We could be in Syria well before 2007

[V]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Yes, foreign fighters are a problem. I can see the US possibly taking almost any military action short of invasion. Baring some very unlikely scenario, such as the one being used for CMSF, the US is in no position to be taking on another occupation and insurgency. And barring a blatant provocation I do not see much public support for one anyway.

True. I forsee a concise bombing campaign against Syria if things don't change there. We can't continue to allow another Ho Chi Minh Trail in Syria.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by V:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco:

But it's a mistake to come to the conclusion that that justifies distinctly military action under international law, which the US still has to operate under.

Indeed, as well does Syria. If it can br proven that the Syrian government is supporting the insurgency, terrorist attacks or attacks on American troops in Iraq, that would be reason enough for the US to use military action.

The US has never surrendered it's right to defend herself or her allies. </font>

[V]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by V:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco:

But it's a mistake to come to the conclusion that that justifies distinctly military action under international law, which the US still has to operate under.

Indeed, as well does Syria. If it can br proven that the Syrian government is supporting the insurgency, terrorist attacks or attacks on American troops in Iraq, that would be reason enough for the US to use military action.

The US has never surrendered it's right to defend herself or her allies. </font>

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by V:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by V:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco:

But it's a mistake to come to the conclusion that that justifies distinctly military action under international law, which the US still has to operate under.

Indeed, as well does Syria. If it can br proven that the Syrian government is supporting the insurgency, terrorist attacks or attacks on American troops in Iraq, that would be reason enough for the US to use military action.

The US has never surrendered it's right to defend herself or her allies. </font>

[Colin]

Originally posted by V:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by V:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco:

But it's a mistake to come to the conclusion that that justifies distinctly military action under international law, which the US still has to operate under.

Indeed, as well does Syria. If it can br proven that the Syrian government is supporting the insurgency, terrorist attacks or attacks on American troops in Iraq, that would be reason enough for the US to use military action.

The US has never surrendered it's right to defend herself or her allies. </font>

[Sirocco]

I don't know, this is all political stuff, but it's hard to discuss this game's subject matter while skirting around it.

[Sgt Joch]

reality check: we are talking about a game.

I don't see the relevancy of discussing whether the US should or should not invade Syria. If it does'nt, we are not going to get CM:SF

If president Bush orders an invasion of Syria in 2007, how would the US and allied forces go about it, what should be modeled, what should be left out, that's the only thing that is relevant.

Alot of US officers were against the Iraq invasion (for military reasons) , but once the decision was made, it was Sir!, Yes Sir! , how can we do the best job possible.

It's the same thing here, the decision has been made, Battle.., err the UN is invading Syria, how would they do it, what forces would they use, how would Syria react, that's what we should be discussing.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by JC_Hare:

reality check: we are talking about a game.

If BFC were postulating it as a pure "training exercise" then these issues would, indeed, be irrelevant. But by putting it forward as a hypothetical, yet very plausible, scenario, then the premise is bound to be discussed. :confused:

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by GSX:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />GSX. That's a good point re. Saddam should have been executed on capture but that's the easy way out. At least for myelf bring him to trial may be arduous and a pain to suffer listening to Saddam defend himself, but it is necessary for the Iraqi's, the region and ultimately the world to realize that justice can be meted out to criminals like Saddam. To have had him killed out of spite would have made him a martyr automatically to the Arab world. Now if he's prosecuted and sentanced by his own people no one can fault that as it would be the will of the nation doing the punishment. My thoughts only.

Yes I suppose you are right there. I just have a feeling that the trial will do more harm than good for our cause. </font>

[RMC]

Originally posted by JC_Hare:

I don't see the relevancy of discussing whether the US should or should not invade Syria. If it does'nt, we are not going to get CM:SF

Actually, it's the other way around. If the US does go into Syria, then BFC will change the locale for the game. Probably to one of the former Soviet stans. A hypothethical is enough of a political hot potato already. The only way to keep CM:SF based on Syria would be for the US to not invade.

[MPK]

"We" are already in Syria:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/pp/05292/590727.stm

BTW, do you think the Germans might invade

Russia? It would make a damn good game...

[lucero1148]

Considering how political modern wars are these days for strategic realism in a tactical game it has to be hovering around like god over the battlefield? With news 24/7 and this being a UN force the politcal spectre and how it afects command on the ground would make for at the very least an intellectual aspect of cmsf although something very difficult and unusual to reproduce. I guess this would be effected by rules of engagement.

All best

Patrick

[Battlefront.com]

Let's try to keep the discussion focused on the hypothetical Syrian setting we've sketched out and how current events may affect that setting. Things are moving quite quickly now in some ways, but not at all in other ways. It is not a certainty that war with Syria will happen over this stuff. As others have said, and I have said since my very first post on the setting, we expect a fairly significant event would be required to get the US involved in another conflict. And that event would have to be generally seen as enough to justify military action in the eyes of a great part of the world. The US can spent nearly 50 years of post WWII political capital on Iraq and it has very little left in the bank right now.

The point about the lion's mouth is very relevant here. Two out of three Americans are unhappy about the war and only one in three think the Bush administration is doing a good job. They are asking "how are we going to get out of this mess we are already in" not "how can we get into another mess at the same time".

I think it would be a REALLY tough sell since the admin would basically be saying "yeah, we got ourselves into a war that was fought over things that turned out not to be true. Yup, we alienated most of our Allies and had to suffer through them saying 'I told you so'. Yeah we said we had a strong coallition when in fact it consisted of the Brits and Aussies, some countries strong armed into it, and a few that did it for political/economic reasons not having to do with Iraq. Yeah we said the war was over when it was only just beginning. Yeah we said that the scattered resistence could be defeated in short order with the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis being trained, thus allowing US troops to be drawn down. Yes we added more troops to cover election security, but we found we couldn't draw them down either. Yes we said rebuilding would be quick and efficient, when in fact it is slow and vast sums of money unaccounted for. Yes it turns out that the Insurgency is not diminished, and perhaps is getting effective enough to cause a civil war. And of course even our own intelligence agencies believe that we've increased the pace and intensity of the radical Islamic movement's agenda instead of decreasing it. But... we now feel we need to widen a war we already have shown an inability to manage correctly. Although we still have not shown any sense of a plan for how to fix Iraq, we now ask that the American people support rolling some very big dice based on the faith that it will do more good than harm. Trust us."

I think most Americans have been blind idiots about what is going on, but even idiots can finally get a clue. I just don't see the Bush admin being able to garner the support of Congress, either directly through back room deals or indirectly through a grass roots appeal to the American people.

At least I hope so because we have enough going on already.

Steve

[ October 22, 2005, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Dillweed]

Jeeze Steve,

I agree with you 100% but that apears to be dangerously close to a political post. Seem to remember a rule about that...

[Sgt Joch]

From a military resources viewpoint, invading Syria in 2007 would be difficult. The U.S. army/USMC are already stretched to the limit. Just to get enough boots on the ground in Iraq, they have had to make extensive use of reserve/national guard units, keeping them in country much longer than was planned.

To invade Syria, (assuming the political will was there), one of two things would need to happen, neither of which is very likely:

1. a substantial withdrawal of troops from Iraq in 2006; or

2. increasing the number of combat units, which could only be done if you bring back the draft, since young americans are not lining up to join.

[aka_tom_w]

The US can spent nearly 50 years of post WWII political capital on Iraq and it has very little left in the bank right now.

"in my opinion" truer words have rarely been spoken on this forum.

(even though it is a NOT a political discusion)

-tom w

[ng cavscout]

Glad to see we are keeping political topics in the off site political forums.

[C'Rogers]

This isn't a political forum

I think it is safe to say, given the setting of this game, that this forum will have many political posts (or threads that sidetrack into political posts). To my understanding this is against the forum rules, but unless threads are locked up left and right it seems inevitable.

[Znarf]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GSX:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />GSX. That's a good point re. Saddam should have been executed on capture but that's the easy way out. At least for myelf bring him to trial may be arduous and a pain to suffer listening to Saddam defend himself, but it is necessary for the Iraqi's, the region and ultimately the world to realize that justice can be meted out to criminals like Saddam. To have had him killed out of spite would have made him a martyr automatically to the Arab world. Now if he's prosecuted and sentanced by his own people no one can fault that as it would be the will of the nation doing the punishment. My thoughts only.

Yes I suppose you are right there. I just have a feeling that the trial will do more harm than good for our cause. </font>

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Znarf:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzer76:

I thought your cause was democracy and freedom, and the rights that follows, like the right for a fair trail?

Panzer76, "could you do us all a favour and not quote the WHOLE post your are replying to just to add a sentance? It quickly fills the threads and are not nessacery. Thank you."

Sound familiar???? </font>

[Battlefront.com]

I agree with you 100% but that apears to be dangerously close to a political post. Seem to remember a rule about that...

As C'Rogers pointed out, it is impossible to discuss this topic without there being a discussion of the politics. My post is not politically baised. It is a simple statement of facts which show why the political climate for a war in yet another country, while wars are still very undecided in Iraq and (to a lesser extent) Afghanistan, is simply not there unless there is some MAJOR and obviously compelling reason for it.

Now, if someone wants to read my post and think it is politically motivated, that is their option. However, every single statement I made is factual and can be easily backed up by even the most superficial searches of news sources. If someone reads it and feels that casts a negative light on the current administration, that is their independent conclusion based on the facts I presented, not based on an opinion that I stated. Well, except for this:

I think most Americans have been blind idiots about what is going on, but even idiots can finally get a clue.

But I think most Americans are idiots, so my opinion is not political as much as it is social

Steve

[Dave H]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

(snip)

But I think most Americans are idiots, so my opinion is not political as much as it is social

Steve

Now who <font size=1>penguins</font> around here could <font size=1>penguins</font> have made you <font size=1>penguins</font> think anything <font size=1>penguins</font> like that <font size=1>penguins</font>?

By the way, Friday at Wal Mart among the usual literary selection by Dr. Phil and Ann Coulter, I found the book "A State of Disobedience" written by Tom Kratman. In this book I have uncovered the perfect scenario for your next game: the US Army and Marines at war against the Texas National Guard. If I tell you the plot revolves around a murderous and lesbian US President who happens to have an ex-husband in Arkansas, can you maybe guess which side is "the bad guys"? Possibly the black-uniformed Presidential Guard SS will tip you off. Anyway, it turns out all Texans are utterly heroic (except for one spineless soldier named Melvin La Fleur, the French SOB), and they win the hearts and minds of the rest of the US by just being so darn god-like.

PS I donate most of the books I buy to the public library. This stinker is so lousy it's already in the garbage.

[aka_tom_w]

just in case you are interested

-tom w

A State of Disobedience is based round that idea that has haunted military and alternate history writers since 1960 – A second US civil war. The main problem with such a scenario, of course, is that the USA of 2004 is very different from the US of 1860. A massive, four-year long war with state against state is impossible, although some writers have considered massive guerilla war and foreign support. Many other people have preached and planned for a long war against the government, perceiving it as hostile to the American people and slowly becoming less and less democratic.

A State of Disobedience is set, contrary to the book cover, in 2012, which is the fairly near future. In the usual US electoral mess – made worse by trends that make it very dangerous to lose an election – the US elects a president called Wilhelmina Rottemeyer. Rottemeyer’s principles are simple, more power for her, and she’ll do anything to keep that power, including developing a private army of federal employees, political officers for the military and a private system of control for the state governments, many of whom are unable or unwilling to rock the boat. Rottemeyer’s policies – I sense a right-wing cautionary theme here – bring serious disruption to the lives of many Americans, including Alvin G. Scheer, whose trial we read snippets of throughout the book, although we don’t learn why until the last chapter. The outcome of rasing taxes on businesses, it seems, is increased prices and the law that gives medical care to all means that doctors cannot treat the really desperate patients because of the screaming children.

Events come to a head in Texas, which is lucky enough to have a governer with the courage to stand up to Rottemeyer, although I suspect that Rottemeyer would have had someone like her killed quietly. The federal law enforcement agencies accidentally or deliberately kill hundreds of people in a raid on a church – and accidentally kill the governor’s brother. The shocked state of Texas separates itself from the rest of the US and acts as an independent state. This, of course, cannot go unchallenged by Rottemeyer and she acts to seal off Texas and invade. What follows is a bizarre war that ends with the collapse of the federal government.

It might just be me being old fashioned, but the purpose of a book’s first seven chapters is to interest the reader, not to turn them off. Had someone not sent me a copy of the book electronically; I would never have read it. They are sometimes difficult to read and they give details that a) involve characters who will be dead three chapters later and are irrelevant to the plot. If you can read though the first few chapters – better yet, just read the ‘interludes’ – you’ll find a reasonably interesting novel with many plot twists.

That said, I don’t think that the author covered enough ground. We are told about attempts to introduce impeachment legislation as a throwaway line, and then we never hear any more about it. Further, everyone on the Texan side claims that there is a serious mismatch in military force, but the bad side believes that a quick invasion of Texas is military impossible quickly – the Texans, it seems, are better equipped than the immediately available regular army units. The rest, it seems, are in Germany (why?) and the Middle East. Further, civil disobedience in the surrounding states makes it hard for the bad guys to send supplies through their territory, when the US has a massive air transportation system. Given the successes in Iraq and Afghanistan, I see no reason why the Feds could not ship supplies via the air – flimsy excuses about the reliability of the USAF do not cut it. This would be very limited compared to ground transport, but if the objective is to capture a single point, why not equip a bridge of fast ground vehicles?

We also learn nothing beyond frustrating hints of the outside world. The Middle East and Israel are apparently American protectorates, but the forces needed to do that must be very large. Why, then, is Texas better armed than all the feds have immediately available?

“Treasury's face took on a somber mien. "Still, I can't help but note that the Great Depression took a matter of days to wreck the economy. This might, or—admittedly—might not, be as bad as that. It's fair to say though, General, that when you invade you had better win quickly." (CH. 10)

The Texans manage to threaten the US ecomony, but there are very little details of how that happens and what its effects are. Many other things are missing: the Internet is barly mentioned, the air force is missing almost entirly from the book and there are no nuclear weapons even threatened. Rottemeyer does not sound like the type of person who would not nuke Texas if she thought her power was fading. She had ample opportunity to gain control – legally – of most of the US’s weapons and the ability to use them.

One of the books major problems is that it features characters that would be interesting in their own right – although how believable is another matter – but stand as caricatures of American political figures. Hilary Clinton is the one most reviewers have pointed at, but someone called Janet Reno is also caricatured. Worse, the good guys are mainly American patriots – it would be nice to see someone who had other motives (escape from the feds for drug offences, perhaps?) on the ‘good’ side.

The author either dislikes lesbians or is seeking to shock people. The subplot of the president’s relationship with her army commander (also female) is unnecessary and adds little, not even a steamy scene, to the plot.

The book does have some very dramatic scenes. The president’s speech to the new constitutionals convention and her subsequent death are very tense and uncertain. The reader is reminded of the death of JFK, but few real heartstrings are pulled for the reader – by the last pages everyone is convinced that she has as much right to live as Hitler. Hitler, at least, was fairly honest about his plans for the future.

I am no expert in US politics, so I won’t comment on the likelihood of this situation developing or the amendments made to the constitution at the end of the book. What I will say is that the president, Wilhelmina Rottemeyer, might well be right when she says, at the end, that no matter how they try, they’ll fall back into the same trap again and again. The heroine responds that that might not be a bad thing – America can handle a revolution once in a while. I consider the first attitude to be defeatist and short-sighted and the second to be irresponsible. Americans may or may not disagree.

From me, the book gets three stars out of five. Good points: interesting plot. Dramatic Outcome. Good overall view. Bad Points: Seriously bad writing in places (and in the wrong place too). Too short in places. No international aspect beyond Chinese arms deliveries. No really final resolution. Characters caricatures instead of real people. I recommend buying the electronic or the paperback copy. The good bits of the book don’t make ignoring the bad bits worth the extra money.

Final Note. A guy called Mathew White did a WebPage speculating on the possibilities of a second American revolution. Someone in the book refers to something very similar.

"Willi . . . I am sorry but some of those states, especially those around Texas, hate you and everything you stand for. If you push, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona . . . maybe the whole deep south and quite a bit of the Midwest might 'just say no'." Remember that red and blue map from the elections in 2000? Well, imagine the red portion in outright rebellion. It could be that bad. If you push them into it we could face a real war, and we could lose it. I can't answer for that. I won't.” (chapter 9)

link

[Battlefront.com]

Well, like him or not at least Kratman has a sense of humor about himself:

http://www.tomkratman.com/

I figured I should expand on my thoughts about where that fine, thin, gray line is between discussing the CM:SF plotline and "political". The former is acceptable in this forum, the latter is not.

Plotline Relevant - US forces would be hampered by the inability to take on new major military campaign due to overstretched capabilities.

Political Rant - the Bush admin has squandered US military power by sinking into an unnecessary quagmire of a stinkhole named Iraq. Bush should be tried as a traitor.

Now, the affect on the CM:SF plotline is identical in that both of these sentiments point out that the US military, as it is currently structured and funded, is stretched quite thin. The first comment is a statement of fact (or at least an opinion that is widely held by experts of all sorts of political and non-political persuasions) while the later is more of an op-ed commentary on why this is the case.

Another example:

Plotline Relevant - another major military operation would need, just as before, approval of the US Congress in some form or another. No President has committed significant military force into action without such approval, even though Congress has long since handed over its Constitutional responsibility for declaring War to the Executive Branch. Given the current climate of doubt in the ability of the US to conclude its current military campaigns successfully, and the out of control deficit spending, the membership of Congress would be unlikely to grant such approval unless there was a no-doubt reason for going to war with another country. Unlike the President, the Congress has to worry about reelection and the Republican Party has to worry about losing its new found support nation wide. They are well aware that another military campaign would threaten the new power structure in favor of the Democrats.

Political Rant - Bush's oil buddies are what got him the last two wars, but if there is no oil to be had then they won't be out there buying the Congress' rubber stamp! And even if they did, they couldn't rig enough votes and tamper with enough electronic voting machines to keep their seats the next time around. Even if Rove is able to buy his way out of Treason charges, he'll not be able to dupe the people into another war of aggression because he is now a political hot potato!

Again, the first one is a reasoned examination of why it would be difficult for a war to be started to set the stage for CM:SF. It is based on fact, but it is also an opinion of how those facts might play out. This point directs the storyline towards circumstances that would allow a popularly backed Congressional vote to sanction open warfare on another country before the conclusion of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The second example is just politicized tripe and it has no meaning other than to stir up muck. And that is why we don't host political discussions here

Now, some might wonder why I didn't write a bunch of "rabid right" political nonsense as examples of what isn't allowed here instead of the two "rabid left" attack messages. It's because I haven't seen any rabid right stuff (yet) in this context, therefore I used examples that are more relevant to highlight.

I hope that helps explain the understanding of the fine line (and it is VERY fine) between the two expressions.

Steve

[ October 23, 2005, 09:58 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[jim crowley]

None of this politico nonsensense with WW2