The Causes & Consequences of Strategic Failure in Afghanistan & Iraq

**Amled** · 09 Jan 05,, 15:26

Originally Posted by Ray

He just wants to get under the skin.

He's certainly adept at doing just that!

**lunar** · 15 May 08,, 23:35

Originally Posted by Ray

Lull,

Comment on the strategic impact in Iraq is a wee too premature to make. At best, it is crystal gazing.

As far as Afghanistan, it maybe true that it is yet to stablilise. However, from the strategic point of view, even in its present state, it is a strategic success.

As I look at one of the aspect of the Grand Strategy of the US is that the US has to contain China before it becoms a menace. However, Russia is still not a spent force. To address both at the same time would not be prudent. So, it is essential to neutralise Russia to the maximum extent feasible and then take on China, which in the interim should be contained.

To contain China, Japan, Pakistan and India are the key players, especially India and Pakistan. India is supposed to be now a Strategic Partner of the US and Pakistan has been weaned awy from China to some extent with the new status as the Favoured Non NATO Nation.

India has been given access to hi tech technology as also hi tech weapon system so as to be a viable counterbalance to China.

Japan is an old friend.

Next is the question of Afghanistan's role in the Grand Strategy.

Afghanistan is important to the US because it gives an access into CAR, which is oil and mineral rich. It also permits the USA to firm in, in the underbelly of Russia. Add the inclusion of Ukarain and Georgia to the sphere of US influence which has been achieved. Thus, unlike the previous era of the USSR, Russia is now in a tighter bind of the US than ever before. The vicelike grip is tightening. Next will be Chechnya, Armenia and the CAR.

Doesn't that mean strategically, it is a success?

Or is there some other meaning to it that I have not been able to notice?

Now if Iraq is also on the tap, what could be better?

Iran may not be ready to join the US sphere of influence, it is being slowly neutralised by mobilising public opinion about its nuclear aspirations. Some on this forum has said that this is hogwash and Iran has no nukes, but then US does't care. It has to achieve its strategic aim. None can grudge that.

Americans talk of the UN as a abomination. Something that is sucking up American tax payers dollars. They see the UN as a corrupt evil malignant organisation that is ruled by anti americans and controls the world. Now Americans think like this.

Now i read your comment and you talk of a military organisation that is far bigger then NATO, something that all western and pro western nations are apart of and which is controlled by the USA. This organisation that you describe can only be a world military body that is much more powerful then the UN and can choose when to go to war and change governments or simple isolate countries till they turn to the west. What you describe is much worse then a debating forum like the UN.

The military organisation that you describe is a military dictatorship that orders about countries of the world. This military organisation must not as you suggest be able do what it likes. This military organisation controlled by the Pentagon must not be allowed to dictate terms to the world. It is the presence of such a mighty and belligerent force that is upsetting the world. Since the yugoslav wars it has been destroying countries illegally and bringing with it devastaing consequences. The sooner this military body is put into place the sooner dialogue can occur. Having countries as allies will not prevent wars. It is speaking will your enemies that will. Sooner or later the Pentagon will realise this.

**gunnut** · 16 May 08,, 01:40

Originally Posted by lunar

Americans talk of the UN as a abomination. Something that is sucking up American tax payers dollars. They see the UN as a corrupt evil malignant organisation that is ruled by anti americans and controls the world. Now Americans think like this.

You're right. We do think that...well, except for the San Francisco liberals who believe the UN can do anything and should rule us all.

Who sits on the UN human rights commission? That alone should signal to you the UN is a farce. We are tired of sending a crapload of money to support bureaucrats (Kofi Annan) who actively sabotage our efforts and taking bribes from our enemies.

UN does do some good. It's a place where people come together and vent their hot air. It's quite good at combating easy to treat yet deadly diseases. It has legitimacy in disaster relief that transcends nations (2004 tsunami).

It is a worthless, spineless, and useless body to maintain world order (Darfur, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, even Burma).

Tell me, why should the US pay for this organization?

Originally Posted by lunar

Now i read your comment and you talk of a military organisation that is far bigger then NATO, something that all western and pro western nations are apart of and which is controlled by the USA. This organisation that you describe can only be a world military body that is much more powerful then the UN and can choose when to go to war and change governments or simple isolate countries till they turn to the west. What you describe is much worse then a debating forum like the UN.

The military organisation that you describe is a military dictatorship that orders about countries of the world. This military organisation must not as you suggest be able do what it likes. This military organisation controlled by the Pentagon must not be allowed to dictate terms to the world. It is the presence of such a mighty and belligerent force that is upsetting the world. Since the yugoslav wars it has been destroying countries illegally and bringing with it devastaing consequences. The sooner this military body is put into place the sooner dialogue can occur. Having countries as allies will not prevent wars. It is speaking will your enemies that will. Sooner or later the Pentagon will realise this.

US military is here to do one thing: protect US interests.

What is the main US interest? Fortunately for the world, US is controled by evil corporations who want to do business and make money. To do so we must have a stable environment. It's hard to do business when the world is at war and people have no spending money. So US military tries its best to maintain somewhat of an order in the world. At least crush any kindlings that might start a large scale war to disrupt business.

UN can't do this. NATO can't even do this. Too many nations representing too many opinions and ideas hamper their operations. You will need unilateral action and overwhelming force, like a police department not asking for everyone's opinion before arresting a dirtbag.

**Shek** · 16 May 08,, 02:52

Originally Posted by lunar

This military organisation controlled by the Pentagon must not be allowed to dictate terms to the world. It is the presence of such a mighty and belligerent force that is upsetting the world. Since the yugoslav wars it has been destroying countries illegally and bringing with it devastaing consequences. The sooner this military body is put into place the sooner dialogue can occur. Having countries as allies will not prevent wars. It is speaking will your enemies that will. Sooner or later the Pentagon will realise this.

Read the American Constitution to see who is in charge (hint: it's not that five sided building!)

**astralis** · 16 May 08,, 03:57

gunnut,

i think americans as a whole take a bad attitude to the UN. it is a very cheap method for americans to pretend that they listen to the rest of the world, and many of the pursuits of the UN help solidify the american-built int'l system.

the relative costs of the UN are so minimal compared to what the US can afford that it would be stupid to allow it to atrophy. the only difference now is that the UN went from being completely US-dominated as a matter of course (in the 40s and 50s) to the fact that the US has to use bribes now.

**Triple C** · 20 May 08,, 08:48

Originally Posted by astralis

gunnut,

i think americans as a whole take a bad attitude to the UN. it is a very cheap method for americans to pretend that they listen to the rest of the world, and many of the pursuits of the UN help solidify the american-built int'l system.

the relative costs of the UN are so minimal compared to what the US can afford that it would be stupid to allow it to atrophy. the only difference now is that the UN went from being completely US-dominated as a matter of course (in the 40s and 50s) to the fact that the US has to use bribes now.

Well said. The UN is not what it is hyped up to be, but when properly handled, it can be a great instrument to build legitimacy and international support. That was why Americans created it in the first place, an organization in which the great world powers could act in concert and to lend a legal form to intervention. It was not meant to become an autnomnous center of power; just a formal, legal construct. Not so much of a foe than another battlefield.