What's the war plan, Mr. President?

“And it’s one, two, three,

What are we fighting for?”

                                                                        ~ Country Joe McDonald

So now the Obama Administration, which came into office promising

to “reset” relations with Russia and persuade Middle Eastern terrorists

to convert their weapons into plowshares, is taking the United States

into war.

Teed up is Syria, which is being overrun by numerous anti-state

fighters, and whose condition – that of a failed country – poses

a threat to U.S. and global security unseen since Afghanistan

was under Taliban rule.

Also inside American crosshairs is ISIS, the terrorist group

dominating headlines since it brutally killed American freelance

reporter James Foley and made, until U. S. Navy fighter planes

started bombing them, significant gains in Iraq. 

Not only is ISIS so extreme it makes Al Qaeda look rational,

it’s also highly ambitious, with one member of its ranks saying his

organization won’t rest until its flag flies above the White House.[i]

Seriously, what’s a peace-leaving, smarter-than-you Democrat,

like Barack Obama, to do?

Easy – borrow from the playbook of every president since 1980,

maybe even earlier.

Sure, the White House diatribe sounds good.  We’re going to bomb

ISIS wherever we find it.  Our drones will fly over Syrian cities and

long stretches of Iraqi desert.  If they lack sufficient capabilities to kill

terrorists and destroy weapons, no worry.  Navy and Air Force jets

will be on call.

Parts of our Navy’s surface fleet might even get in on the action

by launching cruise missiles.  Let’s also hope for numerous

opportunities to keep our elite, special forces on top of their

game with plenty of dangerous combat missions.

If only this war were the real thing and not a live-fire exercise.

It’s a few bombs here, a few bombs there, spiced with some

intoxicating, edge-of-the-seat, missions from Delta Force, the

 Seals, maybe even the Green Berets.

But that’s where it stops.

A plausible case can be made that U. S. military operations in

World War II’s Pacific Theater could have come to halt once

Japan’s progress was stopped with two critical battles, Coral

Sea and Midway.

In Europe – for a few years at least – the fighting could have

been left to the Army Air Corps as it bombed factories, towns

and military installations in Nazi-occupied Europe and Germany.

That is, until their advance stopped and we figured out a time and

a place to work out a peace treaty with Berlin and, eventually,

Tokyo.

And what would we be dealing with these many years later?  The

fifth generation of Nazi leadership and the 21^st century version

of Japan’s militarists!

And there’s the problem.  President Obama has no more of

strategy to beat the terrorists, whether they’re ISIS, Al Qaeda or

anyone else – in other words, to solve the problem – than

President Johnson did for winning the Vietnam War.

Or than Jimmy Carter did for releasing our hostages in

Tehran.  Or than President Reagan did for winning in Lebanon,

or than President George H. W. Bush did for eliminating

Saddam Hussein or than President Clinton did for outright

defeating Osama bin Laden.

And, frankly, blame can also be left with President George W.

Bush, whose two wars were left unfinished.

Come to think of it, had Presidents Truman and Eisenhower

fought for a victory in Korea, today we wouldn’t be contending

with the third generation of the family running North Korea.

So the question we need to ask – as posed by 1960s music star

Country Joe McDonald – is what are we fighting for?  A total

elimination of the terrorists in Syria and Iraq or is Obama

creating a quagmire the next five to 10 generations of Americans

will deal with?

This same kind of thinking came from Martin Dempsey, the

U.S. military’s top officer.

“They can be contained (but) not into perpetuity,” he said,

referring to ISIS, during last week’s news conference.[ii]

Airstrikes can do so much, Dempsey said.  They alone

cannot stop a determined force, like ISIS.  What we need, the

general inferred, is a plan, something that includes all out

American force, both a military and diplomatic.

The President and his advisors need to craft a strategy similar

to what U. S. Army General Winfield Scott proposed at the

outbreak of the Civil War.  Call it Operation Anaconda, just 

like the general called his plan.

It would surround Syria and Iraq and, through airstrikes, special

operations and conventional infantry forces, destroy ISIS and

every other terrorist movement in those two countries, maybe

even Bashar al-Assad’s government. 

In other words, we need to fight a real war with one objective

– total victory.

Then, of course, we’ll need something along the lines of a

Marshall Plan to win the peace.

If there’s anything President Obama should know, it’s

this:  Failure to eliminate ISIS and restructure Syria and

Iraq will create more costly problems in the future, possibly 

in American and allied lives.

Did you really think Obama was brighter than the rest?

 “Don’t ask me why,

Don’t give a damn,

My next stop is Islam!”

~ with apologies to Country Joe

---

[i] http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/08/08/new-isis-video-‘we-will-raise-black-flag-over-white-house’

[ii] http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/08/22/dempsey-isis-has-an-end-of-days-strategic-vision/s 

Memo to Hillary Clinton

To:              The Honorable Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

From:           Doug Page, freelance writer, blogger, registered
independent

Date:            June 18, 2014

Re:              Iraq

Dear Madam Secretary:

You better be texting POTUS about this situation, telling him to

make damn sure he doesn’t lose Baghdad to those crazed ISIS

terrorists. If you're not, you’re hardly a serious contender for

becoming the next president of the United States – book

or no book!

Sure, the Iraq War under President George W. Bush wasn’t popular

but if Baghdad falls on President Obama’s watch, the former president

will look like the best commander in chief since Ronald Reagan.

The average American voter will see in the Democrats exactly what

you don’t want them to perceive – a political party so run by its

peaceniks that it’s prepared to surrender any ally, even questionable

ones, to anyone, including to a band of renegades who, according to

The Economist, make al-Qaida look reasonable.[i]

Anyone associated with the Democratic Party, regardless of what

office they’re running for this year or two years from now, will be

considered suspicious on national security.

Including you if you’re the Democratic presidential nominee!

Say what you want about national security – that it’s only near and

dear to the Tea Party and other assorted right-wing extremists – but

if ISIS wins in Iraq, enough Americans will feel threatened to

prevent you from winning a key state, like Ohio or Michigan, and, thus, 

sending the Republican presidential nominee into the White House.

In fact, the next time you speak with President Obama, you might tell

him that if he doesn’t save Baghdad, Jeb Bush may be the biggest

beneficiary. Not only will it elevate his candidacy for his party’s

presidential nomination it will also improve his chances of winning

the general election in November 2016.

And if Baghdad goes down, it could put you in a very uncomfortable

position, one likely not seen since Hubert Humphrey ran for president

in 1968.  You’ll be forced to distance yourself from the White House.

Like Humphrey, it's highly unlikely you'll be considered believable

since you worked for President Obama.  Most American voters won’t
be able to separate you from him.

Don’t forget Benghazi. Any fall of Baghdad piles onto that situation,

making you look even less credible on national defense.

Finally, you need to control the far left in your party, reminding

them the world is filled with danger.

As British historian Jeremy Black reminds us in his book, War and

The New Disorder in the 21^st Century, “One prediction seems safe:

talk of obsolescence, even end, of war will prove misplaced, and will

be mocked by the rictus on the face of the dead.”[ii]

---

[i] “Terror’s New Headquarters,” The Economist, June 14, 2014:  http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21604160-iraqs-second-city-has-fallen-group-wants-create-state-which-wage-jihad

[ii] Jeremy Black, War and The Disorder in the 21^st Century, London: Continuum, 2004, page 173.

The Rhymes of History

Sitting down in his study, the President of the United States reviews the war briefing he’s just received from his top military, political and foreign policy advisors and writes a few notes:

“This is what I know:

• We’re fighting a suicidal enemy.
• The enemy is militarily beaten but belligerent.
• There’s no sign of surrender.
• The enemy appears to be breaking up, with some saying they want peace while others want to fight. The ones wanting peace don’t speak with authority.
• The American populace is war weary.
• Problematic Allies.”

Sound like George W. Bush dealing with the war in Iraq?

Try Harry S. Truman, around June or July 1945, figuring out how to end the war with Japan so World War II could come to a conclusion.

President Truman likely never wrote those words, or anything similar, after talking with his advisors about the way to end the war with Japan, but he probably had thoughts along those lines. In the summer of 1945, as U.S. troops were occupying Germany, and the fighting on Okinawa against Japanese forces was ending, Truman was feeling pressure to end the war, on U.S. terms, as fast as possible.

Prior to Truman becoming president, senior U.S. military officers were focusing on the best way to bring the war with Japan to an end. Invasion plans were prepared for the Japanese islands and commanders and military units, as well as personnel, were selected for the pending assault, which was scheduled for November 1945. The goal was for Japan to surrender unconditionally, just like Germany did, 12 months after the Nazis gave up.

While plans were being finalized, top U.S. military officers, including the president, learned that a new weapon, the atomic bomb, would be at their disposal sometime that summer. There were a number of questions and issues about the bomb. Would it work? Was it a strategic or tactical weapon? Would it shock the enemy into surrender? Or would Japanese leaders react to it the way they did the night U.S. planes fire-bombed Tokyo, killing nearly 85,000 people? They didn’t.

These questions, the positions of top U.S. leaders, the debates between them, potential casualties resulting from the assault on Japan, as well as the complex issues the United States faced abroad and at home, are discussed with great authority by John Ray Skates, a history professor at the University of Southern Mississippi, in his book The Invasion of Japan: Alternative to the Bomb.

The book is especially pertinent today as the United States debates the best way to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while extracting some sort of political-military victory from the effort that’s been expended. It forces the reader to think about how the United States can shock its enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan into ending the fight; the book also makes the reader consider that perhaps there is no possible way to stun Al Qaida and Iraqi insurgents into submission. Skates, a retired army colonel, lays out, in excruciating detail, the debates, positions and discussions had by America’s leaders on the quickest and best possible way to coerce Japan into accepting the Allied policy of unconditional surrender.

In mid-1945, Japan still had five million men under arms. They’d lost every battle they’d fought against the United States since June 1942; however, Japan’s leaders didn’t see themselves as defeated. They knew U.S. troops would likely land on Kyushu, the Japanese island that American troops would invade in Operation Olympic, and they were preparing an intricate defense. While they couldn’t stop the invasion, Japan’s top brass thought, instead, that they could bleed the United States into accepting a negotiated settlement that was far short of its clearly stated, very public, and Allied-approved objective of unconditional surrender.

Skates shows how the policy of unconditional surrender for both Germany and Japan, as pushed through by President Roosevelt in early 1943, as well as the level of casualties the United States had sustained, determined military actions and, eventually, the use of the atomic bomb. The policy, as well as the experience from fighting Japan, forced America’s top leaders into coming up with the most efficient way into forcing Japan’s surrender.

By the time the summer of 1945 rolled around, the United States had suffered nearly 400,000 combat deaths with another 600,000 troops wounded. Top military commanders worried about the additional casualties the United States would suffer should it invade Kyushu. Fleet Admiral Ernest J. King, the Navy’s top officer, thought Japan could be brought down through a blockade that would essentially starve Japan’s populace – at minimal cost of U.S. lives; others, like General of the Army George C. Marshall, the Army’s top general, feared that the blockade would extend the war beyond the patience of the American home front; he thought the invasion was the faster way to bring about an American victory.

The United States was holding more than 400,000 prisoners of war: 370,000 Germans, 50,000 Italians, and 5,000 Japanese. German and Italian troops were far more prone to surrender because it was not considered unpatriotic if they did. For the Japanese, however, surrender was simply out of the question. Japanese troops were instructed to fight to the death; if they ran out of ammunition, they were told to charge the enemy or commit suicide. Anything less would bring dishonor to themselves and their surviving family members. The fact that there were so few Japanese prisoners of war reinforced the military’s view that any battle on the Japanese mainland would be arduous and bloody.

Top U.S. military officers had also reviewed the post-action reports of the battles for Iwo Jima and Okinawa, which, combined, cost the United States more than 100,000 casualties. As Skates writes, “Public concern already simmered over the casualties of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. What would the cost of Downfall (the overall name for amphibious assaults against Japan) be and could Americans sustain it? Could any methods be used to minimize the casualties?”

General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, the Army’s commanding officer in the Pacific, would lead the ground attack on Kyushu while the Navy’s top officer in the Pacific, Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, would be responsible for transporting the troops, the amphibious assault itself, and providing all the necessary support for MacArthur’s troops, including food, fuel, ammunition and other supplies.

Operation Olympic, had it occurred, would be one of the largest amphibious assaults in all of military history. It would have entailed 12 divisions “comprising 427,400 troops and 626,800 tons of supplies,” writes Skates. The assault on Normandy, in comparison, looks small: It only involved five divisions for the beach landing and another three airborne divisions that were dropped in the middle of the night, just prior to the amphibious landings.

American military analysts thought that U.S. forces would occupy at least half of Kyushu, if not the entire Island. If Japan’s leaders still refused to surrender, even though U.S. forces were on Kyushu, then MacArthur and Nimitz would initiate Operation Coronet, an amphibious assault on Honshu, Japan’s main island, in March 1946. This operation would have involved “14 divisions with 462,000 troops,” writes Skates.

The best military estimates said that Japan would put up an all-out fight in the defense of Kyushu. They may not have had the best troops to prevent American forces from succeeding but the thinking was that at Kyushu, Japanese soldiers, sailors and airmen would make a gallant, albeit suicidal, stand.

Casualties, Skates says, would have been higher during Operation Olympic than on Operation Coronet. MacArthur’s intelligence officers estimated that “about fourteen thousand soldiers and airmen would die in the first sixty days of Olympic,” writes Skates. MacArthur estimated that there would be nearly 80,000 American casualties – killed and wounded – during the first 60 days of the invasion of Kyushu. If the battle lasted 120 days, MacArthur estimated there would be more than 100,000 American casualties.

The battle losses, Skates writes, were based on the casualties that American forces endured on both Okinawa as well as in Normandy, where the First U.S. Army suffered more than 60,000 casualties of whom 16,000 were killed during the first 48 days in France. “Much evidence exists that casualty estimates for the invasion were realistic and based on past experience,” writes Skates. And while the invasion of Kyushu would cause no more American losses than had been realized in Normandy or on Okinawa, as Skates writes, that “was small comfort” to American civilian and military leaders.

“The earlier fanatical and suicidal, yet hopeless Japanese defenses created a psychology that the normal conventions of war did not apply against a nation of potential kamikazes,” writes Skates.

In addition to facing a suicidal enemy, the United States attempted, throughout the war, to gain the participation of the Soviet Union in its fight against Japan. The Soviets made a number of promises to the United States about its willingness to fight Japan, including invading parts of the Japanese Empire, but they didn’t declare war against Japan until the day after the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.

Like all leaders, President Truman and those he consulted for achieving a military and political victory in World War II, couldn’t foresee the future. What they had before them, as they debated the tactics and strategy to be employed in bringing about Japan’s surrender, was the results, including the number of dead and wounded so far, as well as an idea of the level of patience that the American public had for finishing the war.

“The bomb, whether used strategically or tactically, promised to keep U.S. casualties at an acceptable level,” writes Skates. “The bomb also would shock Japanese leaders, and combined with other demonstrations of hopelessness of continued resistance, might tip the balance toward surrender.”

As a result, the President ordered the atomic bombing of Japan. The first one was dropped on August 6, on Hiroshima; the next one was dropped three days later on Nagasaki.

It took two atomic bombs killing about 200,000 people to shock Japan’s emperor into realizing the war was lost. The objective of the war, Japan’s unconditional surrender, had been achieved. More than 100,000 U.S. lives had been spared death and injury.

Overall, this is an excellent book. It’s very well researched and lays out a number of details that the average history reader would likely find tedious. The only flaw in the book is that not enough attention is given to Truman’s perspective. The reader would have been better served had the author given us some details on Truman’s fears and hopes on both the atomic bomb as well as the invasion. Perhaps this information isn’t available.

The lesson here, if there’s any, is that the victory usually comes about when the enemy is “shocked and awed.” The best way to “shock and awe” the enemy, as military historian Michael Doubler points out, is to “let your enemy tell you that you’re shocking and awesome. Don’t tell the enemy you’re going to shock and awe them.”

The idea of shocking an enemy into surrender is nothing new. During the Civil War, Union forces shocked the Confederacy into capitulation through General William Tecumseh Sherman’s march on the South. It showed the South that their position was hopeless. Only the Union could win. During the American Revolution, the Battle of Yorktown, while not exactly a stunning U.S. victory, showed the British that the French were committed to the American cause and that for the British to continue it was to put at risk more than the fight was worth.

Today, the United States faces a suicidal enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan. The difference is that neither enemy fights for a particular government. And the question remains how does the United States force these enemies into realizing their position is hopeless; for that matter can it even be achieved? Do we march an Army or Marine Division or two up into the mountains of Afghanistan, killing everyone we encounter? Or do we shock them into making peace by showing them the benefits of harmony with the United States and the West? How will we shock the Iraqi insurgency into accepting a peaceful settlement with Iraq’s government and, consequently, the countries with troops stationed in Iraq?

Any given day, President Bush might say the following to himself:

• “We’re fighting a suicidal enemy.
• The enemy is militarily beaten but remains belligerent.
• There’s no sign of surrender.
• The enemy appears to be breaking up, with some saying they want peace while others want to fight. The ones wanting peace don’t speak with authority.
• The American populace is war weary.
• Problematic Allies.”

Mark Twain is reported to have said, “History doesn’t repeat itself but it sure does rhyme.” And so it does.

(Writer’s note: The Invasion of Japan: Alternative to the Bomb, published in 1994, can be found on alibris.com. The writer of this blog makes no money from alibris.com but wishes he did.)

Publishing Information: The Invasion of Japan: Alternative to the Bomb, by John Ray Skates, University of South Carolina Press, 1994, 276 pages

Inspired to attack

Let's keep something in mind: The appeasement policies of Neville Chamberlain inspired Adolf Hitler. Chamberlain tried hard to keep Hitler in a bottle and even gave away Austria, thinking it would satisfy him.

As we all know, it didn't. Hitler attacked Poland and then followed up that campaign with one against Western Europe.

So, if anyone tells you that the war in Iraq is only inspiring the terrorists and making the United States more vulnerable to attack, ask them this: What did the United States do, before 9/11, to inspire the terrorists?

If anything, we've done more for Muslims than they've ever done for Christians or, for that matter, Jews. At the direction of President Bill Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the United States, and its NATO allies, defended Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo with bombing campaigns over Serbia and other parts of the Balkans.

And, I note, there were no Saudi fighter jets, or any other planes from Muslim and Arab countries, flying sorties against the Serbians. If they hate us, fine. But, at the very least, Arabs and Muslims could do a better job of defending their own kind.

In addition, the United States has provided millions of dollars in aid to the Palestinians.

Sometimes a country can do nothing, like Great Britain, and yet still be hated by another country, like Germany of the 1930s, or a terrorist group.

Update on the United States Military

This update: The United States military, reports today's New York Times, because of its combat obligations in Iraq and Afghanistan, wants more help from the National Guard.

While the Army is planning to expand to 42 combat brigades, there's concern, among people in the know, that the military -- including the Marines, Air Force and Navy -- lacks enough manpower to handle another war.

It's not likely that the North Koreans would cross the DMZ but if they did, we would be hard-pressed to stop them.

The United States Census Bureau reports, in its 2000 census, that there are 63 million men between the ages of 18 - 49.

While not everyone in that pool is qualified to serve, it's time for the United States to reinstate the draft, so we have the forces necessary to win in Iraq and Afghanistan. Citizenship means more than just voting and paying taxes. It also means serving the country in time of need.

For the record, your writer is 44 and in pretty good shape. But who knows, I may not be fit for combat.

NATO's Secretary-General, meantime, reports that the organization needs additional forces to defeat the Taliban. NATO has performed well against the enemy. But it needs more troops if it is to succeed in the longrun.

It's time for us to have a debate in this country about victory. Do we want it? Or do we want to hole up on our shores and pretend that the terrorists, whatever their stripe, will just go away. Also, what's our obligation to Iraq and Afghanistan now that we're there?

Victory over Al-Qaida

Declare victory, says James Fallows in this month’s Atlantic magazine, on the war on terror. Why not? Unlike at World War II’s conclusion, when Americans saw pictures of German and Japanese leaders signing surrender documents, it’s highly unlikely we’ll ever see Osama bin Laden or his henchmen capitulate to the United States or its allies in a formal surrender ceremony.

We’re fighting a rogue enemy that doesn’t play by the rules, which gives the Bush administration freedom to declare victory. And maybe with good reason: Al-Qaida hasn’t struck the United States in more than five years and their organization has been severely damaged.

Still, it’s not quite down and out. Bin Laden, although likely isolated in some remote hideout in either Afghanistan or Pakistan, remains at large. The worst thing the West has to contend with isn’t so much bin Laden’s Al-Qaida but, rather, his licensees in Asia, the Middle East and Europe or those who claim some sort of affiliation, Fallows writes.

While there’s always a possibility of an attack from terrorists, writes Fallows, we’ve achieved a number of victories against Al-Qaida since 9/11, harshly reducing their capabilities. We have killed or captured Al-Qaida’s leaders, wiped out their training camps in Afghanistan, and become smarter about what to look for when they communicate among themselves, travel or attempt to transfer money.

The biggest disturbance lately from Al-Qaida affiliates was in the United Kingdom a month ago, when the government announced that it had foiled a terrorist plan to blow up 10 jet liners headed to the United States. Like the London attacks during the summer of ’05, this one was presumed to have been carried out by Muslims born in the United Kingdom or who had, at the very least, been living in the UK for quite some time, which, needless to say, comes as quite a shock to British citizens.

Unlike their UK counterparts, Fallows writes, Arab and Muslim immigrants to the United States are far different than the “estranged Muslim underclass of much of Europe.” Arabs and Muslims living here are like any “well-assimilated ethnic group” in the United States; in addition, they own businesses and hold college degrees. Finally, second generation American Muslims “are culturally and economically Americanized” while “many European Muslims often develop a sharper sense of alienation.”

And, say what you will about George W. Bush, one of his first actions, shortly after 9/11, was to extend the proverbial hand to American Muslims. He visited mosques and made it a point of telling the country that the war against terror was not a war against Islam. This action alone likely gave American Muslims assurances that they were not about to be jailed like their Japanese-American counterparts during the Second World War.

So, yes, given that we’ll never likely hear or see much from bin Laden, President Bush might as well declare victory against Al-Qaida. Other than issuing a video tape, announcing that they’re not about to give up the fight, there’s not much the terrorist group’s leaders can do to dispute our claim.

And if we’ve truly won a military and intelligence victory over Al-Qaida, then it’s time to initiate the political and economic victory. We need some sort of Marshall Plan for Afghanistan. In addition, American, European and Asian companies need to invest in Afghanistan so it’s no longer a breeding ground for terrorists.

Saving the Country

After Al-Qaida, the next greatest threat to the United States, as President Bush sees it, is the potential downfall of traditional marriage. It’s under siege, taking fire from people who want to see it changed.

Fueling this assault is the fact that heterosexuals are divorcing in droves and gays want to get married. Nothing could be worse for the country, says the President. And it begs the question, how can we save marriage before it becomes irrelevant or, worse, obsolete?

Well, let’s take a look at the current state of traditional marriage. According to the Centers for Disease Control, about 2.2 million marriage ceremonies are performed annually. And every
year, the Census Bureau reports, there are about one million divorces.

There’s always lots of speculation as to why people divorce but the reasons likely include infidelity, falling out of love, boredom, lack of communication, and the arrival of children.

The only thing that’s surprising about the debate on gay marriage is why so many gays want to get married in the first place. If you’re gay, take a good look at the nearest married, heterosexual man. Nowhere will you find a more sexually frustrated human being. Consider
that before you run off to the altar or join the protests to legalize gay marriage.

Your average married heterosexual man is sexually stifled because his wife works, in or out of the home, and her headaches increased exponentially since the day they lucky couple said, “I
do,” meaning he’s not getting, well you know, as often as he’d like. In addition, if they’re blessed with children, matters have only become worse. Colds, homework, play dates have
taken their toll on the romance.

That said, traditional marriage provides a man and woman with a stable home life and also ties them to one another emotionally, financially and, sometimes, physically; and, also, each spouse
knows who’s parenting the offspring produced as result of this union.

But, let’s face it, there’s a nagging strain on marriage, and it’s called monogamy. Who doesn’t want to have a quick fling? It’s not like you want to leave your spouse, you just want to check out, as the song goes, the fruits of another.

And now there’s a University of California-Santa Barbara study reporting that women want different kinds of men in their lives. They want a testosterone-filled guy for a “short-term” relationship, which likely means something quick and physical; but they also want, for the long term, a nurturing guy who will father their children and assist in their upbringing.

If my wife had her druthers, she’d marry four different men. She’d marry testosterone-filled
guy for the great nookie; she’d continue with me because I’m the father of her children; she’d also marry a handyman to do all of those household projects that usually cost a hefty buck when I call the local professional to handle the job; and last but not least, she’d marry a younger man to make her feel attractive and desirable as she advances toward middle age.

So what’s the solution to saving marriage? Polygamy!

The Mormons are onto something. Of course, officially, the Church of Latter Day Saints doesn’t condone polygamy, but let’s consider that polygamy, as it’s currently practiced by rebellious sectors of the Mormon Church, or even in certain parts of the Arab world, recognizes that men have certain desires: They want to fool around. And those Mormons and Arabs are willing to pay a high price for these trysts – they’re prepared to marry these women.

We just need to Americanize polygamy by making sure it meets all of today’s civil rights requirements. That means that federal legislation needs to be passed giving women the right to practice polygamy with as many husbands as they want; for that matter, guys should also be
able practice polygamy with as many wives as they’d like.

I see no reason why we can’t let gays in on this practice. If gay men and gay women want more than one husband and wife, power to them. I’m still not sure about the bisexuals. We’ll need to
convene a Congressional task force to consider that one.

Polygamy is the only rational way to save marriage and rid the United States of this pending threat. Both men and women will attain a higher level of satisfaction within marriage, and
polygamy should bring us closer to our Arab brethren, thereby improving national security.

If you're curious as to what affect, if any, polygamy has on children. Well, over the weekend, in Salt Lake City -- where else! -- there was a protest on behalf of polygamy by the children from these unions.

As for the political landscape, polygamy promotes marriage – something that should make
President Bush and his band of Republicans happy – and it allows a certain amount of sexual
variety within the confines of a committed relationship. I see no reason why the Democrats should withhold their support for this legislation.