WHEN PENGUINS FLEW AND WATER BURNED This is the true memoir of one US Air Force navigator’s journey from the schoolhouses of Air Training Command to the nuclear alerts of the Cold War to combat in a 35-year-old anachronism called the B-52. It is a first-hand account of life during the last days of Strategic Air Command, the early days of Air Combat Command and the ensuing military drawdown of the 1990s. From peacetime training exercises across the globe to combat operations in Desert Storm, Jim Clonts takes the reader inside the cockpit where life and death are seconds apart. Often comical, sometimes heart-pounding, other times tragic, WHEN PENGUINS FLEW AND WATER BURNED takes you into the world of military aviation, a crucible where warriors learn the true nature of character, conscience and mortality.

A Potential, but Unsatisfying, Solution in Iraq
by Jim Clonts, 2006

ARTICLE ORIGINALLY APPEARED AT MILITARY.COM, November 30, 2006

If America was born in the throes of revolution, it was weaned at the 1787 Constitutional Convention held in Philadelphia. The convention was called the Miracle in Philadelphia. During that convention the basic framework of our republic was determined. Although we are thought of as a nation of immigrants, in the early days of the Republic most citizens were of British, German or Dutch descent, with few ethnic and religious conflicts separating them. Although I’m sure there was considerable ancestral pride, Americans had no desire to kill each other over it and our population was virtually homogenous at the nation’s birth. Of course some harbored prejudices, many aimed at Catholics, Jews and the Irish, but these conflicts never endangered the stability of the fledgling government.

The new Iraq faces a much different birth. Once a part of the Ottoman Empire, an ally of Germany in WWI, Iraq was established by the League of Nations in 1919 as a British Mandate. The borders of the new nation were determined by the League and Great Britain was assigned the task of governing the religious and ethnically diverse population. Iraq encompasses three distinct cultures: the Kurds in the North, the Sunnis in central Iraq and the Shias in the south. Although all technically Muslims, these three distinct tribal/sectarian factions harbor ancient hatreds and long histories of killing each other. Forming a representative government sharing power and embodying these three unique cultures is proving to be a challenge.

The Balkans have much in common with Iraq. Like the Middle Eastern nation, the former Yugoslavia was made up of several distinct cultures and religions, including Islam, Christianity and Judaism. The Serbs, the Bosnians and the Croatians were a melting pot of mutual cultural and religious disdain, held together by the iron fist of the USSR-backed communist government. Under the tyranny of communism, the three cultures were unable to act on their animosities. Once the Soviet presence ended, they turned on each other and years of bloody civil war followed. Mass graves and attempted genocide were the trademarks of a liberated Balkans. The end result was a return to three distinct nations: Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia.

Likewise, after the end of British rule in 1958, Iraq was held together by a series of ruthless dictators, culminating in Saddam Hussein. An oppressive, tyrannical and ruthless government kept various factions of the population under control. Saddam would not tolerate civil war in his country and threats of uprisings were swiftly put to rest in the dark of night. Throats were cut, heads rolled and bodies dipped in sulfuric acid. Brutally, mercilessly, Saddam and his Baath Party put an end to their political enemies and peace existed, at least during the daytime. During those decades of “peace” Saddam filled unmarked graves with hundreds of thousands of his own population.

History it seems is full of Iraqs and Yugoslavias, culturally, religiously and ethnically diverse people living together under tyrannical rule, prevented from acting on their hatreds while they suffer under the thumb of an oppressive central government. Ironically, liberation from tyranny often leads to genocide.

Recently some have suggested that Iraq be partitioned into three distinct national identities. That seems to be a return to the condition that existed before the League of Nations. Iraq was never a peaceful melting pot society and its borders were artificially set by nations who emerged victorious in World War I. Since the Ottoman Empire was an ally of Germany during this war, the final borders of Iraq may have been set in such a way as to foment internal strife and ensure the nation could never be a cohesive force in the region. Now, almost ninety years later we may be paying the price for their choices.

The Bush Administration does not want to partition Iraq and I can understand why. Much has been invested in the development of the fledgling Iraqi democracy and there have been some successes. They have held three nationwide elections and have an elected representative government in place. Much political capital has been spent trying to forge an inclusive government consisting of Sunnis and the Shias and partitioning the country now would be like starting from scratch. But maybe from scratch is where we need to go.

This new beginning, a sort of governmental mulligan, would give each "country" a fresh start, free of the religious infighting the current central Iraqi government has failed to overcome. Partitioning by sect may well be the best way to bring democracy in turn to each area. The Sunnis would not face an internal power struggle with a much larger Shia population. Each “nation” would be free to elect their own leadership.

Oil is one major reason given for not partitioning the country. Oil production, a major source of revenue, favors the Shia areas, with significantly less in Sunni and virtually no production in Kurdish lands. The current government tries to equitably distribute these proceeds for the benefit of all Iraqis. We have insisted on this as a way to create political acceptance of a central government, but is it really equitable? Does oil really help?

The Shia occupy the lands where most of the oil exists. The Sunni occupy the capital city and the major industrial base and the Kurds would probably just be happy if the other two left them alone. Oil should not be the determining factor in Iraq’s government. Men have lived on these lands since the beginning of recorded history. The discovery of oil in the region occurred less than a century ago. Too many Middle Eastern countries rely on oil for their livelihood. Oil and the easy profits it generates rob the Arab and the Persian of their human spirit. Oil becomes everything. The people do not create. They do not build industries and great societies. They squander their collective intellect, relegated to pumping crude out of the ground and shipping it off elsewhere for processing. Pity the Kurds and the Sunnis for lost oil revenue? I think not.

Would there be border skirmishes? Sure. Could war erupt between these nations? Possibly. Would peacekeepers be required to monitor the borders, like between Lebanon and Israel? Maybe. Would there be terrorist attacks in the name of Islam? Of course. This is still the Middle East, after all. These factions will always struggle with each other over religion, land and resources, but by returning them to self-rule we remove the primary target of a diluted, compromised central Iraqi government, viewed by many as a puppet of the United States.

Once, when asked what he would do if a plan his Administration was offering failed, President Truman answered, “If it doesn’t work. We’ll try something else.” They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different result. Unless our plan is to cut and run, which I hope is not the case, we need to keep every other possible solution on the table.

Welcome to: JimClonts.Com E-mail: b52radar@jimclonts.com