Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
If I have to fight terrorists in the streets of my own city, it is because the Bush Administration has me living behind open borders with no meaningful counter terror effort.
I live a short bicycle ride from what is probably one of the juciest terrorist targets in the United States. As the fifth anniversery of the Sept. 11 attacks approaches, this facility remains unsecure and in the white.
Every platlet and every penny spilled by the U.S. in Iraq is a victory for the terrorists because it is blood and treasure that is not being spent to reduce the vulnerability of U.S. cities to attack.
If there is any such thing as a "frontline in the war on terror", it is to be found where we are vulnerable, not where we are strong.
W.
the main problem with this approach is that there are far too many holes in the armor, so to speak. there are countless cities; there are two long, long borders with mexico and canada; entirely deserted stretches of the pacific northwest; vast empty lands in the middle of the US in which to hide.
we can reduce the vulnerability, it is true, but turning the US into "fortress america" is not economically/militarily possible, and furthermore, the cost to the national psyche of having privacy reduced to nothing (a prerequisite to an "all-seeing" eye of government that can catch all terrorists) would be higher still.
so in quite a few ways, i agree that to fight effectively, we need to deal with the problem where it is worst, overseas. my main problem with the bush administration is that while it has got the solution, the administration has not worked towards it effectively.
i liked what m21 said earlier. iraq could have, and should have, been one decisive victory. the shock waves it introduced towards reform in the region were great- at first. now that the US has bogged down, so too has reform in the region.
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
i liked what m21 said earlier. iraq could have, and should have, been one decisive victory. the shock waves it introduced towards reform in the region were great- at first. now that the US has bogged down, so too has reform in the region.
Which also shows that if we are not capable of securing a long border, how in the heck are we capable of securing a country the size of Iraq? That does make sense in comparison right?
you're certainly right in that securing a whole country is close to impossible (long, porous borders on all sides in iraq's case).
however, the two cases are different. in iraq, as bad as outside terrorist activity is, the outsiders do not create a looming political problem. the militias do. in iraq, politics- and no longer military operations- is the main lynchpin to success in iraq.
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
Its a dangerous time we live in with so many muslims living in europe and all over the world im not saying all are terrorist but there is probally extremist mingled in with them,with irans leaders spokesman saying were going to destroy the anglo saxon civilisation and the rise of suicide bombings and jehadism around the world,the world seems pretty messed up but nothing is imposible not even peace on earth is imposible as proven after world war 2 so its good to stay positive in these troubled times.
Which also shows that if we are not capable of securing a long border, how in the heck are we capable of securing a country the size of Iraq? That does make sense in comparison right?
Different problems, different solutions.
Just like we could destroy or secure Iraq, destroy or secure Iran, blah blah blah, with our military power, we also could revert to a true Fortress America. But I agree with astralis in that a Fortress America would be extremely damaging culturally, just as I agree with almost everyone that using the 100% Iron Fist approach in Iraq (or Iran) would have severely negative consequences.
Doesn't mean that either or both wouldn't work, but the cost has to be appreciated.
I am not seeing Baghdad and thinking Saigon except that I would sure hate BAGHDAD to be a Failure.
Sir,
Sorry for the unclear comments on my part. I wasn't trying to insinuate that you were seeing Saigon instead of Baghdad - seeing Vietnam and Iraq in the same paragraph reminded me that I hadn't posted the article before as I had come across it again a week or so back - I figured you might enjoy seeing it since I had sent you the prior aritcle written by Dr. Biddle.
Shek
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
[QUOTE=RayI read this book when I was in School and I was moved emotionally as to the way the US was doing everything, but the Soviets took the credit through various interesting moves.[/quote]
Sadr is doing quite the same thing as we speak!
Originally posted by Ray
My earlier post was written because it is time to stop fooling each other with humbug esoteric hogwash. It is time to zip the mouth and get cracking with dilligence and without wasting time for idle talk. I don't think Americans are getting any more impressed than what they have alredy been and certainly non Americans are not impressed since it does not come out convincing.
Sir,
I agree that debate about the decision to go to war is a non-sequitir when it comes to discussing what to do now. However, at the same time, it is amazing how many people will still dwell on it and propagate already refuted arguments. I'll probably wait to post on this topic for a bit - I've just purchased Thomas Ricks "Fiasco" and want to plough through that to see if there's any nuggets of information in it that I haven't seen before. Cobra II clarified a few things and brought to bear some great arguments that punch some big holes into some of the rhetoric. Anyways, thanks for trying to pull the needle off of the the broken record in this thread.
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
If I have to fight terrorists in the streets of my own city, it is because the Bush Administration has me living behind open borders with no meaningful counter terror effort.
Really now? I know of only a small group of Republicans, and a tiny group of Democrats, that want to close the borders.
Originally posted by Swift Sword
Every platlet and every penny spilled by the U.S. in Iraq is a victory for the terrorists because it is blood and treasure that is not being spent to reduce the vulnerability of U.S. cities to attack.
Humbug, the opposite is true. Fighting terrorism and it's supporters is not a police action alone.
Originally posted by Swift Sword
If there is any such thing as a "frontline in the war on terror", it is to be found where we are vulnerable, not where we are strong.
You make your move with your strengths, to keep them from getting you where you're vunerable.
Originally posted by astralis
i liked what m21 said earlier. iraq could have, and should have, been one decisive victory. the shock waves it introduced towards reform in the region were great- at first. now that the US has bogged down, so too has reform in the region.
I mostly blame the politicizers and conspiracy theists myself. Until they started up with their "illegal war" "Bush lied" BS, the tyrants around Iraq were messin' themselves to make reforms, or prepare to be next. They now see they do not have to make reforms, as the American people are going to kill themselves instead...
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
If I have to fight terrorists in the streets of my own city, it is because the Bush Administration has me living behind open borders with no meaningful counter terror effort.
I live a short bicycle ride from what is probably one of the juciest terrorist targets in the United States. As the fifth anniversery of the Sept. 11 attacks approaches, this facility remains unsecure and in the white.
Every platlet and every penny spilled by the U.S. in Iraq is a victory for the terrorists because it is blood and treasure that is not being spent to reduce the vulnerability of U.S. cities to attack.
If there is any such thing as a "frontline in the war on terror", it is to be found where we are vulnerable, not where we are strong.
W.
Swift Sword,
While we are in agreeance on many things, I must ask, is it possible to win if one only plays defense? Will the pan-Islamists and the ideas they espouse just wither? Or must we take the offense? I believe the latter, although I don't necessarily equate offensive power with just military power.
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
Swift Sword,
While we are in agreeance on many things, I must ask, is it possible to win if one only plays defense? Will the pan-Islamists and the ideas they espouse just wither? Or must we take the offense? I believe the latter, although I don't necessarily equate offensive power with just military power.
I've NEVER said this is a primarily military conflict; it isn't. But that is a huge component of it, and we simply must fight and win those campaigns that are currently in progress, as well as any future endeavors (of which there may be more than a few) that may be of our making. Clearly, this implies offensive war in one sense, but it is defensive in nature, as we are currently under mortal, existential threat from a determined, resourceful and cruel enemy that enjoys numerous advantages.
We've got to fight 'em, but the literal battlefield isn't the only arena, but it is certainly on the short list of of the ones we dare not fail.
Sunday, September 03, 2006 E-Mail this article to a friend Printer Friendly Version
EU gives Iran 2 more weeks to clear position on nuclear work
* Cooperation with IAEA might change if sanctions imposed: Iran
LAPPEENRANTA: European Union foreign ministers agreed on Saturday to take two more weeks to try to clarify Iran’s stance on halting sensitive nuclear work after Tehran ignored a UN deadline to stop uranium enrichment.
EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana will meet Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, in Europe early next week to clear up ambiguities in Tehran’s 21-page reply to a major power offer of cooperation if it stops nuclear work.
Slovenian Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel told Reuters after the 25 ministers discussed the issue at a meeting in Finland: “We give Solana two weeks for his clarification talks.”
Solana and other ministers insisted there was no deadline, but he said time was short and he would report to ministers at their next regular meeting on September 15. He said he would be talking with Larijani also on behalf of the six powers which agreed on the package of economic, technological and political incentives.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remained defiant on Saturday as UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan visited Tehran for talks on Lebanon and the nuclear dispute. “Our nation is a supporter of peace but it will not retreat an iota from its right to nuclear technology,” the ISNA student news agency quoted him as saying.
Iran will “revise” its policy of cooperating with the UN nuclear agency if sanctions are imposed over its nuclear programme, its representative to the IAEA said on Saturday.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said in a newspaper interview published on Saturday that he hoped for a negotiated solution over Iran’s disputed nuclear programme rather than sanctions. Patience can be more productive than levelling UN sanctions, Annan told Le Monde on Friday. agencies http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...3-9-2006_pg7_1
There is an English saying - you can whistle for the favourable wind to blow!
Old Nadenchuzian will remain Bugs Bunny raiding Elmer Fudd's carrot patch.
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
That article was a nugget for my knowledge and update.
Thanks.
Keeping posting such things for me at least.
What's the feedback from SWC about me?
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
the main problem with this approach is that there are far too many holes in the armor, so to speak. there are countless cities; there are two long, long borders with mexico and canada; entirely deserted stretches of the pacific northwest; vast empty lands in the middle of the US in which to hide.
Millions unknown and billions worth traverse said areas yearly.
How can a “get tough” policy on terrorism exist in the face of this fact with any shred of credibility?
If al-Qaeda wanted to bring a nuclear weapon into the United States, they would hide it in a truck full of cocaine and nobody would ever find it.
I am highly suspect of the assertion that terrorists and their weapons are being kept out successfully when men by the thousand and goods by the ton enter the country completely unknown every day.
Sycophantic demagogues maliciously preying upon the People's fears with such exhortations as "there will be a mushroom cloud over an American city if we do not do XYZ" are content to allow large numbers of people and much contraband to enter the United States everyday when anyone of them might be a terrorist and any illegal importation might be the very weapon they are telling us to fear.
My military education has been sadly neglected however one monk left me under the impression that good policy is to secure a perimeter and then aggressively patrol within and out.
There might be rhyme and reason to the policy of leaving CONUS vulnerable to infiltration and attack but I am not privy to the inner machinations of defense policy.
we can reduce the vulnerability, it is true, but turning the US into "fortress america" is not economically/militarily possible
While this is true on the face of it, glaring gaps in security are tolerated as we continue our infatuation with such easy to attack models as mono crop agriculture and hub-and-spoke distribution/transportation models.
and furthermore the cost to the national psyche of having privacy reduced to nothing (a prerequisite to an "all-seeing" eye of government that can catch all terrorists) would be higher still.
This is the direction those carrying the flag are moving. The shadows where Tyranny grows unseen, unchecked and unaccountable have been created before our very eyes and the fate of Liberty is dependent upon illumination of these crevices where malevolence nurtures itself into a threat to the security of the American people.
in quite a few ways, i agree that to fight effectively, we need to deal with the problem where it is worst, overseas. my main problem with the bush administration is that while it has got the solution, the administration has not worked towards it effectively.
Suspicion indicates scale economies do not favor such strategy at the current level of intensity.
Americans are killed and maimed on the cheap whilst counter terror carte du jour is breathtaking in expense.
A man who knew a bit about this type of activity once said:
"Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail-
The Crammer’s boast, the Squadron’s pride,
Shot like a rabbit in a ride!
No proposition Euclid wrote,
No formulae the text-books know,
Will turn the bullet from your coat,
Or ward the tulwar’s downward blow
Strike hard who cares-shoot straight who can-
The odds are on the cheaper man."
Furthermore, the blowback from the policy is going to radically increase the outlays of political and financial capital to combat the problem.
Think about it: the current round of troubles was initiated by the so called "Afghan Arabs" and there were really not that many of them.
How many terrorists have gone to Iraq, learned how to kill Americans and returned home to pass this knowledge on to their peers? I do not know but I think that it is safe to assume that it is quite a few.
Upon maturation, cells in their home countries could be quite troublesome as local security forces/services are in many instances going to be a Hell of a lot softer than the Americans they practiced on in Iraq.
Too, as those maimed in overseas expeditions and their dependents balloon the welfare rolls, it will draw more of the Public's grain away from the fight.
i liked what m21 said earlier. iraq could have, and should have, been one decisive victory. the shock waves it introduced towards reform in the region were great- at first. now that the US has bogged down, so too has reform in the region.
My impression of Iraq since the end of the 1980s has been that it had all the appearances of a man trap. Bush the Elder and Dick Cheney both seemed to have agreed with that assessment after Operation Desert Storm (funny how the worm turns). I thought that the conquest of Iraq was not a particularly bright idea and not consistent with sound grand strategic policy in the region.
My opinion remains unchanged.
Maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong; I suppose time will tell.
Regards,
William
Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?
Comment