Seven Deadly Scenarios

[Mobbme]

"Did you know that the original title for War and Peace was War, What Is It Good For?"
- Jerry in The Marine Biologist

[crosservice]

Well, I originally went into a lengthy overture about Clausewitz and the extremes of war, and the oscillations from moderation to extreme and how the extreme then becomes moderate and the cycle repeats indefinately... but I try to celebrate minimalism, especially when a complex explanation can be boiled down Buddha-like to one of my signature one-liners.

[Shek]

Well, I originally went into a lengthy overture about Clausewitz and the extremes of war, and the oscillations from moderation to extreme and how the extreme then becomes moderate and the cycle repeats indefinately... but I try to celebrate minimalism, especially when a complex explanation can be boiled down Buddha-like to one of my signature one-liners.

Sorry, I'm not on the same wavelength and so I still don't understand your post.

[gabriel]

"Did you know that the original title for War and Peace was War, What Is It Good For?"
- Jerry in The Marine Biologist

I am reading a book from L. Tolstoy at this time in which he asks if :

Christ really expected his disciples to follow the teachings from the sermon on the mount?

[crosservice]

In my opinion the most immediate threat of those listed is Pakistan, though the total collapse scenario is not as scary as a scenario in which Pakistan experiences what I call a "soft-collapse", in other words the slow disolution of current control. In a country as unpredictable as Pakistan, and with the Taliban waiting at the gates, any perceived vacuum of power will immediately be filled. If the Taliban were smart they would create an environment of instability (check), install fighters in key strategic positions (check), and wage a war of attrition against the ruling class of the country until there was anarchy enough to seize power in such a way that the shift is accomplished slowly and unthreateningly. BY taking large steps that seem small they preclude the (probably imminent) United States intervention, and at this point there is a nuclear-armed pseduo-terrorist organization sitting between India and Afghanistan.

[Officer of Engineers]

Adam,

Please clarify because your post goes against all known facts. You forget that the biggest sponsor of Pakistan is not the US but China and a Talibanized Pakistan is against all Chinese interests.

And CDF members' already shot down Assasin's Mace.

[Shek]

And CDF members' already shot down Assasin's Mace.

Sir,
Can you post or PM a link? Thanks.

[crosservice]

Adam,

Please clarify because your post goes against all known facts. You forget that the biggest sponsor of Pakistan is not the US but China and a Talibanized Pakistan is against all Chinese interests.

And CDF members' already shot down Assasin's Mace.

Am I Adam?

At any rate, we currently have mechanisms in the works to provide billions of dollars in aid to help Pakistan fight insurgents (Link Aid Scenario). The problem is that once the dollars leave our hands there's really no tracking them.

Since the goal and focus of Pakistan seems to be nuclear arms production (Link Arms Buildup) I'm fairly confident that most of the aid provided will be funnelled into that endeavor.

All of that being said China is not in a good position politically or socially to intervene directly, and drying up the sponsorship well only means that the Taliban has a less well-equipped enemy to fight. When has taking money away from a government under attack made it easier for that country to defend itself? I'll look into backing this assumption up later.

[gabriel]

The problem is that once the dollars leave our hands there's really no tracking them.

Problem is that a more strict control over the aid to Pakistan would further undermine the public support for the war on terror on the PAK side.

[crosservice]

Problem is that a more strict control over the aid to Pakistan would further undermine the public support for the war on terror on the PAK side.

The truth is it doesn't matter either way: any aid given will be used as the Pakistani government sees fit, not as we do. Which was my point.

Aside from that I can't see how ear-marking the aid for use in counter-insurgency by the Pakistani government is damaging to the war on terror, or at least any more damaging than the misappropriation of funds toward their nuclear systems when they have a growing number of regional refugees. Seems like they're either putting the cart before the horse or practicing their own bit of hubris.

It seems that in a country with over a million displaced locals any support would be welcomed, especially considering the fact that their government is basically leaving the displaced flapping in the wind in favor of more and better nuclear facilities.

[crosservice]

And I'm referring specifically to military aid, not general economic, food, etc. Again, not that it matters.

[crosservice]

Adam,

Please clarify because your post goes against all known facts. You forget that the biggest sponsor of Pakistan is not the US but China and a Talibanized Pakistan is against all Chinese interests.

And CDF members' already shot down Assasin's Mace.

Assassin's Mace is just a convenient term for a strategy, not in this case a reference specifically to China's "Assassin's Mace."

Actually the Chinese "Assassin's Mace" seems like a pretty good reason not to get mixed up in regional skirmishes that will otherwise resolve themselves without their intervention.

[Officer of Engineers]

Am I Adam?

You put it in your intro, thought I throw it across.

At any rate, we currently have mechanisms in the works to provide billions of dollars in aid to help Pakistan fight insurgents (Link Aid Scenario). The problem is that once the dollars leave our hands there's really no tracking them.

Since the goal and focus of Pakistan seems to be nuclear arms production (Link Arms Buildup) I'm fairly confident that most of the aid provided will be funnelled into that endeavor.

You do realize that China is the source of all Pakistani nuclear arms, including the CHIC-4 warhead blueprint.

All of that being said China is not in a good position politically or socially to intervene directly, and drying up the sponsorship well only means that the Taliban has a less well-equipped enemy to fight. When has taking money away from a government under attack made it easier for that country to defend itself? I'll look into backing this assumption up later.

Considering that the Chinese are the major weapons supplier to the Pakistani Army, surpassing the US by at least a factor of 2, I think you under-estimate the importance of China in Pakistan.

In fact, if you look at the Pakistani reaction to kidnapped Americans as to kidnapped Chinese, you will note the immediate and ruthless response by the Pakistani Army.

Assassin's Mace is just a convenient term for a strategy, not in this case a reference specifically to China's "Assassin's Mace."

Actually the Chinese "Assassin's Mace" seems like a pretty good reason not to get mixed up in regional skirmishes that will otherwise resolve themselves without their intervention.

Sa Shou Jiang is a cultural reference, not a military one. It is akin to the "sucker punch" reference in the West. There is no such Assasin Mace strategy nor writing within the Chinese military just as we don't use "sucker punch" in ours. Most Chinese got introduce to the term through comic books about Ancient Chinese kung fu secrets.

[NUS]

Throughout history, many different empires have ruled and fallen. I've heard the same thing against the U.S. But is it not fair to say the U.S has pretty much secured its future? They have bases in almost every country around the world, they have major influences in countries that no one has even heard of, and they're not shy about accessing oil that was once not in their grasps.

It does not matter.
All empires collapsed from within. Bases and wars will only speed up this process.

[Officer of Engineers]

Sir,
Can you post or PM a link? Thanks.

Major,

There is really nothing to post. Some one took a comic book reference and made a big deal out of it. There is no Assasin's Mace doctrine. Sa Shou Jiang is a cultural reference used much like the "bogey man." Some ancient assasins apparently got their job done without leaving a mark (usually poison) but claimed to have super squirrel kung fu move (dim mark) that kill the man with a single touch.

As it is, you can make Sa Shiou Jiang into anything you want because there is no legitimate doctrine behind it. It is like calling ambush tactics the "sucker punch" doctrine.