"Bang $100,000 goes up in smoke..."

[abneo3sierra]

Originally posted by FAI:

Demographical data vs. intelligence pertaining to waging a war... Whoa, let me fetch popcorn first.

And no, the intel agencies did not provide the primary reasons for the invasion. The subsequent political handlers did.

All four intel agencies named above, declared Iraq to have WMD, which was the primary reasoning behind the urgency of the war, at least, if not the actual war itself.

[Omenowl]

Didn't the Russian intelligence also believe Iraq had WMDs?

[abneo3sierra]

Originally posted by Omenowl:

Didn't the Russian intelligence also believe Iraq had WMDs?

Yes, and Israeli...and the list probably goes on.

[the Fighting Seabee]

Because they did. Lots of it. They just used it all on their own people.

If someone at your local mall had shot someone and still had ammo, would you try to take him out? How about if he expended all of his ammo on some more people? "Hmmm, since he's out of ammo, maybe we should just let him walk away. Oh he doesn't have any bullets, so he's harmless, and not guilty of any crime, so you just have to let him go". That's what I hear when people start bringing up the whole "no wmd's" thing.

Grow up, man. This is a vicious world. Maybe you can sit around at Starbucks talking about who's going to get kicked off "America's next gayest supermodel", but a lot of people on this planet are vicious bastards, who will kill you and your family because "God" told him to.

[abneo3sierra]

Originally posted by the Fighting Seabee:

Because they did. Lots of it. They just used it all on their own people.

If someone at your local mall had shot someone and still had ammo, would you try to take him out? How about if he expended all of his ammo on some more people? "Hmmm, since he's out of ammo, maybe we should just let him walk away. Oh he doesn't have any bullets, so he's harmless, and not guilty of any crime, so you just have to let him go". That's what I hear when people start bringing up the whole "no wmd's" thing.

Grow up, man. This is a vicious world. Maybe you can sit around at Starbucks talking about who's going to get kicked off "America's next gayest supermodel", but a lot of people on this planet are vicious bastards, who will kill you and your family because "God" told him to.

Who was that post intended for seabee?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by the Fighting Seabee:

Because they did. Lots of it. They just used it all on their own people.

Actually, most of it was destroyed in 1995 to avoid discovery by UN inspectors.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by the Fighting Seabee:

If someone at your local mall had shot someone and still had ammo, would you try to take him out? How about if he expended all of his ammo on some more people? "Hmmm, since he's out of ammo, maybe we should just let him walk away. Oh he doesn't have any bullets, so he's harmless, and not guilty of any crime, so you just have to let him go".

By this logic we should invade Myanmar and China.

[abneo3sierra]

There was plenty of evidence of WMD, besides the fact Iraq used it on their own people. And, for the record, they were given every opportunity to prove they destroyed them. They continually broke the terms of the ceasefire, continually played the world for fools, played games with the inspectors, dealt with alQ and also the terror organizations that sent bombers to Israel, and just, in short, thumbed their nose at every possible chance for peace. I am unsure of anything Myanmar has done in comparison. Some comparisons could be made as far as PRC.

[Vanir Ausf B]

North Korea would also be an apt comparison there. Should we invade them as well?

I am unsure of anything Myanmar has done in comparison.

They murder their own people when they get out of line, which was what SeaBee was talking about, I think.

[the Fighting Seabee]

Yes Vanir Ausf B, we should.

Another hypothetical...

Your next door neighbor is getting raped and robbed. You go and rescue the neighbor or call the cops, who go and rescue. The next day, the neighbor across the street is getting raped and robbed.

"Since the neighbor is across the street, it's not any of my concern." Does that make any sense to you? It doesn't to me. I'm gonna go over there and stop the friendly neighbor from getting raped.

The longer humanity sits around idly, the longer these crapperheads are going to kill more people, ruin more lives, and destroy their own countries. Before long, their countries will be completely ruined, like Somalia. When that happens, it creates even more discontent, hatred, fear, and cold-heartedness. The kind you see displayed by executioners, terrorists, and serial killers.

Global warming? Going green? Recycling? Providing healthcare? Equal opportunities? Racial equality? Laws that keep people safe? New medications for disease? Cancer research? Education? Peaceful walks through a park?

Do you see ANY of these things being addressed in Somalia? Rwanda? Sudan? When's the last time you heard of a Nobel winner or a cure for some disease coming from Afghanistan? What kind of world do you want to live in? One where we section off certain peaceful areas from dangerous areas? Well guess what cowboy? **** rolls downhill, and the stink rolls downwind. We all live on this tiny planet together. Sectioning off certain areas for barbarians to rule over beaten people isn't going to work much longer. As the world shrinks due to population growth, ease of travel, and instantaneous communications, we just aren't going to be able to live with tyrants anymore.

Either that or we're going to all be like somalians. Poor, malnurished, angry, and sad. Toss in a life expectancy of 45 too. And the best thing you could ever hope for your kids is to one day grow up and get rich: TWO whole cups of rice a day and his very own RPG launcher.

[ March 24, 2008, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: the Fighting Seabee ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

You are a true neocrusader. Outside of the fact that such a course of action is entirely impractical, I personally think the idea is nuts. But at least you are consistant in your madness

[abneo3sierra]

I somewhat agree with you, fighting seabee. Insofar as it is a time proven fact that to not stop evil, strengthens that evil. History is full of evil people who could have been stopped much earlier, but instead everyone kept giving them passes, until eventually they HAD to be stopped, at which time the task required far more blood and effort than if it had happened sooner.

That said, each situation is different. Iran and Syria are actively killing US soldiers, so I would classify them as a higher threat, while PRC, and probably DPRK as well, likely could be turned peacefully through economic engagement.

[FAI]

Originally posted by abneo3sierra:

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

Demographical data vs. intelligence pertaining to waging a war... Whoa, let me fetch popcorn first.

And no, the intel agencies did not provide the primary reasons for the invasion. The subsequent political handlers did.

All four intel agencies named above, declared Iraq to have WMD, which was the primary reasoning behind the urgency of the war, at least, if not the actual war itself. </font>

[the Fighting Seabee]

No, I'm not nuts, just a dreamer who wants a bright future for all humanity.

As far as the logistics goes, it's not possible for any 1 country to invade every screwed up place on earth. But I'm telling you, man, look how far we have come in the last 100 years. A century ago, we never would have dreamed of the things we have now. Hell, back then it would have taken months to travel to afghanistan. Now we can send a bomb there faster than Dominos can get me a pizza. All I ask for is for people to be ethical and nice. As for the ones who can't hack it... that's what $100,000 javelins are for.

[abneo3sierra]

Originally posted by FAI:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by abneo3sierra:

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

Demographical data vs. intelligence pertaining to waging a war... Whoa, let me fetch popcorn first.

And no, the intel agencies did not provide the primary reasons for the invasion. The subsequent political handlers did.

All four intel agencies named above, declared Iraq to have WMD, which was the primary reasoning behind the urgency of the war, at least, if not the actual war itself. </font>

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by the Fighting Seabee:

No, I'm not nuts, just a dreamer who wants a bright future for all humanity.

As far as the logistics goes, it's not possible for any 1 country to invade every screwed up place on earth. But I'm telling you, man, look how far we have come in the last 100 years.

Speaking of bright futures and technological advances, if your goal is to kill all the Bad People in the world it would be far more efficient to just nuke them. Still crazy, but at least physically possible.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by abneo3sierra:

Iran and Syria are actively killing US soldiers, so I would classify them as a higher threat, while PRC, and probably DPRK as well, likely could be turned peacefully through economic engagement.

Syria could probably be flipped by simply giving them back the Golan. Doesn't look likely to happen, but there it is.

We aren't going to attack Iran, so diplomacy it is.

[Bigduke6]

Indeed. It is an opinion I am backing up with what I believe to be verifiable fact.

I do not understand how any thinking person could see the Afghanistan adventure - five years in arguably the best terrain and society for guerilla warfare on the planet - as anything but a fool's errand.

The essence of why I see that adventure as a fool's errand is grounded on what I see as indisputable facts. Here is a partial, I repeat partial list:

- US/NATO lacks the capacity to halt the opium trade. See their efforts to halt the drug trade in their own countries.

- US/NATO lacks the domestic will for a major troops commitment in Afghanistan

- US/NATO lacks the domestic will to accept even moderate friendly casualties, by which I mean dozens over a month. This straightjackets US/NATO tactics into heavily favoring high-tech weapons, against more boots on the ground, and so goes a long way towards abandoning the Afghan populace to the guerillas.

- US/NATO intelligence collection technique is even more biased towards technology. Instead of building agent and spy networks, the overwhelming inclination of US/NATO intelligence bureaucracies is to use aircraft, sattelites, and electronic interception to gather intelligence.

- Perhaps even worse, US/NATO intelligence collection technique is somewhere between clumsy and hopeless from using traditional agents and spy networks. A good indicator of how inept they are, is that they call that approach "Humint", as if they have some clever monopoly on the oldest intelligence collection approach on Earth.

More seriously, those intelligence bureaucracies don't like, and for decades haven't liked, to delegate the low level decision-making needed to use those networks, even if they existed. I'll be happy to expand on this if you like.

- US/NATO lacks the ready money for even a medium troops commitment, economically this is a non-option.

- Afghanistan is among the most heterogeneous countries on earth

- Afghanistan's tribes have no tradition, none, of respecting rule of law imposed by a central government.

- Afghanistan's tribes have an ancient tradition, forming literally a key facet of their identity, of fighting foreign invaders using guerilla warfare.

- Afghanistan's tribes are, aside from their traditions, arguably among the best-armed nations on the planet, by which I mean every male from about 16 to 60 can be a fighter, and what's far more important, most believe it is important that they be good fighters.

- Failed efforts by Britain and the Soviet Union to control the very same country, over the last two centuries, are an extremely strong arguement against expecting NATO/US would do any better.

- The US has minimal leverage over Pakistan.

- Islamabad has even less leverage over the Tribal Territories, therefore, if you are a Pathan insurgent in Afghanistan, you have safe haven in Pakistan.

- Pakistan is among the five or six most corrupt countries on earth. Any attempt to work with the government of that country, is doomed to diversion, leakage, and failure. If you want, I'll go find out how much money the US has poured into Pakistan since 9/11, and leave it to you to judge whether that money was well-spent.

I could go on. I could point out that specializing in intelligence collection, in the US military, is a fast track to a dead end career.

I could point out a school built by the US, but then losing its pro-American schoolmaster and two teachers to an insurgent contract murder, is as far as the Afghans in the area concerned an insurgent victory. The insurgents, after all, have made clear who controls the territory, and who really owns the school. The insurgents control it, the Americans just built it.

But I will round out this, and I repeat limited laundry list by pointing out a cricial US/NATO weakness: there are plenty of US/NATO decision-makers, never mind soldiers, foolish enough to believe that if they paid to build a school, they automatically have scored some points with the Afghan population. They will pay to build the school, and then tell each other and any one who will listen "See, we built a school, we're winning!"

Mao said it all, baby. The insurgents are fish swiming in a sea of the population, and as long as the sea is on your side, it doesn't matter what the other guy tries to do to the fish. The sea itself will create more fish, as it always has.

None of the foregoing is new, none of it happened yesterday, all of it was just as valid the day before the US invaded, as it is 6 years down the line. And all of that basic information is available open source, all you need to know it is the ability to read, and some curiousity.

US soldiers choosing to serve in that war are therefore, in my view, are either ignoring the realities and just pretending they're doing good, while in fact they're leading their country down a useless path; or they are soldiers in a war for reasons other than the good of their own nation.

The second of which is a fair go, as far as I am concerned. I have nothing against soldiers per se. I can accept unit loyalty or family obligation or economic need as good reasons to sign up. Even "well, I need the 'combat service' ticket punched on my career" will fly with me - I don't really like it, but that's how militaries have always worked. All those justifications are honest.

But volunteering to fight on the grounds that "I'm on a Crusade", without being able on even on a basic level to explain how that Crusade makes sense - no, that to me is the height of stupidity and irresponsible, and indeed destructive behavior by citizens who should know better.

It is in my view morally wrong to go kill people on a fool's errand, and call that errand a Good Thing, when in in fact it isn't a Good Thing.

Of course, if you or any one else for that matter can reasonably demonstrate that, in fact, Afghanistan will be more receptive to Anti-Insurgency Lite than it has been in the past years or centuries, then of course I am full of it. I would love to be wrong.

But I don't think so. I think it is patently clear the present US/NATO Afghanistan campaign is a fool's errand doomed to failure, and any one supporting it is in favor of throwing good money after bad. And lives too. There are plenty of precedents of nations going down the tubes, because too few people in the country didn't have the guts to speak out against a losing colonial adventure. You want that list, just ask.

Which brings me back to Ridgeway. The man had physical courage, and moral courage - and of course a mind open enough to look facts in the face, no matter how unpleasant they might be for something he loved, specifically, the reputation of the US and the US Army. I say Ridgeway is worth emulating.

You say the Aghanistan war is being fought for a good reason. Well, I don't see it.

You say most of the US soldiers doing the fighting think there are good reasons for their joining up. Well, I don't see any good reasons.

The list I just wrote, is why.

Refute it if you can.

As to "access", well, I've been on both sides of the "clearance" game, and my view after more than two decades of watching is that "access" as a rule highly overrated. Moreover, over that time I have yet to meet a government worker with access to secret information, who did not have an inflated opinion of the value of his knowledge.

Worse, in many cases that same government worker was of the opinion that his access to "secret" information, freed him from the need to learn about a foreign place by conventional means, i.e, learning the language well, hanging out with the locals to include living life on their terms, spending years in-country, probably marrying into the country population, putting down roots, etc. etc.

Certainly, there are times when "access" gives unique insight. But from what I have seen the more general the question, the less likely "access" will give a person any advantage in judgement and so decision-making.

For instance, a person with the right "access" probably knows the count, down to individual vehicle and general type, of automobiles crossing back and forth between Afghanistan and Pakistan via the Khyber Pass over a given 24 hour period. Really useful, if the question is "was the Khyber Pass open or closed on such-and-such a day?"

That same "access" is alot less useful, if you're trying to figure out what's in the vehicles, who's in the vehicles, what else is crossing on the backs of animals, ditto in people's pockets, what else is crossing besides where the sattelite's looking, how accurate are the registers kept by the border guards, exactly to whom are the border guards loyal, etc. etc.

Indeed, a person with "access" and little other experience in the region, might easily make a judgement error, for instance concluding smuggling is up when in fact all that happened was there's a religious holiday and lots of people are traveling to visit relatives. So me, I take "access" with a big grain of salt.

One should never forget secret information is compartmented, and from what I have seen governments controlling that information often manipulate it so as to support government policies, and also to increase loyalty to the government among the people with access to the secret information.

From what I have seen, the thing one needs most to judge foreign events is not information some government bureaucrat (often arbitrarily) has designated "secret", but rather experience in making judgements based on unclear information, a feel for the region, and intellectual honesty. The last is by far the most important. You have to be, first and foremost, dedicated to getting as close as you can to the unvarnished Truth with a capital "T".

Originally posted by abneo3sierra:

Bigduke..the fact you label the war as a bad war, is your opinion. Most soldiers believe in honor and keeping their word, but would still leave if they did not believe in it. The war was fought for good reason. If you were really an intel officer as someone above pointed out, you would, or should have access to at the minimum, the information I have access to. That said, if you actually were, but believe there was no cause for the war, something is very wrong with your thought process, and I am stating, not coyly implying, that. The average person, even a reporter, I could almost see their reasoning, but not at all for someone who would have had access.

[Bigduke6]

Originally posted by the Fighting Seabee:

No, I'm not nuts, just a dreamer who wants a bright future for all humanity.

As far as the logistics goes, it's not possible for any 1 country to invade every screwed up place on earth. But I'm telling you, man, look how far we have come in the last 100 years. A century ago, we never would have dreamed of the things we have now. Hell, back then it would have taken months to travel to afghanistan. Now we can send a bomb there faster than Dominos can get me a pizza. All I ask for is for people to be ethical and nice. As for the ones who can't hack it... that's what $100,000 javelins are for.

Then you better have enough of those Javelins, and the will to use them. If you're short in either category, all you're going to do is make things worse, not better.

It's alot easier to buy more Javelins, than will, of course.

[Bigduke6]

Are you saying this applies to all police officers in their hometowns? Almost every police officer I know wears body armor and carries a firearm and this is in one of the safest cities in the US. I mean honestly that is an unrealistic expectation even in the United States. No wonder we can't win because the expectations are set so high.

Well, I'm not sure issuing body armor to every man, woman, and child in Afghanistan and Iraq is the best way to resolve the security problem.

My point was, if people can't walk down the street without fear of getting bombed or shot, and if it happens people know no one is going to be punished, then you are on the right track towards safe cities and streets.

The ability of a foreigner to walk down a street unmolested is an especially good indicator, as by definition he has few extra-legal means (clan links, pull with the bureaucracy, etc.) to punish any one taking a shot at him. That's why I questioned Splinty's example, old Splinty can whistle up everything from his personal fire arms to laser-guided bombs and MLR strikes against any one foolish enough to take a shot at him.

In any case in the US, pretty much, if some one opens fire on a law enforcer he gets caught, punished, and becomes a criminal in the eyes of the society.

In the countries the US has invaded, people like that somewhere between sometimes and often are considered heroes, and like I said unlike Splinty if some one is on the receiving end he usually can't retaliate, and the cops are corrupt, so all the average person can do is accept it.

A bit of a difference, I'd say.

[Splinty]

BigDuke, let me remind you of something, if those soldiers "chose" not to fight then they're not soldiers anymore, they're civilians in matching clothes. The choice is to join in the first place, after that-unless the order is illegal- there is NO choice.

[Omenowl]

Our goal in Afghanistan was not to stop the drug trade. Our goal was to punish those who organized and supported the twin towers destruction. The goal was not to stop drug trade. The Taliban already stopped the drug trade. The fact is if the choice is to stop the flow of drugs or to let a hostile government attack us then I know which I would choose. I think we picked correctly. The problem is mission creep.

Yes, European countries have no stomach for conflict. I think that is clear by Bosnia and anything requiring any kind of action. They hate war, but would rather capitulate than fight. I am sorry if the mentality of giving away Czechoslovakia for freedom doesn't ring well with Americans, but I am glad we don't do that. You stand up to tyrants and dictators and make sure there are consequences for their actions.

The fact is Saddam was a threat to his neighbors and regional stability. If we had pulled our troops out 12 years after the Gulf War and let sanctions fall then what would have happened? He would have reconstituted his WMD program and have caused problems all over again.

As for Iraq I was for the war. What I was sorely disappointed by was the lack of foresight once the war had ended. Instead of having a marshall plan or anything resembling Post WW2 Germany or Japan we thought democracy would magically flourish and we would leave in 6-12 months. Hell, Nato is still in Bosnia and Kosovo and the UN is still in Cypress 40+ years later. Korea is another 58 years, Japan and Germany almost 63 years. Yet, we don't say leave there. And believe me if you look at the NYT it states our role in Germany was a disaster in 1948.

Regardless of your political bent the reality is the US stays to keep stability and accepts losses. Or we abandon Afghanistan and Iraq and watch them descend into civil war and proxy wars. I think all of us want out of those places, but the question remains what state do we leave them behind.

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

Originally posted by Omenowl:

As for Iraq I was for the war. What I was sorely disappointed by was the lack of foresight once the war had ended. Instead of having a marshall plan or anything resembling Post WW2 Germany or Japan we thought democracy would magically flourish and we would leave in 6-12 months. Hell, Nato is still in Bosnia and Kosovo and the UN is still in Cypress 40+ years later. Korea is another 58 years, Japan and Germany almost 63 years. Yet, we don't say leave there. And believe me if you look at the NYT it states our role in Germany was a disaster in 1948.

[/QB]

Speak of comparing apples and pears. The US is in most of those places because of the cold war or because it wants to for geopolitocal/military reasons, not because the US needs to keep the peace in Germany

I´ll call you on the NYT 1948 statement. Do you have a link?

[Clavicula_Nox]

Originally posted by FAI:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Clavicula_Nox:If by enclave you mean, the majority of Babil province, then I would agree with you.

So the CIA was wrong about it too? </font>

[abneo3sierra]

BigDuke..my "access" was specific to what my unit ran into in the field, which included things such as terrorism "manuals" etc, that an intel officer, somewhere else, should have been able to put together. I myself saw that there were PLENTY of links to al Q..just in the field..THAT one point, alone, justifies the war. When you combine it with vehicles in S. Iraq being found with TEXAS license plates, and combine that with knowledge of how weak the US southern border is, even a operations person like myself, can do the math, an intel person who had ANY access, would have been able to put what all the units in the field were finding during the wars first few months, together, and the picture would show, easily, a motive for the US to go to war.

As to your NATO arguments, I can mostly agree with the sentiment behind them, but again, the military does not get to make decisions beyond their immediate scope..soldiers reenlist or not, most do, which shows that most have at least an appreciation for the effort being made there.

The mass graves we found in the wars first months, of many thousands of dead,killed for simply opposing the government, made me sick. That government had no right to exist, imho. It makes me just as sick, to hear Americans whine about THEIR government, when I have seen, firsthand, how lucky they are to have it, if they were in many countries in the world, and made remarks that have become the norm for the 'left' mostly, they would have found themselves in unmarked graves, or at hard labor.

As I have repeatedly said on here, once the battlefield fighting is done, what the military can do, is limited..oh, we could go in and just bomb the cities, it would probably end the war right then, I mean, who would be left to fight?

Fortunately, for them, we do not look at it in that way.