Are the architects of the War on Terror in trouble

[tvashtarkatena]

and I hope that some of the nuttier folks on this board actually get around to reading it someday.

 

We're all nuts; we just hang from different trees.

[JayB]

You should read the book, or at least read some of the reviews and then decide if it's something that you'd be interested in reading.

[tvashtarkatena]

I'm wading through a couple right now, but I'll put it on my library wait list.

 

Our new neighborhood library rocks.

[chucK]

Jay,

That book sounds very interesting. I am going to check it out. Thanks for the tip.

 

Funny, I read the NY Times review of it and one of the things he said was, "Great Stuff!", a definite cc.com JayB'ism. Are you Dexter Filkins?

 

 

[chucK]

From today in Iraq:

 

"We will not accept Iran to use Iraq to attack the American forces," al-Maliki said Wednesday in an exclusive interview with CNN.

 

"We don't want the American forces to take Iraq as a field to attack Iran or Syria," he added.

 

 

Uh oh! Sounds like al-Maliki is not down with our administration's oft pronounced goal of "fighting them over there [iraq] so we don't have to fight them here [u.S.]"

 

Maybe we should just leave and let that ungrateful SOB do his own dirty work!

[RedNose]

Maybe we should just leave and let that ungrateful SOB do his own dirty work!

 

He's in a tight spot, or to it more bluntly, his head is in a noose he can't escape from. Either way he is going down, and justice in Iraq these days means death. I remember Maliki as not being one of the key players in 2003, but he did step it up in 2004 after the interim president was assassinated at ECP 12.

 

He has a tough decision to make. Does he embrace the US, and take our money, or does he lay down at the feet of Sadr who is openly wooing the Iranians in an effort to make a Shiite powerbase. The rest of the region is Sunni, so we'll have to make our move soon. My guess is that the additional troops are there to punish Sadr, and push the Shiite powers out of Baghdad. Maliki will fade away as soon as he can, and if he survives he will not spend the rest of his days in Iraq.

[JayB]

Jay,

That book sounds very interesting. I am going to check it out. Thanks for the tip.

 

Funny, I read the NY Times review of it and one of the things he said was, "Great Stuff!", a definite cc.com JayB'ism. Are you Dexter Filkins?

 

 

It's one of the few books that I've read lately that I can honestly say will appeal to all readers of all political persuasions, and that has no explicit partisan axe to grind.

 

Can't say the same about the book that I'm about to take to lunch with me - Schumpeter's "Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy." Great stuff, though.

[RedNose]

I don't disagree with countering Saddam's euro plan as being one of several political catalysts for the invasion, coupled with the desire for a substantial, permanent U.S. military ground presence in the Middle East in the age of declining oil reserves, but it's only part of the equation, if we take the writings of the architects of this war at face value. A showcase of the new American hegemony through overwhelming military power to head off any future challenges to our new found top dog status is primarily what was desired as an outcome in Iraq. Iraq was perceived to be the low hanging fruit in this regard.

 

In my mind, the missing political pieces in the invasion of Iraq were a) an overestimation of the national unity and underestimation of the sectarian unity of Iraq b) the multiple bullshit reasons for the invasion foisted on the American people; a sure recipe for the populace justifiably revoking it's support of the war early on c) an understimation of Iran's intractability (and refusal to engages with Iran during that brief honeymoon period following 911) which seems to be adding to our woes in Iraq, d) the lack of a successful U.S. information campaign to counter the success of that of the insurgents and e) a lack of understanding of the fluidity of successful insurgent tactics, such as suicide bombing, to jump borders and spread instability.

 

This is only a partial list. Rather than pursuing a 'robust' approach to secure another 20 years or so of oil (and it's predictable defensive reaction throughout the world), the U.S. would have done much better to transfer a huge chunk of its bloated, Cold War oriented military budget, which, after all, is not required to 'combat terrorism', into an effective energy independence campaign beginning with the 70's oil shocks. Instead, we let CAFE standards and many other successful energy independence strategies die on the vine after the oil shocks of the 70s. By now we could be thumbing our noses at the bowl full of assholes that is the modern Middle East. But here we are, in nuclear proliferation, sectarian civil war, and climate change heaven.

 

We should leave Iraq as soon as possible, and shift the massive amounts of money we are wasting there to achieving energy independence through free market tax incentives and research. If we can built a drone that can drop a bomb on a car, we can build a car that can go 100 miles on a gallon of biodiesel. If this sounds like a new form of American isolationism, so be it.

 

I tend to agree with a lot of what you have said here, but it is my personal belief that the oil industry has little interest in developing alternate fuels for consumer consumption when good old oil is still freely available and making them money. You can't underestimate the greed and power of that industry. You certainly can't ignore the powerful lobby it maintains in the halls of power.

 

How does pulling out of Iraq solve our problems? Do you think pulling out is just going to fix the woes of the world? Or is there a slight amount of truth in the "Let's do this fight over here, in this shithole, instead of in downtown Portland." I say kill these people now, here, and let them remember the powerful hand we have brought to bear on them with fear. I say maintain bases on their soil, and remind them on occassion that we are not be f*cked with.

 

I also agree with a new era of American isolationism. We should be developing Latin American, and South America as powerful trading partners instead of waging proxy wars on behalf of the effete' Saudi Arabian house of Saud.

 

I do believe we need to set a tone on the Middle East before we pull out. One that effectively says;

 

"You may have defeated some dimwitted politicians, but if you come after us we will kill every man, woman, in this region, starting with a fullscale nuclear assault on key targets in the region."

 

American soil should be inviolate, and if something like 9/11 happens again, we need to do the right thing.

[tvashtarkatena]

Friedman's got a NYT piece today comparing Saudi with Iran, against the backdrop of what makes a good ally. Interesting.

 

A strong Shiite coalition between Iran and Iraq is not necessarily against U.S. interests. It is probably the quickest formula to regional stability we've got.

 

We also have an opportunity in Iran right now that I'm surprised more people are talking about. Iran's population is clearly becoming tired of the hard line approach. Their nutjob president is on the outs. Since we have a couple (three now?) carriers in the Gulf, this would be an excellent time for negotiations with their foreign minister, who is not nearly as hardline and probably recognizes that his boss's days are numbered. Or backdoor negotiations with other softer line, higher ranking Iranian officials. Whatever.

 

It would be a good time to take advantage of a changing political climate in Iran rather than attack them and make the entire country hard line again.

[StevenSeagal]

I say kill these people now, here, and let them remember the powerful hand we have brought to bear on them with fear.

 

Which people? How many of the people fighting us in Iraq were fighting us, or had intention to fight us, before we invaded and destroyed the country? How many of these people have had their politics further manipulated by religious assertions that the west is engaged in holy war against Islam by a physical invasion and occupation of their lands?

 

I say maintain bases on their soil, and remind them on occassion that we are not be f*cked with.

 

In other words, imperial occupation and keep our boots on the necks of the population. That'll teach them for being born in the wrong place.

 

 

 

I do believe we need to set a tone on the Middle East before we pull out. One that effectively says;

 

"You may have defeated some dimwitted politicians, but if you come after us we will kill every man, woman, and child in this region, starting with a fullscale nuclear assault on Mecca."

 

Maybe we should just nuke the entire area and kill everyone right now. Short of that, leaving at this point and issuing a threat like that would be laughable at best.

 

American soil should be inviolate, and if something like 9/11 happens again, we need to do the right thing.

 

Yes, like fighting the right people.

 

 

Who's speaking here anyway? Is it Rednose... or Kuato?

 

[sheaf_stout]

We detractors of this current complete and utter clusterfuck in Iraq are not arguing 'pure academics', a common code word for alpha male's self-indulgence in anti-intellectualism (and by the way, it is pure 'academics' that brings us all those fascinating high tech weapons and modern command and control systems). No, we're arguing proven, sound principles of foriegn policy, and historical precedent. Take another bong hit and invent your own action comic universe if you will; but this is the one we're stuck with.

 

Wars cannot be won academically, by sitting in the rear looking at maps and sending orders. Just ask Adolf Hitler; he managed the Normandy defense in June/July of 1945 and failed miserably. Eschewing 'pure academics' is not a pursuit in anti-intellectualism, nor is it proof of a 'bigger bodycount' mentality. However, it is accepting of the fact that, sometimes, only a bigger hammer will do. It is an acceptance of the fact that nothing is purely academic and other factors, points of view, and experiences need to be included in the process. Combat commanders get their share of academics during training; then they take that to the field and see how it works, why it works, and how to improve.

 

There are boots on the ground because of foreign policy, as I am sure we can agree. However, part of foreign policy is commitment to war, when war is decided upon. It is a part of proven foreign policy that diplomacy does not always work. Historical precedent shows us evidence of this; Chamberlain in Munich comes to mind.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

 

Wars cannot be won academically, by sitting in the rear looking at maps and sending orders. Just ask Adolf Hitler; he managed the Normandy defense in June/July of 1945 and failed miserably. Eschewing 'pure academics' is not a pursuit in anti-intellectualism, nor is it proof of a 'bigger bodycount' mentality. However, it is accepting of the fact that, sometimes, only a bigger hammer will do. It is an acceptance of the fact that nothing is purely academic and other factors, points of view, and experiences need to be included in the process. Combat commanders get their share of academics during training; then they take that to the field and see how it works, why it works, and how to improve.

 

There are boots on the ground because of foreign policy, as I am sure we can agree. However, part of foreign policy is commitment to war, when war is decided upon. It is a part of proven foreign policy that diplomacy does not always work. Historical precedent shows us evidence of this; Chamberlain in Munich comes to mind.

 

 

We can of course agree that any successful human endeavor: foreign policy, war, science, exploration, is a combination of theory, planning, experience (experimentation), and 'other' (luck, weather, etc.). My point is that the success of a foriegn policity initiative that includes warfare is most often based on decisions and events that happen outside the battlefield, like whether or not to go to war at all and, if so, how. Of course, what happens on the battlefield is important, and overwhelming force cannot but help to determine that outcome, but even decisive military victory doesn't always produce, in the end, a success.

 

Unfortunately for the soldier, it is the decisions made at the top, far, far from the battlefield, that have the most dramatic impact on the outcome of warfare. That, to me, is the true 'fog of war'.

 

I just read Atkinson's 'A Soldier at Dawn' (history of the North African campaign). Excellent. The U.S. was defeated soundly, over and over again during the first months of that conflict. What is striking is that the politics of working with the English and French played just as important a role in those defeats (and later victories) as the lack of experience of our green troops at the time.

 

In addition, the U.S. alliance with Stalin was critical, because it bled Germany's supplies away from Rommel's forces. So to, was the domestic political decision to mobilize industry for total war...not an easy thing to sell to a previously isolationist country.

 

In other words, it took a combination of difficult political alliances and decisions, in addition to materiel and an increased battle hardening of our forces, to defeat a tough enemy in the field.

 

This is kind of obvious, I know, but I just wanted to stress that what happens in those one hour White House meetings determines the outcomes of foreign policy initiatives involving warfare more than any other single factor, including the efficacy of our forces. If that fundamentals of the political plan isn't good from the beginning, no amount of on the ground talent is going to make it a success later on.

[sexual_chocolate]

Que the high-hat for SC.

 

What are you reading these days?

 

badabing indeed.

 

I read a spy cia novel, fun fluff, Saving someone by a balducci or somesuch; life story of milarepa also, kinda fluffy too.

 

and then there's this:

 

Not the Idle

 

 

It's not the idle who move us but the few

Often confused with the idle, those who define

Their project in life in terms so ample

Nothing they ever do is a digression.

Each episode contributes its own rare gift

As a chapter in Moby-Dick on squid or hardtack

Is just as important to Ishmael as a fight with a whale.

The few who refuse to live for the plot's sake,

Major or minor, but for texture and tone and hue.

For them weeding a garden all afternoon

Can't be construed as a detour from the road of life.

The road narrows to a garden path that turns

And circles to show that traveling goes only so far

As a metaphor. The day rests on the grass.

And at night the books of these few,

Lined up on their desks, don't look like drinks

Lined up on a bar to help them evade their troubles.

They look like an escort of mountain guides

Come to conduct the climber to a lofty outlook

Rising serene above the fog. For them the view

Is no digression though it won't last long

And they won't remember even the vivid details.

The supper with friends back at the village

In a dining room brightened with flowers and paintings

No digression for them, though the talk leads

To no breakthrough. The topic they happen to hit on

Isn't a ferry to carry them over the interval

Between soup and salad. It's a raft drifting downstream

Where the banks widen to embrace a lake

And birds rise from the reeds in many colors.

Everyone tries to name them and fails.

For an hour no one considers idle.

 

-Carl Dennis

 

 

delightful and freeing, yes?

 

[RedNose]

Segal, maybe you forgot Gene Labell kicked your ass publicly after your ran your mouth about how tight your martial arts were.

 

We're talking about fighting insurgents-Jihadists-assorted troublemakers-organized special operations and intel forces. We're not talking about fighting a civilian population, so don't get your net indignation all wrapped up tight in a 9 page thread you just decided to drop in on. We're certainly not talking about imperialism. MAN-Don't make me waste my time with you.

[sexual_chocolate]

Drinking a cup of green tea,

I stopped the war.

[RedNose]

 

Wars cannot be won academically, by sitting in the rear looking at maps and sending orders. Just ask Adolf Hitler; he managed the Normandy defense in June/July of 1945 and failed miserably. Eschewing 'pure academics' is not a pursuit in anti-intellectualism, nor is it proof of a 'bigger bodycount' mentality. However, it is accepting of the fact that, sometimes, only a bigger hammer will do. It is an acceptance of the fact that nothing is purely academic and other factors, points of view, and experiences need to be included in the process. Combat commanders get their share of academics during training; then they take that to the field and see how it works, why it works, and how to improve.

 

There are boots on the ground because of foreign policy, as I am sure we can agree. However, part of foreign policy is commitment to war, when war is decided upon. It is a part of proven foreign policy that diplomacy does not always work. Historical precedent shows us evidence of this; Chamberlain in Munich comes to mind.

 

 

We can of course agree that any successful human endeavor: foreign policy, war, science, exploration, is a combination of theory, planning, experience (experimentation), and 'other' (luck, weather, etc.). My point is that the success of a foriegn policity initiative that includes warfare is most often based on decisions and events that happen outside the battlefield, like whether or not to go to war at all and, if so, how. Of course, what happens on the battlefield is important, and overwhelming force cannot but help to determine that outcome, but even decisive military victory doesn't always produce, in the end, a success.

 

Unfortunately for the soldier, it is the decisions made at the top, far, far from the battlefield, that have the most dramatic impact on the outcome of warfare. That, to me, is the true 'fog of war'.

 

I just read Atkinson's 'A Soldier at Dawn' (history of the North African campaign). Excellent. The U.S. was defeated soundly, over and over again during the first months of that conflict. What is striking is that the politics of working with the English and French played just as important a role in those defeats (and later victories) as the lack of experience of our green troops at the time.

 

In addition, the U.S. alliance with Stalin was critical, because it bled Germany's supplies away from Rommel's forces. So to, was the domestic political decision to mobilize industry for total war...not an easy thing to sell to a previously isolationist country.

 

In other words, it took a combination of difficult political alliances and decisions, in addition to materiel and an increased battle hardening of our forces, to defeat a tough enemy in the field.

 

This is kind of obvious, I know, but I just wanted to stress that what happens in those one hour White House meetings determines the outcomes of foreign policy initiatives involving warfare more than any other single factor, including the efficacy of our forces. If that fundamentals of the political plan isn't good from the beginning, no amount of on the ground talent is going to make it a success later on.

 

You also can't discount the unquantifiable. The more credible the threat, the more likely people are to react in a unified manner. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor by itself was bad enough, but when they started marching ground troops into the pacific Island chains, and later into the Aleutians, it galvanized the Americans into a fighting stance. 9/11 was a significant military victory for the enemy, but it failed because it had no real follow on attack. If such an attack had taken place, a harbor, or another city, the American response would be different than the one today I believe. The enemy punched, and now they are playing defense, they will counterpunch again when the time is ripe, and the opportunity presents itself. However, right now no one really feels like the threat is real, it is far away, and at bay, and the real threat is our own administration upsetting the delicate balance.

 

To embrace Iran and a unified Iraq, which at this point is not likely-the civil conflict will have to play itself out first, we would have to alienate Israel. Which as you can see is simply not going to happen. Like it or not, that country holds sway in our political circles.

 

I think most people understand that the average Iranian is like the average American. They're not bloodthirsty, they're different, and they would like to live in a more open society. Are they ever going to be a democracy? Well, I have spent the last 2 years living in Persia, and my guess is no. They are like little mafias.

[tvashtarkatena]

 

I tend to agree with a lot of what you have said here, but it is my personal belief that the oil industry has little interest in developing alternate fuels for consumer consumption when good old oil is still freely available and making them money. You can't underestimate the greed and power of that industry. You certainly can't ignore the powerful lobby it maintains in the halls of power.

On this I completey agree. Having oil men in power has not helped us to reign this problem in. But then again, we the citizens provide the demand for these companies to profit by. And, of course, we also voted (sort of) the oil men in.

 

How does pulling out of Iraq solve our problems? Do you think pulling out is just going to fix the woes of the world? Or is there a slight amount of truth in the "Let's do this fight over here, in this shithole, instead of in downtown Portland." I say kill these people now, here, and let them remember the powerful hand we have brought to bear on them with fear. I say maintain bases on their soil, and remind them on occassion that we are not be f*cked with.

Pulling out of Iraq will not 'solve' our problems. It will eliminate a current problem that we cannot solve, so that we may focus on others. It's like a bad divorce; it won't make you happy, but at least it removes one pain in your side.

 

The whole idea that we can monitor to entire world and 'take the battle to the enemy' is ridiculous. Whose to say there aren't huge terrorist cells budding in destabilized Africa right now, where we have virtually not presence? We simply don't have the resources nor capability of pulling this off; terrorist groups can always choose to crop up where we are not. The 'war on terror', in other words, is a load of shit. Internal security measures (airport, immigration, etc.) has done far more to protect America than anything we've done abroad. In fact, our actions abroad have only increased attacks on Americans manifold (in Iraq). And it's much too late for the little brown masses to quake in fear because of our powerful hand. The conclusion the world, and our enemies, is quite the opposite. We shot our wad and lost through insurgency. We've only helped them perfect their formula for victory against a stronger military power.

 

Your kill em all strategies are similarly flawed. Kill them all...then what? How to reconcile with the 100 million that are left, and the rest of the world which now views us rightfully as self interested belligerents? Aside from being morally reprehensible (it mimmicks the indescriminate tactics of those we want to defeat), it would create more problems than it solves.

 

Our key weapon in all of this is the attractiveness of American philosophy and culture, not our bombs. The primary intent of most of the insurgent activity in the world today is to gain some semblance of political autonomy against a perceived greater occupying power. We should go back to basic American principles and work towards this goal than simply killing a few people and making more enemies in the process.

 

Don't forget the bin Laden and his ilk have many enemies among the Arabs themselves. Each one of those is an ally.

 

[StevenSeagal]

Segal, maybe you forgot Gene Labell kicked your ass publicly after your ran your mouth about how tight your martial arts were.

 

That was Van Damme. I wasn't there.

 

We're talking about fighting insurgents-Jihadists-assorted troublemakers-organized special operations and intel forces.

 

Sarcasm aside- we all know that this is the enemy.

 

But:

 

We're not talking about fighting a civilian population,

 

Okay so I haven't been on the ground in Iraq, but it sure looks like the above group- the enemy- is increasingly becoming the "civilian population" and it is becoming more difficult to distinguish between the two. Some have no doubt joined the cause as time went by, others have been forced to join by compulsory measures (i.e. join us or get your throat cut). Either way, those civilians who are indeed trying to live a "normal" life are going to unavoidably get screwed.

 

We're certainly not talking about imperialism.

 

What then is keeping a permanent military presence on foreign soil for the express purpose of keeping the populace in mortal fear of us, while politicians and their powerful constituents in energy industries divide up the profits?

 

I'm not opposed to engaging jihadism but honestly, I think our soldiers on the ground are the only ones who really give a shit about ending it. The suits making the decisions on the other hand couldn't care less what happens to it as long as economic interests are sustained. Oldest story in the book.

 

 

MAN-Don't make me waste my time with you.

 

Sorry, I will let you finish your other crucial postings on this important website so you can get back to banging some cougar scags in downtown Dutch and take your weekly turn in the barrel on your boat. Happy fishing!

[tiaga]

Post deleted by tiaga

[sexual_chocolate]

I heard that music soothes the savage beast. Maybe violin concertos at the white house and downtown baghdad would help, or some chopin nocturnes and impromptus?

[RedNose]

The divorce analogy is a good one. I'll accept that prima facia.

 

The US does maintain a presence in Africa. The Ethopians were trained by US advisors, and they just sent some bad people running for the fences in Somalia. THIS is the real strength of SpecOps, Law Enforcement, and aid programs to developing countries. Enemy defeated via proxy. Proxy gains favor, more aid, more money, footprint.

 

So you advocate the selling of America? I disagree on two points. One is that most countries and the people in them no longer think American culture is all that attractive. in some ways, it is an ugly self absorbed society that thrives in the moment. No real culture exists outside of the product or trend of the month.

 

The other point leads me to the topic of the dissolution of more traditional American ways of life through the selling out of our own country. The southwest is being overrun by immigration, and has been for a long time. Is this how we keep people from hating us? We sell out our future?

 

No one wants to monitor the world, especially me, but I am somehow bound to it. Maybe it was my calling. I would prefer isolationism. American principals? Are these the same prinicipals that gave us manifest destiny, and the extinction of major tribes from the Appalachians to the coast? You see where I am going I am sure.

 

The insurgents have secured no valuable strategy in their fight in Iraq. The truth be told they are terrible fighters, and I would rather run the gauntlet of a thousand IED laden roads than sit under a Soviet style artillery barrage. We have tied the hands of our troops behind their balls, because we "feel bad that we went to war". We think it's "really sucky that some untrained National Guardsmen took some naked photographs, so maybe Nick Berg deserved what he got". C'mon man, grab your testicles and let's whip these little bitches who think they have a chance.

 

You underestimate the power of strength. In some ways you sound a lot like Chamberlin. Your theories are sound, but they fail to acknowledge the examples where strong iron fisted rule prevailed when used effectively. The Phillipines a case in point, American Indian wars, WW2, ancient times. No war is popular in many ways, but if the means justify the ends. Like I said before sometimes it is trial of the will. But the will of the people is not there, then it's just not there. I'll retire the country, and live in peace. Just don't call on me or my son to come when the next fire starts.

[sexual_chocolate]

I've heard you can't put out fires with gasoline. Is this true?

[RedNose]

Segal, no it happened and you were there. You got knocked the F*ck out!

http://www.judoinfo.com/discuss/index.php?showtopic=951

 

Oh, and was that the boat I have been sitting in for 4 years on the other side of the world? The one where it is now 0047 in the morning, and my suit and tie is a suit of plate armor? Like I said man, if you want to learn hang out. I'm glad to answer some questions, and the Tman AKA Trashkan is a VERY interesting guy to debate with.

 

Sorry for my tone earlier Segal man. It's 1am, I have been here on this tour since last June, and I am tired. No excuse for being a dick I know.

 

Word Tman. I'll fire this up again tomorrow if you want. I gotta rack out.

[RedNose]

Is that counter punch going to come from domestic cell or from a nation-state?

 

I know that you've thought about this. What exactly do you think that Iran is queing up for?

 

 

I'd like to take this on tomorrow. But the short answer is I personally think it will be from a cell, and the infil routes for whatever they bring in will match drug trade doctrine. The southwest is a gaping hole right now. They have tried Canada and got caught, they read our papers and they see how the Mexican military, and drug cartels are easily coming in and engaging US military observers with small arms with zero response from our side. If a unit is able to cross the border, specifically engage a US MILITARY outfit on an X, with no repurcussion, then how hard is it going to be to get across the border in force with zero issue. They're probably already there and in place. Waiting.

 

Iran is a much different enemy. I think right now, they are worried about our 1st strike capability, and don't want to provoke the US. Their footprint is all over Iraq right now, and they see the war drums are starting to beat in their direction. Through proxy Iran has probably done more than any Persian/Arab country to disrupt US influence in the middle east. They aren't dumb or rash. Their planners understand that the lynchpin in the middle east is Israel, and that is where they will focus on winning. Attacking the US, with a definitive Iranian stamp probably equals nuclear response. They won't risk that.

[sexual_chocolate]

trojan fisherman alert.