Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The War

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • S-2, et al,

    First, let me make it clear, that I am not a supporter of terrorist activity, nor am I anti-Israeli. But nether set of hands are clean in this regard.
    Originally posted by S2 View Post
    [B]Perhaps. I'd ask that you express ALL the truth. Did the results of those actions leave us with a viable democracy? I find Israeli democracy rather thriving.
    (COMMENT)

    Well, the outcome is not written on this. The "viable" part is still in question. The democracy part for the Israeli and the Palestinian is equal. We may not like the outcome, but we promoted the idea of democratic elections and that is what we got.
    Originally posted by S2 View Post
    Western? Occupying forces. Military troops? A legitimate series of targets to those seeking to oust their oppressors.

    I'd say the same of HAMAS were they to restrict their targeting to Israeli military forces WHILE conducting democratic principles of rule within the Gaza strip and also renouncing their manifesto.

    They don't in each case. Civilian targets, one-party domination of Gaza and no renunciation. There's no basis for peace with Israel and no basis for a formalized relationship with America.
    (COMMENT)

    I tried not to get into big lists, simply because I find it (generally) much like the "he says - she says" type argument; and the fact that they are quite long. But don't think that the Israeli targeted "only" (or even mostly) military significant objectives. And don't forget the definition of terrorism.

    The general, Open Source List of "Irgun" (only) Attacks against "civilian" targets reads like this. It can be found at: List of Irgun attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    1937, March 2 Arabs killed on Bat-Yam beach.
    1937, November 14 10 Arabs killed by Irgun units launching attacks around Jerusalem, ("Black Sunday")
    1938, April 12 2 Arabs and 2 British policemen were killed by a bomb in a train in Haifa.
    1938, April 17 1 Arab was killed by a bomb detonated in a cafe in Haifa
    1938, May 17 1 Arab policeman was killed in an attack on a bus in the Jerusalem-Hebron road.
    1938, May 24 3 Arabs were shot and killed in Haifa.
    1938, June 23 2 Arabs were killed near Tel-Aviv.
    1938, June 26 7 Arabs were killed by a bomb in Jaffa.
    1938, June 27 1 Arab was killed in the yard of a hospital in Haifa.
    1938, June (late) Unspecified number of Arabs killed by a bomb that was thrown into a crowded Arab market place in Jerusalem.
    1938, July 5 7 Arabs were killed in several shooting attacks in Tel-Aviv.
    1938, July 5 3 Arabs were killed by a bomb detonated in a bus in Jerusalem.
    1938, July 5 1 Arab was killed in another attack in Jerusalem.
    1938, July 6 18 Arabs and 5 Jews were killed by two simultaneous bombs in the Arab melon market in Haifa.
    1938, July 8 4 Arabs were killed by a bomb in Jerusalem.
    1938, July 16 10 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Jerusalem.
    1938, July 25 43 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Haifa.
    1938, August 26 24 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Jaffa.
    1938, February 27 33 Arabs were killed in multiple attacks, incl. 24 by bomb in Arab market in Suk Quarter of Haifa and 4 by bomb in Arab vegetable market in Jerusalem.
    1939, May 29 5 Arabs were killed by a mine detonated at the Rex cinema in Jerusalem.
    1939, May 29 5 Arabs were shot and killed during a raid on the village of Biyar 'Adas.
    1939, June 2 5 Arabs were killed by a bomb at the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem.
    1939, June 12 1 British bomb expert trying to defuse the bombs killed, during a post office in Jerusalem was bombing
    1939, June 16 6 Arabs were killed in several attacks in Jerusalem.
    1939, June 19 20 Arabs were killed by explosives mounted on a donkey at a marketplace in Haifa.
    1939, June 29 13 Arabs were killed in several shooting attacks around Jaffa during a one-hour period.
    1939, June 30 1 Arab was killed at a marketplace in Jerusalem.
    1939, June 30 2 Arabs were shot and killed in Lifta.
    1939, July 3 1 Arab was killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Haifa.
    1939, July 4 2 Arabs were killed in two attacks in Jerusalem.
    1939, July 20 1 Arab was killed at a train station in Jaffa.
    1939, July 20 6 Arabs were killed in several attacks in Tel-Aviv.
    1939, July 20 3 Arabs were killed in Rehovot.
    1939, August 27 2 British officers were killed by a mine in Jerusalem.
    1945, November 1 5 locomotives destroyed in Lydda station.
    1946, July 22 91 people were killed at King David Hotel Bombing mostly civilians, staff of the hotel or Secretariat,
    41 Palestinian Arabs, 15-28 British citizens, 17 Palestinian Jews, 2 Armenians, 1 Russian, 1 Greek and 1 Egyptian. [28][29][30]
    1946, October 31 Bombing of the British Embassy in Rome. Nearly half the building was destroyed and 3 people were injured.
    1947, December 11 13 killed in attack on Tireh, near Haifa [36]
    1947, December 12 20 killed, 5 wounded by barrel bomb at Damascus Gate. [37]
    1947, December 13 6 killed, 25 wounded by bombs outside Alhambra Cinema.
    1947, December 13 5 killed, 47 wounded by two bombs at Damascus Gate.
    1947, December 13 7 killed, 10 seriously injured in attack on Yehudieh.
    1947, December 16(ca) 10 killed by bomb at Noga Cinema in Jaffa.
    1947, December 20 6 Arabs killed, dozens wounded by bomb at Haifa refinery, precipitating the Haifa Oil Refinery massacre, which lead to the Balad al-Shaykh massacre.
    1947, December 29 14 Arabs killed by bomb in Jerusalem.
    1948, January 1 2 Arabs killed and 9 injured by shooting attack on cafe in Jaffa.
    1948, January 5 14 Arabs killed and 19 injured by truck bomb outside the 3-storey 'Serrani', Jaffa's built Ottoman Town Hall
    1948, January 7 20 Arabs killed by bomb at Jaffa Gate.
    1948, February 10 7 Arabs killed near Ras el Ain after selling cows in Tel Aviv
    1948, February 18 12 Arabs killed and 43 wounded at a marketplace in Ramla
    1948, April 9-April 11 107-120 Palestinians killed and massacred (the estimate generally accepted by scholars, instead the first announced number of 254) during and after the battle at the village of Deir Yassin near Jerusalem, by 132 Irgun and 60 Lehi fighters.

    It is by no means, all inclusive, but it gets to the point that the actions between the two insurgent activities are not all that dissimilar. They were "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."

    Again, I don't support HAMAS or any of the terrorist actions by its sister elements. And I have learned from the examples set by Israel, that we should be very careful of our alliance. The association the US has shared with the Israelis has been less productive then one might think.

    I have just recently returned from my assignment in ME/GS Region. It is a mess. Having served in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Yemen, in the last decade, I am growing less and less satisfied with our political-military results.

    Remember the USS Liberty.

    Most Respectfully,
    R
    Last edited by RoccoR; 26 Jun 11,, 01:46.

    Comment


    • RoccoR Reply

      "...The "viable" part is still in question. The democracy part for the Israeli and the Palestinian is equal. We may not like the outcome, but we promoted the idea of democratic elections and that is what we got..."

      I'm unconvinced that "elections", alone, constitute adherance to democratic principles-even when free, fair, and counted properly. There's much more to the process. Most of that process seems implemented among the Israeli people.

      I see little corresponding similarity within the Palestinian Authority.

      "...But don't think that the Israeli targeted "only" (or even mostly) military significant objectives..."

      Oh! I don't. I've no illusions about the revolutionary origins of those men although I'm less certain about the equally-shared culpability among them WRT to these crimes you've listed. I'm simply adhering to your original comment-

      "...They conducted operations against Western forces (espionage, sedition, assassinations, kidnappings, and sabotage) during the period from 1920 to 1948..."

      More than this and I'll be a willing participant in the derailment of my own thread.
      "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
      "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

      Comment


      • S-2, et al,

        Again, I have to chuckle just a little bit; with you.
        Originally posted by S2 View Post
        More than this and I'll be a willing participant in the derailment of my own thread.
        (COMMENT)

        But from where I have sat and served, my (personal) perspective, I see a commonality in each of the hot spots. And it always comes back to our Country Teams and the Foreign Policy they promote.

        That includes Afghanistan and the border states. Even with a heroic effort, you cannot win with a strategy destine to fail.

        Most Respectfully,
        R

        Comment


        • RoccoR Reply

          "But from where I have sat and served, my (personal) perspective, I see a commonality in each of the hot spots. And it always comes back to our Country Teams and the Foreign Policy they promote."

          Well...I fear arrogance might lead us to believe that we are the redoubtable masters of our own fate. We're not. There are other players so that the best laid plans of mice and men usually fall short of objective intent.

          Sadly, sage recognition of such leads to a predisposition to waffle, hedge and lower expectations. As a profoundly disillusioned neo-con I confess to great angst at opportunity lost post 9/11. Even post DESERT STORM.

          In some respects the stage was set for globalized Pax Americana. Not, however, in our own institutional pre-disposition to seize advantage of a momentary opportunity. So that window has largely closed with a small beach-head established (maybe) in Iraq should the Iraqi people see fit to do so.

          "...That includes Afghanistan and the border states. Even with a heroic effort, you cannot win with a strategy destine to fail..."

          What "strategy"? Here I blame two administrations of George W. Bush and one of Barak Obama. Shared culpability.

          How about "...heroic effort..."? Our troops? Yup. Wore helments like warriors and tin-foil hats like diplomats. Did the latter better than most diplomats btw. Sadly, when we surged in Iraq and, again, in Afghanistan there was no commensurate surge in civil affairs from the other cabinet-level offices of the executive. Not in 2007 in Iraq and not in 2010 in Afghanistan.

          We marched into Marjah in February 2010 and fully expected to oust the taliban with "government in a box" arriving shortly thereafter.

          Still waiting. Nobody's fault really. Just hard to find diplomats willing to eat dirt for a very extended tour in nowheresville. Just not healthy as a career path, don't you know?

          So, institutionally, another great big FAIL where it matters.

          Another tsunami is coming in Afghanistan and there's nothing we can do about it. The Pakistanis WILL have their way in the short term because we allowed it to happen.

          We sent in a log-heavy army dependant upon their supply lines without dropping the requisite hammer to create the necessary conditions for success by eliminating SANCTUARY and PROXY from the Pakistani dictionary while it was still very, very possible. This peace could never be won so long as those two cards remained in play...and they did.

          So...no matter how good things looked in late 2001 when the war was won by 100 SPECOPS warriors on ponies, the USAF, and a ragtag conglomeration of N.A. tribal warriors-it didn't take much-we nonetheless laid the seeds for our own failure.

          Note I said short-term for Pakistan. In their "victory" shall likely lay the seeds of their own defeat. A resurgent afghan taliban will NOT reject their TTP brothers. As such, they'll also find sanctuary in Afghanistan from which to make war upon Islamabad. The Afghan taliban, however, will not have their way in Afghanistan either. India, Iran, CAR, Russia and the N.A. will assure that.

          Civil war...and it'll be a long, bloody affair. What comes of that is beyond me but we'd do well to maintain a counter-terror presence off-shore in the Indian ocean, keep our powder dry and watch events unfold in Pakistan.

          Winning the peace proved far more costly than winning the war.
          Last edited by S2; 26 Jun 11,, 05:08.
          "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
          "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

          Comment


          • Originally posted by S2 View Post
            We sent in a log-heavy army dependant upon their supply lines without dropping the requisite hammer to create the necessary conditions for success by eliminating SANCTUARY and PROXY from the Pakistani dictionary while it was still very, very possible. This peace could never be won so long as those two cards remained in play...and they did.

            So...no matter how good things looked in late 2001 when the war was won by 100 SPECOPS warriors on ponies, the USAF, and a ragtag conglomeration of N.A. tribal warriors-it didn't take much-we nonetheless laid the seeds for our own failure.
            I just spent the good part of the last week hosting a high-powered team from the US, some of them fairly senior ex-NIH/CDC officials. To the last man/woman, they said essentially the same as what you have above. There seems to be great resentment against the two-party politics and the internal situation, while the foreign policy goes nowhere in general and opportunities are lost and gains not sustained and/or built upon. I've said it before. 10 years ago, the US was at the wrong place at the right time. I agree with you S2 - its time for your leadership to call a spade a spade.
            Last edited by vsdoc; 26 Jun 11,, 08:28.

            Comment


            • It Has To Start With Them

              Tom Friedman speaks out in this NYT editorial.

              It is an accurate summation of America wishing something more than the local climate. We've enabled, aided and abetted the drunkard to the point of buying them 30 year old single malt scotch-

              It Has To Start With Them-NYT Editorial June 25, 2011

              More to the point, it doesn't need us at all. Oh yeah-aiding and abetting? Read this from the A.P-

              While The U.S. Talks Withdrawal, Afghan Corruption Soars-A.P. June 25, 2011

              The fact of the matter remains that it was "mission accomplished" around December 1, 2001. We'd gotten done approximately the same objectives since with a counter-terror task force off-shore and a firm message to Pakistan that our aircraft would periodically exercise Balochistan overflight RIGHTS as required to suppress afghan "banditry and brigands" where necessary. Lot less cash and blood for everybody concerned too.

              As it should always have been.
              "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
              "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

              Comment


              • Originally posted by S2 View Post
                Tom Friedman speaks out in this NYT editorial.

                It is an accurate summation of America wishing something more than the local climate. We've enabled, aided and abetted the drunkard to the point of buying them 30 year old single malt scotch-

                It Has To Start With Them-NYT Editorial June 25, 2011

                More to the point, it doesn't need us at all. Oh yeah-aiding and abetting? Read this from the A.P-

                While The U.S. Talks Withdrawal, Afghan Corruption Soars-A.P. June 25, 2011

                The fact of the matter remains that it was "mission accomplished" around December 1, 2001. We'd gotten done approximately the same objectives since with a counter-terror task force off-shore and a firm message to Pakistan that our aircraft would periodically exercise Balochistan overflight RIGHTS as required to suppress afghan "banditry and brigands" where necessary. Lot less cash and blood for everybody concerned too.

                As it should always have been.
                Depose Karzai, and start talking and associating with the Afghani Green movement who want nothing of the Taliban but its extermination. I don't understand the belief that we can 'negotiate" a peace deal with the Taliban, when the only peace they will stop at is control of Afghanistan and the Baluchistan region. Once Pakistan or Afghanistan falls, the next is in line for collapse as well.

                The left will whine, and so will the U.N but at the end of the day Karzai is more damaging to Afghani stability than even the Taliban itself.
                "Who says organization, says oligarchy"

                Comment


                • Wayfarer Reply

                  "Depose Karzai, and start talking and associating with the Afghani Green movement..."

                  Karzai is a dead man walking should he stay in any capacity within Afghanistan beyond five years. We shouldn't be associated with any movement there. It only taints them as "puppets" which de-legitimizes them in local eyes.

                  Afghans, as Friedman rightly surmises, have to find the wherewithall to foster their own moral convictions. Then it's up to them to put THEIR money where their mouths take them.

                  Americans, in particular, need to generally learn how to sit back on a lawn-chair, draw up a cool glass of iced tea and enjoy the entertainment. It's not our fight. Our SPECOPS troops are more than capable of taking on any American-focused terror elements that arise-and should do so with extreme prejudice.

                  Beyond that, hands off.
                  "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                  "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                  Comment


                  • Sir,sitting on the behind would be new for your nation.

                    Pax Americana presumes the elimination of viable competitors.At least the original creators of the concept considered that to be true and I tend to agree with them,although they're long ashes and dust.Your policy makers as well as your bussiness leaders decided that helping probable competitors to be a more worthwile course of action.Folly or not,this is where we stand today.

                    Can you afford to cede a vital area of the globe to forces that have at best unknown intentions and at worst to be sworn foes?While the Islamists are a theat that can be contained with some flexing of muscles,the biggest risk is that from Atlantic to Pacific you'll have competitors.The natural COA for them would be to join forces,even if temporarily.

                    I fully understand the situation is delicate,in part because of what's already mentioned:the need not to show a too strong of a presence.That goes against your nation's creed of rejecting open imperialism.But there comes a time when you must remember the words of Tacitus:great empires are not maintained by timidity.
                    Is the world and America better with you as No1 or can everyone afford to downgrade US among one of the many?

                    Unfortunately,I think this round is already lost,for reasons you stated so well.
                    Those who know don't speak
                    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by S2 View Post
                      "Depose Karzai, and start talking and associating with the Afghani Green movement..."

                      Karzai is a dead man walking should he stay in any capacity within Afghanistan beyond five years. We shouldn't be associated with any movement there. It only taints them as "puppets" which de-legitimizes them in local eyes.

                      Afghans, as Friedman rightly surmises, have to find the wherewithall to foster their own moral convictions. Then it's up to them to put THEIR money where their mouths take them.

                      Americans, in particular, need to generally learn how to sit back on a lawn-chair, draw up a cool glass of iced tea and enjoy the entertainment. It's not our fight. Our SPECOPS troops are more than capable of taking on any American-focused terror elements that arise-and should do so with extreme prejudice.

                      Beyond that, hands off.
                      So Sir I assume you are for the increased withdrawal timetable that Obama has put forward ?
                      "Who says organization, says oligarchy"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by S2 View Post
                        "Depose Karzai, and start talking and associating with the Afghani Green movement..."

                        Karzai is a dead man walking should he stay in any capacity within Afghanistan beyond five years. We shouldn't be associated with any movement there. It only taints them as "puppets" which de-legitimizes them in local eyes.

                        Afghans, as Friedman rightly surmises, have to find the wherewithall to foster their own moral convictions. Then it's up to them to put THEIR money where their mouths take them.

                        Americans, in particular, need to generally learn how to sit back on a lawn-chair, draw up a cool glass of iced tea and enjoy the entertainment. It's not our fight. Our SPECOPS troops are more than capable of taking on any American-focused terror elements that arise-and should do so with extreme prejudice.

                        Beyond that, hands off.

                        Well said.

                        The one-trajectory mission of retaliation with a fairly clear objective burst into multiple independent and sometimes vaguely defined missions, ostensibly connected but often at cross-purposes. UBL had vanished. Now WTF do we do? We do what we always do, we become the victims of our own good intentions by trying to make something of this FUBAR situation. I think the writing was on the wall when Burger King came to Baghram.
                        Last edited by Red Seven; 26 Jun 11,, 14:09.

                        Comment


                        • Mihais, et al,

                          Yes, we found ourselves (more often then not) attempting to intervene, when we should be quiet, listening and studying the situation; understanding the possible outcomes of our involvement.
                          Originally posted by Mihais View Post
                          Sir,sitting on the behind would be new for your nation.

                          Pax Americana presumes the elimination of viable competitors.At least the original creators of the concept considered that to be true and I tend to agree with them,although they're long ashes and dust.Your policy makers as well as your bussiness leaders decided that helping probable competitors to be a more worthwhile course of action.Folly or not,this is where we stand today.
                          (COMMENT)

                          Even the best political-military apparatus must take a break and reconstitute itself if it to maintain its ability to engage at the proper critical moment. The US is no exception to that. It is as valid to any American effort as the laws of physics.

                          The predominant American influence, as a state, over other regions and coalitions, is based on the ability of America to maintain a strong (very very strong) economic, industrial and and scientific base, such that, it can support political-military stabilization and enhancement efforts around the globe.

                          But the globe (as in the constituent member nation states) and the development cultures within, are constantly evolving; in many cases faster than our leadership can adapt to these changes in strategy and foreign policy. America is creating a successive series of mistakes because:
                          • It has not reinvested in the economic and industrial capacity required to maintain a global reach and superior force structure in the air, on land and at sea. Without the economic and industrial engines that drive the base for which our political-military apparatus is dependent, America will not be able to project the types and kinds of "influence" required to hold a the integrity of the hegemony together.

                          • The leadership has an educational deficit, such that, form a political-economic-military standpoint, they are still 20th Century thinkers --- and have not made the turn into the 21st Century. While they have changed the names, the slogans, and the mantra they use today --- they are just using pages out of the play-books from the last Century. They do not understand the perspectives held by the world outside the US and --- presume to know what is best for every other nation involved in a political-economic-military dispute or conflict. In essence, they can't feel the pain that others, and can't genuinely respond in a empathic way that builds and nurtures modern 21st Century relationships
                          .
                          Originally posted by Mihais View Post
                          Can you afford to cede a vital area of the globe to forces that have at best unknown intentions and at worst to be sworn foes?While the Islamists are a theat that can be contained with some flexing of muscles,the biggest risk is that from Atlantic to Pacific you'll have competitors.The natural COA for them would be to join forces,even if temporarily.
                          (COMMENT)

                          Unlike the concepts behind "Star Trek" --- there is no US Prime Directive that guides America. Some believe, like your question implies, that we cannot afford to "cede vital areas" of interest to our national security. But the inverse to that question rests in the question: Is it ours (America's) to win, lose or hold? Are we dependent on Arab controlled oil because we have an inherent right to it; OR, because our leadership didn't reinvest in American scientific research and development for energy independence for the coming century?

                          The idea that competition needs to be eliminated is handicap to the "Capitalist" way of thinking. Without competition (economically, politically, industrially or militarily) there will be no inertia to push America forward towards any advancement. While there are some that may suggest otherwise, there must always be a force in the world for which America must respond.
                          Originally posted by Mihais View Post
                          I fully understand the situation is delicate,in part because of what's already mentioned:the need not to show a too strong of a presence.That goes against your nation's creed of rejecting open imperialism.But there comes a time when you must remember the words of Tacitus:great empires are not maintained by timidity.
                          (COMMENT)

                          Agreed, but it is in how we react --- what actions we take --- must not only benefit America, but the indigenous populations of the culture or region we are dealing with in any given situation. Sometimes, the influence should not be direct. And then, there are cases in which a choice has to be made; and it is not our choice to make.
                          Originally posted by Mihais View Post
                          Is the world and America better with you as No1 or can everyone afford to downgrade US among one of the many?

                          Unfortunately,I think this round is already lost,for reasons you stated so well.
                          (COMMENT)

                          It is not a case of "winning or losing." The question is, can America make it a better world for everyone. Whether we are "Number 1" or not is in the eye of the evaluator. But if America establishes a policy to act in the best interest of the combined constituent plays, then --- and only then --- will the image change that impact the way the world (even the Muslim-Arab-Islamic World) views America and its policies.

                          Most Respectfully,
                          R

                          Comment


                          • Mihais Reply

                            I'll generally concur with RoccoR on the following points-

                            Our global might stems from our economic power. Doomsayers predicting America's imminent demise are, IMHO, far off the mark. We remain an immensely talented and capable nation. Putting ourselves back on course (reconstitution) is in everybody's best interest everywhere-including the PRC.

                            Our leadership suffers from an institutional and intellectual deficit. To achieve the former will require a revitalization of the latter. Achieving the former will enable our global reach in ways and means heretofore unavailable. We need greater agility within our various cabinet departments-both to achieve internal adjustments that'll facilitate economic growth along with external adjustments facilitating geo-political influence.

                            A coherant nat'l energy policy will be a very good test-bed for such an intellectual revitalization.

                            We've got to leave the Burger Kings behind. Red Seven called that illustration correctly and is a manifestation of the Vietnam syndrome. Our troops don't need outdoor steak barbeques and beer parties held on foreign soil (see Apolcalypse Now for visual effect). When we've time and money for that then it's time, instead, to come home. Mind you, I'm not opposed to Burger King. I simply prefer that their franchises spread on the backs of foreign stomachs-not ours'.

                            PAX AMERICANA has never been, nor should ever be, about win-lose. It's a guesstimate on my part but global net worth has risen far higher over the last six decades on our back than at any time over a comparable period in history. Part of that owes to a smaller world...but we helped to make it smaller. In so doing we've helped to facilitate global trade at a rate and pace that's blinding and befuddling to our ancestors.

                            Our favored battlefield should remain the economic arena and we should welcome competitors. American entreprenurial energy is the impetus and lifeblood behind our industrial might. That fuels all else possible in America and globally. At least it has to date. That entrepreneurial energy affords us a vision and agility still unmatched by our so-called competitors yet it's through internal/external competition that we hone our acumen and quicken our pulse and pace.

                            Our quality of life permits us access to the brightest minds on the planet. It remains America's advantage and the disadvantage of others. There are dangers, of course. Some who taste our lifestyle will never be assimilated. We've proven, however, remarkably adept at tempting a goodly majority to come and STAY.

                            When vast numbers of our home-grown citizens seek a better life elsewhere is when we'll know we've met the enemy and it is ourselves.

                            I don't fear a Chinese conquest of energy-laden CAR. The PRC has too many of its own internal contradictions yet unaddressed while ignoring the litany of impediments awaiting them outside their borders. To date they've been comfortably shielded from reality by the good ol' U.S. of A. Let us remember, though, who the PRC were only 45 years ago-a bamboo curtain and cultural revolution. What they've since become is a testament to our vision-not their's. That vision wasn't communicated via bayonets and boots but, instead, by Madison Avenue, television, Elvis Presley, Mickey Mouse and MTV.

                            So it is written. So let it be done...;)
                            "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                            "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                            Comment


                            • S-2, et al,

                              Indoctrination: The scope and nature of the volunteer force is not representative of the overall domestic public in America. A majority of the Armed Forces express the opposite view of the domestic population which are growing in the belief that America serves no purpose in the continuation of the conflicts in these troubled regions; and perpetuates more harm than good. The Armed Forces must, believe in their mission, if they are to be operationally effective. But the composition of the force is based on the fact that the volunteers, like the Rough Riders, already believed in the mission and the proposition that the US must go out and face the enemy, head-on.

                              Once on the battlefield, they find it almost unacceptable to abandon the perceived gains. This is replicated in the Foreign Service and the Intelligence Community. Because of the predisposed composition of the volunteers, this will not change. They believe it and cannot be changed.

                              Afghanistan:
                              • The assassination of President Karzai's half-brother (Ahmed Wali Karzai), a US ally and asset of the military and intelligence community, by the Taliban, demonstrates how close the Government in Exile is to the center of power; and how deep their reach is.
                              • While one can say overall violence in Afghanistan is slightly increasing, despite “indisputable progress” of ISAF; it is not a stabile condition. The level of disorder and violence is down only in areas that ISAF focuses it efforts. The gains are not retained for any substantial period after ISAF moves-on to other priorities.
                              • As the US withdraw begins, it is not reasonable to assume that gains will not begin to deteriorate.
                              • It must also be remembered that the areas in which the Taliban have control, the level of violence is ALSO down. The overall level of violence is not a true indicator of the success of the mission.


                              Iraq:
                              • Much to the surprise of many, the anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, the King Maker in Iraq, has indicated that he has no intention of reactivating the Mahdi Army (internal anti-Government Insurgent); but, qualified the pledge with a threat to engage an elite unit to oppose USF-I if the US deployments go beyond the agreed upon scheduled departure.
                              • USF-I indicates there is forensic evidence that Iran is behind the recent attacks that have killed over a dozen US military personnel in recent weeks. Tehran denies this; but there are links for which we cannot discount covert support to Moqtada al-Sadr and the Shia militants in Iraq, who are being trained by Iranians to target US troops.
                              • Nuri al-Malik (Prime Minister of Iraq) opposes the actions taken by the UE and US to stepped up sanctions on Syria. Nuri al-Malik is attempting to persuade the EU to break-away from the US position with the promise of gas and oil from Iraq. Iraq's position is that regional stability is interlinked with Syria, and that Syria needs stronger economic ties and open commerce. This would undermine the current US efforts by Ambassador Ford to join with the Arab Spring (anti-Government) movement.


                              Pakistan:
                              • With an economy in disarray, an Islamist insurgency, ethnic gangs violence and inept public officials, Pakistan is a country ripe for regime change from internal forces. The rift over the termination of Osama bin Laden only serves to accentuate the troubles between the US and PAK. Adding to the public perception that the US Intelligence and Military activities operate without impunity only serves to amplify the mutual distrust that exists between the two nations.


                              US ability to reconcile the stability efforts with these three regions places in question the approach that has been adopted and the continued investment.

                              Most Respectfully,
                              R

                              Comment


                              • With U.S. Set to Leave Afghanistan, Echoes of 1989
                                http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/wo...pagewanted=all

                                I dont know it is worth paying to help keep afloat such a corrupt and culturally foreign system in Afghanistan. I think much will depend on the post-Karzai era, if there is to be a post-Karzai leadership when he is expected to step-down. He is arguably personally responsible for much of the dysfunction and disillusionment with the 'system' from within that very system, let alone the alienation much of the population feels against it. So whats the point paying for its survival against the forces of nature that are against it? Afghanistan is a lost cause for the Afghans themselves.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X