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?
Well, it's seeming that it's deliberate Obama policy to release OPSEC details even as the operations occur. This level of confidence in accuracy and detail can only come from Sanger being briefed. I'm no longer in two minds, Obama no longer has the best interests of the US in mind, if he ever had.
I disagree. Obama has done a better job than Bush at fighting the enemy. He just likes to showboat.
The historic record says otherwise. Bush destroyed Iraq, Al Qaeda, and Taliban Afghanistan. Obama caught the motherfuck. In terms of military accomplishments, the former outshined the latter by an ocean. In terms of propaganda, Obama makes Bush look like a schoolboy.
Originally posted by Officer of EngineersView Post
The historic record says otherwise. Bush destroyed Iraq, Al Qaeda, and Taliban Afghanistan. Obama caught the motherfuck. In terms of military accomplishments, the former outshined the latter by an ocean. In terms of propaganda, Obama makes Bush look like a schoolboy.
Sir, Bush got bogged down in Iraq and ignored AQ and the Taliban, allowing them to regroup.
Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
-Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry
AQ is gone as a fighting organization. Taliban Afghanistan won't come back. What would replace the current Karzai regime is anbody's guest but it won't be Omar. He's too far weakened and stronger warlords won't allow him back.
"Well, it's seeming that it's deliberate Obama policy to release OPSEC details even as the operations occur. This level of confidence in accuracy and detail can only come from Sanger being briefed. I'm no longer in two minds, Obama no longer has the best interests of the US in mind, if he ever had."
Iain,
That's quite a leap. I've no call to question his commitment to America's interests. He's had a chance to stop PREDATOR and hasn't. He's had a chance to kowtow to the Pakistanis and, repeatedly, hasn't. He's had a chance to ignore Yemen but hasn't. We haven't disengaged from the Horn of Africa. All of those areas remain focal points of U.S. directed threats.
I remain interested whether this "leak" is contrived. Perhaps it is not. If so, then it would seem there's been some grievous breach of nat'l security protocol. That's a serious charge and any administration should feel threatened by such whatever their motives.
If however, this leak has been contrived, then why? Has the virus, to include the means of insertion, already been uncovered by the Iranians beyond any continuing useful application? If so, then might it be such that the final utility of this attack comes by advising Iran (and others) of capabilities and a determination to employ them?
You and I might presume a bilateral dialogue between Iran and America here. There may, however, be other audiences of equal or greater interest. I simply don't know nor to what perceived benefit. Has America already been attacked? If so, is there a concern among our nat'l security apparatus of a perceived vulnerability to such or, equally, a perception of an unwillingness/unpreparedness to respond in kind?
With Iran, is there a desire to suggest they are already an active target-simply the ways and means are subject to determination? It can't be coincidence that this so-called "leak" occurs amidst renewed nuclear negotiations. Does this revelation represent an attempt to coerce greater good-faith negotiation from Iran? Again, I don't know.
"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
Originally posted by Officer of EngineersView Post
AQ is gone as a fighting organization.
Thanks to the increased drone strikes ushered in by Obama, depleting their leadership.
Taliban Afghanistan won't come back. What would replace the current Karzai regime is anbody's guest but it won't be Omar. He's too far weakened and stronger warlords won't allow him back.
Sir, Omar is just one horse. If no one props the GoA, the Taliban, in one form or another, will come back. Pakistan ensures it. Don't forget the Haqqanis or Hekmatyar.
Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
-Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry
Thanks to the increased drone strikes ushered in by Obama, depleting their leadership.
Yes, Obama stopped another taped message from Osama's persistent campaign of reminding the Americans that he's still alive, his best accomplishments to date since Tora Bora.
Sir, Omar is just one horse. If no one props the GoA, the Taliban, in one form or another, will come back. Pakistan ensures it. Don't forget the Haqqanis or Hekmatyar.
China, Russia, and Iran can outspend Pakistan blindfolded.
Originally posted by Officer of EngineersView Post
Yes, Obama stopped another taped message from Osama's persistent campaign of reminding the Americans that he's still alive, his best accomplishments to date since Tora Bora.
Sir, Osama aside, Obama killed off more of AQ's top leaders in a single year, than what Bush achieved in 7:
China, Russia, and Iran can outspend Pakistan blindfolded.
Neither one of those countries has so far played any major constructive role in Afghanistan. I don't see any of them geared up to step in against the Taliban waiting lock stock and barrel at Afghanistan's borders.
Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
-Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry
Unless you state that their mere survival is indication of AQ's effectiveness after Tora Bora, the evidence again does not support your view that Obama was more effective than Bush. Bush destroyed AQ's operational capabilities beyond repair and kept it that way. In those 7 years, AQ did not mount one single successful campaign, not even in target rich Iraq.
Neither one of those countries has so far played any major constructive role in Afghanistan. I don't see any of them geared up to step in against the Taliban waiting lock stock and barrel at Afghanistan's borders.
Because currently, no one has a clue who is going to come out on top. Not even the Taliban. Do you think for one second that Omar would not turn on his lieutenants or vice versa? But make no mistake, these countries have committed weapons and at times troops in anti-Taliban operations and they will do so again.
[B]If however, this leak has been contrived, then why? Has the virus, to include the means of insertion, already been uncovered by the Iranians beyond any continuing useful application? If so, then might it be such that the final utility of this attack comes by advising Iran (and others) of capabilities and a determination to employ them?
Steve:
Iran needs no reminders that they were hit by a virus. They may even have known before the Sanger leaks how it was done and who did it. But Iran could only accuse the US and Israel; reasonable doubt would remain in the public's mind. So, the question remains who stands to gain by the leaks?
Aside from Obama wanting to brag about his leadership, which I don't yet buy, I've heard two possible explanations. First, the US wants to put other nations on alert that the US has the ability to screw with them if they screw with us. (China, Russia...)
The second explanation is pretty esoteric, namely that the US wants to force a dialogue within the international community to establish legal definitions of cyber warfare, as was done for nuclear warfare, so that down the road treaties circumscribing its use can be entered into. For example, if X country slips a worm into Y country's computers controlling its electric grid, would that be an act of war, etc?
"Well, it's seeming that it's deliberate Obama policy to release OPSEC details even as the operations occur. This level of confidence in accuracy and detail can only come from Sanger being briefed. I'm no longer in two minds, Obama no longer has the best interests of the US in mind, if he ever had."
Iain,
That's quite a leap.
Not really. This was an ongoing top secret operation and I'm not talking about Stuxnet alone but the whole operation, presumably covering multiple theatres. If I were president or in some way responsible for it's ongoing secrecy I would be outraged. As McCain says, there's a very select group who had access to this level of detail and it should be easy to find out who leaked it. Sanger's information is detailed and extensive. There have been no denials from the White House that it is factually incorrect, there has been no investigation by the White House that I am aware of, the only response has been Obama saying 'wasn't me' with a smile as he flies to his next fundraiser.
President speak with fork tongue.
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
, there has been no investigation by the White House that I am aware of, the only response has been Obama saying 'wasn't me' with a smile as he flies to his next fundraiser.
President speak with fork tongue.
Two US Attorneys have been assigned to investigate. One is a Bush appointee and the other an Obama appointee. I think that was in the news last Thursday or Friday.
It's hard to believe this wasn't a calculated leak.
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato
"Iran needs no reminders that they were hit by a virus..."
Note "...(and others)...".
We're speculating on motives here without much clear understanding of background. If Parihaka is wrong about where Obama's best interests lie (which I believe) then for what parties and on what possible levels was this message intended?
"...the US wants to force a dialogue within the international community...so that down the road treaties circumscribing its use can be entered..."
Possible though it seems premature to these unsophisticated eyes.
I do think this leak is tied to ongoing negotiations with Iran. I'm unsure if it's intended as a very direct and public warning to Iran or, perhaps, others on the P-5+1 about our seriousness. Or both.
On another level, I wonder if this wasn't a shot across the bow of other global agents already engaged in such against the U.S.
Finally, was there a domestic element to this message? If so, whom and why? Internal pressure to act against Iran? Presidential electoral politics? Both? Something else?
Dunno.
In short, could there be a lot of messages to a lot of different people for a lot of different reasons? I don't know how many birds can be killed with one stone but it's got me thinking on those levels.
"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
Aside from Obama wanting to brag about his leadership, which I don't yet buy, I've heard two possible explanations. First, the US wants to put other nations on alert that the US has the ability to screw with them if they screw with us. (China, Russia...)
I'm sticking to what i said earlier, it tells the people what the west is doing about iran.
The second explanation is pretty esoteric, namely that the US wants to force a dialogue within the international community to establish legal definitions of cyber warfare, as was done for nuclear warfare, so that down the road treaties circumscribing its use can be entered into. For example, if X country slips a worm into Y country's computers controlling its electric grid, would that be an act of war, etc?
Think about the drone program. Classified just like this one. Has the same ramifications.
The US can get away with both now because there is no legal framework to deal with parties responsible beyond one's borders. To force a dialogue is to limit what the US can do in the future in the interests of preventing others doing the same to the US ?
Tweet
Comment