Russian school stand-off

[Cyrus]

I will speculate as to the reason the Chechnya hostage-takers allowed some thirty persons, including toddlers only months old, to leave (http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1296517,00.html) the school. It was not out of pity, humanity or for practical reasons. After all, there are still more than two hundred remaining people inside, including children, and the practical issues (hygiene, etc) are surely not relieved by the thirty persons leaving the compound.

The persons were released so that the world's cameras take a good look at the people who are held hostage. The hostage takers wanted to apply pressure on Putin because now we have all seen that the people inside are "real" and not some faceless statistic. For Putin to order a storming of the school, as he did in 2000 when he stormed the Moscow cinema, becomes that more difficult.

Moreover, this shows that the ending of the situation will be difficult. The hostage takers use the hostages, including the children, only as it suits them. There will be no humaneness in this, from either side. A holocaust is not out of the question at all.

[El Barto]

Whats with all the kids being naked or in their underwear?

Do we have Pedophile terrorists now?

[andyfox]

Supposedly it is excruciatingly hot inside and people have shed clothing. Also, apparently the terrorists have not allowed the hostages to go to the bathrom; perhaps that has something to do with the hostages taking off their clothing.

[andyfox]

Well they did indeed storm the place, and apparently there are a lot of people dead.

I don't know much about the situation in Russia. I can't imagine, though, that any group could think taking children as hostages, and threatening to kill them fifty at a time, could aid their cause.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't imagine, though, that any group could think taking children as hostages, and threatening to kill them fifty at a time, could aid their cause.

[/ QUOTE ] one word... fear. Fear helps their cause, because if the people of Russia fear these terrorists, they could put public pressure on Putin.

[MMMMMM]

Just read a report that prior to the storming of the school by Russian troops, the terrorists HAD SHOT CHILDREN IN THE BACK WHO WERE OUTSIDE FLEEING THE BUILDING.

"Savages" doesn't even begin to describe these worthless pieces of dung.

Also, despite whatever names the press gives them, such as "Chechnyan militants", the fact remains that they are ISLAMIC TERRORISTS possessing zero conscience whatsoever.

It is sickening that any humans can be so cruel, heartless and depraved. Again, I often feel that such terrorists are not truly human, but are more akin to some animal or demonic force merely inhabiting human form.

Shooting fleeing children in the back...let's see Chris Alger try to find a way to equivalize this.

[ThaSaltCracka]

dang man, apparently an explosion went off and then the Russians stormed the building. Upwards of 150 people dead, as well as 20 terrorists. This is a mess. You were right Cyrus.

[ThaSaltCracka]

This is astonishing to me:


June 14, 1995
Chechen gunmen take 2,000 hostages at a hospital in southern Russian town of Budyonnovsk, near Chechnya. After failed attempts at force, Russia negotiates the hostages' release in exchange for the gunmen's escape. More than 100 die.

Jan. 9, 1996
Chechen militants seize 3,000 hostages at a hospital in southern Russian town of Kizlyar. Rebels release most, then head for Chechnya with about 100 hostages. Rebels are stopped in a village and attacked by Russian troops. At least 78 die in weeklong fight.

Jan. 16, 1996
Six Turks and three Chechens hold 255 hostages on ferry in Black Sea, threatening to blow up ship if Russia doesn't halt battles in southern Russia. The rebels surrender after three days.

March 9, 1996
Turkish sympathizer hijacks jetliner flying out of Cyprus to draw attention to situation in Chechnya. The sympathizer surrenders after plane lands in Munich, Germany.

Sept. 4, 1999
Bomb destroys a building housing Russian military officers and families in Buinaksk in Russia's Dagestan region. Sixty-four die. Russian officials blame Chechen rebels, but never prove their involvement.

Sept. 9, 1999
Explosion wrecks a nine-story apartment building in southeast Moscow, killing almost 100. Authorities suspect a Chechen bomb, although no evidence is ever provided to support the claim.

Sept. 13, 1999
A bomb destroys an apartment building in southern Moscow, killing 70. Officials blame Chechens, but nobody is ever charged in the attack.

Sept. 16, 1999
Bombs shear off the front of a nine-story apartment building in Volgodonsk, 500 miles south of Moscow. Nearly 20 are killed. Authorities again blame Chechens rebels, but nobody is charged.

March 16, 2001
Three Chechens hijack a Russian airliner leaving Istanbul and divert it to Saudi Arabia. Saudi forces storm plane, killing one hijacker and two hostages.

April 22, 2001
Some 20 gunmen hold about 120 people for 12 hours at a hotel in Istanbul, Turkey, to protest Russian actions in Chechnya. The rebels later surrender to police and release the hostages.

May 4, 2002
Lone gunman holds 13 people hostage at a hotel in Istanbul to protest situation in Chechnya. The gunman surrenders after an hour.

Oct. 24, 2002
Chechen rebels seize 800 people in a Moscow theater. After a three-day standoff, Russian authorities launch a rescue attempt in which all 41 attackers are killed along with 127 hostages who succumb to a knockout gas used to incapacitate the assailants.

July 5, 2003
Double suicide bombing at a Moscow rock concert kills the female attackers and 15 other people.

July 10, 2003
A Russian security agent dies in Moscow while trying to defuse a bomb a woman had tried to carry into a cafe on central Moscow’s main street.

Aug. 1, 2003
50 people are killed in Mozdok, North Ossetia, when a truck bomb smashes through the gates of a hospital where Russian soldiers injured in Chechnya are treated.

Sept. 16, 2003
Two suicide bombers drive a truck laden with explosives into a government security services building near Chechnya, killing three people and injuring 25.

Dec. 5, 2003
Suicide bombing on commuter train in southern Russia kills 44 people. President Vladimir Putin condemns attack as bid to destabilize the country two days before parliamentary elections. Six people were killed in two blasts on the same railway line in September.

Dec. 9, 2003
Female suicide bomber blows herself up outside Moscow’s National Hotel, across from the Kremlin and Red Square, killing five bystanders.

Feb. 6, 2004
An explosion rips through a subway car in the Moscow metro during rush hour, killing 41 people.

June 21- 22, 2004
Chechen rebels kill at least 92 people, mostly law-enforcement officers and officials, while setting fire to police and government buildings around Nazran, the main city of the neighboring republic of Ingushetia.

Aug. 25, 2004
Chechen suicide bombers blamed for explosions that kill 90 people on board two Russian planes.
and these are just the attacks outside of Checnya.
I have to be honest with you, if anyone is not "winning" the war on terrorism it is the Russians.

[Cyrus]

"Whats with all the kids being naked or in their underwear?"

Some possibilities :

- The Chechens wanted to make sure the hostages would stay scared and under control. They made them strip, which has a sobering effect on prisoners. Including small children.

- The Russian forces were stripping some hostages, before carrying them off, to make sure they had not been wired with explosives by the Chechens, while they were held inside.

...Anyone here has seen the movie Hard Boiled ?

[Cyrus]

I just watched an analysis on CNN by some woman analyst called, I think, Anderson. She said that the Chechens were treated brutally by Russians, that the Russians underestimated the independent-minded and fearless Chechens, that the more Chechens the Russians killed the more there were terrorists (especially women hellbent on revenge - the "black widows"), that the Russians chose to ignore the world's pleas on the matter of Chechnya, that the Islamic factor was very underestimated, that the Russians never dealt with the heart of the problem in any intelligent way, etcetera etcetera. And she said, now the war against (Chechen) terrorism is practically unwinnable.

And I thought, what's so different about that war against the Chechens as waged by the Russians and the war against terror the way it is waged by the United States? Where are the smarts, the carefulness and the consultation, in our side? The brute force and "military victory on the ground" are the same in both wars. Let's hope the outcome is different. Somehow.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
And I thought, what's so different about that war against the Chechens as waged by the Russians and the war against terror the way it is waged by the United States? Where are the smarts, the carefulness and the consultation, in our side? The brute force and "military victory on the ground" are the same in both wars. Let's hope the outcome is different. Somehow.

[/ QUOTE ] I don't see how it is the same. There is an enourmous amount of international support for the war on terrorism(Iraq war not included). Also there is a vested interest for everyone to fight terrorism. The situation in Chechnya is far different. This war and the subsequent terrorism associated with it are a direct result from the fall or communism and the decline of the former Soviet Union. You remember that many countries got their independence from Russia after the fall of communism, Chechnya just happened to be the one "country" Russia felt like stopping in their endeavor.

I don't see many if any similarities between Russia/Chechnya and US/war on terror.

[Boris]

The word on Yahoo news is that the hostage takers were ethnic Arabs. The natural conclusion is that this is another Al Qaeda mercenary attack. How sickening.

To be honest I think the fact that Al Qaeda were involved reflects poorly on Bush. It is a major setback in the War On Terror. My opinion is that we wasted too many scarce resources fighting Saddam and reconstructing Iraq. Saddam was at best a tertiary supporter of Al Qaeda. Impossible to know for sure though.

[Utah]

The brute force and "military victory on the ground" are the same in both wars. Let's hope the outcome is different. Somehow.

That is simply not true. The Russian military is very incompetent, corrupt, and demoralized. The U.S. military kicks ass pretty well.

The difference is that the U.S. is going after the source of the problem - the corrupt nations that feed the terrorists. The Chechnens would not be able to do what they do without strong backing.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
The Chechnens would not be able to do what they do without strong backing.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Chechens have been mounting terrorist attacks on Russia for nearly ten years, and only fairly recently (last three or four years) have people started saying that they are being supported in any substantial way by Al-Qaeda.

Experts on Russia seem to agree that the Chechen movement is primarily a nationalist one rooted in a long historical struggle against the Russians and led by an overwhelmingly Chechen leadership.

The Al-Qaeda angle is overblown, hyped up by both Putin and Bush for political convenience.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
The Al-Qaeda angle is overblown, hyped up by both Putin and Bush for political convenience.

[/ QUOTE ] There is a connection. Over-blown maybe, but it is still definitively there.

[andyfox]

As I indicated, I know nothing of the situation. Usually, though, when there's an indigenous uprising, governments like to see some sort of international conspiracy. It makes their task a lot easier. But, as I say, I know nothing of this situation.

I do know I just read this:

"There were reports of at least 100 dead in the school gym. Lines of dead children and adults could be seen lying on stretchers, covered with white sheets. Grieving parents and loved ones knelt beside the dead.

"Bodies of children also were laid out under a grove of trees near a hospital awaiting identification. Nearby anxious crowds gathered around lists of injured posted on the walls of the hospital buildings."

No words can do justice to the horror.

[jcx]

At least 10 of the hostage takers were Arabs, not Chechens. In the span of one week 2 airplanes have been downed, a subway bombed, and now this school holocaust. A rag tag group of separatists could not have pulled this off. There is a clear Al Qaeda connection. It may not have started that way, but it is what it is now. Check http://www.debka.com/ for lots of unreported stuff about this issue and misc crap going on all over the world.

The Russian army may not be what it once was, but it has a gigantic advantage over the US army when it comes to fighting terrorists - It is not constrained by political correctness. Since few international journalists will risk their lives to actually visit Chechnya, what goes on there in the coming months will mostly go unreported. Woe to the average Joe Chechen in the near future. It's clobbering time.

God rest the souls of those butchered in this weeks bloodbath.

[Tie Domi]

I know the CNN news room must be burning the midnight oil trying to figure out a way to blame Bush for the slaughtering of Russian children by fanatical Islamic mercenaries. Interestingly, there are already comments in this thread headed that way. It is amazing. Maybe Christiane Amanpour can get some good ideas here.

[Cyrus]

"The Russian military is very incompetent, corrupt, and demoralized. The U.S. military kicks ass pretty well."

The Russian military would have a hard time if it had to go up against a reasonably formidable enemy (in a non-nuclear engagement of course). Here, they are against guerrillas. They have always been against guerrillas. In Chechnya and in Afghanistan.

The fact that they could not win those wars does not show that their armies are not powerful, or that they are demoralised, etc. It shows that they have followed the wrong tactics. Example : Chechnya. They have won the war on the ground, overwhelmingly. Yet they are losing the war against terror, overwhelmingly.

If you think there is no lesson to be learned there from the West about the value of "winning on the ground" the war against terror, you are making a big mistake.

"The difference is that the U.S. is going after the source of the problem - the corrupt nations that feed the terrorists. The Chechens would not be able to do what they do without strong backing."

The Chechens did not seek out and do not have outside help in their war against the Russians. They happen to be one of the most fearsome nation on Earth, as far as warrior ability is concerned. Hardened, mountain people, born with a rifle near the cradle. They lost their guerrilla war against the Russkies in the sense that they retreated against the overwhelming might of the Russian Army - but the Russian Army could not safely occupy Chechnya, not even Grozny. Ring a bell?

As to the U.S. "going after the source", this is a laugh. The financial "sources" of terrorism are to be found mainly in Saudi Arabia and (you'd b surprised) in some Balkan countries. The "causes" of terrorism are to be found in the many mistakes of American foreign policy, the same mistakes that inhibit America's war against terror. (America essentially fights a 19th-century war.) You say you go after regimes that support terrorists but that is an impossibility : You cannot invade Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan (yes!), Iran, etcetera.

Remember, Iraq did not help out terrorists. The war against Iraq was (and is) a waste of focus, human resources and money, as far as the war against terror is concerned. That failing strategy must change after November, whether Bush or Kerry is elected!

A military analyst was relating the other day on CNN that, with all America's attention and military tied up in Iraq, the United States could not fight a war in another theatre if its life depended on it! Should give you pause.

[Cyrus]

"At least 10 of the hostage takers were Arabs, not Chechens. In the span of one week 2 airplanes have been downed, a subway bombed, and now this school holocaust. A rag tag group of separatists could not have pulled this off. There is a clear Al Qaeda connection."

"Rag tag" armies or simple groups of Chechens have done pretty well against the Soviets in the last decade. The Chechens are no match against "Arab mercenaries" -- the Chechens are by far the better and more ruthless warriors!

As to the terrorist activities, the Chechens have found their own candidates for martyrdom, without any need for outside (Arab) help: The candidates are the "black widows", the women who lost a brother, a husband, a father, etc, in the war against the Russians. And they are out for revenge, and not martyrdom! It's just that in the process they die too. Show how much they want to avenge.

The Chechens have received financial help from Islamists, and now, some of the most extremist groups, like the one that took hostages in that school, get human resources as well. IMHO, the Chechens don't need the Arabs at all, in combat or in planning. (These are simple/simplistic plans.) IMHO, the Arabs tag along as "fellow jihadists" and the Chechens take them in comradeship. And because the Arabs should be willing, in their fanaticism, to be canon fodder anytime. Nothing more.

"The Russian army may not be what it once was, but it has a gigantic advantage over the US army when it comes to fighting terrorists - It is not constrained by political correctness."

Correct! And if the Russian Army cannot win the war against terror, when she fights it without restraints and no hold barred, but fights it the conventional military way, same as America does, what does that tell you about America's strategy? And chances?

[vulturesrow]

Do you really think that the only thing that America is doing to fight terrorism is the "conventional military way"? If so, quite frankly, you are wrong. You couldnt be more wrong. So much stuff goes on that most people have no idea of.

Chris

[cardcounter0]

The kool-aid is very strong in this one.

[vulturesrow]

Very funny. Fact of the matter is, is that are many facets to the war on terrorism that most people arent aware of. Being a member of the military, I get glimpses of these things the average person doesnt. Its funny that people like to attribute all these shadowy and nefarious election plots to the current administration but on the other hand believe that conventional military operations are the only thing that the US is doing to combat terrorists.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think that the only thing that America is doing to fight terrorism is the "conventional military way"? If so, quite frankly, you are wrong. You couldnt be more wrong. So much stuff goes on that most people have no idea of.

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

The kool-aid is very strong in this one.

[/ QUOTE ]



If you dispute Vulturesrow's assertion that much more than conventional military force is used in the fight against terrorism, then the kool-aid must be very strong in YOU.

[cardcounter0]

The terrorists and terrorism and the "war on terror" is helping get Bush re-elected. Why would the current administration want to get rid of the only thing it has going for it? Without terrorists and terrorism that would force them to run on the issues and their track record now wouldn't it?
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[dsm]

What's up Cyroosky? Three paragraphs you wrote, and you can't even manage to slip in one reference pointing to America somehow being responsible for this whole thing? Not even indirectly responsible? None whatsoever? I think you may be starting to slip a little. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Cyrus]

"Do you really think that the only thing that America is doing to fight terrorism is the "conventional military way"?"

America has lost focus on the war against terror. Its conventional military forces and its budget have gone "all-in" in a war against irrelevant Iraq, a country that has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, al Qaeda or Islamic terrorists. (Note that, after the Americans removed anti-fundamentalist Saddam, the Islamic extremists did fill the vacuum and now claim the lead in the insurgency! Good going. George.)

Not only are the resources and the attention focused erroneously, there is lack of potential for the other kind of war, the kind that is essential to fight terror.

Intelligence is poor. The top spooks admit openly that they have little to no information from inside the terror camp or its followers and backers. Which is the result of short-sighted policies, going back years. (At least Clinton tried to steer things the right way.)

Also, intel (particularly against an elusive target such as terrorism) requires extensive collaboration across borders. Cross-border collaboraton and co-ordination is also needed for black bag ops. But America right now stand isolated and without willing allies, except for Britain. What are you gonna do, work with the secret services of ..Latvia to get intel on bin Laden? Pathetic.

The whole strategy is wrong. The tactics of that strategy are wrong. American soldiers get killed fighting nonsensical battles around some ...holy mosque in Najaf. The mentality cultivated among the leadership and the people is wrong.

You are losing the war strategically. You think material and geography are important in this game? Hah. It takes but a glance at the chess board to conclude that you are losing the game.

[vulturesrow]

Cyrus,

I dont know how else to say this other than you are wrong. Sure the merits of the war in Iraq with regards to terrorism is debateable. But like I said, there is a lot going on behind the scenes. And again you are sorely mistaken if you think Great Britain is the only country in the world that is collaborating with us in these sorts of ventures. Also, do you know how much money in the budget is dedicated to the black part of the war on terrorism? Of course you dont, that is the whole meaning of black budget items. They either arent recorded at all or are cleverly hidden in the budget with no way of you knowing it.

The problem here is twofold but related. One is that the Iraq situation is what is prominently featured in news media. Secondly, the guys conducting unconventional warfare dont advertise and dont want people to know they are out there doing what they do, for good reasons of course. I can usually see the other side of a debate, even if I dont agree but in this case you are clearly wrong if you think the US's main thrust in the war on terrorism is conventional military operations.

[Cyrus]

"I don’t know how else to say this other than you are wrong. Sure the merits of the war in Iraq with regards to terrorism is debateable."

What is there to "debate"? The US eliminated a threat to Israel. Not to American security. Talk yourself to death about "restoring democracy in Iraq". The thing is, that's got nothing to do with the war against terror? (Do you fathom the seriousness of this? America is spending some hundred billion dollars a year in a humanitarian mission, at best. No progress against terror!)

"Do you know how much money in the budget is dedicated to the black part of the war on terrorism? Of course you don’t, that is the whole meaning of black budget items. You are clearly wrong if you think the US's main thrust in the war on terrorism is conventional military operations."

Yeah, this is so convincing, I'm stumped. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

You mean I should take your word on faith, right? Just like a preacher says we gotta believe in what we cannot understand because if we understood it, it wouldn't be worth believing!..

Listen, I know that covert operations are covert, silly! But the CIA budget and the organisational structure of the intelligence services and the geostrategic set-up (which gauges intel needs) are public knowledge. Excuse me, but on the intel side, the US is losing the game, big time.

One final word for you: If next year, the US has to fight a conventional war in another theatre, and for more serious reasons than that Saddam silliness, do you think the country will be able to, Yes or No? When you realize that the answer is "No", you may begin to realize how limited American options have become through the Iraq quagmire and what true dangers have arised from that idiotic adventure.

[vulturesrow]

Fine Cyrus. You are right. The only thing the US is doing to combat terrorism is conventional military operations and we are losing. Happy?

[Cyrus]

/images/graemlins/frown.gif

[IrishHand]

[ QUOTE ]
If next year, the US has to fight a conventional war in another theatre, and for more serious reasons than that Saddam silliness, do you think the country will be able to, Yes or No?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. Our military is actually set up to be able to wage war on four fronts simultaneously. Of course, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq has a "front", per se, but the basic idea is still valid. Other than China and Russia, we could effectively fight a war in another theater at this time. We could certainly crush Iran or North Korea if the urge struck us.

[Utah]

Hi Cyrus,

I always get a kick out of your posts.

Lets stipulate that Iraq was not a threat. Lets even stipulate that the war was wrong. There is still tremendous value in the war on terror for the Iraqi initiative (even if the costs outweigh the benefits) - to not see this is to simply not see straight.

We are now on the border with both Syria and Iran. Do you not see these countries as leaders in the international terrorist game (if not - I would like to know who you this is)? Do you not think they are both just a touch nervous? Do you not think there are many covert ops going on right now in those countries?

Also, the biggest advantage of the Iraq war is that terrorists and countries now know that George is just crazy enough to go medieval on any country that supports terrorism or that he perceives to support terrorism. Do you not think countries have taken note of this? This is a tremendous leverage point. Game theory tells you that the madman has a big advantage.

[Cyrus]

"Our military is actually set up to be able to wage war on four fronts simultaneously. Of course, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq has a "front", per se, but the basic idea is still valid. Other than China and Russia, we could effectively fight a war in another theater at this time. We could certainly crush Iran or North Korea if the urge struck us."

Uh oh. I have some further questions:

- If the American military is streteched to the point that the Stop-Loss clause is activated and the soldiers are forced to extend their term of duty, where is the manpower needed to invade yet another country? Something is missing from the picture.

- If the war against Iraq (and that goddamn "pacification and democratization" program) is currently running a tab of around a hundred billion dollars a year, where will the money come from, for another equally demanding war (and a "pacification" program), such as against Iran, for example?

...Of course, we are always talking about conventional war.

My point is that America has absurdly and costly focused on Iraq and engaged in a conflict that is irrelevant to the war against terror.. In the process, America has over-committed its hand in Iraq, to the point that its other strategic or security interests in the world cannot be properly serviced.

If you think that the resources of the United States have not been stressed at all, and that we are still "in the plan", I would be very interested to know how that "plan" can be implemented.

[Cyrus]

"Lets stipulate that Iraq was not a threat. Lets even stipulate that the war was wrong. There is still tremendous value in the war on terror for the Iraqi initiative (even if the costs outweigh the benefits) - to not see this is to simply not see straight."

Okay, some (major) problems with your take on this:

One - You cannot say, OK all our assumptions were wrong (let's say), but all our conclusions are still valid. There's an obvious logical flaw right there!

Two - How can you say with a straight face that it's OK if the costs outweigh the benefits? It never is!

Three - Then you say that we still got something good out of the "Iraq initiative". Of course, we got some! There's always some benefit in everything! For instance, Saddam The Bad Dictator is gone - hurrah hurrah. But I thought this was supposed to be a positive expectation kinda thing. Not a losing proposition. (In the casino last night, you lost your shirt, but you got comped to a fantastic meal, and that somehow makes things alright?)

Four - I have a BIG problem when a hand (at poker or in politics) turns ACCIDENTALLY, BY CHANCE, AGAINST THE ODDS into a win. Things can get truly distorted in out minds in such a case. We gotta be careful. (You are sharing someone's ring game action, he won, but you gotta say "Sorry but no, no, AND NO! Three-betting against that obvious flush was WRONG, even if you caught a miracle river THE LAST TEN TIMES you played that way." I'm saying, if America went in Iraq on false premises and America somehow --let's say-- got a positive outcome out of it, with benefits outweighing costs, are we supposed to adopt about Iraq a results-oriented thinking?? Of course not. I recommend, thank the lucky horse, collect the money, and change horses! -- because the horse will do something equally stupid in his next game.)

"I always get a kick out of your posts."

Thanks. I get more like a sucker punch from yours.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[IrishHand]

Cyrus...You raise several insteresting questions, parts of which I don't have an answer for.

[ QUOTE ]
If the American military is streteched to the point that the Stop-Loss clause is activated and the soldiers are forced to extend their term of duty, where is the manpower needed to invade yet another country? Something is missing from the picture.

[/ QUOTE ]
As far as I can tell, we've gone to stop-loss, reservists and extensions precisely so that we can maintain our full operational capability. As an example - say we had 10 divisions total and committed two to battle. If we decided that (a) 2 divisions would be needed in battle for quite a while, and (b) that 10 divisions was a good number to have at the ready, then it would make good sense to implement the measures necessary to add another two divisions. It's not that they're all being used - far from it - it's just that we like having the ability to be dominant anywhere in the world on short notice. In my community of the Navy, we have less than 1/12th of our assets tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq - and we never had more than 1/4 of them in use there at any one time.

[ QUOTE ]
If the war against Iraq (and that goddamn "pacification and democratization" program) is currently running a tab of around a hundred billion dollars a year, where will the money come from, for another equally demanding war (and a "pacification" program), such as against Iran, for example?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's the more interesting question, and unfortunately, the one I can't answer. If there had been no war in Iraq, we would still have had to support about the same number of troops, about the same amount of materiel, etc. What are the added costs due to the war? Well...

-there are some amount of monetary incentives to members of the military serving in the Gulf in this wartime scenario,
-there is some percentage increase in supplies (mainly gas and ordinance) used by the strike community, the Army, and the Marines both for deploying overseas and prosecuting our offensive there,
-there is the human cost which, with SGLI, amounts to $250,000 per dead serviceman in addition to a spike in members who will be discharged for medical reasons (and provided lifelong compensation)

Militarily, there isn't too much more that I'm aware of. All that rebuilding nonsense has nothing to do with our military, at least as a direct expense. I've thought about your question a great deal - where did all the money go - and I simply don't have an answer. The items I listed are barely a fraction of the figure you cited.

But back to the point - from a military perspective, I am 100% confident that we could successfully invade Iran and North Korea both in the next 6 months if we so chose. Certainly, it would be very costly in terms of lives, domestic confidence and economic effects, but it could be done militarily without too much concern. That would likely be the limit though - I don't think we could, for example, do Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Germany all at the same time, for instance. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[nicky g]

"At least 10 of the hostage takers were Arabs, not Chechens. "

According to the Russian authorities, who have a vested interest in saying so and who have yet to provide any proof. From today's Observer:


"Eyewitness accounts from inside the gym, where most of the 1,000 or so hostages were held, appear to contradict earlier claims by Russian authorities that nine or 10 Arab fighters were among the terrorists. Instead, survivors said most spoke with Ingush, Chechen or Russian accents, largely communicating in Russian.

Only one of them was described as having darker skin that could have marked him out as a foreign fighter."

Putin's warning as terror deaths top 360 (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1297724,00.html)

"The Russian army may not be what it once was, but it has a gigantic advantage over the US army when it comes to fighting terrorists - It is not constrained by political correctness. "

It's lack of what you call "political correctness" - it's willingness to disappear and murder tens of thousands of people and brutalise an entire country - is exactly what lead to this. THe Russians have been using iron fist tactics for years in Chechnya. Guess what? It's made things much much worse. Presumably the next step is to simply kill every Chechen.

[andyfox]

I read the reports in today's New York Times. They were hard to read. Heartbreaking.

Almost as troubling were Putin's rambling, almost incoherent comments on TV.

[andyfox]

"Game theory tells you that the madman has a big advantage."

Unfortunately, the enemy probably doesn't know game theory.
( /images/graemlins/wink.gif) Nixon tried this in Vietnam and it led to unmitigated disaster for all involved.

In any event, I don't think other countries would see Bush as crazy. The U.S. was attacked on 9/11; it responded with an attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan, but not immediately, not in a crazed manner. And the invasion of Iraq was also not done in a way that would make others think Bush crazy. Nor is there any evidence that others would respond in a certain way if they thought he was. (Libya was turning around long before the invasion of Iraq.)