GWOT War Game

[NousDefionsDoc]

I keep hearing libs crying about Iraq and taking resources from 'Stan, being unnecessary, etc. Let's war game it a little.

What is the sitrep today if:
1. We did not conduct operations against Iraq
2. We sent 170k troops in Afghanistan

This seems to be what they are saying, so I'll play.

[brownapple]

You mean, we are isolated in a mountainous country and busy providing logistical support to a huge number of soldiers that have no mission?

[NousDefionsDoc]

Roger GH, or we can talk about doing 'Stan like we did it and no follow on to Iraq.

[Roguish Lawyer]

I see at least two questions:

1. To what extent was Iraq providing (or likely to provide) support or safe haven for terrorists before the invasion?

2. To what extent would the replacement of Hussein's regime with a democratic republic strategically disadvantage the terrorists?

:munchin:

[brownapple]

I see at least two questions:

1. To what extent was Iraq providing (or likely to provide) support or safe haven for terrorists before the invasion?

Abu Nidal was there. The Arab Liberation Front was founded by the Iraqis.

2. To what extent would the replacement of Hussein's regime with a democratic republic strategically disadvantage the terrorists?

:munchin:


Assuming success as a capitilist society, a huge amount of pressure on the regimes in the region.

Look at SE Asia and think of Thailand as Iraq.

[NousDefionsDoc]

1. Before OEF - as GH said, he was already providing safe haven for terrorists in general. Let's not forget the WRC bombing AWG that ran there after the did. There are others. After OEF and before OIF - I think he would have invited the Mossad in if he thought it would help him stay in power.

2. I'm not sure I follow the question - but I see GH's point.

I'm sure Jimbo or somebody else will correct me, but I don't see AQ as an operating system, but rather as a virus. Look at what they did to the Taliban in 'Stan. They come in, take over, ruin everything and move on. This is not uncommon - the 26 of July Movement did it to the communists in Cuba.

Maybe a good analogy for AQ is the Department of Homeland Defense. Its not really an organization, but rather a collective of previous organizations kind of working together in some cases and kind of not in others. Does anybody really think Tom Ridge is telling the Border Patrol or Coast Guard what to do? Does anybody really believe the FBI and CIA are working together?

I am thinking that if we did OEF and not OIF, the AQ simply move to Iraq, where they are welcomed with open arms by Hussein. I think POTUS put his queen (the elections) at risk to deny the enemy part of the board. A very ballsy move if that is true. I think it is a logical assumption that they would go to Iraq when forced out of 'Stan. We know there were overtures before. And we thought (I still do) that Iraq had WMD. So, knowing we couldn't get them all in 'Stan and the Pakistanis etc would help them, OIF kept them from taking Iraq whole and in league with Hussein. See what I mean? OIF wasn't about WMD or freeing Hadji so he could vote - it ws about denying AQ Iraq.

POTUS is playing chess and everybody assumes he's playing checkers. Good position to be in.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Chess or Checkers? (http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/359)

Mmmm

[The Reaper]

1. Before OEF - as GH said, he was already providing safe haven for terrorists in general. Let's not forget the WRC bombing AWG that ran there after the did. There are others. After OEF and before OIF - I think he would have invited the Mossad in if he thought it would help him stay in power.

2. I'm not sure I follow the question - but I see GH's point.

I'm sure Jimbo or somebody else will correct me, but I don't see AQ as an operating system, but rather as a virus. Look at what they did to the Taliban in 'Stan. They come in, take over, ruin everything and move on. This is not uncommon - the 26 of July Movement did it to the communists in Cuba.

Maybe a good analogy for AQ is the Department of Homeland Defense. Its not really an organization, but rather a collective of previous organizations kind of working together in some cases and kind of not in others. Does anybody really think Tom Ridge is telling the Border Patrol or Coast Guard what to do? Does anybody really believe the FBI and CIA are working together?

I am thinking that if we did OEF and not OIF, the AQ simply move to Iraq, where they are welcomed with open arms by Hussein. I think POTUS put his queen (the elections) at risk to deny the enemy part of the board. A very ballsy move if that is true. I think it is a logical assumption that they would go to Iraq when forced out of 'Stan. We know there were overtures before. And we thought (I still do) that Iraq had WMD. So, knowing we couldn't get them all in 'Stan and the Pakistanis etc would help them, OIF kept them from taking Iraq whole and in league with Hussein. See what I mean? OIF wasn't about WMD or freeing Hadji so he could vote - it ws about denying AQ Iraq.

POTUS is playing chess and everybody assumes he's playing checkers. Good position to be in.

I like the way you think, my brother.

TR

[casey]

NDD - nicely put, - could not agree more. I think that keeping AQ as a focal point in the GWOT is important, as it gives an instant bad guy identifier without being politically incorrect. I also firmly believe that AQ is now a "professional consulting corporation"/movement that helps any jihadist group(s) (Turkish Hezbollah etc.) which seeks to remove all kuffar's from sacred land via the use of large scale operations.

[Roguish Lawyer]

So, knowing we couldn't get them all in 'Stan and the Pakistanis etc would help them, OIF kept them from taking Iraq whole and in league with Hussein. See what I mean? OIF wasn't about WMD or freeing Hadji so he could vote - it ws about denying AQ Iraq.

POTUS is playing chess and everybody assumes he's playing checkers. Good position to be in.

Well, did it work? Are they not there? (Have we abandoned the "shooting gallery" theory?) Have we made it harder to attack them in other places, like Iran and Kashmir? :munchin

[NousDefionsDoc]

They are probably there, but they are not
1. In control
2. In any great numbers

And there are thousands of terrorist killers and infrastructure set up to combat them.

I think it has not made them harder to hit in other places, but has rather served as a warning for those that would harbor them.

I am not an SME, but:

1. The GWOT is not about nation states. Forget names like Iraq, Afghanistan, borders etc. Islamo-fascism is a security community. The terrorists are no more Iraqi or Afgan or Yemeni or Saudi than I am. They are Islamo-fascists, period. Hadji for short.

2. It has very little to do with religion - religion is the vehicle. It is about the will to power. To say,as libs do, that SF and UBL wouldn't have worked together is naive to the point of absurdity. It is feasible that given final victory, one would have turned on the other, but we will never know now - Thank you POTUS.

3. "War on Terror" is an intentional PC mis-nomer. Terror is a tactic, you do not make war on tactics. They weren't ready to call it the War on Islamo-fascism" and the world wasn't ready to hear it. Give it five years. It cannot be won. But the alternative is even more unacceptable. Therefore we fight.

4. Poverty does not create terrorism. In fact the opposite is usually true. Terrorist leaders very rarely come from poverty and there are millions of poor people in the world that do not blow things up. This lib BS was disproved in the '70s. There has been some correlation with terrorism and a perceived lack of legitimacy, a voice, etc. Again, the same reason for seeking WMD. A seat at the table. give me one, or I'll blow up your buildings. This is why it is imperative for UBL to establish a caliphate - a physical presence. The UN won't recognize a cave. I doubt he cares too much where it is for now.

5. The "social change" that is required is the indoctrination of Muslim youth in madrasas. It has nothing to do with capitalism or democracy. Youth are adventurous by nature. You give them a target and moral relativism (lack of punishment) and they will attack. Cuban and NK youth are communist true believers - they are not conducting homicide bomb attacks much.

Again, I don't think it was about Iraq, I think it was about preventing AQ from going where we most did not want them to be. At least on their own terms.

[Roguish Lawyer]

1. The GWOT is not about nation states. Forget names like Iraq, Afghanistan, borders etc. Islamo-fascism is a security community. The terrorists are no more Iraqi or Afgan or Yemeni or Saudi than I am. They are Islamo-fascists, period. Hadji for short.

2. It has very little to do with religion - religion is the vehicle. It is about the will to power. To say,as libs do, that SF and UBL wouldn't have worked together is naive to the point of absurdity. It is feasible that given final victory, one would have turned on the other, but we will never know now - Thank you POTUS.

Agreed.



3. "War on Terror" is an intentional PC mis-nomer. Terror is a tactic, you do not make war on tactics. They weren't ready to call it the War on Islamo-fascism" and the world wasn't ready to hear it. Give it five years. It cannot be won. But the alternative is even more unacceptable. Therefore we fight.

Agreed, but I have a real problem with this. This is a big part of the reason why people say things like "Bush lied." I believe we need to trust the American people and be straight with them. We need to educate them about the threat we face and what is necessary to deal with it. Then they will support it. Otherwise, we'll have the resistance we are seeing today.

I love this topic. Where is Jimbo? :munchin

[NousDefionsDoc]

I don't think the mis-nomer is so much about the US population, but rather perhaps a nod to diplomacy and coalition building. How many of Musharef's subjects would understand the difference between Islamo-fascist and Islam? I doubt they even have a word that translates well.

And as for trusting the US population, don't forget about 48% of them voted for Kerry, many if not most of them for no other reason than his name isn't Bush. Are those people trustworthy with the stakes so high?

I will say this, betting so much on SH's WMD was a huge mistake in my view. Whoever came up with that one ought to be doing 8-count bodybuilders until '08.

And if you come out public with your strategy, it won't work. If he had said "We're going into so AQ won't go there when we beat them in 'Stan!" They would have either run there first or done something completely different. You don't tell someone you're risking your queen when you are doing it, or even after. ;)

[Roguish Lawyer]

And if you come out public with your strategy, it won't work. If he had said "We're going into so AQ won't go there when we beat them in 'Stan!" They would have either run there first or done something completely different. You don't tell someone you're risking your queen when you are doing it, or even after. ;)

I'm not in favor of announcing the strategy, but we need to do a much better job of defining the enemy for the public, IMO.

[The Reaper]

How many of Musharef's subjects would understand the difference between Islamo-fascist and Islam?

I don't think that there is any such thing as Islamo-fascism.

Islamo-anarchism, or Islamo-nihilism, maybe.

Global Islamo-theocracy is probably the best description, if they really do want to establich the Caliphate.

'Course, if I was the Caliph, I'd have their crazy-asses beheaded, before they threatened me.

You can't call it what it is, because both our media and theirs would call your factual definition of them racism, or at least discriminatory.

TR

[Roguish Lawyer]

You can't call it what it is, because both our media and theirs would call your factual definition of them racism, or at least discriminatory.

Right, can't say anything bad about Nazis or cannibals either . . .

:munchin

[The Reaper]

Right, can't say anything bad about Nazis or cannibals either . . .

:munchin

No, no, Nazis are dead white guys, they are fair game.

You just can't infer that they were Germans, who it appears are now cool again.

TR

[Martin]

Where is Jimbo?

He didn't respond to PM a few weeks ago and his last post was when he said there was no point in him being here, during the Letherman complaints.

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=43451#post43451