, into the European-style zone. This operation will likely take decades to complete, although hopefully the number of US troops can be reduced.

If all this can be accomplished before the traitors take over the Whitehouse in 2009, then that is great. But the job is far from complete. You still have a Nazified population in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. You still have dictatorships in Burma, Vietnam and elsewhere. It tears my heart out that Burma could be liberated in under a week, but the treacherous Democrats wouldn't authorize it, and there's simply not enough time to do it under Bush's watch. Perhaps at this point the US should split in two itself, between red states and blue states, and the red states should take the military with them, and continue the wars against the remaining tinpot dictators. Stopping at China.

China should not be taken on militarily. It is not cost-justified. However, Taiwan must be protected. So long as it doesn't declare independence. If Taiwan declares independence, then throw them to the dogs. They deserve what they get by trying to drag us into an unnecessary war. China is changing from within and the policies of the government are not actually that bad. It's not far removed from a benign dictatorship, or Iraq under Paul Bremer. It would quite possibly have worse policies as a democracy, as the rural population is not as educated as the urban folk and could well plunge China back to both communism and overpopulation. But being a dictatorship, it's policies could change in a moment, and suddenly be aggressive. We need to guard against this and make sure Taiwan remains free. If we can liberate the rest of the world first, we can basically make it the whole world against China. If China tries anything, we can cut its oil supplies. Even if we can't do that, China's economy is now dependent on trade with the West. Economic sanctions will ensure that China pays a very heavy price for aggression against Taiwan or any of our other allies. Until then, just wait for China to transform its economy and educate its people. When they're up to scratch, hopefully the Chinese dictators will allow democracy, and hopefully Taiwan will accept being part of China, which will hopefully be renamed back to Republic of China.

This war plan is obviously subject to change, depending on the feedback we get as each country is toppled. I doubt that the US has actually thought this far in advance and has such a grand plan. It is more likely that the US simply reacts to the most obvious threat at the time. But citizens of the free world should all be formulating a long-term strategy such as this one, and lobbying for the next step of that plan to be carried out. Don't wait for someone else to do it - do it yourself!

UPDATE: There's a discussion on invading Iran here.