Existing Users: Because of an update to the forum software you will need to reset your password. Please use the "Forgot?" link on the sign in form to do so. If that doesn't work, send me an email at feedback@forzaminardi.com and I'll sort you out!
Some long time ago Emmet asked those of us who criticise Bush’s handling of the Iraq war to provide a solution.
Andy Krepinivich, a graduate of West Point and a retired lieutenant colonel, wrote a book “The Army and Vietnam”. He has now published an essay “How to win in Iraq” (New York Times 28 August 2004) which is worth a long hard look. He calls on history in Malaya and other places where the strategy has worked and points to a total lack of long term strategy or measurement of progress in the current debacle.
I see the strategy as employing the duality principle of systems thinking. There are always two ways of tackling a problem, trying to control the primary function, .. or… controlling the dual function.
Let me put that another way in terms of Iraq. Bush and Rumsfeld are taking on the primary problem, killing the enemy. This would be fine if it worked but the enemy remains and is still killing us back.
The dual side of the problem is to protect people against the attacks. Once you are clear about the duality objective, and develop a proper strategy you deny the enemy its success.
Krepinivich describes the strategy as spreading an oil spot. You create a safe haven and then expand it according to your ability to protect that oil spot, like an oil stain spreading across the land.
The havens created strengthen the local population, showing the benefits of safety and reliable infrastructure. Those outside the havens see the better life and want to join and support it. Resources aren’t wasted hunting after the enemy in the enemy strongholds, with the enemy rebuilding when you finally retreat, as happens in Iraq.
The British used the technique in Malaya, created new towns, close but safely separated from those with terrorist cells and connections.
It is time the Americans used their strategic thinking, but first they have to get rid of Rumsfeld, and somehow explain all this to Bush.
Spin
Comments
I still think we ought to level the place and leave a note saying:
"Don't make us come back"
but short of that the Malay experience would be the best option.
Doc- You're still pretty optimistic as the civil war is being chugged towards at full steam.
[Edited on 28/8/2005 by dst]
What a blood bath!
Solutions should be discussed BEFORE you wage a war and not after. :(
But the US obsession with playing the aggressor, and going after the "terrorists" instead of succeeding through protection and defence is what's creating the greatest and growing problem.
But the Bush, Cheney, Rummy and Co are in denial, won't measure the problem, and won't let those on the ground talk openly about it.
The terrorists have learnt new strategies, and the US has to as well, not to battle them but to defeat them.
It is unlikely tht the current forces could adapt to this role. They are not trained or even selected for those abilities.
So withdrawal of "offence" possibly to bring on the "defence", being mostly Iraqis who will have to be trained for that with outside support, has to be considered.
If the US isn't planning for this now, even more shame to the political leaders and Pentagon "brains". Why does it take a retired mlitary strategist to raise the idea?
Spin
The rebuilding of schools, hospitals yadda yadda IS going on in Iraq. It is not well covered by ANY press but it is happening. It takes a while to get these things moving and it does not help to have car bombs etc going off.
Remember it took 5 or 6 years to pacify post war germany from these types of gureilla actions.
The instability will last as long as the local administration is unrepresentative of the will of the disparate ethnic/religious groups.
It is bigger than WHAM girls.
Here are the issues as I see them:
1. President Bush is a poor leader and has too many Yes-men and neo-con's on staff. Discussing his abilities or Rummy's is like beating my head against the wall. I had a convesation with an active duty Marine fighter pilot and a chopper pilot adn we discussed Rummy's article in Foreign Affairs when he stated his plans as SecDef. He re-stated Clauswitz which I brought up... both these guys who had been to through some form of OCS both suggested that every SecDef comes in an restates Clauswitz. ANy discussion of the Bush administration is pointless, unless o course Pat Robertson gets a cabinet level position with his latest antics. So can we remove all reference ot the Admin and look at what Dr. Spin is trying to have a discussion about. This is a non issue for this conversation.
2. Anybody who followed world affairs in the Middle East knew that SH didn't have WMD and had NOTHING to do with 11 September. That was political hype. Frankly I was aghast that we justified going in. It was stupid adn had not forethought. Everyone knew we could roll over them. We've got the best military in the world. Not bragging just the fact.
3. There was no PLAN for managing the country after we won. I had some pretty heated disucssions about that way back when. All I seemed to get from policy wonks was "we'll handle it" ...and no plan. My comment then was that we would have minimal KIA -WIA during the initial period; after that "bring forth the body bags" (my exact words)
4 Again, anyone who has followed the region and the nature of nation building KNEW that this was going to be a 10 +year commitment. There is no quick fix. From the very earliest of days the bathe party's mission was to consolidate power in the military, eliminate dissent and create pan-arab socialism. That happend over a generation and a half. There is no quick fix to change that culture Iraq is very different from the Afghan situ. In afghan we there was a richer modern history of culture, cooperation and trade.
So, with that out of the way now perhaps we can discuss the strategical and tactical issues:
If you're not progressing, and Iraq isn't, time is not relevant.
The overtly aggressive strategy that has been taken, not just in Iraq, but in the whole US military thinking that they are invincible because of military superiority and that attack is the best defence, is just not working in the current war on terror.
It's counterproductive results are offsetting the progress that they try to make in defending and winning hearts and minds.
It won't be easy for the US to change. However, until there is a realistic appraisal of the current failures, the strengthening and skill development of the terrorists, iinsurgents and countries hostile to the US, the task of building a safe Iraq won't even be commenced.
It is also futile for the US to try to sell the Islamic countries on Western democracy when they see the Bush administration ignoring the voice of the voters, and their elected representatives. Some of the western values, we take for granted enrage many serious Muslims.
To me, democracy is government by the people and of the people. Leading thinkers are often in minorities until the rest catch up. You ignore minorities at your peril!
Back to Iraq, ther are just too many stories about US forces killing and maiming innocent people in their current strategy.
The idea that collateral damage must be accepted isn't washing with the occupied citizens. They are losing too much and gaining too little.
The US must plan now, before any further precipitative action, for replacing its offensive forces with trained or thoroughly retrained forces for defence and peacekeeping.
Havens must be identified and fortified and supplied. Now this will take time, but the process doesn't really start until all actions by the defenders that risk killing of innocents are minimised and fully accounted for.
All areas incapable of defending need to be left to the locals. It's their country and we should respect their capabilities and their right to solve their own problems, without outsiders making it worse.
If that's sounds like a screwball plan, just consider what the US is facing at present. Thery don't know how to arm the Iraqi forces without risking those arms being used against them in the coming civil war.
There are many knowledge people in America, Iraq, Europe and elsewhere who understand where Iraq is currently heading. But incredibly a third of Americans still support Bush. They should be supporting America by facing the truth, debating the options and supporting a workable plan.
Spin
[Edited on 30/8/2005 by Dr_Spin]
I cannot think of one successful example of democracy being imposed top down on any country, save Japan (homogenous, the differences are such as to make any comparisons irrelevant), let alone one as fragmented as Iraq.
best rgds,
Spin
The fact is that Civil Affairs "Hearts and Minds" programs are in place - and working to some extent. It is going to take a huge amount of commitment on both parts - Iraqi as well as ours. What I am seeing is the tribal factions as the biggest stumbling block - look at the constitution process for example. transfer of defense of the people is being transferred slowly as Iraqi units get up to speed training wise.
For the first time in Iraqi military history they now have an NCO corps. That is a huge step alone.
But what i feel most strongly about concerning the defense of their own land is for them to step up to the plate and start turning over the bad amongst them at a higher rate then they are doing now. Some examples of this are evident but they need to commit 100% to this end.
You'e not going to get them to hand over some kid who believes he's doing the right thing for his country or is avenging his father or brother's death.
Who is to judge that in the field?
When US Soldiers reportedly killed a 21 year old visiting student and cousin of the Iraqi Ambassador to the UN who allegedly was cooperating with them during a house raid, was that good or bad?
There is more bad (sorry that should be negative) news than good unless you're reading GOP propaganda, which is just too difficult to stomach.
"Hearts and Minds"? Stop handing out sweets and get the utilities working. Offer intellectual works, artistic and poetry on the US radio program instead of Britney and Emimem.
Think about the effect that western TV violence, sex and soapies have on deeply religious people. Encourage debates and discussions to develop better understanding and tolerance of the differences. Employ and listen to more experts on the Middle East.
Help explain why Iraqi lives and deaths aren't counted while the US gets so passionate about the unborn and even stem cell research.
Sorry, back to the fun --- another topic?
Spin
Not to be mistaken - i am not referring to the people as animals - I am trying to keep Orwell's quote intact.
The long and short is that the foreign fighters are making the lives of the average iraqi more difficult then the US soldiers.
candy - yes thats part of it but the utilities are coming back online - but once again if the saboteurs would stop slowing down the progress then the iraqi people would benefit much sooner.
GOP propaganda Doc? hardly - much of what I get is from people returning from there.
Western TV etc - big problem. Over here as well but there is nothing stopping the iraqi people from starting their own.
Iraqi lives are being counted - any many are being treated medically by US Docs and medics.
Sorry I got cut short on my last post. Bottom Line: I tend ot agree with you on most points. We disagree on the finer ones. "War is never an isolated act." (Clausewitz, 1831
1. My intent in saying that the US Military was assured success was a given. In fact, the problem I am hearing y so often from men returning is that peacekeeping/police actions tend to decay combat effectiveness. That is a concern for the US Military,,,as itshould be. Warfighters are trained most effectively for fighting a war. Their has been some effort with in the US Military to develop a peacekeeping contingent with mixed success. Frankly, there just are enough warfighters trained for that mission.
You state: "in the whole US military thinking that they are invincible because of military superiority and that attack is the best defence, is just not working in the current war on terror. "
Manoeuver warfare has a rich and long history. It kept Hannibal bouncing around Italy for almost two decades.
The Mongolians under thier Khans developed tactics that enabled them to move 10,000 men 150 miles in one day and developed the first system of signals for night time use.
Moltke and Von Schlieffen proved that manoeuver warfare is the best method of tectical success. Unfortunately the lessons of Cold Harbor and Vickburg where lost and trench warfare resulted.
"Do not repeat the tactics which have gained you one victory, but let your methods be regulated by the infinite variety of circumstances." –Sun Tzu We're learning those new tactics now. Warfighting is a pretty dynamic enviroment. Manouever and fast attack has evolved as the best method of success. I think you are bucking up the wrong tree on that issue.
2. You might want ot check out an article related to polling data by Daniel Yankelovich entitled "Poll Positions" People that never attend a church service tend to be more aware of the US's por perception in the world. Yes, you are correct
3. "To me, democracy is government by the people and of the people. Leading thinkers are often in minorities until the rest catch up. You ignore minorities at your peril! " We live in a democratic republic here in the US. In the immortal words of Mr. Spock "The needs of the may outweigh the needs of the few"
4. ""Good" and "Bad" are a bit too subjective here. " Good point in a rule of law enviroment. Iraq is the world of Judge Dredd. Not perfect but reality.
5. It seems to me that one of the biggest advocates for going ot War in Iraq was The Economist maazine. A Brit publication. (one of the few times where I wholly disagreed with their op-ed staff)
6. The US Military understands the problems you have identified. Unfortunately, the World Press (including the 4th Estate here in the US) is governed by sales of their publications. Hitting the middle of the bell shaped curve. Again, Daniel Yankelovich has a good discussion of "tipping points" The internal infrastrucure needs to be created. In order for that to happen it will take several years to isolate, train, and maintain an internal police force. Until such time is will be under a military command structure.
Thre was no plan at the outset on how to manage the countyr after we achieved our military and strategic goals.
So, yes, the US f'd up. We should not have gone there. We had no real justication. However, now that we are there we must stay and find a solution. That solution will take time. Just as only a small percentage of the people in Iraq want it to remain hostile, so too are their a small, yet vocal percentage in the US that are rfar right religious zealots like Pat Robertson calling for us to "take people out" In my view they are no better than the clerics running madrasas.
So now, on to the solutions.
You might find some insightful reading here: http://www.iiss.org/iraq.php
You might also wan to hear about some first hand accounts an field reports from teh military, albiet with a wholly differenct twist here: http://www.hackworth.com/archive.html
Hack died a few months back but his columns where extremely inciteful to waht was going on on the ground.
Finally, you might also wan tot check this out: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/irqindx.htm
Here is a novel solution I have been waiting to hear from you guys. All I seem to hear is all the changes that WE the US has to make. Now in life there needs to be balance - yin yang etc etc. So lets take a look.
1. The leaders of Islam need to generate a fatwa reaffirming that they are a religion of peace.
2. In said fatwa they need to call upon all of Islam to stop with the attcks against civilians and civilian projects - like the aforementioned works projecs in Iraq. The call for stopping al acts of violence in all of the major hostilities in the world that Islam is involved in - to include the travesty of Muslums killing Christians in the Sudan.
3. The leaders of Islam need to come to an agreement with the west - primarily the US to set up a schedule of talks looking into the issues that Mohamadism has with the west as well as seeing where we share common goals.
The result of at least point 2 is that if homocide bombers, ied technicians and their ilk stop their tradecraft in iraq and Afghanistan then we, the Coalition, would have no need to use force against them and therefore the civilian casualties would be reduced to nil.
What do you guys think?
Bernie, much good stuff does come out of the IISS and the other references are good reading too.
I don't disagree with the need to attack strongly when facing a single army or terrorist cell.
Where so many are going wrong is following the idiotic view from Bush that you can stop terrorism by going after the Terrorists by sending armies into other peoples countries.
The US can't even catch Osama!
I don't claim to be expert on military strategy. I have studied operational strategies based on military strategy, and consulted to defence departments and worked with leading thinkers and anti terrorist organisations including Control Risks.
What is more relevant at this stage of the conflict is having lived in a number of countries including the US and Middle East, and currently in a country claiming a Muslim majority. History shows that citizens of any country have strong feelings against occupying forces. From experience with many people including the proud people of Arab countries, I can fully understand that. If occupying forces succeed in peace keeping with the highest standards of conduct and restraint, they will be appreciated only as long as necessary. If they act with arrogance and trample over locals lives and welfare, they will generate resistance.
We are seeing how dangerous that resistance can be. That resistance is also developing on a global scale partly because the US makes a point about it being a global war.
To Emmett's suggestions about fatwas for peace and against killing civilians and civilian projects, I would only add that talks on resolving issues need not and should not be led primarily by the US. The UK and Australia are seeing good progress in response by their Muslim communities. The "Bad Guys" to use MCSFs expression, are being identified as such and portrayed as totally unIslamic.
From reports, many Iraqis have or will be forming similar views.
I want to see that process continue, and not be derailed by further bad mistakes by the western forces.
Here again, one needs to be aware of minority views to the contrary. My earler comments on minorities was NOT to say that the minority should override the majority, but that valid minority views should be undertood and considered. A Democratic Government is responsible to govern FOR the people, the whole people and not just those who elected them.
Allowance for minorities is a big issue in Iraq. The current American model would see the biggest donors getting all the spoils. That would increase the insurgency even more. The "majority democratic" model would see the biggest voting bloc get most of the spoils. That would be the Shias.
What of the minorities? Ignore them? Yeah, right!
Spin
[Edited on 31/8/2005 by Dr_Spin]
Funny thing though is that a group tried to get a "Million Man March" style event for the Muslum community to come out against violence - I beleve it wsa in Dallas. Only one Imman signed on - the rest who were approached did not wish to participate.
Very interesting.
Let me know when the group comes out against hate and conversion by the sword. I think the world will have hit a new high.
the advice was to leave the bastard of a genocidal monster alone and let their people take him where he deserves to be (dead) eventually or spend a few hundred million greenbacks to assasinate him, not just meagre few millions for failed anaemic attempts...
it was then predicted that when the years go by, the americans will be stuck and HAVE to pull out (unless the emperor of america changes the constitution of his great land) or else tens of thousands of americans will eventually die as they WILL be a civil war of a dimension that the emperor's foolish head will not comprehend.
the american emperor, bush, had wanted to take iraq and then iran and conquer to whole of the middle east simply they want their oil (like the british empire wanted china's tea)...the present empire of america trade their products which are tecnical expertise from the corrupt conglomerates which are all linked to the vice-emperor as well as the most noble product of "democracy" which the emperor thought the whole world would accept including the fiefdoms of the middle east...but these products are like opium to the middle east as the british empire's example of forcing the chinese to take their opium from india/burma/afghanistan was the lesson which emperor bush had learnt rather quickly...
i forecast that if the americans do not withdraw from their aventures of conquering other nations by bombs and fabricated lies to justify such conquests, america will rapidly lose their superpower position to the great Middle Kingdom...
continuation...in 12 months time...
1.0 Why did the British occupy the east?
A: They wanted the spices and tea.
1.0a Why did the Americans occupy Iraq?
A: They want to profit from the control of more oil.
2.0 What reason did the British use to justify their act?
A: Give the eastern savages a civilisation.
2.0a What reason did the American President use to justify their act?
A: Remove their tyrant and give them democracy. (this is a secondary reason as the prime reason WMD was deleted)
3.0 Why did the British withdraw from their empire?
A: It was later found that placing their huge armed garrisons there to protect themselves was not cost effective vis-a-vis profitability.
3.0a Will the Americans withdraw from their new millenium adventure of empire building starting from Iraq?
A: You bet!
4.0 When will the Americans withdraw?
A: Now, if they are smart but then the President is really stoooopid so it's going to be definitely by the next change of President in 2008/2009...by which time the US$ will be almost worthless and 10,000 Americans would have died for nothing.
For a wider coverage try the BBC, abc.net.au or www.theage.com.au or any of the New York Times or Washington Post papers you don't like.
Try to avoid US sources since the attitudes seem to be a little poisoned there by the "enemy or us" thinking.
That's why I say don't assume that the US should lead discussions. The rest of the world is making some progress without the help of the US. Sorry, but that's a fact.
Could the USA learn something from this?
Of course, but will they?
Spin
[Edited on 31/8/2005 by Dr_Spin]
Also - when is the Islamic community going to start sending aid AND people to do CA work in Iraq and Afghanistan?
I tend to agree with all you state in your immediate reply to my comments. I disagree with one thing: "The US can't even catch Osama! " Like Macnamara tried to run bombing raids and firefirghts from Washignton the US used the wrong forces in Operation Anaconda. We should have used more spc ops guys. we didn't. ahrd lesson to learn.
Factycrab
I think everyone needs to get over the fact that teh US had no justifiable reason to go to Iraq.we. didn't. Bush is not the brightest bulb, okay, let's face it there isn' any filament. ok.
The fact remains that US froces are in Iraq and we toppled their rather bad leader. No one really morns that loss. Everyone is upset that Bush lied but no one is really sad to see SH leave. Let's get it over it and quit talking about it. that's beating a dead horse. There is much in US history that we are not proud of, the trail of tears, Cuba (both times), white man's burden, etc. Iraq is not the first thing that we have lied about our reasons for going. WE told our troops we where going to WWI to "save democracy" when in fact we where trying to become the deciding factor in a game started by petty little rich boys in Europe. Let's not throw stones about who's right an who's wrong. There's way too much wrong decisons in History...
Why did Pope Urban II authorize the first crusade? To take Acre and the main port for the end of the Spice Roads. The Crusades where about money. Control the silk road from China.
You state:
"4.0 When will the Americans withdraw?
A: Now, if they are smart but then the President is really stoooopid so it's going to be definitely by the next change of President in 2008/2009...by which time the US$ will be almost worthless and 10,000 Americans would have died for nothing."
If we where to withdraw now we would create an enviroment similar to what the Soviets created when they pulled out of Afghanistan. Nobody wants that kind of fiasco. That is jsu tnot realistic. For as much as I was against the war I am for the US maintainig a presense there. It's interestign that no one is talking about what is going on in Afghanistan. That change is happening rather clean and proper and no one is really calling on a pullout. I discussed this same question with Mirium Nawabi who one of legal councils developing the Afghan constituion. Her insight was that the culture of the two countries is very distinct. It's going to take a logn time to create a government in Iraq that can conform to the basic rule of law and become an acceptable world government. No one needs another North Korea as that could destablize the world economy.
Okay, now let's just postulate some scenarios that NO ONE wants to touch as the reasons to go into Iraq to begin with.
Do some research and find out which countries supply oil to Europe, Asia and the US. What you will find is that most US oil tends ot come from Saudi Arabia. If you review the leadership situation in SA you will find that the current ruling party is rather old, yet ameniable to teh US. The GDP for SA has been declinng for years. The infrastructure built in the 70's is falling apart. The next generation set to take over is very sypathetic to the right wing mullahs. The US -SA relationship is held together with rubber bands and shoestrings with agin leaders. The country is prime for revolt and the potential leadership iwould probably not be afraid of turining off the oil spigot to the US which would casue a depression in not ust he US but the entire capitolized world.
In 2003 Bush made a state of the union speech indicating that as a goal by 2008 20-30% (Ican't remember the exact number) of vehciles would by hyrdrogen powered. If that happens then the oil revenue generated to SA whoudl decline. When GDP reaches a fulrom point everythign dips to violent overthrow. So, if the US begins to reduce oil consumption then there must reach apoint where something must give in SA.
When that happens that critical mooment the US is still vulnerable to our dependancy on OIL. we need a source. Iraq has a straitline pipeline capability to Russian reserves. It sits on teh huegest resereves int eh world. So, doesn't it make sense to maintain control over a critical raw materail supply that could be jepordized in the future. ...and who said only the Asians did long erm planning? How's that for some scary ideas?
It's really not about Empire building. The Brits proved that idea faulty. Besides, have you seen the plan hat China has for growth? 1M people yearly moved o the cities from the rural areas every year til 2050. China needs to create 10M new jobs per year until 2010 just ot stay on track (according to Norbert Walter, Cheif Economist for Deutsch Bank at a recent RAND conference)
This is an interesting discussion. I gotta go listen to Ronen Sen, ambasador to US from India at a lunchean today. Shoudl be interesting to hear about his energy needs. I'll keep youin the loop
i hear you and dr. spin and i am very respectful of all of what you guys said...i too understand the views of mcsf and dst although they are poles apart...
you are being very noble by trying ways to salvage a really bad situation...but my view is one of fatalism...it cannot be salvage...this bad situation will run its course albeit how explosive and destructive the situation might be will be influenced by players like you and the current or future american administration...perhaps that poor mother who is camping out of bush' range can rally the american people to force an early withdrawal as well?
my view:
civil war is inevitable...and to the scale never before happened...this will happen even if the americans stay for another 5 years...only difference is that it will happen the day after the americans left with far greater american body count, inevitably...but i don't think the americans will tolerate another at most 2 years of being in iraq...
you know, the can of worms opened by bush in iraq played right into the hands of the fanatics who only want a world they proffess, a world of extreme persecution entirely opposite to the teachings of all religions...
this world will be less inhabitable if around a billion of us do not die of diseases, wars and natural calamities like famines and floods...not enough fuel and not enough food...
doomsayer? me? no...i think i read this article from this site sometime ago...go read it at:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
because i do think bush's forecast of hydrogen powered transportation will not save the energy crisis...
oh, btw, bush was wrongly advised to side with the shias in iraq...the sunnis are the more pragmatic and moderate of the 2...america should have used the sunnis as the power base and handle the shias and kurds fairly...just my inkling that they WILL turn against the americans like the talibans did after america armed them to the hilt...
please do keep your very insightful postings coming, bernie...
India ia commited to growth. India is independant. India is commited to Peace. India wants to work in cooperation with other countries. India has a long an rich histary and will not play second fiddle to anyone (read US) but as an alliance parter whom we ilwl both invest in the US and vice versa. India needs a plan for Energy needs in the very near future and will make every attempt to get energy. A key portion of that is maintaining peace in the region. Energy energy energy
"Factycrab
I think everyone needs to get over the fact that teh US had no justifiable reason to go to Iraq.we. didn't. Bush is not the brightest bulb, okay, let's face it there isn' any filament. ok.
The fact remains that US froces are in Iraq and we toppled their rather bad leader. No one really morns that loss. Everyone is upset that Bush lied but no one is really sad to see SH leave. Let's get it over it and quit talking about it. that's beating a dead horse."
So you don't think leaders should be held accountable?
You want to encourage Bush who has proclaimed his right to premptive strikes in other countries, to know that he can do this again and again with impunity. Just lie first about having a reason and make up more lies later to claim that all the deaths were worth it.
Sorry! Don't buy that one at all!
America re-elected a dope! What does that say about the intelligence of American voters or of your electoral system?
AFTER Bush and WHEN the lessons have been well learned, will be soon enough to get over it.
. . . . . . . .
Apart from sliding around that one, you made some good points. Certainly Bush isn't the only one wrong here, but his style is to be "the man" and ignore, insult and talk down to others who have much greater knowledge and logic than he does.
Just imagine the continuing loss of life in Iraq AND the disaster he'll cause in Iran if he isn't brought to heel.
Facty:
When the world has all those hydrogen powered cars, will the suicidists be driving hydrogen bombs? :);)
OK, I know I have it in my battery too!
Spin