Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 12-21-2005, 03:58 PM
sweetjazz sweetjazz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 95
Default Re: This board makes me laugh (a reality check)

PR -- Thanks for your reply and I am glad to hear you are busting the fish in addition to fighting the bad guys.

I guess I have one major question that I haven't been able to answer. What does it mean to "win" the War on Terror, and what kind of casualties (fatalities and injuries) will it realistically take to win? Does winning mean the complete elimination of all people who support killing American civilians (this would seem like a never ending task)? Does it mean weakening the terrorist organizations so that they cannnot plot an attack on American without great difficulty (and does this mean that we still have a basically never ending task)? Does it mean reducing the capabilities of terrorists so that while they might still be able to launch small scale attacks (car bombs), they cannot succeed in a large scale attack like 9/11?

Of course, I would like to see terrorists eliminated completely, but what is the cost in doing so? We have already lost several thousand American troops and seen tens of thousands more be seriously injured. Based on your post and my encounters with other people in the military, I can see that the military is made of up really special and heroic people. I value highly the sacrifice you and your fellow soldiers are making, but I also recognize how valuable it is to everyone (especially the people who know you well) to bring you back safe and sound.

I think the War on Terror is complicated, because I don't think we can just do what the Islamists are demanding (removing our troops from the Middle East) and it's not clear at this point whether they would stop attacking us even if we did. But at the same time, when I see how many American troops have been killed, how many have been injured, how many Iraqis have been killed, it's hard for me to call what's happening "winning." If this is what victory looks like, then it comes with a heavy pricetag.

I think that is something that bothers a lot of us who don't agree with the war in Iraq but do support the war on terror (though maybe not as much as you think we should). In Afghanistan, it seemed like we made a lot of progress. We really routed al Qaeda's organizational capacities and killed or captured many key operatives. (I'm including subsequent captures in Pakistan, like Kalid Sheikh-Mohammed.) At the same time, we were able to limit our casualties because our goals were rather modest. We routed the Taliban (necessary because of their support for al Qaeda) and oversaw a regime change, but we were successful it seems because Afghanistan is a small country, the Afghani people strongly wanted the American military presence to fill the leadership vacuum, and we chose a mission which had relatively well-defined objectives. Even without finding Osama bin Laden (and the fact that the Afghan government is now descending into chaos again), I think the Afghan war was largely a success.

In contrast, we have lost many more lives in Iraq, and from what I see reported, it does not look like we have made nearly as many gains. It seems like American officials are still struggling to figure out the insurgency. Despite the fact that we have the best military in the world that always completes the mission they are assigned, the insurgency has strengthened over time, not weakened. That tells me that they are winning the political battle and the battle for civilian support -- it's obvious to me that they can never win in direct military confrontations. Moreover, they have now made our policy decisions hard. Do we increase the intensity of our searches for insurgents to try to stop their progress, at the risk of alienating ordinary Iraqis? (A lot of people in Washington -- I mean policy folks not our Congressman and Senators who are too busy grandstanding on the issue -- now think we were too aggressive in pursuing the insurgents earlier and alienated too many Iraqi families.) But without increasing the intensity of our pursuit, how do we expect to weaken the insurgency?

It is these kind of complexities that make it hard for me to support the decision to go to war in Iraq (though now that we are there, I do believe we must do what we can to "win" by providing the Iraqis the necessary resources -- political and military -- to maintain their new democratic system). Yes, I want to "win" the war on terrorism by making it less likely that a terrorist can pull off an attack like the one we tragically saw on 9/11. I am just not sure that the aggressive approach of looking everywhere for places to attack them is the best strategy. I think it is better to pick our spots. We reduce the losses and strain on our military; we give the enemy less recruiting propoganda to try to get new recruits; yet we still pursue them aggressively when the conditions are favorable for us.

Ultimately, I think our nation still has to accept that there is always a risk of terrorist attack and we can never completely eliminate it. If we go after Saddam Hussein, then that buys time for Kim Jong-Il. If we destroy terror training camps in Afghanistan, new ones will likely emerge in Somalia or Egypt. Like you said, it is a cat and mouse game, with both sides trying to get one step ahead of the other. Because of that, we have to make good strategic decisions about how to go after terrorists. Is it better to try to pursue their individual cells, or is it better to get after heads of rogue states who might ultimately supply the cells with weapons? Will going after a head of state create a power vacuum that will lead to the creation of many new cells? Will going after individual cells be stymied by their hiding in a state controlled by a rogue leader? Can we achieve our objectives through the threat of military force without using it? (Arguably, we were doing so in Iraq before the war started, albeit somewhat imperfectly.)

My main concerns regarding the leadership in this country is not whether they are pursuing the right goals (at least in terms of foreign policy), but whether they are doing so in the smartest and most strategic way. We all know Saddam Hussein was a bad bad man and was evil (just like Kim Jong-Il and several other heads of state are); but just because he is very bad and evil does not mean that it is necessarily in the best interest of the U.S. to remove him from power. While there were some positive consequences of the war, there have also been some negative consequences. I have my doubts as to whether President Bush can effectively weigh the two considerations and come to the right conclusion. (In fairness to him, he has to appear optomistic in his speeches even when things are obviously not going as well as he says they are in order to try to keep morale up and support for the war from eroding.)

Anyway, just some of my thoughts.

Cheers,
Mike
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 12-21-2005, 06:08 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: This board makes me laugh (a reality check)

[ QUOTE ]
PR -- Thanks for your reply and I am glad to hear you are busting the fish in addition to fighting the bad guys.

I guess I have one major question that I haven't been able to answer. What does it mean to "win" the War on Terror, and what kind of casualties (fatalities and injuries) will it realistically take to win? Does winning mean the complete elimination of all people who support killing American civilians (this would seem like a never ending task)? Does it mean weakening the terrorist organizations so that they cannnot plot an attack on American without great difficulty (and does this mean that we still have a basically never ending task)? Does it mean reducing the capabilities of terrorists so that while they might still be able to launch small scale attacks (car bombs), they cannot succeed in a large scale attack like 9/11?

Of course, I would like to see terrorists eliminated completely, but what is the cost in doing so? We have already lost several thousand American troops and seen tens of thousands more be seriously injured. Based on your post and my encounters with other people in the military, I can see that the military is made of up really special and heroic people. I value highly the sacrifice you and your fellow soldiers are making, but I also recognize how valuable it is to everyone (especially the people who know you well) to bring you back safe and sound.

I think the War on Terror is complicated, because I don't think we can just do what the Islamists are demanding (removing our troops from the Middle East) and it's not clear at this point whether they would stop attacking us even if we did. But at the same time, when I see how many American troops have been killed, how many have been injured, how many Iraqis have been killed, it's hard for me to call what's happening "winning." If this is what victory looks like, then it comes with a heavy pricetag.

I think that is something that bothers a lot of us who don't agree with the war in Iraq but do support the war on terror (though maybe not as much as you think we should). In Afghanistan, it seemed like we made a lot of progress. We really routed al Qaeda's organizational capacities and killed or captured many key operatives. (I'm including subsequent captures in Pakistan, like Kalid Sheikh-Mohammed.) At the same time, we were able to limit our casualties because our goals were rather modest. We routed the Taliban (necessary because of their support for al Qaeda) and oversaw a regime change, but we were successful it seems because Afghanistan is a small country, the Afghani people strongly wanted the American military presence to fill the leadership vacuum, and we chose a mission which had relatively well-defined objectives. Even without finding Osama bin Laden (and the fact that the Afghan government is now descending into chaos again), I think the Afghan war was largely a success.

In contrast, we have lost many more lives in Iraq, and from what I see reported, it does not look like we have made nearly as many gains. It seems like American officials are still struggling to figure out the insurgency. Despite the fact that we have the best military in the world that always completes the mission they are assigned, the insurgency has strengthened over time, not weakened. That tells me that they are winning the political battle and the battle for civilian support -- it's obvious to me that they can never win in direct military confrontations. Moreover, they have now made our policy decisions hard. Do we increase the intensity of our searches for insurgents to try to stop their progress, at the risk of alienating ordinary Iraqis? (A lot of people in Washington -- I mean policy folks not our Congressman and Senators who are too busy grandstanding on the issue -- now think we were too aggressive in pursuing the insurgents earlier and alienated too many Iraqi families.) But without increasing the intensity of our pursuit, how do we expect to weaken the insurgency?

It is these kind of complexities that make it hard for me to support the decision to go to war in Iraq (though now that we are there, I do believe we must do what we can to "win" by providing the Iraqis the necessary resources -- political and military -- to maintain their new democratic system). Yes, I want to "win" the war on terrorism by making it less likely that a terrorist can pull off an attack like the one we tragically saw on 9/11. I am just not sure that the aggressive approach of looking everywhere for places to attack them is the best strategy. I think it is better to pick our spots. We reduce the losses and strain on our military; we give the enemy less recruiting propoganda to try to get new recruits; yet we still pursue them aggressively when the conditions are favorable for us.

Ultimately, I think our nation still has to accept that there is always a risk of terrorist attack and we can never completely eliminate it. If we go after Saddam Hussein, then that buys time for Kim Jong-Il. If we destroy terror training camps in Afghanistan, new ones will likely emerge in Somalia or Egypt. Like you said, it is a cat and mouse game, with both sides trying to get one step ahead of the other. Because of that, we have to make good strategic decisions about how to go after terrorists. Is it better to try to pursue their individual cells, or is it better to get after heads of rogue states who might ultimately supply the cells with weapons? Will going after a head of state create a power vacuum that will lead to the creation of many new cells? Will going after individual cells be stymied by their hiding in a state controlled by a rogue leader? Can we achieve our objectives through the threat of military force without using it? (Arguably, we were doing so in Iraq before the war started, albeit somewhat imperfectly.)

My main concerns regarding the leadership in this country is not whether they are pursuing the right goals (at least in terms of foreign policy), but whether they are doing so in the smartest and most strategic way. We all know Saddam Hussein was a bad bad man and was evil (just like Kim Jong-Il and several other heads of state are); but just because he is very bad and evil does not mean that it is necessarily in the best interest of the U.S. to remove him from power. While there were some positive consequences of the war, there have also been some negative consequences. I have my doubts as to whether President Bush can effectively weigh the two considerations and come to the right conclusion. (In fairness to him, he has to appear optomistic in his speeches even when things are obviously not going as well as he says they are in order to try to keep morale up and support for the war from eroding.)

Anyway, just some of my thoughts.

Cheers,
Mike

[/ QUOTE ]

Very good post. You are 100% correct about the complexity of this war. We as Americans have developed a kind of Burger King mentality. We want it our way and we want it now. Unfortunately, the way this war is going to play out, our second biggest enemy could become perseverance.

What does winning mean/when will we win? I honestly don't know. I don't know if we'll ever know we've won in terms we historically understand. This is a war unlike any other we've ever fought and it challenges us in many different ways.

Iraq compared to Afghanistan is much more complex. The media doesn't tell the whole story because they don't have or desire access to it. In otherwords, very few of them want to put their lives on the line to tell it.

Someone, maybe it was you, but someone in this thread wrote that the war was being fought in the media. Beyond what I said in my OP I won't comment about the President and my comments in the OP were meant to be neutral. That being said, everytime someone important says "Bush lied about prewar intel," or "we should withdraw immediately," or "the CIA has secret prisons in Batswana," the enemy is emboldened. They feed off of that. They don't understand our culture of political debate. Does that mean we stop political debate in our country? Of course not. The only way to change their lack of understanding about political debate or free speech is to let them experience it.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 12-21-2005, 06:32 PM
Cyrus Cyrus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Tundra
Posts: 1,720
Default zipo file

[ QUOTE ]
What a hoot - Wind him up and watch him go

[/ QUOTE ] Hey, where you been? I'd flame your little behind some more -- but you're making way too much sense in this thread.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 12-21-2005, 06:42 PM
Cyrus Cyrus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Tundra
Posts: 1,720
Default May the gods

[ QUOTE ]
If we stop fighting the war, it will still be fought against us.

[/ QUOTE ] You are fighting the wrong war, if you think you're fighting terrorism in Iraq. (Well, now you are indeed fighting terrorists as well, because there are terrorists among the insurgents. But this is no excuse.)

The war against terrorism, i.e. what you called the war for Natiional Survival (choke, gasp), is not a war in the sense that wars have been fought thus far in history. That idiot of a president sends, as is his wont, gunships, tomahawks and aircraft carriers to do battle ...with ghosts.

Terrorists have no country whose frontiers you can invade; no capital whose capture would cripple their efforts; no industrial or agrarian infrastructure whose demolition would choke them from raw materials; no CCC hubs which can be neutralized.

Quite probably, you will learn this very slowly (and I say this because your lot seems hell bent on NOT learning from your mistakes) and also quite painfully. It's in the cards.

May the gods of poker shed some light to your path.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 12-21-2005, 06:48 PM
BluffTHIS! BluffTHIS! is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 375
Default Re: May the gods

Man what a masterful military analysis. Insurgents and terrorists with guns, bombs, mortars and anti-aircraft weapons are really just ghosts so there is no point in our arming our troops as best as possible and teaching them counter-insurgency warfare tactics (you know that assymetrical stuff).

Surely you need to be teaching this stuff as a guest lecturer at the War College.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 12-21-2005, 06:54 PM
Cyrus Cyrus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Tundra
Posts: 1,720
Default I Need Your Pagers. All Y\'All.

[ QUOTE ]
Al-Qaeda and their ilk make heavy use of satellite communications, cellular technology, and the Internet. How is the NSA 'mostly useless' against this?

[/ QUOTE ] I would guess that they are using the internet, yes -- so they'd know a thing or two about ops like the NSA's!

I would also guess (that's what I'd do anyway) they are communicating outside electronic means. I don't buy all that stuff about sat phones, etcetera. What's the hurry anyway?

At the outside, they would be using (also) electronic means of communication the old fashioned way: to trigger events through innocuous code - rather than exchange info.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 12-21-2005, 07:16 PM
Cyrus Cyrus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Tundra
Posts: 1,720
Default Excusa. Me.

[ QUOTE ]
Man what a masterful military analysis. Insurgents and terrorists with guns, bombs, mortars and anti-aircraft weapons are really just ghosts so there is no point in our arming our troops as best as possible and teaching them counter-insurgency warfare tactics.

[/ QUOTE ] Oh. Is this what you've been doing all this time in Iraq?

Coulda fooled me.

[ QUOTE ]
Surely you need to be teaching this stuff as a guest lecturer at the War College.

[/ QUOTE ] Some green berets were on the right path when they discarded their uniforms, stopped shaving, stopped washing, started learning the local lingo, and went a-hunting.

The powers that be soon put an end to that nonsense in Afghanistan, last I heard.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 12-21-2005, 07:20 PM
vulturesrow vulturesrow is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24
Default Re: I Need Your Pagers. All Y\'All.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't buy all that stuff about sat phones, etcetera

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because you dont "buy all that stuff" doesnt mean it isnt true. It is most assuredly true. And just because they know about NSA ops doesnt mean they have the ability to combat them. The NSA techniques are quite applicable against terrorist organizations such as AQ.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 12-21-2005, 07:26 PM
zipo zipo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 194
Default Re: zipo file

>> Hey, where you been? I'd flame your little behind some more<<

LOL - more delusions boy? Your little booty has been publicly spanked cherry-red (glowing like Rudolph's nose - a special holiday simile) so many times that your masochism puts Madonna's to shame.

But because it's Christmas time (and hey, Jesus is *the* reason for the season), I'll show you some Christian charity and let you slide this time.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 12-21-2005, 08:32 PM
MMMMMM MMMMMM is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,103
Default Re: May the gods

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If we stop fighting the war, it will still be fought against us.


[/ QUOTE ]

The war against terrorism, i.e. what you called the war for Natiional Survival (choke, gasp), is not a war in the sense that wars have been fought thus far in history. That idiot of a president sends, as is his wont, gunships, tomahawks and aircraft carriers to do battle ...with ghosts.

Terrorists have no country whose frontiers you can invade; no capital whose capture would cripple their efforts; no industrial or agrarian infrastructure whose demolition would choke them from raw materials; no CCC hubs which can be neutralized.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ah, but Cyrus, terrorists do gain greatly by state actors lending them various kinds of support. al-Qaeda was freer to train and plot, when unmolested some years ago in Afghanistan; and today numerous terrorist groups benefit greatly via the shadowy support of Iran and Syria.

So, where should we be cutting off their supports? To an extent, we are already cutting off some of their financial supports; and intercepting their communications, and continuing to catch more of their lietenants: the terrorists would be further yet crippled if Iran and Syria were no longer using the powers of their governments and militaries to clandestinely lend support to these bad guys. So, regime change in Iran and Syria is necessary (for that reason, and for a few other reasons as well).

Does regime change for Iran and Syria need to come externally, as in Iraq? Well, hopefully not; an internal overthrow would be much better. However, if Iran keeps up the BS, and gets really close to nuclear weaponry, all bets are off: limited strikes might lead to a larger war which might lead to regime change in Iran. Which, of course, would be a good end result.

The timing for such might be propitious, too: by Spring, Iraq should be much more stable, while Iran may be approaching the no-turning-back point in the nuclear cycle; strikes on Iran have the potential to be pragmatically on the table about that time. So, we'll just wait and see. In the meantime, Ahmadinejad-al-Crazy will go on spouting vitriol, if he doesn't manage to get himself assassinated first. But Springtime really isn't that far off.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.