Blackwater Question

[JosephH]

From Obama's web site:

 

----------------------------------------------

 

A Responsible, Phased Withdrawal

 

Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.

 

Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.

 

[billcoe]

From Obama's web site:

 

----------------------------------------------

 

A Responsible, Phased Withdrawal

 

Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.

 

Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.

 

Doing so will mean walking away from a long term American strategic plan and billions of dollars already invested. I don't think they can do it. Sorry, time will tell though. I didn't think Clinton could balance the budget like the first campaign pledge stated and was happily proven incorrect on that one.

 

Here's to hope and change:

[JosephH]

Doing so will mean walking away from a long term American strategic plan and billions of dollars already invested.

 

If there was a strategic plan that wasn't based on neocon fantasy then I for one would love to hear it...

[prole]

Doing so will mean walking away from a long term American strategic plan and billions of dollars already invested.

 

If there was a strategic plan that wasn't based on neocon fantasy then I for one would love to hear it...

 

Dude, they're talking about getting electricity on in a couple years. Give it some time.

[JosephH]

Doing so will mean walking away from a long term American strategic plan and billions of dollars already invested.

 

If there was a strategic plan that wasn't based on neocon fantasy then I for one would love to hear it...

 

Dude, they're talking about getting electricity on in a couple years. Give it some time.

 

If they had a working strategic plan the electricity would have been on 3 1/2 years ago...

[Serenity]

If there was a strategic plan that wasn't based on liberal democrat fantasy then I for one would love to hear it...

 

Fixed that for you.

[tvashtarkatena]

From Obama's web site:

 

----------------------------------------------

 

A Responsible, Phased Withdrawal

 

Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.

 

Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.

 

Doing so will mean walking away from a long term American strategic plan and billions of dollars already invested. I don't think they can do it. Sorry, time will tell though. I didn't think Clinton could balance the budget like the first campaign pledge stated and was happily proven incorrect on that one.

 

Here's to hope and change:

 

No.

 

Doing so will be to walk away from a waste of a trillion dollars and pouring 340 million dollars a day down a shithole and getting nothing back. The money already invested is sunk cost; completely irrelevant. We have virtually no criteria for success in Iraq anyway, so I say Mission Accomplished as of...right now. Bye, Iraqis. Sorry about completely fucking your entire region up, but the shit's now hitting the fan at home. Most of our troops hate you hadjis and the sandbox you live in anyway. Later.

[JosephH]

If there was a strategic plan that wasn't based on liberal democrat fantasy then I for one would love to hear it...

 

Fixed that for you.

 

Again, you've clearly not spent time around Chicago politics - there are no liberals behind closed doors there, pragmatism is about as far left as anyone goes.

 

And funny how Bush and McCain have been pushing for a SOFA that pulls our troops out when? There is no 'strategic plan' because a bunch of civilian ass clowns totally screwed the pooch on that front. Now, you might be able to come up with a good strategy for taking out the garbage in the wake of their administration - but a cogent, effective strategic plan for Iraq is going to be damn hard to come by. The 'strategic plan' we've been operating under to-date might as well have been written in Tehran by Ahmadinejad.

 

Really the whole Iraq exercise has a lot in common with the Dot.com bust - a trillion dollars disappeared down a rat hole and the only thing that was accomplished with it was to teach a new generation that content should be free. Yeah, team! Similarly we've tossed a trillion dollars down a rathole in Iraq to perfect design and deployment of IEDs and various wireless trigger technologies and to enrich and empower Iran. Again, yeah, team!

[Serenity]

No-I've never been to Chicago, but clearly...you've never spent time around the political scene in Najaf, Fallujah, Ramadi, Kabul, Qatar, UAE, Peshawar, Baghdad, Kunar, Asadabad, Tora Bora, Speen Boldak, Helmand, etc...I could go on.

 

DEFINE "No permanent military installation". Sounds pretty ambiguous to me. I wonder if Bad Tolz was considered a 'permanent US base" or a leased Bundeswher backwater?

 

Fighting dying down in Iraq, picking up in Astan? Wonder why? Because all the bad guys changed theater. I've been wondering how long it would take them to figure that one out.

 

Do you think the guys in the middle east are going to be impressed by the 'tough guys' in Chicago? Probably a little less than the 'tough guys' from Texas.

 

I mean, look at our boy Medvedev. Sure didn't take him long to show the world what he thinks of the upcoming political leadership, did he?

 

*******************************************

 

 

On Wednesday, as the entire world took in the idea of having Barack Obama as the next U.S. president, one of the greatest challengers to American power, Russia, decided to make itself immediately clear on its views of the current U.S. administration, Obama's election and the global U.S. agenda.

 

Russian President Dmitri Medvedev gave his long-awaited first State of the State address (the equivalent of the U.S. president's State of the Union address) on Nov. 5. The speech was much more than a nationalist appeal liberally sprinkled with Soviet-era rhetoric; it was a declaration of Russia's return to the ranks of the world's great powers. In effect, Medvedev not only tossed the gauntlet for Russia's rivals in the West, but he also is not waiting around to see how they respond.

 

It must be understood that Medvedev -- while he is certainly coming into his own under the sponsorship of his mentor, former president and current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin –- did not write this speech himself. The author is the Kremlin's gray cardinal, Vladislav Surkov, who has played the role of backroom dealer, enforcer, planner and puppet master for Putin for most of the past eight years. Surkov does not control Putin -- far from it -– but in many ways is the brains behind much of what happens in the Kremlin these days.

 

It was Surkov who recommended that Medvedev's speech, originally scheduled for Oct. 23, be postponed. Ostensibly, the delay was meant to allow Russia more time to deal with its deepening financial crisis, but in reality, Surkov wanted to know which presidential candidate the Americans were going to elect. The speech was already written. In fact, according to Stratfor sources, two speeches had been written -- one for each possible outcome of the U.S. election. In waiting for a clear picture on whom Moscow would be dealing with in Washington, Russia underscored the central role the United States plays in the international system, and that Moscow views Washington as its main counterweight.

 

Unlike many previous State of the State addresses, Medvedev's Nov. 5 speech contained few veiled threats or simple proclamations. Instead, it announced hard actions, including the following statements:

 

Russia will deploy Iskander short-range ballistic missiles to Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave sandwiched between NATO and EU states Lithuania and Poland, in order to directly target the fledgling U.S. ballistic missile defense installations slated for Poland and the Czech Republic. (The Iskanders' limited range will allow them to put only the Polish site at risk.)

Russia will return to a more Soviet-style system of term limits in order to more firmly entrench the power of the Putin team.

Moscow will not even consider negotiations with the lame-duck administration of President George W. Bush, preferring instead to wait for President-elect Barack Obama's team, which Moscow thinks will be easier to manipulate (whether or not this proves true).

The United States is to blame not only for Russia's war with Georgia, but also for the global financial crisis.

Russia will not make any concessions on its international position; the United States can take it or leave it.

 

All in all, these statements bear a degree of boldness that has long been present in Russian propaganda, though not necessarily backed up by any particular actions. Russia's goal is simple: Use the three-month U.S. presidential transition period to impose a reality on the regions Moscow considers of core interest, presenting soon-to-be President Obama with a fait accompli. Most of Russia's efforts will focus on Ukraine, but attention also will be spread throughout the Caucasus and Central Asia, as well as the Baltics, Belarus, Poland and the Czech Republic.

 

These states are already nervous about Obama's ability to stand up to Russia's new swagger, especially since he has never outlined a firm stance against Moscow and will be embroiled in other critical affairs, like Iraq and Iran. Now, Medvedev has told these states outright that Russia is about to act while the Americans can't. He is playing on the states' fears to push them into making a choice: Continue to depend on the United States (whether its support comes through or not), work with Moscow, or get crushed in the process.

 

~ George Friedman

[akhalteke]

A new cost in warfare in the ME, is the fact the medivacs are more readily available. That, and today's mash units are better equipped and more effective. A lot of folks in really bad shape who, in previous conflicts, wouldn't have made it back home are now and so the size and costs of the casualty stream from the war in Iraq is much higher than worst case scenarios expected - not that the administration was going to do anything for the VA regardless.

 

 

Depends where you are at homey.

[JosephH]

A new cost in warfare in the ME, is the fact the medivacs are more readily available. That, and today's mash units are better equipped and more effective. A lot of folks in really bad shape who, in previous conflicts, wouldn't have made it back home are now and so the size and costs of the casualty stream from the war in Iraq is much higher than worst case scenarios expected - not that the administration was going to do anything for the VA regardless.

 

 

Depends where you are at homey.

 

Vietnam > killed 58,217 wounded 153,452 > x2.6

Iraq..... > killed _4,190 wounded _30,774 > x7.3

 

At Vietnam's casualty survival rates we'd have 11,836 dead in Iraq instead 4,190...

[JosephH]

Fighting dying down in Iraq, picking up in Astan? Wonder why? Because all the bad guys changed theater. I've been wondering how long it would take them to figure that one out.

They've figured out we threw chump-change at Afganistan. At this point we're locked down in Kabul, Kandahar, and couple of other spots, but otherwise it's Taliban vs. Warlords all over again - same as it ever was.

 

Do you think the guys in the middle east are going to be impressed by the 'tough guys' in Chicago? Probably a little less than the 'tough guys' from Texas.

Possibly, the guys from Texas were all posers when it came down to it. Obama won't go to war telling the American people they should ignore it and go shopping - he'll tell them every day at war is going to hurt.

 

I mean, look at our boy Medvedev.

I've been saying all along that China is the strategic threat and that Iraq has been nothing but a distraction. I also think most everything happening with Russia is - as it almost always is - mostly for internal consumption and a matter of them trying to regroup, consolidate, and reestablishing effective command and control both within their borders and sphere of influence. That, and restore a little pride and luster. Not so much different than all the neocons of the administration using Iraq to try and to reclaim the [imaginary] 'glory' of their Reaganite youths (and firmly establish America as the pre-eminent 'superpower'). To be honest, I don't worry all that much about the Russians - they have a ton of oil, a largely cash economy, and cheap labor right next door. They're also surrounded by people who don't like them much.

 

All in all, Iraq has very much been all about taking our eyes of what matters to pursue a fantasy that doesn't...

[Serenity]

Fair enough.

 

China is too reliant on the United States almighty currency to rattle sabers with us. One little glitch in their system and they have millions of affected dissidents beating on their tanks in a square right under the cameras watchful eyes.

 

That, and the US is still forward projected into the Pacific Rim tenfold over the small effort we have expended in the ME.

 

 

******************************

 

 

 

News from China stole the stage (everywhere outside the United States, anyway) from U.S. President-elect Barack Obama on Monday, with Beijing announcing a $570 billion stimulus package to counteract the local impact of the global economic downturn. Stock markets in Asia and Europe, along with most commodity markets, bubbled in reaction.

 

As the theory of the uptick goes, China is the world's third- or fourth-largest economy, depending on whose numbers you use, and its nearly $2 trillion in currency reserves makes it one of the few states to have much room to maneuver in the current economic crisis. The specific problem that China faces is not a liquidity crunch (as in the United States) or banking crisis (as in Europe), but rather the enervation of its exports -- most of which are sold to a now recessionary West. Fewer exports means fewer factory runs, which could quickly translate into multitudes of unemployed Chinese willing to take long walks in big groups. The question on the Chinese Politburo's collective mind is how to ensure that social stability does not fray when the fundamentals of the quintessential Asian export economy go straight to hell.

 

The proposed solution goes something like this: Develop the inland provinces and thus create internal demand for the country's "exports." Most of China's wealth is generated by and held in its port cities, all of which grew to prominence during the export-led development binge of the past 30 years. But much of the population is not clustered around these coastal provinces; it is located further inland, where people live on the wrong side of sizable income, education, employment and quality of life gaps. On the surface, it seems the new program has a middling chance of succeeding simply because it will be backed up by $570 billion -- nearly 20 percent of China's gross domestic product (GDP).

 

Yet at second glance it is not clear how much money is really on offer. The $570 billion includes funds precommitted for other programs, and a large chunk that local governments will be expected to somehow stump for themselves. And there is also the issue of how quickly the money will be made available. Details are sketchy here too, but it appears that the money will be spent over a period of two to as many as five years. Taken together, the package suddenly looks a lot less impressive, having shrunk from the originally reported 15-20 percent of GDP in one year (the biggest stimulus package in human history) to a sum with "new money" perhaps amounting to less than 1 percent of GDP per year for the next five -- a "stimulus" that most countries would just consider part of their normal budgets.

 

Which leaves us with two questions. First, why is the national government not simply using its currency reserves to pay for the program itself? Most likely, this is because Beijing realizes that much of the vastly poor and corrupt inland would require far too much aid to ever become developed by any reasonable standards. Turning the poorest parts of an overpopulated country into something rich enough to potentially replace Paris and New York on your customer list is not something that can happen quickly or cheaply, and Beijing cannot be itching to send good money into China's undeveloped areas.

 

Second, if the national government is not bellying up to the bar for this plan, then who will? Based on China's record, it seems the interior provinces are most likely to be forced to pay up to three-quarters of the bill, mainly by taking out loans under the much looser monetary policy that Beijing is offering. In terms of relative size, this could well be like Washington directing the 50 states to double the outlays of their budgets for four years without compensation. The provinces will approve of taking on so much debt only if they are freed to lavish their borrowed wealth on pet projects of their own. And that would not be a coherent economic policy at all.

 

Strafor

[tvashtarkatena]

You're making the ridiculous implication the Medvedev's speech would have been somehow different had McCain been elected; conveniently projecting your own political bias into the Russian's actions. Oldest propaganda trick in the book. I believe it's called blowing smoke up your own ass.

 

I reality, of course, an increasingly belligerent Russia would have greatly preferred a McCain victory, so that the bulk of our forces would continued to be tied up in our Iraqi money pit. Under Obama, many of those forces will either be freed up or redeployed closer to the Russian border. This fairly obvious conclusion would have required you to go a few steps beyond the "liberals are pussies" ceiling of your analytical capability, so I'm not too surprised at your assertions.

Edited November 12, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[pc313]

PTSD was around after WWII. It was called "shell-shocked". They just didn't treat mental issues in those days. Didn't know how.

Still trying to figure it out. It might be easy to fake and may be a Mailgerer's condition in some or many cases.

But it also takes a harsh toll on really good people and their families. Sweaping it under the carpet is no different than letting amputees lie untreated in hospitals. It can be just as life changing and life threatening. Hard to swallow if you are an amputee for sure. But amputees handle their new issues differently just like other people handle being Shell-shocked differently.

 

I do disagree with giving out purple hearts for ptsd. But there also needs to be an honorable way to acknowledge the sacrifice that was made.

 

 

 

About 2 mo. ago i was watching the DOC. network on Dish,if you've not seen it,they find old,and new Documentaries. So they played a 4 hour Doc. on WWII shell-shock Vets and how to treat them,it was made by the U.S. military,run by Psychologist. It was for training the rest of the Psychologist in the military because of the large numbers of Shell-Shock Vets comming to them for help. I'm shure it will be on again!

[akhalteke]

A new cost in warfare in the ME, is the fact the medivacs are more readily available. That, and today's mash units are better equipped and more effective. A lot of folks in really bad shape who, in previous conflicts, wouldn't have made it back home are now and so the size and costs of the casualty stream from the war in Iraq is much higher than worst case scenarios expected - not that the administration was going to do anything for the VA regardless.

 

 

Depends where you are at homey.

 

Vietnam > killed 58,217 wounded 153,452 > x2.6

Iraq..... > killed _4,190 wounded _30,774 > x7.3

 

At Vietnam's casualty survival rates we'd have 11,836 dead in Iraq instead 4,190...

 

IBA's, Afghanistan, etc. These are not direct correlations. Most bullet wounds now are only managed via tourniquet whereas most in Vietnam needed Cx tubes. Function of the equipment. In Afghanistan, the medevac times can be a day or more. That is why I wrote "depends on where you are."

[Serenity]

You're making the ridiculous implication the Medvedev's speech would have been somehow different had McCain been elected; conveniently projecting your own political bias into the Russian's actions. Oldest propaganda trick in the book. I believe it's called blowing smoke up your own ass.

 

I reality, of course, an increasingly belligerent Russia would have greatly preferred a McCain victory, so that the bulk of our forces would continued to be tied up in our Iraqi money pit. Under Obama, many of those forces will either be freed up or redeployed closer to the Russian border. This fairly obvious conclusion would have required you to go a few steps beyond the "liberals are pussies" ceiling of your analytical capability, so I'm not too surprised at your assertions.

 

Like I said previously, I hope President Elect Obama makes the right choices. I don't have any real issues with the party right now. I am keeping an open mind and hoping that things get worked out in our favor. I'm a pragmatist, but I think it's important to see the bigger picture and take it all in, not just the narrow field of view that is partisan politics.

 

Somehow I don't see President Elect Obama forward deploying returning troops to Poland or the Fulda Gap. I think he's already indicated little willingness to stand by the countries that put their necks on the line and courted a ballistic missile shield to begin with.

 

Only time will tell, after all this is all just speculation.

 

[Skeezix]

Whoa Blackwater, keep on rollin'

Mississippi moon gonna keep on shinin' on...

[Braydon]

so much for no spray.

[Serenity]

Hey Braydon, very-very-very few BW guys would take even a nanosecond of their time to respond to a board like this. I only do so because I had a preexisting relationship here. You've already had two guys, AND an active SOF member respond to your post, as well as some insightful members. Take the good with the bad eh?

 

I'm out.

[JosephH]

I think once again we're roughly in synch with one another. The principal threat I see with China is the level of their nationalism. They have many of the same internal problems as Russia and thousands of years of history of their 'nation' being badly managed by competing internal and external forces - simply maintaining a 'state' has always been a challenge for them. But they now have a strong rising tide of nationalism driven by a new nouveau-rich class and a retiring older generation which wants Taiwan re-assimilated in their lifetime.

 

If their ambitions over Taiwan or Gulf oil turn military then I see the risk more in posturing, miscommunication, and things just generally getting out of hand. The problem for our Navy is that the average depth of the Taiwan Strait runs from 60m (a rope length) to about 100m. It's basically a soup bowl we can't engage in; we instead have to stand off on the other side of the island. A decidedly unsatisfactory arrangement from a naval perspective, and one that pretty much forces our hand to heavier measures and tactical nukes if we were serious, as once the Chinese commit, they'll fill the Strait with their own bodies to march across if they have to.

 

And I think in Afganistan (particularly our dependence on warlords at Tora Bora), Iraq, at the WTC site (still not rebuilt), and New Orleans we've demonstrated we as a society don't have the collective will to endure pain anywhere near the level necessary to take on China over a breakaway province. And that was the real flaw in the neocon's 'strategy' that we could (or should) impose our will in the ME on the cheap. Now, both the various interests in the ME and the Chinese have picked up on our low pain threshold as our primary weakness. For example, I think standing off with Predators in Pakistan simply begs derision from the Pashtun and breeds a lack of respect from them. In a similar manner, not crushing any and all oppostion we encounter in the ME with overwhelming force speaks volumes to the Chinese for whom it's all about enduring pain. Pretty much all our foes have been emboldened by our current misadventures.

[Bug]

Exactly why the battlefield is obsolete.

China is positioneed to conquer us financially if they have the patience. They are rising just like Japan did in the 60's.

The saber rattling of today is an echo of the past as we are all so intrinsicly involved in each others' economies.

Only isolated backwaters are subject to military solutions. Any major invasion will at best be a temporary thrust destined to fail for financial reasons.

The Soviet Union proved this.

[billcoe]

Exactly why the battlefield is obsolete.

......

 

The saber rattling of today is an echo of the past as we are all so intrinsicly involved in each others' economies.

Only isolated backwaters are subject to military solutions. Any major invasion will at best be a temporary thrust destined to fail for financial reasons.

The Soviet Union proved this.

 

? Then how do you explain away the thousands of offensive based missiles China has been installing, adding too and still increasing in numbers on the straight across from Taiwan. Maybe they are not as smart as you?

[JosephH]

In a strategic sense I agree, we're all pretty much societally doomed in a large-scale clash of powers at this point. Most of the action now is asymmetric and / or largely a matter of friction between spheres of influence not unlike the Cold War. Still, when things heat up, it behooves us to prevail decisively whenever we exert our military might. And by 'prevail', I mean the final, long-term outcomes on the ground in the aftermath of a conflict contribute to our overall regional and strategic advantage - that's the having a clue, the will, and a plan part before reaching for a gun.

[JosephH]

Exactly why the battlefield is obsolete.

......

 

The saber rattling of today is an echo of the past as we are all so intrinsicly involved in each others' economies.

Only isolated backwaters are subject to military solutions. Any major invasion will at best be a temporary thrust destined to fail for financial reasons.

The Soviet Union proved this.

 

? Then how do you explain away the thousands of offensive based missiles China has been installing, adding too and still increasing in numbers on the straight across from Taiwan. Maybe they are not as smart as you?

 

I think Bug is speaking in the larger context. China's older leadership wants Taiwan back in their lifetimes which are drawing rapidly to an end. Timing's now on their side and they will call our bluff if and when they make their move. They know because we are over-extended in the ME that we can't realistically respond in Taiwan in any sustained manner and that the American public in reality has no stomach for supporting or risking our nation over what is essentially a civil war among the Chinese. We can only hope the risk of large-scale capital flight keeps the Chinese on a political track, even if a high power and pressure one. To some extent I think the relevance of the whole Taiwan question is more a vestige of the Cold War in a post-Hong Kong / Walmart era, though it all does make Vietnamese, Malays, and Singaporeans a bit nervous.