Strategists UP! [Archive] - Professional Soldiers ®

x-factor

04-20-2007, 20:29

NousDefionsDoc

04-20-2007, 20:31

Afghanis are not Arabs.

brandonm

04-20-2007, 20:38

Let me preface by saying that I don't support pulling out of Iraq, but the argument (I would think) goes something like this:

1) Pulling out of Iraq allows us to focus our limited resources on a country where the population is more supportive of US/NATO troops on their soil...by extension, we can win definitively in Afghanistan (implicitly including capturing/killing of UBL and Zawahiri).
2) By pulling out of Iraq we rehabilitate our international image thereby renewing the US/European friendship, adding Arab support, and sapping the jihadist movement of its cause celebre.
3) Pulling out of Iraq also allows us to "reconstitute" the "broken" military.
4) Pulling out of Iraq will force the Iraqi government and populace to reconcile and the other countries in the region to assist in reconstruction, all out of their own self interests in avoiding a civil and/or regional war.

Bear in mind I think all of these are poorly reasoned and pulling out would be a disaster for everyone but Iran. However, if you guys want to work through the argument, I'm happy to play the RED CELL.

1.) May be true but we've been looking for Osama (possibly dead...) in that region for 6 years now and not much luck there. I doubt you'd want that war in Afghanistan either.

2.) I don't believe pulling out of Iraq will suddenly patch up any "damages" done to our international relations. In my opinion, it will just give Iranians and other Arab countries something to point to and say "See, the Great Satan can be defeated!" and could be a catalyst to more aggressive policies by Middle Eastern countries.

3.) Not sure exactly what you mean by this, please expound.

4.) Fair point, but from what I have heard and read the Iraqi security forces still have a way to go before they are capable of providing the security to prevent the country from falling into total chaos.

x-factor

04-20-2007, 20:47

Afghanis are not Arabs.

I know. My bad, is should have typed that out better. The argument goes that a pullout from Iraq will boost support for the US among moderate Arabs, which will help us in Afghanistan and the GWOT in general.

3.) Not sure exactly what you mean by this, please expound.

This is specifically the Jack Murtha argument that says that the military, especially the Army, is overdeployed to the point that our ability to project power and/or respond to crises elsewhere in the world is compromised. Therefore, pulling out of Iraq would allow us to rebuild the military and preserve our long term military superiority.

NousDefionsDoc

04-20-2007, 20:52

How will moderate Arabs help us in A-stan?

Murthra
"I can't issue you that because if somebody comes in and asks for it, I won't have it to issue to them."

The Reaper

04-20-2007, 20:53

How will moderate Arabs help us in A-stan?

Murthra
"I can't issue you that because if somebody comes in and asks for it, I won't have it to issue to them."

Murtha was an S-4?

TR

x-factor

04-20-2007, 21:00

Strengthening moderate Arabs ostensiby cuts off (or at least cuts down) the flow of foreign fighters to Afghanistan and potentially adds Arab more militaries to the coalition roster. In the long term it supports political reform in the Arab world which addresses the long-term problem.

NousDefionsDoc

04-20-2007, 21:05

x-factor

04-20-2007, 21:11

I'm not understanding your counterpoint. I was talking about Arabs vis-a-vis the foreign fighters in and funding for jihad in Afghanistan.

(Again, just playing Red Cell here.)

kgoerz

04-21-2007, 00:12

By pulling out of Iraq we rehabilitate our international image thereby renewing the US/European friendship, adding Arab support, and sapping the jihadist movement of its cause celebre.

History shows Countries that surrender don't fare to well. Even if they have excuses for surrendering.

We invade a country with a promise of a better life. During our stay there the infrastructure is obliterated. The going gets ruff. Then we pull out thinking it will rehabilitate our image:eek: Don't think other people don't see that the large majority of Americans are not even effected by this war yet. Think our image is negative now. The new image after abandoning Iraq will be that we are weak, easily defeated, never to be trusted again. There is no rehabilitating from that.
Our children's children will be living with the consequences. I don't see us swinging any big swords in the future if we leave Iraq without being pushed out first. It would be the biggest Roll Over and Piss on yourself move in history.

brandonm

04-21-2007, 01:33

The new image after abandoning Iraq will be that we are weak, easily defeated, never to be trusted again. There is no rehabilitating from that.

Exactly what I was thinking. That would lead to middle eastern nations, and other nations that we have tenuous relations with (i.e. North Korea), to be become bolder in their actions.

Jack Moroney (RIP)

04-21-2007, 05:36

I know. My bad, is should have typed that out better. The argument goes that a pullout from Iraq will boost support for the US among moderate Arabs, which will help us in Afghanistan and the GWOT in general.
.

Your focus is too narrow. First of all you talk about Arabs as a homogenous grouping-they are not, they are, have been, and for the foreseeable future seem to be more identified with their tribes than their "country" or any other political grouping. Second we are not looking to deal with "moderate" Arabs but moderate "Islamists" the bulk of whom are not Arabs at all. Personally I do not think that there is such a beast as a moderate "Islamist", there may however be folks who practice a version of Islam that is somewhat less "stringent" than what the Q'uaran directs. Sort of like the various tenets practiced throughout everyother religion. We do not need to boost the support of the US among moderate Islamists but eliminate support of Islamic Fundamentalism within the muslim community-that is the center of gravity for this entire effort.

JGarcia

04-21-2007, 07:04

COL. JM,

I think most Americans tend to view Arabs as a homogeneous people, often the terms, "moderate arabs," is used in the media or other places.

I would like to offer an article about tribes and arabs. It's a good description of the mentality or culture in the arab lands.

http://stevenpressfield.com/content/op-ed2.asp

jbour13

04-21-2007, 08:55

My .02 FWIW

Emboldened muslim extremists use it as a tool to show young recruit base that the war against the infidels is a success. "We've ejected the Infidels from the Fertile Crescent, we are victorious!!!"

Madrassas become bigger business and attract a broader demogragphic to include women (already see an anomoly in AFG with this).

Arabs are Arabs and will stay on the IZ warfront and expand their base of power to meet their bigger goal of influencing their extremist version of the caliphate to take Israel.

Something to the affect of mobile trainers become more common and share their tales of "Glorious Jihad". This is good for recruitment, everyone wants to be a good Muslim. What better time than now. High payoff vs. threat.

Afghanistan would receive more US Troops, but will still be under the auspices of NATO (Need Alcohol To Operate due to the large Euro contingent) and ISAF (also regarded as I Suck At Fighting). Political barriers would still provide the same problems in gaining approvals to kill (what we do best).

That is to say that the AFG Gov't even lets us expand our troop levels without losing popularity among moderate Islamists who'd point out that were are indeed still infidels and the AFG Gov't is in bed with us.

Iran, go figure how much more they stand to learn if one battlefield shuts down. We know very little about them, they know way too much about us. This is gonna hurt us for a long time to come.

Hmmm, we go from guerilla conflict to more recognizable military structure (War of Movement). They would maintain the guerilla cells to keep a flexible force on hand, but would definately gain more popularity with a military force. The jihadists have been looking for broad acceptance in the mass public. Use of a successful Jihad in IZ pushes this and people may second guess their initial thoughts and support for the US. Fight for identity is now a mute point, fight for acceptance is coming to fruition, and fight for Pashtunistan (primary area they'd fight first, my belief) would become the new Jihad warfront.

Gents, I could talk for hours (and have). This could go good or bad depending on one key component:

Political acceptance here and abroad. Without the Dems accepting expansion, the world Politicians being in agreement, and the AFG government, nothing would fall into place for a success.

Team Sergeant

04-21-2007, 09:19

IMO the problem with the “moderate Arabs” and or the “moderate islamist” is they are not in power and never will be in power especially if we leave them to the “free range” insurgents/terrorists/jihadists etc.

Once we leave these free range jihadists will change their TTP’s. They will continue to be free range jihadists until they realize they must band together and form larger tribes or small armies and target the C&C of their tribal enemies. And the world will see a level of brutality not anticipated by the west. It’s going to be a race to be the king of the hill and only the strongest will win.

And, for a short time, we (the United States) will see a terrorist “reprieve” and the only reason why will be they are currently engaged in the struggle for their own tribal dominance. (Our own democrats will say this reprieve/peace is because of them and their current rule of the US Gov.)

When we leave certain middle eastern islamic countries will fund, equip, train and attempt to command their tribal cronies in Iraq. IMO iran and a few other ME countries have most likely already set up their own guerrilla networks and once we leave they will infiltrate iraq in a bid to take control through their “tribe” of choice. They are already doing just that but we are not allowing the strings of the free range jihadists to be tugged/influenced too greatly by any one country.

Once we leave and our own “countrymen” tell the world we failed in our attempt to set free the people of iraq we lose credibility/authority on a global scale. Democracy also loses credibility. The message will be that the USA does not finish what it starts and democracy doesn’t work for everyone will be the new islamic jihadists /middle eastern battle cry.

It’s going to be a mess for a few years, maybe less depending on the level of brutality employed. Once the dust settles in the "New" iraq the islamist jihadists will once again make plans to target the west and this time with a vengeance.

There will not be one Iraqi that has not been brutalized by the 5-7 years of war and once “united” (and I use that term loosely) they will speak with one voice. That voice will be one of extreme hate for the United States and its allies. I have little doubt that the reigning regime will be the “moderate islamists” or moderate anything.

If we do not stay and finish this our children’s children will be the ones paying a heavy price. The next time the jihadists attack it will not be a few thousand dead……

Team Sergeant

The Reaper

04-21-2007, 09:24

History shows Countries that surrender don't fare to well. Even if they have excuses for surrendering.

We invade a country with a promise of a better life. During our stay there the infrastructure is obliterated. The going gets ruff. Then we pull out thinking it will rehabilitate our image:eek: Don't think other people don't see that the large majority of Americans are not even effected by this war yet. Think our image is negative now. The new image after abandoning Iraq will be that we are weak, easily defeated, never to be trusted again. There is no rehabilitating from that.
Our children's children will be living with the consequences. I don't see us swinging any big swords in the future if we leave Iraq without being pushed out first. It would be the biggest Roll Over and Piss on yourself move in history.

Exactly.

Even after we dumped the Vietnam War back in the laps of the Vietnamese, widely viewed globally as "cutting and running", the impression of the US was damaged. Despite the huge tactical and strategic forces deployed across the planet in opposition to the Soviets, we were seen as weak. The Army and the people in it, were crushed and defeated in spirit for many years. When I came in in 1979, the Army was seen as a place for losers and misfits. I had a platoon full of dopers, racists of all colors, drop-outs, and general malcontents. People changed into civvies before going home so that their neighbors would not know what they did for a living.

We had to win in Grenada, Panama, and Desert Storm before shaking that rep, and the mere loss of 18 men in Mogadishu after which we "withdrew" started it all over again.

I do not want to see this happen, but I fear if we leave before accomplishing our mission, we weaken the image of the US, the national will of the country, the core of the military and how it will be perceived domestically and internationally.

After the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Axis of Weasels walked lightly and had their hats in hand. Now they kidnap and kill our soldiers with impunity. Why? Because we have shown weakness.

It would be better for us internationally to kill everyone in Iraq as a statement of power than to cut and run declaring the war lost. If we pull out before killing every bad guy there (and more arrive or are created every day), then we are going to see the NKs, Iranians, and their ilk developing nukes full speed ahead in clear violation of any treaty we might negotiate with them. Because we will be seen as weak, and the only way we can shake that is to show some power on a grand scale, like nuking the shit out of the Iranian or NK nuclear sites. They will attack us overseas and here at home, as our demoralized and defeated military hides in shame.

No, we have to win this before mentioning coming home, put a strong personality in charge (our Saddam), or just start lashing out at everyone who crosses us, beginning with the Iranians, and damn the consequences. To do otherwise is to doom our children to finishing this later and at much greater cost, probably on our own soil. And get started on an alternate energy program.

"Power flows from the muzzle of a gun." Or walk softly and carry a big stick, preferably with a pointy nail in it.

TR

x-factor

04-21-2007, 09:52

Your focus is too narrow. First of all you talk about Arabs as a homogenous grouping-they are not, they are, have been, and for the foreseeable future seem to be more identified with their tribes than their "country" or any other political grouping. Second we are not looking to deal with "moderate" Arabs but moderate "Islamists" the bulk of whom are not Arabs at all. Personally I do not think that there is such a beast as a moderate "Islamist", there may however be folks who practice a version of Islam that is somewhat less "stringent" than what the Q'uaran directs. Sort of like the various tenets practiced throughout everyother religion. We do not need to boost the support of the US among moderate Islamists but eliminate support of Islamic Fundamentalism within the muslim community-that is the center of gravity for this entire effort.

Nasser's message of pan-Arab nationalism was able to trascend tribalism and draw a broad following (so is the Islamist message for that matter), so the tribes may not be an impassable stumbling block in the same way that the perceived evils of democracy (embodied by Iraq) are. Second, by empowering secular Arabs you provide a visible alternative to the youth who might eventually become Islamists. Alternatively, it is not unreasonable to imagine an Islam-based government that is moderate (in the sense that it is not jihadist) in the same way that a seperation of church and state developed gradually in European history.

Whatever the case in the long-term, in the short term there's no hope of moderation by anyone as long as the US occupation is suffocating all arguments for anything but jihadism.

x-factor

04-21-2007, 10:02

The Reaper

04-21-2007, 10:23

TS/TR - Even assuming your "mega Lebanon" (for shorthand) scenario comes to pass after a US withdrawal, our special operations forces will remain to conduct the CT mission and assure that no jihadist elements gain significant control of the state or of any large territory (ie Al Anbar). Furthermore, continued training/support to the secular elements, most importantly the Iraqi Army, will prevent the state from slipping fulling into jihadist control.

(All this RED work is making me hungry...I'm going to go get a sandwich. I'll post my own opinions eventually.)

I wouldn't count on that.

When Congress says "OUT" they may mean completely. No US troops remaining. How many US military personnel remained in VN after 1973? And internal CT ops are the province of the Iraqi government, not us.

Furthermore, when we cannot control the jihadis with over 100,000 troops in country supporting the HN forces, I am not sure that we will be able to prevent their taking over after we are gone. Do you really think that they are all going to go back to whatever they did before the conflict started? Or will they turn Iraq into a religious state and then export terrorism against us around the world?

The Iraqi Army is proving to be of limited value, not sure that they can stand against jihadis, insurgents, and foreign troops after we leave. How did the ARVNs do after we left, with many more years of training, equipping, and support?

IIRC, Nasser was a ruthless dictator and was able to hold the people together by stringent control measures, threats, and intimidation.

Make sure that your assumptions are viable and realistic before making them. IMHO, flawed, overly optimistic assumptions are how we got to where we are in Iraq today.

TR

Jack Moroney (RIP)

04-21-2007, 10:58

Nasser's message of pan-Arab nationalism was able to trascend tribalism and draw a broad following (so is the Islamist message for that matter), so the tribes may not be an impassable stumbling block in the same way that the perceived evils of democracy (embodied by Iraq) are. Second, by empowering secular Arabs you provide a visible alternative to the youth who might eventually become Islamists. Alternatively, it is not unreasonable to imagine an Islam-based government that is moderate (in the sense that it is not jihadist) in the same way that a seperation of church and state developed gradually in European history.

Whatever the case in the long-term, in the short term there's no hope of moderation by anyone as long as the US occupation is suffocating all arguments for anything but jihadism.

Oh sure-that will happen when they start to use the Q'uaran as a coaster for a cold beer:rolleyes: The "US occupation" -give me a break!

SOCOM8721

04-21-2007, 12:02

On another thread I read where smeone wrote " A Method to their Madness"...

The Iraninan Government is playing their games to draw attention away from something...

What could it be...

The fact that they have been and will continue supplying the insurgenets in both Iraq and Afghanistan...

Then you have Palestine, Lebanon and on and on.

The pain we are feeling now comes from a previous presidency that allowed arms to be built up while trying to play housemaid in other regions only after those areas were allowed to get to the state that was as crazy as it was.

Then, when they decided to act it was a stage show that disgusted any and all true soldiers attempting to perform their jobs with their hands tied. (bosnia, serbia, somolia, haiti and so forth...)

Now, no matter what the press or anyone else wants to say, Our country (not just our president), our country with the full support of CONGRESS went to war againts an OPPRESSIVE DICTATORSHIP that has, was and would have continued the develpment of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons programs. They would used and would have continued to use them and sell them to be used around the world. You might think we found nothing...But you don't know what was tracked being moved out...

Now that we have taken care of that part of the mission, the rest of the mission has only begun. Anyone that reads history will see that in these regions the people only know force. The feudal (spelling?) systems go back generations. In mind and custom these are still the nomadic people of biblical times.

For the US to COMPLETELY withdraw, looking at this from the common, "I just shoot straight" laymans terms, will result in a vacuum that will have us, as a country right back there fighting for MORE ground than we have already in the future, if not the very near future.

STAY! FIGHT! FIGHT the way that they would. Take the gloves off, and rule in the manner that they are acclimated to. Is that not what we are taught and we teach to our SF soldiers and commanders...

When we go in, and we are in support of an insurgent or goverment troops backed by our government we advise but defer to the customs of our hosts...though they may be far from our own.

Those of you that will remember EL SALVADOR, HONDURAS and a few other places that cannot be mentioned here know what I am refering to. This does not make us what the Liberals and Dems want to portray us as... It is getting the job done on the terms and with the hands that are being delt to us.

Now if you do not think that IRAN will fill that void as well as support the ongoing operations in Afghanistan you need to read between the lines a little more.

Afghanistan accomplished two things for us. Getting to the Taliban and getting a hold on WMD prolifiration and developing technologies sales that were coming out of Pakistan. WE PUT THE PAKISTANIS ON NOTICE...

It was kind of like this, "Play or Pay." "If you choose not to PLAY the full recources of the United States Military will be brought forth upon you."

It also allows us the ability to have pressure on other areas within those regions where we need it and the abitlity to snoop and poop a little easier in the region as well.

This is war - strategy is to stay in the fight and win. If it takes us into other areas so be it.

If we do not. Keep your eye on the Saudis as well as the Iranians, Syrians, Lybians etc... They are up to NO GOOD. Funding for all of this shite has to come from somewhere. And why are the Saudi's so interested in Nuclear Technology - very quietly interested...

Our CIC did not and does not make these decisions lightly and without the advise and information needed to justify the ways and the means...

Stay, Fight, Win...

x-factor

04-21-2007, 12:06

When Congress says "OUT" they may mean completely. No US troops remaining. How many US military personnel remained in VN after 1973? And internal CT ops are the province of the Iraqi government, not us.

Every democratic withdrawal plan thats been floated has a disclaimer about leaving special ops in or near Iraq to conduct CT and the Vietnman comparison isn't really valid here. As for the Iraqi government and CT ops, its not likely that they'd block any actions against Al Qaeda elements.

Do you really think...

I don't really think any of this (well 95% of it, anyway). I'm just helping you guys get a workout.

The Iraqi Army is proving to be of limited value, not sure that they can stand against jihadis, insurgents, and foreign troops after we leave. How did the ARVNs do after we left, with many more years of training, equipping, and support?

The ARVN were doing alright until we pulled their funding and air support. That puts us back at the question of "complete withdrawal" vs "withdrawal of major combat troops".

IIRC, Nasser was a ruthless dictator and was able to hold the people together by stringent control measures, threats, and intimidation.

This is true (certainly thats how he dealt with the Muslim Brotherhood), but he also had a wide measure of genuine popular support until his armies got waxed by the Israelis.

Make sure that your assumptions are viable and realistic before making them. IMHO, flawed, overly optimistic assumptions are how we got to where we are in Iraq today.

The real me says: Nail on the head here.

The RED CELL says: Are your assumptions that Iraq will fall into the mega-Lebanon scenario and eventually sprout an extremist government any more realistic? What about your assumption that continued US presence has hope of improving the situation?

Peregrino

04-21-2007, 12:15

X-Factor - I hope your "own" opinions are of a higher intellectual caliber than your "Red Cell" agitations. Your current game reads like a page from the Democrat play book. It conveys the impression of a complete failure to understand the adversary's motivations and a lot of wishful thinking about their intentions and probable courses of action. That may be your intent, but it is not to the standards I expect of a discussion intended to inform and/or influence the core members (QPs and SF Candidates) of this board. If you insist on continuing this farce, base your "role playing" on a genuine appreciation/understanding of the enemy. It's what we expect of our analysts.

To this point all of your arguments have ignored the fact that a small group (in any culture), willing to use violence to further their agenda, can control any number of passive onlookers. Every strategy calling for influencing "moderate" Arabs fails to account for this fact or key aspects of Islamist culture (us vs. them). No, I don't believe in a monolithic Islam, at least not internal to the peoples of the ME despite the appearance (to us) of a “unified” Islam fighting the West. The "Are We At War With Islam" thread explores the question/problem in detail.

Nassar's pan-Arab dream died with him - at the hands of Islamist fanatics IIRC. The primary reason it existed in the first place is because Nassar wanted to revive Egypt's status (for his own ends) in regional power politics. Every attempt to revive pan-arabism since his assassination has been for similar reasons and any temporary success has been more a reflection of the "cult of personality" than any true desire on the part of Arabs in general for a trans-tribal/trans-national identity.

Let’s focus the discussion to help soldiers and those who support them to understand the probable implications of emerging national (US) policies and how the enemy can be expected to exploit anything they will perceive as weakness.

Peregrino

ETA: You posted while I was still typing. Somewhat better. Real "Red Cell" work is a lot more involved than parroting somebody else's playbook to incite a knee-jerk reaction.

x-factor

04-21-2007, 12:36

Peregrino - NDD's original question was "have they thought this through?" I'm expressing the counterargument from the "pro-withdrawal" opinion in the US domestic debate about the war, not playing from the jihadist position...which I thought was the desired tact. If my arguments have ignored a critical factor, its because the "pro-withdrawal" element does not see it as a critical factor. The point of the last page and a half, I think, is: yes the pro-withdrawal crowd has thought this through, but they're working from a very different set of assumptions about how the enemy thinks and how Arab/Muslim culture operates.

In anycase, I think you're right that politics part of the discussion has run its course by identifying specifically where the pro/con positions on withdrawal diverge. I'll redirect in my next post.

x-factor

04-21-2007, 13:27

1) Pulling out of Iraq allows us to focus our limited resources on a country where the population is more supportive of US/NATO troops on their soil...by extension, we can win definitively in Afghanistan (implicitly including capturing/killing of UBL and Zawahiri).

Pulling out of Iraq would allow us to focus more resources on Afghanistan and potentially, to win decisively. Even so, the "win in Afghanistan instead" argument is a red herring. Its better to continue with a grinding draw in both than to lose in Iraq.

2) By pulling out of Iraq we rehabilitate our international image thereby renewing the US/European friendship, adding Arab support, and sapping the jihadist movement of its cause celebre.

This is also a fundamentally flawed position. Pulling out of a stable Iraq (which i would assume is everyone's goal) would rehabilitate our image in the Arab world because it would prove what we've said the entire time, that we were not their to exploit, but to liberate. Pulling out at this stage will be viewed as an unequivocal defeat. Not only that but any horrors that follow will be blamed on the US by all sides: Sunnis will blame us for empowering the Shia, Kurds will blame us for abandoning them (again), the religious Shia will blame us for empowering the Sunni, the secular Shia will blame us for abandoning them, and the rest of the world (esp Europe) will continue to blame us for upsetting the apple cart in the first place.

In short, the damage to our international reputation is already done. The only way to mitigate it is to persevere to some sort of positive end.

3) Pulling out of Iraq also allows us to "reconstitute" the "broken" military.

While its true that the military needs a certain amount of reconstituting after the incredibly wearing op tempo of the last 5 years, this argument puts the cart completely before the horse. Having a superior military is a means, not an end. Pulling out to reconstitute the military amounts to pulling out to reconstitute just to go back in in 5, 10, or 15 years and under worse circumstances.

4) Pulling out of Iraq will force the Iraqi government and populace to reconcile and the other countries in the region to assist in reconstruction, all out of their own self interests in avoiding a civil and/or regional war.

TR said it best: overpositive assumptions got us into this mess. Hoping that a withdrawal will prompt a national reconciliation is pie in the sky. Polling and anecdotal reporting clearly shows that the only thing stopping an all out civil war is a tenuous trust in the impartiality of the US military. Faith in the neighboring countries' good will is likewise a pipe dream. Lebanon could not be clearer proof of that.

In my opinion, TS (1119) and TR (1124) nailed the most likely scenario to follow a precipitous US withdrawal from Iraq: a mega-Lebanon governed as city-states and regional warlords beholden to outside powers. Whether that situation would evolve into something else is more difficult to see.

Ethnic cleansing could reorder the demographics and create three relatively homogeneous states or the Shia majority could succeed in establishing order over the whole country, but I think its most likely that the country would just continue to limp along in a state of general neo-feudal chaos, just as Lebanon has.

A key question is where the next center of jihad would be following a US withdrawal from Iraq. There'd be a certain amount of flow back to Afghanistan, but I think its more likely that jihadists, using Iraq as a base, would target Jordan and/or Lebanon as the next logical step. Lebanon offers a staging area for attacks against Israel as well as an opportunity to kill "Crusaders" (meaning the European peacekeepers) on Muslim soil. Jordan also offers the same opportunity to strike Israel, as well as allowing them to "encircle" Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, going after Jordan give the jihadists a chance to campaign against King Abdullah, the most vocal and visible moderate/Westernized/apostate ruler in the Muslim world. Add to this the emotional satisfaction in "avenging" Zarqawi and I think Jordan would find itself under siege very soon after the fall of Iraq.

SRT31B

04-21-2007, 14:46

What happens in A-stan if we runaway from Iraq?

The same thing that has been happening up till now, only instead of just having problems primarily in the southern sectors it will expand to encompass the entire country. Instead of having two different arenas for foreign fighters to pick from, they will gravitate to the one area we still maintain a major presence in.

I cannot speak for Iraq as I have not had to take that trip yet, but as for good old IROA, I can say fairly confidently that a withdrawl in Iraq will serve only to intensify the conflict there.

Pulling out of Iraq would allow us to focus more resources on Afghanistan and potentially, to win decisively.

No Sir, I do not see that as a possibility. The only way to win decisively in Afghanistan is if the United States were to take complete control of everything there. The reason for this: AFGHANISTAN IS JUST A BATTLEFIELD.

I know thats a bold statement to make... but it didn't come from me. During my stay at lovely BAF, I had the opportunity to work with some of Afghanistan's finest... as well as Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan, and a host of others. From their point of view, Afghanistan has always been, and will always be just a battlefield. Its just the "hotspot" for everyone to go to fight there battles. Of course, the presence of the United States in the area intensifies the draw to foreigners looking to please allah, but none the less it would be the same without us.

Perhaps in 20+ years after a continuous CA/PSY OPS presence the hostilities of the locals will have broken down and as the children and women have been educated by the schools we've built and treated by the hospitals we've established, but even then that won't "decisively win" anything.

9 out of 10 Afghans I saw had ZERO education (and they're all "only farmers" too, LOL). In order to affect change in Afghanistan (and other muslim countries) their religious beliefs must be "watered down" through secularism until they don't grow up believing that Americans are infidels and the only way they can be assured heaven is by dying in a jihad. That will happen over time with a continued presence on the ground until the current generations children's children are old enough and intelligent enough not to take verbatum what the mullah puts out.

How long did it take for people to get used to the idea of desegregation in this country? Even today we still have people in the deep south that hold on to that history of violent, extremist racism and it will never totally disappear. In the same way, you will never totally eradicate fundamentalist islamist bent on destruction of the west. But over time, and with the necessary support, the popular opinion of muslims can change just as American's opinions did after the civil rights movements.

Just my opinion.

kgoerz

04-21-2007, 15:10

SOCOM8721

04-21-2007, 15:41

Thus McCains statement early this week, "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb...Bomb, Bomb Iran"....

The Reaper

04-21-2007, 15:56

To go even further then the above. Theoretically our foreign relations and other dealings with the world. Would be better off if we Nuked Iraq and completely decimated the country. Making it inhospitable for years. Instead of retreating. As bad as it sounds. The message would be. Even if you defeat our ground forces. You will lose in the end. Make victory for the enemy impossible. Send the message that if we can't win, no one can. Anything is better then retreating. This tactic may be to extreme but this type of attitude is needed to win.

Concur.

Play ball with us, or get the bat shoved up your 4th POC.

TR

TF Kilo

04-21-2007, 16:47

They do manufacture directional drill-heads for oil drilling... we can just go at it sideways. LOL

Why play fair when the enemy isn't.

x-factor

04-21-2007, 19:33

They do manufacture directional drill-heads for oil drilling... we can just go at it sideways. LOL

Why play fair when the enemy isn't.

Illegal slant drilling was one of Saddam's justifications for invading Kuwait. Probably his only legitimate one. lol

futureSoldier

04-21-2007, 19:54

It would be better for us internationally to kill everyone in Iraq as a statement of power than to cut and run declaring the war lost. If we pull out before killing every bad guy there (and more arrive or are created every day), then we are going to see the NKs, Iranians, and their ilk developing nukes full speed ahead in clear violation of any treaty we might negotiate with them. Because we will be seen as weak, and the only way we can shake that is to show some power on a grand scale, like nuking the shit out of the Iranian or NK nuclear sites. They will attack us overseas and here at home, as our demoralized and defeated military hides in shame.

TR

Regardless of how you feel about the religion, it seems to me that a great deal of insight into our current situation in the Middle East can be found in the Old Testament (even from a strictly historical standpoint). You had a small tribe (Israel) that somehow defied the odds and survived amidst the great powers of the world. The main reason that Israel survived was because of their battle tactics-kill the enemy in a violent and thorough way (i.e. wipe them out). The book of Joshua details this method of warfare and its effects. Moreover, what problems they during these times and afterwards came because as ruthless as they were, they were not thorough enough. That is, according to the OT, the Israelites were not as harsh on the enemy as they should have been (as God commanded) and their lack of follow through ended up being the cause of future trouble and wars.

Years ago, before our current wars, I asked my dad why God would command this and teach this lesson. My father, who has a Doctor of Theology, explained that it is not to teach us to go and kill and be blindly violent, but rather to teach us that evil, in any form, cannot be negotiated with.

I believe that you all (TS, TR especially) have hit the nail on the head with regards to the consequences of us leaving and the lack of resolve of our nation. I just wanted to give a little bit of ancient support for your modern argument.

"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9

Joe

tk27

04-21-2007, 21:30

Years ago, before our current wars, I asked my dad why God would command this and teach this lesson. My father, who has a Doctor of Theology, explained that it is not to teach us to go and kill and be blindly violent, but rather to teach us that evil, in any form, cannot be negotiated with.
Not only can “evil” be negotiated with, it can be an ally. In fact we would be a lot better off if we had retained some “evil” on our side in the past couple years.

“Evil” Syria was a great help after 9/11, their help saved American lives, and they were more then willing to get their hands dirty for us. Killing the Muslim Brothers is a national pastime in Evil Syria. If it was like a playground game of dodgeball and I was picking a team for a round of ‘Crush the Jihadi’, I would pick the Alawites in the first couple rounds. Right up there with Mattis, and some steely-eyed Mongols vintage 1258.

We could use an Evildoer dictator in Iraq right now. We should grab some evil Baathist that we have in lock-up, give him the keys to Maliki’s office, have em squash some uppity Shia, get him Sarkis Soghanalian’s Dictator-Deluxe Starter Package of Chilean cluster bombs and dual use CBW infrastructure, then have him go kick the Iranians in the teeth a couple times.

I swear the neoconservative “we don’t deal with evil” is more dangerous than liberal dogooderism.

“A tragic situation exists precisely when virtue does not triumph but when it is still felt that man is nobler than the forces which destroy him.” – George Orwell

futureSoldier

04-22-2007, 08:26

Not only can “evil” be negotiated with, it can be an ally. In fact we would be a lot better off if we had retained some “evil” on our side in the past couple years.

“Evil” Syria was a great help after 9/11, their help saved American lives, and they were more then willing to get their hands dirty for us. Killing the Muslim Brothers is a national pastime in Evil Syria. If it was like a playground game of dodgeball and I was picking a team for a round of ‘Crush the Jihadi’, I would pick the Alawites in the first couple rounds. Right up there with Mattis, and some steely-eyed Mongols vintage 1258.

We could use an Evildoer dictator in Iraq right now. We should grab some evil Baathist that we have in lock-up, give him the keys to Maliki’s office, have em squash some uppity Shia, get him Sarkis Soghanalian’s Dictator-Deluxe Starter Package of Chilean cluster bombs and dual use CBW infrastructure, then have him go kick the Iranians in the teeth a couple times.

I swear the neoconservative “we don’t deal with evil” is more dangerous than liberal dogooderism.

“A tragic situation exists precisely when virtue does not triumph but when it is still felt that man is nobler than the forces which destroy him.” – George Orwell

Agreed. Like I said, we should not kill everyone who is "evil"-that is exactly the thought process that makes turns the Islamists into the killers that they are. My point is that you cannot negotiate or back away from evil that confronts you. If we leave and do not finish the job the world will see that we do not abide by this standard-that we are willing to negotiate with the evil that is threatening us. In other words, we are afraid and are giving into the fear, or we are blind and refuse to see the reality of what faces us. Either way we are weak and everyone will know it. The leader of the dog pack is only the leader as long as he asserts himself as the leader-otherwise he is attacked as weak.

Joe

tk27

04-22-2007, 10:24

The Reaper

04-22-2007, 10:45

I hear what you’re saying.
My concern is that this is what UBL wants. Draw us into a pit of quicksand where any “success” becomes pyrrhic due to resource, treasure, and moral costs. He has explicitly stated this, Afghanistan was the original aim, but Iraq has instead become it. Even Gen. Petraeus has stated that there is no military solution to Iraq.

UBL’s goal to is cause our internal decay and collapse from the cascading effects of our response. We are in a dire financial position. The dollar is on the verge of tanking, massive amounts of mortgage foreclosures are just a shot away, and energy cost and dependency will be doing nothing but increasing for years. I think any direct confrontation of Iran would be the tipping point of our nation’s implosion.

What would Fabius Maximus do?

I think you are drawing the wrong conclusion from what General Petraeus said. There is no solely military solution without the accompanying political, informational, and economic efforts. They will not work without a complementary military component.

I disagree with your assessment of our domestic position. The dollar is at a low, as it is periodically in a recurring cycle. A few mortgage lenders who overextended to people with marginal credit are in trouble. The vast majority of mortgages, particularly the fixed ones, are fine as long as people have jobs, an unemployment is, and has been, at near record low levels. As we have debated, ad nauseum, alternative energy sources should be pursued aggressively, as well as additional domestic reserves offshore and in the Arctic. I disagree about confronting Iran, though the effects on the energy market and our economy would be global and serious.

Not sure as to your Fabius Maximus question. Is he on our side, or the opposition's? Probably delay and attrit, in either case.

If you are so pessimistic, why do you bother? Do you really hate this country and our leadership that much? Is the solution to surrender, pull back to Fortress America, and hand the keys to the UN?

TR

x-factor

04-22-2007, 12:27

I'm with TR on the economy. We're at near-full employment and our productivity remains the highest in the world. Even the national debt, which I think is too high, is still very manageable when looked at as a percentage of GDP.

Plus, the energy costs argument cuts both ways. If we pull out of Iraq and the country goes mega-Lebanon, gas isn't exactly going to get cheaper.

Furthermore, Iran is in a peculiar situation with regard to oil. While they produce a large amount of the world's crude, a lack of refineries means that they actually import a lot of their petroleum. There's a reasonable argument that says Iran can't afford to use oil prices as a weapon and any threat to is just a bluff.

More broadly, I think we do the Iran question a disservice if we frame it as a simple confront/appease choice. Without rehashing the argument from the War With Islam thread, I think there's a middle ground where we can firmly contain Iran (especially by leveraging the Iranian population's discontent with the hardline government without necessarily escalating to a full scale conflict.

Team Sergeant

04-22-2007, 12:53

I think there's a middle ground where we can firmly contain Iran (especially by leveraging the Iranian population's discontent with the hardline government without necessarily escalating to a full scale conflict.

We needed to "contain" the USSR and stem the spread of communism and we did to a point.

iran containment, I'm sure they're happy with that while they go on developing their nuclear capabilities.

We are not going to be able to "contain" iran from exporting terrorism on a global scale, or training terorists, or funding terrorism.

Containment works great for those countries that seek world domination, not those that would welcome being left alone to their own devices.....

Who's making those "sophisticated" IED's and supplying them to the terrorists in iraq? oh, that's iran, not much containment there I guess. Please spare me the containment strategy......

What was your day job again?:rolleyes:

x-factor

04-22-2007, 13:46

I'm sure they're happy with that while they go on developing their nuclear capabilities.

As I said in the other thread, I'm including nuclear weapon denial as a cornerstone of the containment strategy.

We are not going to be able to "contain" iran from exporting terrorism on a global scale, or training terorists, or funding terrorism.

I disagree with this completely. We've never attempted to comprehensively address Iran.

Containment works great for those countries that seek world domination, not those that would welcome being left alone to their own devices.....

Iran is seeking regional domination and world power status. They haven't gone turtle waiting to get a nuke. Quite the opposite.

Who's making those "sophisticated" IED's and supplying them to the terrorists in iraq? oh, that's iran, not much containment there I guess. Please spare me the containment strategy......

Did I say containment = status quo? No. Iran is currenlty completely uncontained. Thats the problem.

What was your day job again?:rolleyes:

You're ascribing way too much passivity to "containment" than I mean.

When I say containment I'm talking about everything short of large-scale overt military action (unless its the only way to stop them from getting a nuke) to check Iranian influence: arming and training regional allies (under a formal anti-Iran alliance if possible), support to Iranian dissident groups (financial, diplomatic, etc), extensive and aggressive information operations to leverage Iranian public discontent, seizing weapons shipments to and from Iran, special operations against Iranian-backed terrorist groups outside Iranian territory, etc.

You know, a lot of the stuff you do on your day job. ;)

echoes

04-22-2007, 14:31

Nasser's message of pan-Arab nationalism was able to trascend tribalism and draw a broad following (so is the Islamist message for that matter), so the tribes may not be an impassable stumbling block in the same way that the perceived evils of democracy (embodied by Iraq) are. Second, by empowering secular Arabs you provide a visible alternative to the youth who might eventually become Islamists. Alternatively, it is not unreasonable to imagine an Islam-based government that is moderate (in the sense that it is not jihadist) in the same way that a seperation of church and state developed gradually in European history.

Whatever the case in the long-term, in the short term there's no hope of moderation by anyone as long as the US occupation is suffocating all arguments for anything but jihadism.

Greetings. I am not even going to try and be informed enough to have a worthwhile contribution to this thread, but if I may ask a question?

x

I was just cuious if you had a copy of A Border Passage: From Cairo to America--A Woman's Journey
by Leila Ahmed

Strangely, I thought I had read your above post somewhere? Maybe it is just a strong similarity.

Holly

RTK

04-22-2007, 14:42

What would Fabius Maximus do?

I hope you're not talking about that guy at Defense and the National Interest who I regularly shoot down on SWJ....

Jack Moroney (RIP)

04-22-2007, 14:43

Strangely, I thought I had read your above post somewhere? Maybe it is just a strong similarity.

Holly

Very interesting observation:D

x-factor

04-22-2007, 14:55

Never read it. But the idea of empowering moderate Arabs to reform the Mideast from the ground up is a common theme in a lot of academic circles.

I raised that point when i was playing the liberal contrarion position, but actually I'm more partial to COL JM's position. The idea of a "moderate Arab" wellspring of democratic reform is, to a certain extent, a white whale. Not that I think the Mideast is completely incapable of self-reform, but rather that Arab tribal culture and (even more so) Islam are so strong that its hard to imagine any liberal reform group gaining enough traction for true bottom up democracy.

I think the best hope for democracy in the Mideast is top-down not bottom-up. Enlightened, liberal leaders gently and steadily pushing their countries towards modernity, primarily through economic and education reform first (to create a middle class) and then gradually incorporating political and culture liberties. Look at Jordan, UAE, and Qatar and you'll see what I mean.

If you're interested in the question of "moderate Arabs"...You might want to check out "The Last Crusade: Americanism and the Islamic Reformation." I'm only about halfway through it, but it makes a very convincing argument on how Islamic theology has basically suffocated native political reform and technological advancement at almost every stage of Islamic history.

http://www.amazon.com/Last-Crusade-Americanism-Islamic-Reformation/dp/159797062X/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-1154870-6736657?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177275549&sr=8-2

The Reaper

04-22-2007, 15:10

Speaking of alternative realities-

This would mostly be moot, if we did not need Iran's oil on the world market, and they were getting something more like the $10 per barrel it should be worth.

Total naval and air blockade, nothing in or out without our permission. And none of that "oil for food" corruption, either.

And billions to resistance movements within Iran. Shoe on the other foot, as it were.

TR

Jack Moroney (RIP)

04-22-2007, 15:12

but actually I'm more partial to COL JM's position.]

Now that is a frightening position, you sure don't want to let that out anywhere in the that five sided concrete sphinter you work in:D

CoLawman

04-22-2007, 17:41

UBL’s goal to is cause our internal decay and collapse from the cascading effects of our response. We are in a dire financial position. The dollar is on the verge of tanking, massive amounts of mortgage foreclosures are just a shot away, and energy cost and dependency will be doing nothing but increasing for years. I think any direct confrontation of Iran would be the tipping point of our nation’s implosion.

We have a very very healthy economy that has been chugging along since The Dimocrat Jimmy Carter left office. There have been some peaks and valleys but that is how economics work. TAX CUTS! Read all about it. John Kennedy recognized the importance of TAX CUTS to fuel an economy. Too bad the new Dimocrats cannot grasp this idea.

If our economy was as fragile as you say, how is it that 9/11 had such a minimal effect? In fact the TAX CUT imposed by President Bush and the Republicans rescued us as we were reeling.

One only has to look at The DOW to realize we are steaming ahead! Hard to understand how we vaulted over 13000 to pull back (just a tad) when only weeks ago the Bears were wringing their hands yelling SELL when the Dow took a 400 point hit.

Foreclosures are always going to occur. Heck, my county led the nation in Forclosures at the end of 2006 and again first quarter 2007. Haven't seen any banks closing. The only thing closing are Mortgage Companies. Weak Mortgage Companies! There is always a shake out after a boom. Look at the Software Industry. That boom created a bubble that burst and turned alot of undeserving millionaires into wage earners, where they belonged in the first place.

1. Mortgage rates 6.125 percent to end the week.
2. Dow record territory.
3. CD rates. 5 to 6% for 1 year CD's.
4. Pay raises keeping up with inflation
5. European and Asian stock markets UP.

The biggest risk to our economy is the threat of a trade war with China. If that happens look out. By the way. It is the Dimocrats that have been introducing legislation to penalize (tarrifs) China for failing to adjust the (Yuan) or whatever the hell their currency is. If there is a trade war you can blame the Dimocrats, not the Chinese. Fortunately the Fed Chairman has made several trips to China to work on the problem. I believe the Vice Premier is coming to the US to meet with him regarding this issue.

The only consolation I derive from Dimocrats is the fact that they are for the most part bears and their money has been sitting in fixed rate accounts for years, missing the earnings.

Our economy is resilient just as most Americans are resilient. The sky is not falling.

Energy costs have been artificially low for decades. I still spend a smaller percentage in energy costs than I did in the 70's. Luxury items such as cars, audio video equipment are drastically reduced ration wise than in the 70's. The only thing that has continually appreciated is real estate (ignoring the 70's and early 80's of course, damn Carter) and the stock market.

Remember the October 1987 dive in the stock market. It took exactly 11 months to regain all losses (if you stayed put) . !987 finished in plus territory regardless of the scariest day on Wall Street since the depression.

Okay enough ranting.

Team Sergeant

04-23-2007, 10:09

As I said in the other thread, I'm including nuclear weapon denial as a cornerstone of the containment strategy.

I disagree with this completely. We've never attempted to comprehensively address Iran.

Iran is seeking regional domination and world power status. They haven't gone turtle waiting to get a nuke. Quite the opposite.

Did I say containment = status quo? No. Iran is currenlty completely uncontained. Thats the problem.

You're ascribing way too much passivity to "containment" than I mean.

When I say containment I'm talking about everything short of large-scale overt military action (unless its the only way to stop them from getting a nuke) to check Iranian influence: arming and training regional allies (under a formal anti-Iran alliance if possible), support to Iranian dissident groups (financial, diplomatic, etc), extensive and aggressive information operations to leverage Iranian public discontent, seizing weapons shipments to and from Iran, special operations against Iranian-backed terrorist groups outside Iranian territory, etc.

You know, a lot of the stuff you do on your day job. ;)

x-factor,

I am done with you. I disagree with just about every “opinion” you’ve posted. And the DoD is paying you for your expert advice? I’m beginning to doubt that you are who you say you are and I’m thinking you are a semi well read school kid with a desire to debate some SF soldiers.

Hey x-factor, we’ve “comprehensively addressed” IRAQ and guess what, the terrorists are still killing hundreds a day.

We cannot stop the terrorism in iraq after almost five full years with total access and you assume we can contain iran if we “comprehensively address Iran.” I’m sure in your opinion will be “we’ve not yet comprehensively addressed IRAQ”. Spare me your retort it will fall on deaf ears.

“Iran is seeking regional domination and world power status.” So are my brothers kids, but right now they’re not much of a threat to anyone and they just make a lot of noise.

Guess you’ve not read about the iran-iraq war? Was pretty much a stalemate. Who’s iran a threat too, Dubai, UAE, Liechtenstein? Let me tell you a secret, I seriously doubt iran is going to invade anyone anytime in the near future, and definitely not with a US carrier group and thousands of soldiers in the region. Want to bet they too were watching the “Shock and Awe” demonstration we gave a few years ago? Do you think the US will allow iran to attack or gain control of any OPEC nations? Again spare me.

“Iran is currently completely uncontained. Thats the problem.”
Let me tell ya x-factor, if iran though it were completely uncontained they would have already annexed Dubai, UAE and Liechtenstein. Save your “the sky is falling” for someone else, it ain’t going to work on me.

One last issue x-factor

“If you're interested in the question of "moderate Arabs"...You might want to check out "The Last Crusade: Americanism and the Islamic Reformation." I'm only about halfway through it, but it makes a very convincing argument on how Islamic theology has basically suffocated native political reform and technological advancement at almost every stage of Islamic history.”
Seems to me that General George Patton already made that point a few “DECADES” ago. If we don’t learn from history we are damned to repeat it. All you’re doing is reading and regurgitating what was ALREADY said long long ago.

"To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of Muhammad and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have kept on developing"
General George S. Patton: The War as I Knew it, 1974, p.49

Do not address me again, not on this board. I do not believe you are who you say you are and I’m not going to continue discuss ME policy with a HS kid.

Team Sergeant

tk27

04-23-2007, 12:41

I think you are drawing the wrong conclusion from what General Petraeus said. There is no solely military solution without the accompanying political, informational, and economic efforts. They will not work without a complementary military component.
Fair enough. Where then are our political, informational and economic efforts? Has the military not been on the forefront in these efforts the past decade? It seems like the rest of our Government has shed the capabilities since the end of the Cold War and the military has picked up that role.

A few mortgage lenders who overextended to people with marginal credit are in trouble.
Delinquencies in the $1.3 trillion credit-mortgage market was 12.6% last quarter, up from 11.7% the previous quarter. And exceeded 13% in subprime adjustable-rate loans. The subprime market is 1/5th of the home loan market, about $1.3 trillion in loans outstanding, that's around the size of California's economy. I would say its more than a few, and I would say it is not a marginal problem. Don't take my word for it, Lou Ranieri is a legend on the Street and pioneered the mortgage bond, check into what he's saying.

The vast majority of mortgages, particularly the fixed ones, are fine as long as people have jobs, an unemployment is, and has been, at near record low levels.
What's keeping the unemployment rate low? Just what kind of jobs are talking about? Gary Shilling's got a study out that's found 52.6% of Americans receive significant portions of their income from government programs (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0416/p01s04-usec.html). That's a Welfare State TR. You are a conservative aren't you?

Look at our economy TR, how much of our job creation since the turn of the millennia has been in house: selling, building, buyership-enabling, furnishing, and everything else home related? Around half, I dont have the hard numbers with me.

What has enabled this TR? I would say consumer confidence, easy money lending, and cheap energy. The last two are heading the way of the Dodo and Crystal Pepsi.

As we have debated, ad nauseum, alternative energy sources should be pursued aggressively, as well as additional domestic reserves offshore and in the Arctic.
Yes we have, however, the key factor is Cost. The end of cheap oil is over. Period. The economy still has not adjusted to this, the estimates of what the cascading effects of this will bring run from dire to noticeable shocks to the system.

If you are so pessimistic, why do you bother? Do you really hate this country and our leadership that much? Is the solution to surrender, pull back to Fortress America, and hand the keys to the UN?
First of all I don't think I have ever made favorable reference to the UN in a post. Second,what is wrong with pessimism if I see it warranted? Have you not seen what the "don't worry be-happy" dogmatic optimism of neoconservatism has done? Haven't we had enough Feith based initiatives?

I love our country, but I think our leadership are bunch of damn fools. Albeit fools I helped get re-elected.

You make the issue with me. Fine, you have that right, and you're a man whose opinion I value more than most. But you did not address the main arch of my post: "My concern is that this is what UBL wants........UBL’s goal to is cause our internal decay and collapse from the cascading effects of our response." You disagreed with my assessment of this strategies effect, what of it being UBL's strategy? Isn't it what you would do if you were him?

I hope you're not talking about that guy at Defense and the National Interest who I regularly shoot down on SWJ....
No, there was an actual Fabius Maximus. I would like to hear your thoughts on his work though, PM me your links to the SWJ threads.

Nonsensical prattle
Everything you say I have heard before. I know what you are going to say before you say it. I even know some of the Svengali's who came up with it, I was even going to be one.

kgoerz

04-23-2007, 13:49

x-factor,

I am done with you. I disagree with just about every “opinion” you’ve posted. And the DoD is paying you for your expert advice? I’m beginning to doubt that you are who you say you are and I’m thinking you are a semi well read school kid with a desire to debate some SF soldiers.

Hell the X in his name, I thought he was an 18X. Definitely tell he read a lot of books, There is a big difference between being Smart and having spent time in School. Ill never call a student dumb because he can't shoot, he just never had someone teach him to shoot. I will call a Student Dumb for showing up on NDD's Range the first day with an Umbrella:eek:

NousDefionsDoc

04-23-2007, 15:11

Hell the X in his name, I thought he was an 18X. Definitely tell he read a lot of books, There is a big difference between being Smart and having spent time in School. Ill never call a student dumb because he can't shoot, he just never had someone teach him to shoot. I will call a Student Dumb for showing up on NDD's Range the first day with an Umbrella:eek:
LOL :p

x-factor

04-23-2007, 15:57

I am done with you. I disagree with just about every “opinion” you’ve posted. And the DoD is paying you for your expert advice? I’m beginning to doubt that you are who you say you are and I’m thinking you are a semi well read school kid with a desire to debate some SF soldiers.

I disagree with you on foreign policy, so I must be a lying teenager?

I have never been dishonest or disrespectful, but you can believe what you like. I'm not here to pick fights.

The Reaper

04-23-2007, 16:16

What's keeping the unemployment rate low? Just what kind of jobs are talking about? Gary Shilling's got a study out that's found 52.6% of Americans receive significant portions of their income from government programs (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0416/p01s04-usec.html). That's a Welfare State TR. You are a conservative aren't you?

I collect a government check.

Am I on welfare?

Are you implying somehow that all people who receive income from the government are leeches, tk?

What have you sacrified for your freedom, and this country, young man?

TR

CoLawman

04-23-2007, 21:14

Nonsensical Prattle.....Everything you say I have heard before. I know what you are going to say before you say it. I even know some of the Svengali's who came up with it, I was even going to be one.

tk27 just to set the record straight you have quoted me as writing "nonsensical prattel" wasn't my post you pulled that from. Since You attributed that to my tag, and I did not write it, I assume you are referencing my post as nonsensical prattle.

I am going to allow you a wide berth as I am merely a guest here. You might want to consider perception before you display brash behavior. With your credentials I would spend more time listening rather than being so pretentious. Reflect on how opinionated you appear on such a wide and complex cornucopia of issues.

Simple minded ( as you accuse me) perhaps. At your age I had already served my country, fathered three children, been employed in my chosen career for several years and acquired a college education. Compare that to student.........bartender.........simple minded indeed!

TENGU

04-24-2007, 07:20

Thanks Team Sargeant, for the relieve from x-factor. He might of been tryimg to play Red Cell, but enough is enough! All I heard was the same sound bytes
that the Left always try when their arguments are lost.

Kqoerz: I thought I was the only nut thinking a pragmatic way to absolute victory in Iraq with no more U.S. loses: Nuke it. It would also be the end solution for the Palestinian/Israeli conflict: Nuke the Golden Dome in Jerusalem'
(5 K would suffice) so no one can claim it for decades and maybe the next few generations might figure out a peaceful co-existence! Of course, we would never hear the end of it from the UN, Human Rights Cartels and all other envious Turd World countries, and of course our EU "Friends".

Reaper: A Naval Blockade to Iran is the first step to bring those little facists in line. That along with our new sources of energy and drilling in Anwar and the Gulf off Florida, to bring the price of oil to $10 would be the end of the Iranians, Venezuela's Chavez and the rest of Opec would have to drink their oil
and then we'll see how much power and threats they end with. Of course we would first have to defeat our own Domestic enemies that under the guise of "Enviormentalists" (New banner for the Commies), hinder our progress to drill for new oil resources and hinder new refineries being built.

tk27

04-24-2007, 11:57

I collect a government check.

Am I on welfare?

Are you implying somehow that all people who receive income from the government are leeches, tk?
No. You are a smart man; you know that the word welfare and the term welfare state both have different meanings. And as a student of history you know the implications for countries whose citizens derive much of their income from the government.

Make this into a personal and invasive issue if you must TR. But please do not do so and not address the main arc of the post:
"My concern is that this is what UBL wants........UBL’s goal to is cause our internal decay and collapse from the cascading effects of our response."

What have you sacrified for your freedom, and this country, young man?
That’s actually an ancillary point I have been trying to make over the past year. Nothing has been asked of the citizens, no sacrifice or anything, in this “War on Terrorism” or “War with Islam”. So to say we are in one of these wars and ask nothing of the citizens we are either A: going about this the wrong way, or B: not at war with either Terrorism or Islam.

RTK

04-24-2007, 12:04

That’s actually an ancillary point I have been trying to make over the past year. Nothing has been asked of the citizens, no sacrifice or anything, in this “War on Terrorism” or “War with Islam”. So to say we are in one of these wars and ask nothing of the citizens we are either A: going about this the wrong way, or B: not at war with either Terrorism or Islam.

Some wait to be asked. Some act anyways. Hence sheep v. sheepdogs.

kgoerz

04-24-2007, 12:41

LOL :p

Maybe you guys need some kind of color code system like Homeland Security use to have.

LOL :p

Maybe you guys need some kind of color code system like Homeland Security use to have.

Kqoerz: I thought I was the only nut thinking a pragmatic way to absolute victory in Iraq with no more U.S. loses: Nuke it. It would also be the end solution for the Palestinian/Israeli conflict: Nuke the Golden Dome in Jerusalem'
(5 K would suffice) so no one can claim it for decades and maybe the next few generations might figure out a peaceful co-existence! Of course, we would never hear the end of it from the UN, Human Rights Cartels and all other envious Turd World countries, and of course our EU "Friends".

If we pull out without giving winning the War every effort at our disposal. We will never hear the end of it from the Enemy. What other Countries and Political Groups think is of little importance when your countries very existence is at stake. We should also care about what some of those third Turd Countries (as you describe them) Think then the U.N. and Human Rights Groups. Don't think the United States would be any quicker to pull the trigger on a Nuclear Bomb then the so called peace loving European Countries, if they were faced with the same threat.
Yes we are the only Country to use a Nuclear Bomb in a world war. We were also the only country to have one during a World War, a war that threatens your very existence. Depending on opinions this war is or isn't a world conflict. But it is definitely heading in that direction. Lets see what other Nuclear powers do when involved as deeply as we are. Using Nuclear Weapons might be looked at differently in a few years. AMD isn't going to scare Iran when the time comes. The U.S losing in Iraq is going to wipe out our ability to just about scare anyone.

x-factor

04-24-2007, 18:48

Thanks Team Sargeant, for the relieve from x-factor. He might of been tryimg to play Red Cell, but enough is enough! All I heard was the same sound bytes that the Left always try when their arguments are lost.

I find it kind of funny that I'm branded a Leftist for basically saying that we should adapt and apply Reagan's Rollback Policy for 1980s Latin America to Iran.

jbour13

04-24-2007, 18:54

I find it kind of funny that I'm branded a Leftist for basically saying that we should adapt and apply Reagan's Rollback Policy for 1980s Latin America to Iran.

I learned this about 2 years ago....Stop digging!

You will not sway the opinions of those that influence policy at it's most pure level.

I have been at most all levels of intel and I don't necessarily agree with your strategy or opinions. I'm no more right or wrong on the subject than you are.

For the sake of arguing, lets just leave it at that, we agree to disagree.

Peregrino

04-24-2007, 19:14

All right guys - Play nice. Yes, I found X-factor's initial posts annoying too. I said something about it and he "lifted and shifted". Well and good. His most recent posts have met the standards for stimulating discussion - whether you agree with his conclusions or not. FWIW I don't, but then I don't get excited when I have an intellectual disagreement.

tk27 - You're skating on thin ice. The tone of your comments is out of line for a guest and detracts from your argument. Make your points without the attitude.

'Nuff said - Peregrino

x-factor

04-24-2007, 20:14

I appreciate that.

For what its worth, I apologize if I inadvertently hassled anyone (TS especially). I'm just looking for a good exchange. Moving on.

CoLawman

04-24-2007, 21:26

Some wait to be asked. Some act anyways. Hence sheep v. sheepdogs.

Bullseye!

Jack Moroney (RIP)

04-25-2007, 05:06

I appreciate that.

For what its worth, I apologize if I inadvertently hassled anyone (TS especially). I'm just looking for a good exchange. Moving on.

An apology is not necessary, but you do remind me of a person that sort of likes to keep on picking at a scab knowing the expected result will be to make it bleed which will either draw attention to the wound or aggravate the medic that just patched it up. I think you need to understand this community a little better, most folks of our ilk say exactly what we mean when dealing with one another. Straight talk, even with differing opinions, is valued but wavering positions on the same subject frustrate clean communication and no one wants to deal with anyone who presents a position that seems to change from moment to moment. You see we can accept and deal with differences in all things and we have learned to adapt to fit the target audience to get our point across or to accomplish whatever task is required. While we can deal with ambiguity we do not care for those who willing create it just to see what chaos they can create. In simplier terms, don't crap were you wish to eat.