An actual U.S. special forces attack inside Syria

[JonS]

I claim 100 in the name of a Free Syria!

[Battlefront.com]

Sgt Joch,

I presume you are being sarcastic.

Sadly, no.

meade95,

For being whatever type of "smart cookie" you take Steve for.....Nothing does away with the false premise he started with (near the top of this thread - which stated "the War on Terrorism will flounder and fail if the concept of winning is limited to killing the enemy or even taking over its territory")...

Nothing? You mean like every counter insurgency expert (including the people actually FIGHTING the war over in Iraq and Afghanistan)? Have you ever heard or read what General Petraeus has to say about this? Do you realize that the reason for the turn around in Iraq, as precarious as it still is, has a lot do with Petraeus completely rejecting the nonsense "kinetic" solution you think is what COIN is all about? Here's a link to a summary of just one of his many presentations Or how about former General Anthony Zinni, one of the most brilliant leaders the US has ever had within its ranks? Hell, why don't you read the US Army and Marine's newly revised counter insurgency manual and see how much credibility they give your logic. I included a link to a synopsis because I doubt you'll actually read FM3-24. Better still, since I doubt you'll even check the link, or read the article (which is on the Army's website), I'll include a tidbit for you here:

The manual notes that although the military's purpose is to fight and win the nation's wars, today's Soldiers and Marines conducting counterinsurgency operations need to be prepared to perform additional tasks - not just kill or capture insurgents, but to be nation builders, assist in the rebuilding of infrastructure, and facilitate the establishment of local governance and the rule of law.

"There are a number of new, ground-breaking changes between this manual and the previous edition," Crane said. "It doesn't de-emphasize combat operations, but when we're trying to achieve the legitimacy of a host-nation government, our military has to be able to accomplish non-military operations, such as repairing broken sewer lines and building relationships with the local people."

According to Crane, counterinsurgency operations are a mix of offensive, defensive and stability operations and in order to be successful, our forces need to be to be adaptive and flexible.

I'm betting you'll find some way to discredit the US military in your blind attempt to stick to your preconceived notions. But I figured I'd give you a chance to redeem yourself.

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to conduct yourself in a way that can be taken seriously. You can start by not dodging my response to the charge you leveled at me, several times now in fact. So I'll try again...

I pointed out that no significant oil would be seen out of ANWAR for 12 years, at least. You scoffed and accused me of buying into some sort of "lefty" conspiracy. I quoted from the US Government's own study (which was conducted, and supported, by pro-drilling Republican Admins) to back me up. In fact, it appears that after 18 years, if we start now, we'll be replacing less than 1% of the imported oil (which will mostly be coming from OPEC nations, obviously). So far you have only repeated your charge that I'm talking out of my arse.

I'll be honest with you... I have a much lower tolerance for anti-intellectuals taking part in an intellectual discussion. You have two choices; cease making wild statements and being dismissive of those who aren't, or leave the intellectual discussions to people who actually want to have them. The choice is all yours to make.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Vark,

Sorry for being Eyoreish but this whole subject seems to bring out the least pleasant attributes in people, how ever much one side berates the other for being idealogues and not accepting the 'truth'.

I'd agree with you here, except I only see one "side" here ducking a direct debate and dismissing the other side's positions without offering any good reason for doing so. Therefore, I agree that this is going nowhere, but I disagree with you that the "blame" for that is evenly spread.

I Know of somebody, very, very high up (don't we all) and their take on all of this can be summarised as this. No one knows everything, very few know more than some, some know more than most and YOU will only find out after 40 years and even then you will only know 50%!

True. Which is why honest and open minded discussions, which are built upon respect, are so important. Otherwise, how will we find out that we don't know as much as we think we do? For all I know meade95 could be correct about the drilling in ANWAR, for example, but so far he's just called me names and stuck to what appears to be an incredibly inaccurate position. I think it's asking a bit much of me to assume I'm wrong just because he says so, correct?

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, I missed this one. Meade95 actually made a point that I can get behind

Originally Posted by Clavicula_Nox

I don't think that's what he said; I'm pretty sure he, and the rest of us, were saying that can't be the only thing we're doing there.

And that is a false premise, if the assumption is trying to be made that, that is all we (U.S. Gov't) were/are doing (or that is all we were ever trying to do).

No, I never said that. I said that they aren't doing the right things to combat the radical Islamic movement. Building a soccer field on Monday doesn't matter when on Tuesday the Taliban are still motivated to destroy it (that's an actual event from Afghanistan, BTW). As Sgt Joch said, we're not constructing Afghanistan nor Iraq to be able to stand up on their own two feet. We're setting them up to have to rely upon us staying there. Or if we're not, then we're doing a VERY bad job nation building. Which is not surprising since nation building is extremely difficult, especially in places that are naturally resistant to such activities. German and Japan are the exceptions, not the norm when looking at the US and Europe's nation building record.

Steve

[meade95]

Sgt Joch,

Sadly, no.

meade95,

Nothing? You mean like every counter insurgency expert (including the people actually FIGHTING the war over in Iraq and Afghanistan)? Have you ever heard or read what General Petraeus has to say about this? Do you realize that the reason for the turn around in Iraq, as precarious as it still is, has a lot do with Petraeus completely rejecting the nonsense "kinetic" solution you think is what COIN is all about? Here's a link to a summary of just one of his many presentations Or how about former General Anthony Zinni, one of the most brilliant leaders the US has ever had within its ranks? Hell, why don't you read the US Army and Marine's newly revised counter insurgency manual and see how much credibility they give your logic. I included a link to a synopsis because I doubt you'll actually read FM3-24. Better still, since I doubt you'll even check the link, or read the article (which is on the Army's website), I'll include a tidbit for you here:

I'm betting you'll find some way to discredit the US military in your blind attempt to stick to your preconceived notions. But I figured I'd give you a chance to redeem yourself.

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to conduct yourself in a way that can be taken seriously. You can start by not dodging my response to the charge you leveled at me, several times now in fact. So I'll try again...

I pointed out that no significant oil would be seen out of ANWAR for 12 years, at least. You scoffed and accused me of buying into some sort of "lefty" conspiracy. I quoted from the US Government's own study (which was conducted, and supported, by pro-drilling Republican Admins) to back me up. In fact, it appears that after 18 years, if we start now, we'll be replacing less than 1% of the imported oil (which will mostly be coming from OPEC nations, obviously). So far you have only repeated your charge that I'm talking out of my arse.

I'll be honest with you... I have a much lower tolerance for anti-intellectuals taking part in an intellectual discussion. You have two choices; cease making wild statements and being dismissive of those who aren't, or leave the intellectual discussions to people who actually want to have them. The choice is all yours to make.

Steve

What don't you get about the strawman fallacy you set - That being trying to suggest all we were doing in Iraq was looking for the kinetic solution to the problems. That premise is a complete lie. That was never the only solution we were looking to apply (to either Iraq or Stan).

Our efforts standing by both nations since each operation began is proof of this.

Furthermore, the notion that the success in Iraq today is from "the surge" is not accurate. Those operations running in Anbar all through 05/06 (Pre-Surge) are just as responsible for setting the ground work....for destorying AQ in Iraq..... The surge was timed perfectly to fill the void that was created by our previous efforts.

Name ONE time, that I ever suggested killing bad guys (kinetic solution) was the only option we should be employing. It was you that suggested this was the case....and it is flat out wrong. You set a false premise and were called on it. You now have created a second strawman trying to suggest I think the kinetic solution is the only solution to our fights in Stan and Iraq.

Nothing is further from the truth and everyone that is willing to be intellectually honest and read my posts on here can see that. Clearly, you're not willing to be honest on the subject or my positions.

I'm the one who has stated repeatedly that our biggest allies in this WOT...are the values of freedoms and self-worth ...that for far too long were denied (even the concepts of) for the people of the ME....... We are now standing by / standing shoulder to shoulder with the peoples of Iraq and Stan....and seeing their newly elected Gov'ts take root...and these values / notions as well.

While yes, at the same time using the kinetic solutions on those elements who wish not to see these values / notions allowed to people within these two Nations.

[Vark]

My motive for following a thread or contributing to one is pretty bloody selfish I want to test my analysis or improve on it and also to see a logical progression of thought, that might come to a conclusion (the effectiveness of flame throwing tanks on the CMBB board is an example). I have spent/wasted many an hour chasing up posted links much to my betterment, this discussion/ideological battle does neither, that is not an implicit criticism of any contributor, far from it, but I have learned nothing new (I even knew about the plural for agenda, sorry). I did say I was selfish! Not only that, this topic always seems to generate more criticism of events and few alternative solutions, that are not major beneficiaries of hindsight. One side always claims the other is not listening/incorrect or that they are the reasonable guys and the other are... well fill in your own epithet. The end result is a defensive cycle that ends up achieving little. Hey! I guess it reflects the conflict we a focusing on!

Steve, I don't seek to aportion blame, that would be the height of presumptiousness, but you response to Meade is hardly likely to encourage debate. For what it is worth I'm an anti-intellectual, as a teacher I have seen the havoc their self-serving, dogmatic interventions have created. Intelligent, informed, conversation yes please, intellectual pontification I'll pass on that one!

As to the reference to the the counter insurgency manual it was one of my favourite reads, though my edition did not take well to repeated reading (shoddy binding). Another side of the coin is the Utility of Force, full of english pessimism but it encapsualtes the Gordian knot faced by Western forces engaged in unconventional warfare.

[meade95]

Sgt Joch,

Sadly, no.

meade95,

Nothing? You mean like every counter insurgency expert (including the people actually FIGHTING the war over in Iraq and Afghanistan)? Have you ever heard or read what General Petraeus has to say about this? Do you realize that the reason for the turn around in Iraq, as precarious as it still is, has a lot do with Petraeus completely rejecting the nonsense "kinetic" solution you think is what COIN is all about? Here's a link to a summary of just one of his many presentations Or how about former General Anthony Zinni, one of the most brilliant leaders the US has ever had within its ranks? Hell, why don't you read the US Army and Marine's newly revised counter insurgency manual and see how much credibility they give your logic. I included a link to a synopsis because I doubt you'll actually read FM3-24. Better still, since I doubt you'll even check the link, or read the article (which is on the Army's website), I'll include a tidbit for you here:

I'm betting you'll find some way to discredit the US military in your blind attempt to stick to your preconceived notions. But I figured I'd give you a chance to redeem yourself.

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to conduct yourself in a way that can be taken seriously. You can start by not dodging my response to the charge you leveled at me, several times now in fact. So I'll try again...

I pointed out that no significant oil would be seen out of ANWAR for 12 years, at least. You scoffed and accused me of buying into some sort of "lefty" conspiracy. I quoted from the US Government's own study (which was conducted, and supported, by pro-drilling Republican Admins) to back me up. In fact, it appears that after 18 years, if we start now, we'll be replacing less than 1% of the imported oil (which will mostly be coming from OPEC nations, obviously). So far you have only repeated your charge that I'm talking out of my arse.

I'll be honest with you... I have a much lower tolerance for anti-intellectuals taking part in an intellectual discussion. You have two choices; cease making wild statements and being dismissive of those who aren't, or leave the intellectual discussions to people who actually want to have them. The choice is all yours to make.

Steve

Ok Steve - You obviously don't like being taken to task for false notions and strawman arguments.....so you can stop with the threats.....They don't concern me. Ban me from your silly board because you are being taken to the wood-shed if you m ust....That will only further my points against you...You have a bias and you don't like being shown for having such...

So ban me if you must......The choice, is all yours to make.

But lets have a little perspective on ANWAR.....Shall we.

Facts readily availiable to all......

The American National Wildlife Reserve is 19 million acres.....

Of that 1.5 million acres contains known oil reserves, and roughly around 1,500 acres would be affected by drilling. (now mind you, further reserves in ANWAR or off our coasts likely exist, but with no economic incentive for finding such.....such exploration searches are not going to happen)..

Opponents of the ANWR.....who eventually give up the false notion of negative envrio impact on ANWAR do to drilling.....often then argue (as Steve does) we will only be able to harvest a nominal (useless) amount of oil.

However, U.S. Geological Surveys estimate there to be between 6 and 16 billion barrels of oil (in addition to trillions of cubic feet of natural gas).....

Now by itself.......sure this may not be enough petroleum to end our dependence on foreign oil .......However, Ten billion barrels of oil (a conservative estimate when doing a search of all those in the business projections) is enough, however, to double our current Alaskan oil output .......

Clearly...the amount of oil available is not marginal or useless.....The same amount of oil is equivalent to over 15 years (pushing almost 20 years) of imports from Saudi Arabia alone!.....these additional quanities of U.S. oil.....would also put significant pressure on foreign oil producers (OPEC) when attempting to increase their profits (or power)..... by decreasing the amount of oil they're willing to export for periods of time.....

More so......drilling oil from ANWR can greatly benefit the economy. By doubling the oil flowing from Alaska and thus maximizing the capacity of the Alaskan pipeline, production costs will decrease.

Another reality.....Despite the rhetoric, we have little to lose and much to gain by drilling in ANWR. ANWR may be a very emotional issue, but is a no-brainer from a policy-making standpoint. It is not an environmental danger, it will not single-handedly solve our energy or security needs either.......but it is certainly a step in the right direction by any and all measures.

The notion that we should not proceed with any efforts unless they solve all our energy problems and do so within a X time frame (or less than 10 years, or 12 years, what is it now Steve?).....they shouldn't be taken seriously....is utterly foolish.

Reality is we should be persuing drilling in ANWAR along with drilling off our coasts in order to offset our growing foreign dependence.....It is without question a step in the right direction....and without a doubt part of any reasonable program to update / upgrade our current energy policies....

[Sgt Joch]

...this is the point of view of the most important ally of the US in the region...

Syria’s fury is justified — Who can blame Damascus for getting cosy with Moscow?

THE US has once again “targeted foreign fighters” as part of its so-called war on terror. But these “fighters” were all Syrian civilians, including four youngsters. Another five individuals have been hospitalized after being shot by US Special Forces. Washington has admitted perpetrating this tragic incident but insists the victims were terrorists just as it does when its fighter jets illegally cross the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and end up wiping out entire families. Syria describes the adult victims as construction workers.

Even the pro-American Afghan leader Hamid Karzai is fed up with the Pentagon’s trigger-happy policies that exact such a terrible toll on innocent civilian life. The problem is there is no international oversight on US military activities. There is no investigation into these murders and the world is expected to take every utterance from the US military as gospel.

Contrast this with the way Syria was taken to task for its alleged (and as yet unproven) involvement in the assassination of pro-Western Lebanese politicians and journalists. Just imagine the outcry and repercussions if the shoe were on the other foot and Syrian jets invaded Iraq airspace to take out US targets. Worse, the US is unrepentant. The Associated Press quotes a US official saying his country is “taking matters into our own hands” due to Syria’s lack of cooperation — a statement that certainly does not bode well for the future and illustrates Washington’s steadfast belief in its own exceptionalism.

No other country barring Israel would be allowed to get away with such brutal behavior. Last year, if you recall, Israel bombed a Syrian military site saying it was destined to be a nuclear reactor. Syria vehemently denied this claim and the director-general of the international nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, condemned the attack saying “the unilateral use of force by Israel” undermines “the due process of verification that is at the heart of the nonproliferation regime”.

BY anyone’s moral or legal reckoning, the attack on a Syrian farm was a crime against humanity and should not be tolerated by either Syria or the international community bearing in mind that although Syrian-US relations are frosty the two countries are not at war.

Moreover it is not strategically helpful coming at a time when Washington is trying to prize the Syrians out of Iran’s arms and Israel is seeking a peace deal in exchange for return of the Golan Heights. In this case, who can blame Damascus for getting cosy with Russia, which is constructing permanent naval bases in two Syrian ports? Moscow is also thought to be supplying Syria with advanced weaponry and sophisticated air-defense systems as well as the nuclear-capable 200 km range Iskander missiles, set to greatly erode Israel’s regional military superiority.

Syria fell out of favor with Washington and its Western allies in 2003 when President Bashar Assad railed at the invasion of Iraq, which he considered was not mandated by UN Security Council resolutions. In fact, he was quite right as former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan later admitted. Yet, being right didn’t prevent Syria being treated as a rogue nation from then on. It had to be punished for not towing the line. And in 2003, the US Senate overwhelmingly passed the Syrian Accountability Act that imposed sanctions on Damascus for its support of “terrorists and nuclear proliferation activities”. The fact that Syria had hitherto willingly cooperated in the war on terror and there was no proof it sought nuclear weapons stood for nothing.

This sea change in attitudes must have been a blow to President Bashar, who just a year earlier had enjoyed tea with the British queen and was treated royally by Downing Street.

It’s surely time for the US to quit Iraq. It’s done enough damage during the five years since “shock and awe” and the Bush administration should not be rewarded with a signed Status of Forces pact that allows US forces to remain in the country until at least 2011.

The pact is deeply unpopular with the Iraqi Cabinet and ordinary people but Washington warns of “dire consequences” if it isn’t embraced in its current form well before Dec. 31 — the expiry date of the current UN mandate covering the American presence in Iraq. Such “consequences” include an end to US support of the Iraqi economy and aid to the Iraqi military according to Iraqi Vice President Tariq Al-Hashimi, who has likened the threats to “blackmail”.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki believes that signing the agreement would be akin to “political suicide”. Moreover it may affect Iraq’s relationship with neighbors Iran and Syria. President-hopeful Barack Obama, whom polls currently place nine points ahead of his rival, is keen to quit Iraq in order to concentrate efforts in Afghanistan. Iraq would, therefore, be best advised to ignore US threats and stall signing the pact until the US election on Nov. 4. The same advice can be given to Syria. The recent bloody incursion into its territory was an outrage. There is absolutely no excuse for it and in a world without double standards the US should be made to pay for its arrogance. But at the same time there is hope. Will the next US administration work toward repairing the wrongs of its predecessor and reach out to other nations or will it engage in more of the same? Now that is the question those who live in this neighborhood are desperate to have answered.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=115872&d=28&m=10&y=2008

as you may know, nothing gets printed in the Kingdom unless it has the tacit approval of the government.

[dan/california]

The funny part is that without our support the Royal family would last less than a year, best argument for electric cars I know of. I don't care how lousy they are to drive. If oil was 15 dollars a barrel their own folks would hang every leader in the Gulf. Sunni and Shiite, Persian and Arab. I just want the YouTube video.

[Battlefront.com]

meade95,

Nothing is further from the truth and everyone that is willing to be intellectually honest and read my posts on here can see that. Clearly, you're not willing to be honest on the subject or my positions.

Well, it's been so hard to tell what your point is with all your abusive comments and disrespectful tone. However, I have reread them and it is clear that you aren't saying that kinetic solutions are the only ones. So there you go, we're in agreement.

Where we got off on the wrong track, I think, is that your follow up points (about the rapist analogy) focused on how important it was to kill individuals within a huge movement, while others (including myself) pointed out that taking out individuals does nothing if you aren't fixing the fundamental problems. Trying to force a tribal society into a Jeffersonian Democracy (as we have been trying to do) is unlikely to work. That's been discussed in depth already.

Your arguments that the wars in the Middle East are not about oil, that the US is winning the PR war against radical Islam, that AQ isn't a bump on the butt of the radical Islamic movement, that Israel has nothing to do with the mess, that world opinion of us doesn't matter, etc. etc, I still disagree with. I feel confident that I've backed up those points fine, as have others, while you have not.

Your blind dismissal of cited sources without any counter for me to look at critically certainly doesn't help establish your case. The quotes you cited about the decline of AQ were quite good, but since nobody was arguing about AQ they were irrelevant.

Now, back to the ANWAR thing... here are your words from several different posts:

and wasn't it those on the LEFT saying 10 years ago, that we didn't need access to these oil reserves because it would take 10 years.....hmm, sure would have helped the past couples years now wouldn't it

And your notion that it will take 10 years to bring more oil in from off shore sites is flat out wrong.

I answered your abusive comments with straight forward facts. I'll ask you again, are you going to admit that you're attacks on my position about the timeframe were wrong? Or are you going to throw more smoke up? I'll get back to the other part of the argument, whether the ANWAR oil is important, further below.

Vark,

Steve, I don't seek to aportion blame, that would be the height of presumptiousness, but you response to Meade is hardly likely to encourage debate. For what it is worth I'm an anti-intellectual, as a teacher I have seen the havoc their self-serving, dogmatic interventions have created. Intelligent, informed, conversation yes please, intellectual pontification I'll pass on that one!

I couldn't agree more. But I do try because, well, sometimes it is good to see it in action. So back to meade95,

The same amount of oil is equivalent to over 15 years (pushing almost 20 years) of imports from Saudi Arabia alone!

Which will take almost 65 years to get, according to the USGS findings (10 Billion Barrels, BTW, is the middle guess. 5.7 Billion is the low and 16 Billion are the high and low estimates). So it will take us 65 years of pumping from ANWAR to replace the oil we import in just a single year.

No matter how you slice it, there's no way we can meet the CURRENT demand for oil, not to mention projected, through domestic sources. I challenge you to cite one credible (Hell, even non-credible) source that says otherwise.

The conclusion, therefore, is either we get off the oil habit or we find ourselves in ever increasing competition with the rest of the world for an ever declining resource which is located in some of the least stabilized parts of the world. If you disagree with this statement, then please illustrate how the opposite is true.

The notion that we should not proceed with any efforts unless they solve all our energy problems and do so within a X time frame (or less than 10 years, or 12 years, what is it now Steve?).....they shouldn't be taken seriously....is utterly foolish.

Who said I wasn't in favor of drilling in ANWAR? Me thinks your preconceived notions are coming through again. All I said is that it won't fix the problem so we had better looking for a different solution. And, to bring it back to the relevance of this thread, spending hundreds of billions and thousands of lives to pacify the Middle East in the hopes that it can continue to be exploited to fuel our country at the expense of others is not a viable strategy IMHO. Even if it was, for how long would it work before the realities of declining oil production would impose mandatory reductions in consumption?

You obviously don't like being taken to task for false notions and strawman arguments.

No, I don't like an abusive poster who can't have a civil, respectful debate. You're pretty high and mighty with your claims of being on top of this debate, so why dodge and why be abusive? If you're correct, can't you just illustrate your points without being trollish about it?

If you don't want to be here and called to task for your bad attitude, abusive tone, and double standards... fine, you can leave if you wish. But if you want to stay here you're going to have to clean up your act. I've been more than patient with you, and I also thank others for showing restraint.

Again, your choice.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Sgt Joch,

as you may know, nothing gets printed in the Kingdom unless it has the tacit approval of the government.

Correct. The Saudis have been playing to two different audiences for years. On the one hand coming to the US and painting themselves as a progressive state and staunch ally of the US. But in their home turf they do the usual despotic things and describe the US in very unflattering terms. Only recently has it found itself reaping what it's sewn by having AQ and others take a more direct approach to attacking Saudi infrastructure and concerns. Not very well, yet, mind you... but it's just getting started. And seeing how well its sons and daughters did in organizing and carrying out the 9/11 attacks, I think they have good reason to be concerned about their internal security.

Steve

[meade95]

meade95,

In the minds of the West this is true. In the minds of many in the ME this is also true. But it is also true that our botched handling of Iraq and the fact we still are militarily occupying the country gives the radicals more ammo than they had before.

No, we need to change our way of life so we don't find ourselves in an economic crisis that makes the current one look like a minor bump in the road. Fix that for our own selfish reasons and we'll be much better off for it in all sorts of ways. One of which is not being in a position of pissing off the locals in the ME nearly as much as we do now. Let the Chinese and Indians have the fun of securing the flow of oil from the ME.

Steve

Reading back - I completely agree with your last paragraph above - Should have said so sooner - Though, it seems we differ on how to get closer to such an end game -

Regarding your fist comments above - I think the constant critique of OIF (while it is still going on...and while it turns more successful each day) gets old. As does the notion that it is providing more ammo for our enemies. To do what? So on 9-11, they (radical Islam) really didn't hate us. They really didn't have all the ammo they needed to do more? The notion that OIF is causing radical muslims to "really" hate us now.....is just foolishness, IMO. They aready were filled with hate before OIF. Their demented minds and those of their preachers obviously already had all the ammo needed for instilling such BS.

But back to OIF - Of course in any large operation such as removing one of the most brutal regimes of the past half-century (in a region of the world like the ME)....it isn't going to go completely smoothly. There are going to be mistakes. There is going to be a two steps forward, one step backwars (maybe even two steps backwards at times) processes.......there is going to be changing dynamics, wrong assumptions, the need for adjustments, fresh-eyes, and the such.......And all of this has been happening....

Sorry, but the world isn't all rainbows and butterflys....even when the best of decisions are made. And this is where I see your tone on OIF/WOT...(Steve)..... Constantly would have done it smarter. And I call BS on that. There are all sorts of other unexpected events that could have unfolded via a different route taken.....

Hell, if WWII would have been held to the same standards as is today.....with the constant monthly (if not weekly, hell, daily critiques) of how the war is being managed....we would have never come close to winning WWII...... as there were huge blunders and mistakes made all through that war.....right up until we won it....... Difference was.....most Americans were most concerned with winning it!...Not running down why we hadn't already.......and there is a big difference there.

Again, reality to me is the world is better off with out Saddam in power. The world is better off without the Taliban in power. The world is better off with over 3/4 + of AQ original leadership dead or captured......(and the remainder reduced to begging Pucktoon hillbillies for their sanctuary.....which one day they will tire of and dimes will be dropped on them.....This is assured to happen.....and has been).....

The world is better off with at least with the notions of freedom and self-worth along with the very real elections taking place in Iraq and Stan promoting forms of quasi-democracy......... These are positive events.....These are potentially world changing events happening as we speak / write (all the while being critiqued non-stop for their faults or why it shoud have been done better)....

But on the whole the world is better off because of the above.....and how we have got here has been a struggle....Of course it has.... My god, this is in the heart of the ME. Suggesting these things would be taking place 10 years ago would (with less than 5000 American KIA) would have got you laughed off boards such as these.....

Now you get taken to task for supporting such enormous positive changes....because it should have been done smarter / easier, blah, blah, blah......

[Battlefront.com]

meade95,

Thank you! I'm glad that you're still here.

It would seem that we don't disagree much at all (I already agreed that Saddam and Taliban are better out than in, for example). The one thing I will disagree with you on is how many mistakes that were made at the beginning of OIF which were either unforeseen or unavoidable.

I am totally against Monday Morning QBing, but I am also against excusing people when they say "nobody saw this coming" if it's clear that wasn't the case. To quote a Lt.Colonel friend of mine, who was in the Pentagon, "I can't believe how badly we are f'n this up". That was in 2004. It's like with the current economic crisis that is continuing to happen... anybody with even an intro level business class should have seen it coming. I know I did, even though I was wrong about how long the pyramid scheme would take before it collapsed. I'm not saying I'm super smart in either case, I'm saying those responsible for the disasters either knew what they were doing was bad or were definitely not smart enough to be in a position of influence.

Confusing reasonable mistakes with either deliberate malicious intent or gross incompetence is not a good thing to do. Mistakes need to be owned up to, but the people doing them do not necessarily need to be tarred and feathered. Those who did things deliberately, or were in positions they were clearly unqualified to hold, should be taken out to the woodshed. This is not for public theater, this is not to prove one side of the political spectrum right. It should be done for the simple reason that accountability has value to a society, legally, morally, and monetarily.

Another reason to get the record straight is because we might have to go to war again before we are ready to. It would be very nice if we have a better handle on what to do for War #3 based on what REALLY happened in Wars #1 and #2. The deliberate attempt to stop honest assessment of past mistakes is unpatriotic and a threat to our national security. The guilty parties have successfully squashed an open assessment for many years, but it's ability to do so is thankfully coming to an end.

As for how to get off of oil... if either you or I had a simple, easy solution we could make a couple billion dollars in no time. And unlike the guys on Wall Street and in the big corporate board rooms, we'd deserve it

There is one inescapable truth, though... we will have to sacrifice SOMETHING. We already are (blood, treasure, economic security, and national security). The question is do we go with the default plan (i.e. remain dependent on oil deliberately) or do we go with an alternative plan of some sort? As a nation we've still not answered this first question yet, so there's been no effective debate about a possible alternative plan. But at least we're talking about it now.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, and not really to nitpick, but I think this is somewhat relevant to my above point about having an open discussion of the recent past:

meade95 wrote:

But on the whole the world is better off because of the above.....and how we have got here has been a struggle....Of course it has.... My god, this is in the heart of the ME. Suggesting these things would be taking place 10 years ago would (with less than 5000 American KIA) would have got you laughed off boards such as these.....

(note this is not directed at you per se meade95)

And if one suggested in the summer of 2002, when the war planning against Iraq started, that we were going to have 5,000 dead and about 120,000 injured, 1 trillion Dollars in expenses, still almost 150,000 troops in theater, and an occupation lasting at least 8 years (probably longer) there was a very good chance of being laughed at (best case) or called a traitor (worst case). I know, because I warned about things like this back in 2002, 2003, and 2004 and I was laughed at and called a "traitor" for DARING to express an opinion.

Now that I, and obviously many others (many much smarter and more knowledgeable than I), have been proven more correct than incorrect we're now told that we should be looking ahead and not backward (at best) or monday morning quarterbacking (at worst). White wash the whole thing and pretend it never happened, basically. No, what we should be doing is taking an honest examination of what went wrong and try to make sure we don't make the same mistakes again. Until the mistakes are out in the open, there is almost no chance of that happening.

So I'm sorry if some people are tired of hearing about how badly things went, but I know many were quite tired of hearing how unpatriotic they were and how they should just shut up. This is a democracy, so the former majority (i.e. pro Bush, pro war, pro following, anti-debate, etc.) should remember that they are now in the minority. If they don't like how they are being treated now, perhaps they should have been a bit more gracious back when they were in the majority.

All I want is accountability for past mistakes so we don't put our nation at unnecessary risk in the future. That's a simple, thing to ask for, isn't it?

Steve

[meade95]

meade95,

As for how to get off of oil... if either you or I had a simple, easy solution we could make a couple billion dollars in no time. And unlike the guys on Wall Street and in the big corporate board rooms, we'd deserve it

There is one inescapable truth, though... we will have to sacrifice SOMETHING. We already are (blood, treasure, economic security, and national security). The question is do we go with the default plan (i.e. remain dependent on oil deliberately) or do we go with an alternative plan of some sort? As a nation we've still not answered this first question yet, so there's been no effective debate about a possible alternative plan. But at least we're talking about it now.

Steve

Agreed - Though I'm in favor of letting the collective wisdom of the market-place be the way in providing the best path for such.....not the the wisdom of a select few, dare I use that word "experts" again! Ha. But you get my point....

And not a marketplace in which we see artifical costs (high taxes) or reckless self-inflicted restraints on supply (which has been the case for the past 30 years because of enviro/leftist political policy)......

It never ceases to amaze me how those in Congress (or on the street who support such types in Congress) are the one's yelling the loudest about the "high costs of gas"...are the same ones who time and again are directly passing regulations that restrict the very needed supply of oil to begin with....(thus directly helping to cause the higher prices)....

Another reality it seems...that is a fad to ignore today....is that oil provides the best and most effective form of energy (for most Americans to use) via cost / benefit ratios. If it did not, there would be all sorts of successful alternative energy options out there.....WITHOUT the need for Gov't mandates.

Bill Gates didn't need Gov't mandates for every house or every small business to own a desktop computer......the reality of their increase in productivity was simply reflected in the market place over time (a short amount of time)....

But when looking at oil..... Be it from hauling actaul real weight (semi-trucks make this country go round) to the productivity and creativity that comes from the individuality that our freedom of movement and from mass transit help provide......Oil allows for this.

The combustible engine is affordable.....People can own cars/trucks and go about their lives without the need for investing in the likes of a second home......which is the case with some of the "alternative", propane vehicles for example. Their costs are through the roof.

And hell, vehciles are only a part of the oil debate. Oil is not just gas/fuel issues. Everything we do and use comes from oil - Be it from bike tires, to virtually every product on one's desk right now..... or to the electricity used to power those magical "eco-friendly" vehicles (that actually use more energy than regular cars at the end of the day AND cost more to buy up front...to boot).....And heck, electricity burns the dark crude on top of that.....(for enviro concerns)...

Another factor we have to look at is the world is now using 87 million barrels a day - Not us, (U.S) but the world. That's because worldwide wealth is growing - low middle classes

are evolving in other countries. GROWTH is good on the whole, not bad.

I look at "wind-energy".....Fine. Use more of it. But do so through the market-place. Don't place mandates on its use. Facts are people have been talking about the benefits of wind energy since before I was born. Back in the 50's and 60s.......Yet, today, wind energy makes up for less than 1% of all our energy needs. That speaks volumes to its true effectiveness.......and no one even talks about the acrage needs (and tradeoffs assoicated with that) for real wind energy prodcution. Heck, look what happened when they tried to put wind-energy plants up in the "progressive" NE of the United States...... All those in the Hamptons (Kennedy types) told them to pound sand......It was too much an eye-sore.

[meade95]

No, what we should be doing is taking an honest examination of what went wrong and try to make sure we don't make the same mistakes again. Until the mistakes are out in the open, there is almost no chance of that happening.

Steve

But this is being done and has constantly been happening since the war began...That is why we have seen changes on the ground....changing dynamics since 03.....and I would suggest it is being done in the proper place. By the professionals outside of public consumption.

I stand by the reality that WWII could have never been accomplished in today's world. As WWII was one blunder after another up until the time we won the war........(if looked at in a continual micro-sense....one could easily make this case)......But the macro-sense is what mattered (and allowing professionals to learn where they could, when they could in the process)....the macro-view of "winning" is what mattered most in WWII.......and we eventually did just that....

That should be the same today. And on the whole I believe by most reasonable measures we are winning. We are better off. The world is better off. I won't list all those macro-sense reasons again. I've done so above a couple times......But they're there...and they would not have happened without the actions we have taken over the past 7 years.

Sure OIF could have went better. And you know what..... I'm sure if we are ever faced with this exact same war again.....We would do it a hell of a lot better right from the start.......WITHOUT the need for an amatuerish public (or political party) to be part of some AAR/public review process. Those professionals that need to know.....That would be tasked with fighting this next war.....Know. They do.

Of course no future war on this scale would playout the exact same way...and mistakes will be made there as well. Not every problem has the same solution.

As I said above......The real world is difficult, wars are terribly difficult...and it isn't all rainbows and butterflys even when the best of decisions are always made....

[abdecken5]

But has Operation Iraqi Freedom and the U.S. Global War on Terrorism really decreased Islamic terrorism? I honestly dont know the answer, but its not as clear cut as some of you are saying.

According to the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center, Saddam Hussein had a long history before the invasion of giving money to families of suicide bombers in Palestine.And, as part of the justification for the war, the Bush Administration argued that Saddam Hussein also had ties to al-Qaeda, and that his overthrow would lead to democratisation in the Middle East, decreasing terrorism overall.[22] However, reports from the CIA, the U.S. State Department, the FBI, and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as the investigations of foreign intelligence agencies found no evidence of an operational connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda.[23] On the contrary, a consensus has developed among intelligence experts that the Iraq war has increased terrorism. Counterterrorism expert Rohan Gunaratna frequently refers to the invasion of Iraq as a "fatal mistake."[24] London's conservative International Institute for Strategic Studies concluded in 2004 that the occupation of Iraq had become "a potent global recruitment pretext" for jihadists and that the invasion "galvanised" al-Qaeda and "perversely inspired insurgent violence" there.[25] The U.S. National Intelligence Council concluded in a January 2005 report that the war in Iraq had become a breeding ground for a new generation of terrorists; David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats, indicated that the report concluded that the war in Iraq provided terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills... There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries." The Council's Chairman Robert L. Hutchings said, "At the moment, Iraq is a magnet for international terrorist activity."[26] And the 2006 National Intelligence Estimate, which outlined the considered judgment of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, held that "The Iraq conflict has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."[27] According to Mohammed Hafez, "Since 2003, the number of suicide bombings in Iraq has surpassed all those of Hamas in Israel, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka combined."[28]

Al-Qaeda leaders have seen the Iraq war as a boon to their recruiting and operational efforts, providing evidence to jihadists worldwide that America is at war with Islam, and the training ground for a new generation of jihadists to practice attacks on American forces. In October 2003, Osama bin Laden announced: "Be glad of the good news: America is mired in the swamps of the Tigris and Euphrates. Bush is, through Iraq and its oil, easy prey. Here is he now, thank God, in an embarrassing situation and here is America today being ruined before the eyes of the whole world."[29] Al-Qaeda commander Seif al-Adl gloated about the war in Iraq, indicating, "The Americans took the bait and fell into our trap."[30] A letter thought to be from al-Qaeda leader Atiyah Abd al-Rahman found in Iraq among the rubble where al-Zarqawi was killed and released by the U.S. military in October 2006, indicated that al-Qaeda perceived the war as beneficial to its goals: "The most important thing is that the jihad continues with steadfastness ... indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest.

Dr. Steven Kull testified before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on May 17, 2007, that "a new feeling about the US that has emerged in the wake of 9-11. This is not so much an intensification of negative feelings toward the US as much as a new perception of American intentions. There now seems to be a perception that the US has entered into a war against Islam itself. I think perhaps the most significant finding of our study is that across the four countries (Morocco, Egypt, Pakistan, and Indonesia), 8 in 10 believe that the US seeks to 'weaken and divide the Islamic world.'"

^ taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_and_U.S._Global_War_on_Terror#Increase_in_terrorism

perhaps the question is this; do these "kenetic" solutions, such as cross boarder raids and military occupation, ultimatly do more harm then good by fueling the perception, that previously existed mainly due to support for Israel, that the U.S./West is at war with Islam?

[meade95]

We are at war with "radical Islam"......And they should (and do) fear knowing we can now logistically kick down their doors on any given day or night...and that we will look to disrupt their financing where we can.....and undercut their hate message via bringing the values of freedom and self-worth right into their own back yards....where for centuries now they have used their hateful message / power to deny their citizens even the concepts of such.....

[Lee]

Attacking Iran is actually a very easy call. First off, they simply cannot be allowed to get nuclear weapons for obvious reasons, *ever*. Israel would be hard pressed to do the kind of bombing necessary to get that done fully, so that leaves us. Secondly, they have been killing our soldiers in Iraq for years, either directly or indirectly through aiding the terrorists groups there to attack us (lots of Kuds involvement) and have been disgracefully allowed to get away with it until now, so they deserve it just for that.

Now, I can imagine several people posting about hard it would be to take out that stuff. There certainly are quite a few nuclear weapon site targets, but that's why you keep bombing for as long as it takes, it if takes two weeks, then you bomb for two weeks. And not just the nuke sites themselves, anything related to the support and functioning of the nuclear weapon facilities has to go to. And, perhaps most importantly of all, you take out the lunatics that run Iran. The first target is their parliament, when Ahmadinejad is giving a speech (military command and control targets). Put about 10 2,000lb bombs right in there with stealth bombers and get rid of that trash. Let's see how eager those remaining ayatollah nut jobs in charge of Iran are to kill our soldiers in Iraq after they find out they will personally be killed for doing that to our men. And naturally you also take out their airfields, air defense network, major military bases, etc.

This wouldn't even qualify as a third war, no ground invasion, just devastating air power focused on the most important targets for no more than a few weeks, which will mean very few, maybe none, of our men will be killed. Picture the air campaign in the first Gulf War, and you get the idea. Iran will do nothing meaningful in response, because they will be told that they'll get it 10 times as bad if they dare try anything after we get done eliminating their nuclear weapons production efforts. That's the way to end the problem with these nuts in Iran trying to get nuclear weapons, and make them pay for the many U.S. (and Brit, too, I'm sure) soldiers they have already killed in Iraq through the assistance they are giving the terrorists.

And Putin will secretly love it, as he can then have fun selling Iran the same stuff we just got done destroying all over again.

[hammelman]

I actually can't believe that you really truly hold that opinion Lee.

This whole thing about Iran killing our troops in Iraq covertly and overtly with arms supplied in theater. What do you think happens when you launch a land invasion into a foreign country surrounded by enemies? Do think they just sit on their hands, and say "OMG we can't mess with them" You threaten them, you try to convince the world that they are evil and then expect that they will be silenced? How about a little perspective about sending arms into a conflict you're not associated with. WWII, Britain is under siege on all sides. Britain is holding out, but can't for much longer, they need help. Enter FDR and Lend Lease. We send destroyers, figther planes, jeeps, bullets, etc. Why? because its in FDR and the West's best interests to make sure Britain does not fall. Are we are war with Germany? No. Has Germany attacked us? No. Somehow we as Americans can justify sending weapons to Britain during WWII when we're officially involved, but if those crazy mullahs do it for their neighbors, who do they think they are! Let's take another example. 1973. Israel is screwed. Multiple foreign armies invade. Israel is running out of weapons and needs help. Who sends weapons? Us, again. From what i have read without permission we go and empty out NATO weapons stocks of TOW missles and send them over to Israel for them for their war. Once again a war we're not involved in.

I agree that what we did was right, and just. Don't feed us this line of crap that somehow when our interests have problems we can do as we please and the rest of the world can go screw themselves. The Iranians are playing a game, and its a game their really good at. Don't forget we put our troops in Iraq needlessly, and now they are dying because our government feels justified.

[Battlefront.com]

Still going strong

Quick comment... there is no such thing as a free market place. Not here in the US anyway. The oil companies get huge subsidies from the US government, they have corrupting influence over both policies and royalties (as we've seen recently, sex, drugs, and money flow freely to those in government), the cost of securing the oil is borne by military and government actions, etc. I've seen some studies that show that most alternative energies are now comparable in cost when the cost of oil is adjusted to reflect true total costs.

Large companies that make things which consume energy (especially oil) are also able to influence things to their benefit and not the consumers'. Eventually the industries will pay (look at GM and Ford, for example) for being short sighted, but every day that oil consumption is kept needlessly high (GM makes FAR more fuel efficient cars in other countries) in the US is another day of record profits for the oil companies and one day lost getting towards an alternative.

As we all know, the oil companies have no incentive to rid themselves of the most profitable product on the face of this Earth until there is a rival product to it. And nobody, and I mean nobody, thinks that such a product exists. So they've got a monopolistic advantage that will not be broken by natural market forces. Monopolies are bad for economies.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

If we attack Iran, we're going to soon look fondly back upon 9/11 as a quaint little event.

Steve

[meade95]

Attacking Iran is actually a very easy call. First off, they simply cannot be allowed to get nuclear weapons for obvious reasons, *ever*.

This wouldn't even qualify as a third war, no ground invasion, just devastating air power focused on the most important targets for no more than a few weeks, which will mean very few, maybe none, of our men will be killed. Picture the air campaign in the first Gulf War, and you get the idea. Iran will do nothing meaningful in response, because they will be told that they'll get it 10 times as bad if they dare try anything after we get done eliminating their nuclear weapons production efforts. That's the way to end the problem with these nuts in Iran trying to get nuclear weapons, and make them pay for the many U.S. (and Brit, too, I'm sure) soldiers they have already killed in Iraq through the assistance they are giving the terrorists.

And Putin will secretly love it, as he can then have fun selling Iran the same stuff we just got done destroying all over again.

+1 - I agree with much of this -

Not all problems have the same solution. And the solutions for Iraq and Stan need not apply to Iran. The logistics concerns alone make whatever strike on Iran come from a very light footprint (SOF inside Iran for specific targets)......

And I agree with above - You allow the U.S. military to unleash what it is capable of short of a nuclear strike - Do so virtually entirely on military targets..... I see such a response on Iran setting the path for Iran to follow what became of Libya in the mid 80s....A period of realtive calm.....and a change of outlook on how best to conduct themselves.

Now, first I'm well aware that Iran is much more of a ME power player (far more) than Libya ever has been....... However, with freedoms and elections shadowing over the peoples of Iran (in both Iraq and Stan)...and with the demographics of Iran there is a growing segment that is wanting to move away from radical Islam (though they are proud Iranians, understood).

But such a strike (an example) I think very well could in short order see a realignment within the Iranian Gov't....... Then again, if this doesn't happen..... Well, we've sent them back a decade with regard to their nuclear capabilities.....and like always in life...you have to choose from the options actually avaliable to us....not pie in the sky wishes....

Lastly, the concerns of Iraq...and are they/we together capable (and willing) to stop any chaos that Iran could cause there is another obviously large question.

[FAI]

You bomb Iran, you will soon find yourself bombing a dozen other places on the planet.

[Vanir Ausf B]

A military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities would probably only delay the country's progress toward nuclear-weapons capability, according to a study that concludes that such an attack could backfire by strengthening Tehran's resolve to acquire the bomb.

The analysis by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security found that Iran's uranium facilities are too widely dispersed and protected -- and, in some cases, concealed too well -- to be effectively destroyed by warplanes. And any damage to the country's nuclear program could be quickly repaired.

"Following an attack, Iran could quickly rebuild its centrifuge program in small, easily hidden facilities focused on making weapon-grade uranium for nuclear weapons," said principal author David Albright, ISIS president and a former U.N. weapons inspector.

...

Despite heavy fortification, the subterranean Natanz plant could be heavily damaged in an airstrike using bunker-busting bombs or missiles. But the centrifuges could be replaced rapidly, perhaps in hidden underground facilities, the ISIS report said. Iran is known to have constructed bunkers inside mountain tunnels near Natanz and other major nuclear sites.

While Iran once relied on imported technology and parts to build its centrifuges, it is now largely self-sufficient. The manufacture of key components is dispersed among a number of government-controlled factories, while imported parts such as high-strength aluminum have been stockpiled over the past decade, the report notes.

Moreover, since 2006, when Iran began limiting access to its nuclear facilities by U.N. nuclear inspectors, Western governments can no longer say with certainty where some key facilities are located, ISIS said.

"Current knowledge of the complex is lacking," the report stated. "Without that knowledge, an attack is unlikely to significantly delay Iran's mastery of enrichment with gas centrifuges."

Link