View Full Version : Iraq militants seize Mosul
So instead of AQ primarily being in A-stan, they are taking over an oil rich country to run their "business" out of.
Didn't some people tell Barry that this is EXACTLY what would happen when he pulled all our troops out?
Iraq militants seize Mosul, causing thousands to flee
Iraq's prime minister has asked parliament to declare a state of emergency after Islamist militants effectively took control of Mosul and much of its province of Nineveh.
Nouri Maliki said "vital areas" of the city had been seized; some 150,000 people are believed to have fled.
Troops fled Mosul as hundreds of jihadists from the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) overran it.
The US has said ISIS threatens not just Iraq, but the entire region.
State department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the situation in Mosul, Iraq's second city, was "extremely serious" and that the US supported "a strong, co-ordinated response to push back against this aggression".
Security sources also told the BBC on Tuesday that fierce fighting had erupted between Iraqi forces and ISIS fighters in a town called Rashad near Kirkuk, south-east of Mosul.
In a televised announced, Mr Maliki said that security forces had been placed on a state of "maximum alert".
He also said he had asked parliament to declare a state of emergency - which would broaden arrest powers and allow curfews to be imposed - and a "general mobilisation" of civilians.
<snip>
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27778112
Why would he listen He Knows All !!!!!
Streck-Fu
06-10-2014, 13:41
ISIS now has lots of US made equipment to use.....Fucking great....:rolleyes:
A dress rehearsal? Bank on it. (The Golan Heights? Lebanon? Iraqi oilfields?)
The feeling that this is not the end is unavoidable.
ISIS now has lots of US made equipment to use.....Fucking great....:rolleyes:
Sounds like they picked up some decent equipment.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-10/al-qaeda-militants-capture-us-blackhawk-helicopters-iraq
http://patdollard.com/2014/06/thanks-barack-al-qaeda-capture-fleet-of-u-s-humvees-given-to-iraq/
Oldrotorhead
06-10-2014, 20:40
And Obama says. " I didn't know there was a problem before I saw it in the news the same as you did."
Never served in OIF, but for my 10th Group Brothers. I know this is a salt on the wounds.
Streck-Fu
06-11-2014, 05:56
In the continuing saga of AQ taking over and Iraq, they strike a financial windfall. I hope they use it to fight Iran....LINK (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/mosul-seized-jihadis-loot-429m-citys-central-bank-make-isis-worlds-richest-terror-force-1452190)
Mosul Seized: Jihadis Loot $429m from City's Central Bank to Make Isis World's Richest Terror Force
The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams (Isis) has become the richest terror group ever after looting 500 billion Iraqi dinars - the equivalent of $429m (£256m) - from Mosul's central bank, according to the regional governor.
Nineveh governor Atheel al-Nujaifi confirmed Kurdish televison reports that Isis militants had stolen millions from numerous banks across Mosul. A large quantity of gold bullion is also believed to have been stolen.
Following the siege of the country's second city, the bounty collected by the group has left it richer than al-Qaeda itself and as wealthy as small nations such as Tonga, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands and the Falkland Islands.
The financial assets that the group now possess are likely to worsen the Iraqi governement's struggle to defeat the insurgency, which is aimed at creating an Islamic state across the Syrian-Iraqi border.
They can probably use some of that money to learn to fly the Blackhawks and operate the HUMVEES they captured as well.
This is an example of why Bush (GW) should have not sent us into Iraq.
Basenshukai
06-11-2014, 07:36
This is an example of why Bush (JW) should have not sent us into Iraq.
Yep.
The Reaper
06-11-2014, 08:54
This is an example of why Bush (JW) should have not sent us into Iraq.
Not sure who Bush (JW) was, but I don't think the problem was going into Iraq as much as not accepting a realistic end state and getting out as soon as that was realized.
TR
Loadsmasher
06-11-2014, 14:08
Sounds like they picked up some decent equipment.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-10/al-qaeda-militants-capture-us-blackhawk-helicopters-iraq
http://patdollard.com/2014/06/thanks-barack-al-qaeda-capture-fleet-of-u-s-humvees-given-to-iraq/
What is the over/under on how long it takes to get those hawks and 58's across the border to Iran?
greyshade
06-11-2014, 16:13
Tikrit also seized.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27800319
Loadsmasher
06-11-2014, 16:30
BBC is reporting that ISIS is moving captured Iraqi armor into Syria.
The Reaper
06-11-2014, 16:32
I am surprised that they haven't called in the Shias or Kurds yet.
That will be when the real fun starts.
TR
Iraqi Kurds 'fully control Kirkuk' as army flees
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27809051
"Iraqi Kurdish forces say they have taken full control of the northern oil city of Kirkuk as the army flees before an Islamist offensive nearby.
"The whole of Kirkuk has fallen into the hands of peshmerga," Kurdish spokesman Jabbar Yawar told Reuters. "No Iraq army remains in Kirkuk now."..."
...well good for the Kurdistan National Army.
dcrews46
06-12-2014, 09:40
I want to preface this question by acknowleging I am not well versed in the history of the shite-sunni conflict through time, and have little knowledge of the situation in this region beyond what the typical layperson would gather through recreational reading and following the national news.
That said, I do not understand why the US does not support (overtly) the Kurdish movement in Iraq, Syria and beyond. The Kurds seem to be the most (relatively) politically-stable, progressively leaning faction in this whole mess that is the Middle East, and would seem an obvious choice for official support.
This garbage between the shite and sunni seems far too complex for our leadership in Washington to comprehend and act upon. While we support the Syrian rebel movement, we oppose the ISIS rebels in Iraq--- Am I missing something or arn't we essentially fighting ourselves???:confused: Everything I read is this faction vs that faction vs this group vs that etc., why are we not addressing the underlying sectarian problem instead of supporting these groups that inevitably have alternative motives for the fight? The only group that, to me, seems above the fray (again, relatively) is the Kurds.
I realize any answer to this question may be way outside the scope of this thread and I appologize for that, but I feel this issue of sectarian conflict needs to be revisited. I have been extremely frustrated by the simplification of the issues by national news reports that seem quite irresonsible and even misleading.:munchin
...That said, I do not understand why the US does not support (overtly) the Kurdish movement in Iraq, Syria and beyond. ....
And beyond is Turkey.
Would you agree to Russia supporting a Latino Revolution in Northern Mexico?
Utah Bob
06-12-2014, 11:18
Despite our 11 year attempt to shore up and train the Iraqi forces, I guess it will be a Blackhawk instead of a Huey leaving the roof of the embassy this time.
Deja vu.:mad:
Santayana was right. But we knew that.
I want to preface this question by acknowleging I am not well versed in the history of the shite-sunni conflict through time, and have little knowledge of the situation in this region beyond what the typical layperson would gather through recreational reading and following the national news.
That said, I do not understand why the US does not support (overtly) the Kurdish movement in Iraq, Syria and beyond. The Kurds seem to be the most (relatively) politically-stable, progressively leaning faction in this whole mess that is the Middle East, and would seem an obvious choice for official support.
This garbage between the shiite and sunni seems far too complex for our leadership in Washington to comprehend and act upon. While we support the Syrian rebel movement, we oppose the ISIS rebels in Iraq--- Am I missing something or aren't we essentially fighting ourselves???:confused: Everything I read is this faction vs that faction vs this group vs that etc., why are we not addressing the underlying sectarian problem instead of supporting these groups that inevitably have alternative motives for the fight? The only group that, to me, seems above the fray (again, relatively) is the Kurds.
I realize any answer to this question may be way outside the scope of this thread and I apologize for that, but I feel this issue of sectarian conflict needs to be revisited. I have been extremely frustrated by the simplification of the issues by national news reports that seem quite irresponsible and even misleading.:munchinIf the goddamn Department of State would concentrate more on their fucking jobs instead of promoting LBGT agendas OCONUS; they would've seen this shit coming!
mojaveman
06-12-2014, 11:54
Despite our 11 year attempt to shore up and train the Iraqi forces, I guess it will be a Blackhawk instead of a Huey leaving the roof of the embassy this time.
Deja vu.:mad:
Santayana was right. But we knew that.
Exactly what I've been thinking. South Vietnam held out for two years after we left.
imho, we never should have backed a Shia government aligned with Iran. Regardless how despotic. Saddam kept them in check.
BHO will not go back in unless the oil flow stops; and you can bet your cookies HRC is happy to have exited her position as SoS.
Streck-Fu
06-12-2014, 12:30
I don't see how anyone could have predicted this. After all:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLteUGkvpOc
Trapper John
06-12-2014, 12:45
Well this all tracks back, as usual, to a lack of coherence of goals and a misalignment of values. Do the US and Turkey have shared goals, alignment of values? What about the US and Pakistan? Answer: No and Hell no. You are exactly correct Guy, this shit was predictable. It's not like this is the first time we made the mistake!
dcrews46 you are correct IMO, we should have been supporting the Kurds (they reminded me very much of the Yards and the Bodes from another bygone era). But no, the DoS policy wonks say we need to preserve our relations with the "moderate" Turks and Pakistanis. Hmmm....who was it that denied us airbases in OEF and who was it that gave OBL and the Taliban safe harbor? Oh yeah, our valued allies Turkey and Pakistan.
So can someone please explain to me why the hell we keep making these same f'n mistakes with a few notable exceptions as Richard pointed out elsewhere. ;) The apparent level of stupidity/idiocy that is operating in our government is just absolutely incomprehensible to me.
Oh, and this is not just a problem within the present Admin., this shit is generational and transcends all political ideology so please don't make this a political argument - it really and truly is not. :confused:
Call goes out in Baghdad for volunteers to sign and help fight the approaching ISIS.
'They lined the streets with the decapitated heads of police and soldiers': Iraqi refugee reveals the horrors of the jihadi takeover as Baghdad vows to fight back
The decapitated heads of policeman and soldiers are lining the streets of Iraq's second biggest city, a displaced Iraqi woman has revealed today.
Speaking from a refugee camp to which she fled after jihadists from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) invaded the northern city of Mosul yesterday, the woman told of the horrific treatment meted out to those who do not bow to their rapidly expanding rule.
It would appear the occupation of Mosul was made easier by the fact a reported 30,000 soldiers fled, leaving behind tanks and firearms as just 800 fighters approached.
Less than 24 hours later the oil-rich city of Tikrit was captured by the militants, who then turned their attentions to the capital as it pushes ahead with its aim to overthrow the western-backed government as part of its goal to create an Islamic emirate spanning both sides of the Iraq-Syria border.
As jihadists now march on Baghdad after capturing swathes of northern Iraq male supporters of the government turned out in droves today to enlist and fight back.
They signed up in droves to fight against the advancing ISIS forces. The refugee woman, speaking to the BBC, told how the victims' heads were in placed in rows - a trademark, trophy-style execution favoured by ISIS militants.
Government forces have so far managed to stall the militants' remarkably rapid advance near Samarra, a city just 110km (68 miles) north of Baghdad and they are now bombing insurgent positions in and around Mosul - although 500,000 residents have fled, 1.3 million citizens remain in the city.
Meanwhile Iraqi Kurds seized control of the major northern oil city of Kirkuk today as the central government's army abandoned its posts. (Who was that asking about the Kurds?)
<snip>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2655977/ISIS-militants-march-Baghdad-trademark-bullet-head-gets-way-control-north.html
Map from link ....
It continues.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/12/americans-being-evacuated-from-iraqi-air-base/
Getting worser and worser.
Oldrotorhead
06-12-2014, 13:43
GUY
If the goddamn Department of State would concentrate more on their fucking jobs instead of promoting LBGT agendas OCONUS; they would've seen this shit coming!
__________________
Don't forget advertising for under-age illegal immigrants in Central America.
BHO didn't want to stay in Iraq and the Iraqis didn't want American Military to stay soooooo, fark um. Knowing this Administration and what they would like for ROE would anyone want to go help Iraq at this point?
From a selfish stand point wouldn't it be better to let the Sunni and Shia kill each other?
(Consider the source, still ...)
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/6/12/iraq-kirkuk-isil.html
PokemonMaster
06-12-2014, 19:52
As jihadists take aim at Baghdad, Iran steps in to help historical foe
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/06/12/as-jihadists-take-aim-at-baghdad-iran-steps-in-to-help-historical-foe/
What does this mean for US foreign policy?
As jihadists take aim at Baghdad, Iran steps in to help historical foe
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/06/12/as-jihadists-take-aim-at-baghdad-iran-steps-in-to-help-historical-foe/
What does this mean for US foreign policy?
WTF?!? This blows my mind!
IRGC Commander Sulemani is offering the Quds Force to come to Iraq's aid? And he pledges to send in two additional Brigades who just so happen to be Asab al-Haq (AAH) and Khataib Hezbollah (KH).
Those MFers were responsible for many US deaths in OIF, especially due to EFPs. Males my blood boil to think this might actually happen.
I wonder what happened to ol' Muqtada al-Sadr in the midst of all this?
I wonder what happened to ol' Muqtada al-Sadr in the midst of all this?
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13930321001349
Detonics
06-12-2014, 21:58
So the head of the ISIS was in U.S. custody up until 4 years ago..... and now has a 10M$ price on his head? :confused:
Gleaning snippets from open source, it appears that the ISOF Brigade is the only IA unit holding it together and putting up a fight----a testament to the efforts of our ODAs. It's little consolation given the overall situation, however.
Trapper John
06-13-2014, 06:16
The Iranians coming to the "aid" of of the Iraqis? Hmmmm....looks like a convenient way to "invade' Iraq. This is the camel's nose IMO. Iran wants to expand an Islamist state in the region and both Iran & Russia want an oil pipeline running through territory they control to a central distribution point in the Ukraine. That becomes a choke point for oil/gas flow to Europe and Russia will control the choke point.
Oh and BTW, the Russians know that the Chinese are driven by economics so Putin struck an oil deal with China that was bargain for the Chinese. Now they are happy and marginalized for the upcoming confrontation. ;) Putin is playing the game 3 moves ahead while we are playing reactionary catch up.
This is looking more and more ominous to me. :eek:
The BBC has a pretty good wrap up page where they bring a bunch of their stories on Iraq together.
http://www.bbc.com/news/24758587
So the head of the ISIS was in U.S. custody up until 4 years ago..... and now has a 10M$ price on his head? :confused:
Chaos and Confusion aka Hope and Change is a trademark of the Obama Administration, all the things they have done that 'just happen' that end up blowing up in our face it ain't just a coincidence.
America has already lost too many arms/legs/lives for these folks; no more. Sounds like an opportunity to arm all sides to faclitate them slaughtering each other for a couple of decades. Thats all they seem interested in anyway. Let that entire region burn.
The Reaper
06-13-2014, 10:00
Shades of April 1975.
It is a fortuitous time to be working to become self-sufficient in oil.
TR
Team Sergeant
06-13-2014, 10:05
For ten years Professionalsoldier.com has been saying that when US Forces leave Iraq and A-Stan what will happen. This is no surprise to us. And yeah it was all a waste of time, money and lives.
It's tribal warfare sunni vs. shia, and it will continue, forever.
A smart American administration will never place boots on the ground in the middle east again, we can attack from the air if/when we are attacked again.
When will that attack come? DHS doesn't have a clue but, when the sunni's start consolidating their power, after they have won, look for an attack on American's then. And some thought the arab spring was a surprise? This Iraq fight is the beginning of a arab tsunami.......
Trapper John
06-13-2014, 10:18
For ten years Professionalsoldier.com has been saying that when US Forces leave Iraq and A-Stan what will happen. This is no surprise to us. And yeah it was all a waste of time, money and lives.
It's tribal warfare sunni vs. shia, and it will continue, forever.
A smart American administration will never place boots on the ground in the middle east again, we can attack from the air if/when we are attacked again.
When will that attack come? DHS doesn't have a clue but, when the sunni's start consolidating their power, after they have won, look for an attack on American's then. And some thought the arab spring was a surprise? This Iraq fight is the beginning of a arab tsunami.......
:lifter
Golf1echo
06-13-2014, 11:10
This is hard to watch on so many levels. The whole world sees whats going on and many have decided now is the time to make their move. The clean up from this administration will be extensive. There ought to be a law against being Commander in Chief if you have NO EXPERIENCE.
Others ...Everyone else is taking note.
Like Watching the Key Stone Cops
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/former-defense-official-obama-administration-150928578.html
This Iraq fight is the beginning of a arab tsunami.......
Second quote of the month. Nail on the head TS.
mojaveman
06-13-2014, 12:48
President Obama has so far turned down Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki's request for U.S. air strikes against the Islamic extremists taking over his country. But if Obama changes his mind, U.S. jets could be flying over Iraq in less than a day.
http://news.yahoo.com/u-aircraft-could-strike-iraq-tomorrow-094500568--politics.html
This Iraq fight is the beginning of a arab tsunami.......
Second quote of the month. Nail on the head TS.
Concur 100% with MR2's quote.
Exactly what I've been thinking. South Vietnam held out for two years after we left.
But IIRC they only lasted about 6 months after US Aid was cut off. Same with the Afghan government lasting a few years after the Soviet withdraw, but only about 90 days after aid was cut off.
Team Sergeant
06-13-2014, 13:25
President Obama has so far turned down Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki's request for U.S. air strikes against the Islamic extremists taking over his country. But if Obama changes his mind, U.S. jets could be flying over Iraq in less than a day.
http://news.yahoo.com/u-aircraft-could-strike-iraq-tomorrow-094500568--politics.html
American Airstrikes!!!!!!!
Not a smart idea.
This is not a war, it's tribal warfare and when American pilots are shot down this time, and they will be, they will be beheaded on terrorist TV for all to view. This will only enrage the 50% of the American public that gives a shit and they will want this outrage paid for in rivers of arab blood. But the current spineless coward deserter administration and barry soetoro will turn and run after the first pilot is beheaded and this will only embolden the sunni's to kill more Americans.
Another factor of employing American airstrikes will be islamic attacks on American interests worldwide. Watch for it if the airstrikes start.
Someday the Western sheeple might understand that islam is at war with the West and by the time they do it will be too late.
Team Sergeant
06-13-2014, 13:36
sunni vs. shia
This is the state of the arab world. For those that are clueless Iran is a shia state, saudi a sunni state, syria a shia gov and fighting with sunnis. etc etc etc How I would address the sunni attacks in Iraq? I'd tell iran they are free to fight in Iraq as long as they leave when the Iraq gov tells them to leave.
That said all will band together and fight anyone in the West.
My point, forget countries and look to see what the dominate islamic tribe is in that country.
And while Sunni's are the minority in most islamic countries they are the most fanatic and brutal and that's why they win. And they will win again, hands down.
islam is not a religion but a fascist ideology that needs to be stopped.
mojaveman
06-13-2014, 14:12
Hisham Issa Kamel slipped out of his home in Bagdad early Friday and headed to a recruitment centre, joining thousands of others signing up to fight an offensive by Sunni Arab militants.
http://news.yahoo.com/thousands-iraqis-volunteer-battle-militants-132016156.html
WarriorDiplomat
06-13-2014, 15:50
And beyond is Turkey.
Would you agree to Russia supporting a Latino Revolution in Northern Mexico?
And Iran
For ten years Professionalsoldier.com has been saying that when US Forces leave Iraq and A-Stan what will happen. This is no surprise to us. And yeah it was all a waste of time, money and lives.
It's tribal warfare sunni vs. shia, and it will continue, forever.
A smart American administration will never place boots on the ground in the middle east again, we can attack from the air if/when we are attacked again.
When will that attack come? DHS doesn't have a clue but, when the sunni's start consolidating their power, after they have won, look for an attack on American's then. And some thought the arab spring was a surprise? This Iraq fight is the beginning of a arab tsunami.......
I think this is spot on, and you would know so much more than I. Whether citizens agree or not about going into Iraq, we did. The way POTUS handled the situation after he took office is and continues to be unconscionable.
American Airstrikes!!!!!!!
Not a smart idea.
This is not a war, it's tribal warfare and when American pilots are shot down this time, and they will be, they will be beheaded on terrorist TV for all to view. This will only enrage the 50% of the American public that gives a shit and they will want this outrage paid for in rivers of arab blood. But the current spineless coward deserter administration and barry soetoro will turn and run after the first pilot is beheaded and this will only embolden the sunni's to kill more Americans.
Another factor of employing American airstrikes will be islamic attacks on American interests worldwide. Watch for it if the airstrikes start.
Someday the Western sheeple might understand that islam is at war with the West and by the time they do it will be too late.
TS you're right, this is all Tribal. But just as the UN stepped in with Bosnia. I foresee this becoming a full blown civil war and US going in with the same UN mandate. Then the UN think they can work some magic with dividing/splitting up Iraq.
But this is looking more like a Benghazi Deux.
Team Sergeant said: "Islam is not a religion but a fascist ideology that needs to be stopped."
You are absolutely right that they are indeed a totalitarian society hiding behind the veneer of a religion; but too many sheeple are unaware of this. And the enemedia, our government and the izlam apologists in academia have made damn sure that the sheeple remain ignorant. (But some are catching wise.)
Problem is, the Usurper-in-Chief has emboldened the Sunnis with the disasters he has wrought in country after country in the ME. He was backing MB Morsi when the bulk of the Egyptian people suddenly became aware that they did not wish to live under sharia, and ousted him last July. He released 5 of the absolute worst of the worst Taliban leaders for a deserter; and while these Taliban are cooling their heels, they are planning and organizing. And it's only going to get worse.
IMO, NO American soldiers should again be put at risk for these 7th century savages. Sunnis want to kill Shias, and Shias want to kill Sunnis because of the blood feud that has been going on ever since Mad Mo's death. I say, more power to 'em. Have at it. Kill each other off, because death and destruction has been the legacy of izlam since its inception.
Assad, an Alawite, can take care of himself; and he has his allies. No further money, American blood or lives should be put at risk. Guard our own borders and protect our own country. (Of course, with the open invitation by OBummer, Zuckerberg, and others to invade our country from the south we can see how well that has been working out.)
What was that old Chinese curse? "May you live in interesting times." Well, I guess we are all living in "interesting times" these days.
Old Dog New Trick
06-13-2014, 22:38
The naïveté of this worthless administration never took the time to learn about "our assholes" and why assholes rule the body general.
There is proof positive that the coups of the early to late seventies leading to assholes like Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarak, Muammar al-Gaddafi, and yes, even Yasser Arafat, Bashar al-Assad, and Perves Musharraf were by financial and military support at one time or another - our assholes! In fact we owned all the assholes in the Middle East lest the Ayatollah Khomeini after we failed to ensure our asshole the Shaw Pahlavi of Iran was ousted. Big mistake! (We started that failure a decade earlier and now repeat with abandon.)
They ruled the mob of illiterate serfs with an iron fist, they kept order or did things that some western minds could only dream of in a democracy gone wrong. They knew better than the meddling politicos of the west that peace is an imaginary line between utter chaos and complete loss of control (power).
Well, in light of the bumbling idiots in Washington and a failed foreign policy dating back to Eisenhower. This administration of idiots has doubled down on da stupid.
The world needs assholes, the Middle East needs a head asshole in each country to keep all the asshole minions busy cleaning up their own shit! This lesson is lost on Harvard graduates!
GWBush shoved a rag into the toilet and now it's overflowing, Obama has not the skills or knowledge to know where to begin and has selected the bottom of the class to show him how. C. Hagel, Gen M. Dempsey and J. Kerry, couldn't find their ass even if they had to first extract their heads from it. I'd just as soon watch them all get swept down the river of shit they helped create but, unfortunately many Americans and some of my friends died over there the first and second time we thought better of giving someone "Freedom and Democracy" they haven't earned, nor wanted.
I'd gladly pay a few bucks more at the pump to watch the whole of the Middle East implode without anymore of our help. Send in the Marines to evacuate the Americans and pop smoke after the last extraction. This is not our problem, let the toilet overflow and spend money to build levies to keep it contained - over there!
Golf1echo
06-13-2014, 22:40
Even Sunni on Sunni, The spoon feed liberals will soon be getting tweets that will probably be hard for them to process. That is exactly what they did with the Sunni Police Major they visited the other night, in the process of beheading him and looting his home. All one needs to do is type in a few search words and you can see the results.
" 'This is our football, it's made of skin #World Cup': After posting sickening beheading video of Iraqi policeman, ISIS boast of slaughtering 1,700 soldiers"
Golf1echo
06-13-2014, 22:46
Even Sunni on Sunni, The spoon feed liberals will soon be getting tweets that will probably be hard for them to process. That is exactly what they did with the Sunni Police Major they visited the other night, in the process of beheading him and looting his home. All one needs to do is type in a few search words and you can see the results.
" 'This is our football, it's made of skin #World Cup': After posting sickening beheading video of Iraqi policeman, ISIS boast of slaughtering 1,700 soldiers"
Well, at least there's some "good" news coming out of Iraq.
Iraqi Air Force evacuating besieged U.S. contractors
NEW YORK – A U.S. contractor in Iraq told WND the Iraqi Air Force has begun evacuations from Balad Air Force Base, where 200 American contractors were trapped by the al-Qaida-inspired jihadists who have seized control of two cities and are now threatening Baghdad.
A contractor with Sallyport Global, who asked not to be named, told WND through a Skype instant message that he was transported from Balad to Baghdad and was communicating from a C-130 preparing to take off to Dubai.
He said 300 in total have been evacuated from Balad, about 60 miles north of Baghdad, and another 100 are still awaiting airlift. He said the Iraqi Air Force is trying to evacuate everyone by midnight local time.
WND previously reported Friday that private contractors who have recently returned to the U.S. from Iraq said their former colleagues effectively had been abandoned by the U.S. military and were fighting for their lives against an army of jihadists surrounding the base who belong to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS.
The U.S. contractors were at Balad to help the Pentagon prepare the facilities for the delivery of the F-16 aircraft the Obama administration has agreed to provide the Iraqi government.
The surrounded Americans said they were under ISIS fire from small arms, AK47s and rocket propelled grenades, or RPGs.
The contractors had been able to hold the base, but those on the scene reported it was only a matter of time before the ISIS terrorists succeeded in breaking through the perimeter. The sources confirmed the contractors were still under siege, despite an Associated Press report Thursday, citing U.S. officials, that three plane loads of Americans were being evacuated from Balad.
WND learned from sources that the jihadists closed down escape routes, and the U.S. Air Force was in a stand-down position. U.S. forces were not assisting even with air cover so a private extradition flight could land for a rescue, the sources said.
Privately scheduled exit flights had fallen through, sources said, as several private pilots originally scheduled to make the flights quit.
The sources contended the U.S. military could provide the necessary air cover to protect C-130s or other air transport craft sufficient to make the evacuation, but so far officials had refused to get involved.
Balad Air Force Base has been under attack since Wednesday, when ISIS rebels seized the nearby town of Tikrit, the birthplace of Saddam Hussein.
The attacking ISIS forces approached the base in trucks Wednesday and called through loudspeakers for all private security forces and Iraqi special military to leave immediately or die.
The U.S. private contractors in touch with WND reported that after hearing the broadcast, the private security forces and the Iraqi military defending the base dropped their weapons and ran.
The American contractors collected the weapons left behind and were able to hold off further immediate advances.
More to come …
http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/200-u-s-contractors-surrounded-by-jihadists-in-iraq/
WarriorDiplomat
06-14-2014, 04:53
The Iranians coming to the "aid" of of the Iraqis? Hmmmm....looks like a convenient way to "invade' Iraq. This is the camel's nose IMO. Iran wants to expand an Islamist state in the region and both Iran & Russia want an oil pipeline running through territory they control to a central distribution point in the Ukraine. That becomes a choke point for oil/gas flow to Europe and Russia will control the choke point.
Oh and BTW, the Russians know that the Chinese are driven by economics so Putin struck an oil deal with China that was bargain for the Chinese. Now they are happy and marginalized for the upcoming confrontation. ;) Putin is playing the game 3 moves ahead while we are playing reactionary catch up.
This is looking more and more ominous to me. :eek:
When we left after the order from Gen Rogers to leave Iraq I had been working at the CJSOTF the last 3 mos of the occupation. I had not been in Iraq since OIF IV, in 06 Iraq was still reasonably under the control of the Iraqi government and the concerns of Iranian influence was there but not overwhelmingly. We had a good handle on what the Iranians were doing. At the time the truest ISOF Commandos were the only commandos in country the 4 companies at Area 4 at BIAP as well as the ICTF.
By OND 5 yrs later the Iranian influence was rampant throughout Iraq and were deeply imbedded within the government. The term Commando had been given to units all over Iraq confusing the Spec Ops version with everyone else. I found out using my GB skills talking to Iraqi soldiers and civilians that the word on the street was that any Iraqi could join the commandos for 2,000 += U.S. dollars.
Those of us that were in the know and there knew Iraq and Maliki were in trouble if we left. They were not the shadow government prior to the overthrow they were illusions of authority supported by the U.S. Whomever made decisions to impose democracy on those people were #1 not a student of history #2 lack S/A on the social construct of that region. We failed to understand the real underlying force that has ruled that region as far back as the Sumerians. Democratic processes are not for ancient cultures, the only way for human rights to be claimed is through a war of movement Iraq never had a large enough one for this. Revolutions are critical to have real change and in that region historically revolutions are not for change of their way of life they are coups to grab power by those strong enough to hold it.
As a student of history Americans are delusional to believe all people want liberty, and a thorough study of U.S. supported coups past we supported many dictatorships. The whole point of getting involved with any other country has always been to stabilize the region for the greater good of our and global economics. Sometimes stability requires an overthrow of the government through force or subversion and a reconsitution of a more user friendly power. Some cultures require brutal dictators to rule them and stabilize and hopefully policy makers behind close doors are still aware of this.
Saddam would never have been ousted and one of his sons hould have naturally assumed power. Had Saddam been more user friendly in the global economic scheme in laymans terms played well with us he would have died by the Iraqi version of natural causes. Now we have to worry about Russians gaining alot more influence over the oilf reserves and supplying China and his own county with the needed supply.
IMHO the huge Oil reserve in dispute in Iraq has been the one that is under the Kirkuk region. This was the powder keg I was concerned with given the players Kurds/Turks/Arabs all there. We need to go in and shore up the Kurdish region and support them in controlling it.
WarriorDiplomat
06-14-2014, 05:04
Gleaning snippets from open source, it appears that the ISOF Brigade is the only IA unit holding it together and putting up a fight----a testament to the efforts of our ODAs. It's little consolation given the overall situation, however.
Good point brother the ISOF and the ERB were the two forces we really built as SF guys there and we retained influence on them the entire 7+ years of the occupation.
The ISOF IMO was a success and is a testament to the Green Berets legend of influence, training, equipping and advising. They are also the only true national force with Kurds/Arabs/Assyrians/Chaldeans etc...all working towards a common goal. The ERB was firmly in the contol of the Iranian influence and government corruption when we gave up the ghost. No suprise with the ERB since the force were under TACON of the Government that was permeated with Iranian agents when we exfilled.
Q & A I found of interest published by the AP. (A source is a source, etc. A grain of salt may be required.)
:munchin
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITED_STATES_IRAQ_QA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-06-14-03-53-34
Trapper John
06-14-2014, 06:46
When we left after the order from Gen Rogers to leave Iraq I had been working at the CJSOTF the last 3 mos of the occupation. I had not been in Iraq since OIF IV, in 06 Iraq was still reasonably under the control of the Iraqi government and the concerns of Iranian influence was there but not overwhelmingly. We had a good handle on what the Iranians were doing. At the time the truest ISOF Commandos were the only commandos in country the 4 companies at Area 4 at BIAP as well as the ICTF.
By OND 5 yrs later the Iranian influence was rampant throughout Iraq and were deeply imbedded within the government. The term Commando had been given to units all over Iraq confusing the Spec Ops version with everyone else. I found out using my GB skills talking to Iraqi soldiers and civilians that the word on the street was that any Iraqi could join the commandos for 2,000 += U.S. dollars.
Those of us that were in the know and there knew Iraq and Maliki were in trouble if we left. They were not the shadow government prior to the overthrow they were illusions of authority supported by the U.S. Whomever made decisions to impose democracy on those people were #1 not a student of history #2 lack S/A on the social construct of that region. We failed to understand the real underlying force that has ruled that region as far back as the Sumerians. Democratic processes are not for ancient cultures, the only way for human rights to be claimed is through a war of movement Iraq never had a large enough one for this. Revolutions are critical to have real change and in that region historically revolutions are not for change of their way of life they are coups to grab power by those strong enough to hold it.
As a student of history Americans are delusional to believe all people want liberty, and a thorough study of U.S. supported coups past we supported many dictatorships. The whole point of getting involved with any other country has always been to stabilize the region for the greater good of our and global economics. Sometimes stability requires an overthrow of the government through force or subversion and a reconsitution of a more user friendly power. Some cultures require brutal dictators to rule them and stabilize and hopefully policy makers behind close doors are still aware of this.
Saddam would never have been ousted and one of his sons hould have naturally assumed power. Had Saddam been more user friendly in the global economic scheme in laymans terms played well with us he would have died by the Iraqi version of natural causes. Now we have to worry about Russians gaining alot more influence over the oilf reserves and supplying China and his own county with the needed supply.
IMHO the huge Oil reserve in dispute in Iraq has been the one that is under the Kirkuk region. This was the powder keg I was concerned with given the players Kurds/Turks/Arabs all there. We need to go in and shore up the Kurdish region and support them in controlling it.
:lifter I agree 100%. Supporting the Kurds is the key.
You know, when I read posts like this, and the ground truth reality posted by you, Old Dog, MtnGoat, TS, et al., I see myself sitting in an instructional block back in the day at JFKCSWS. I would entitle this one - "How US Foreign Policy Screwed the Pooch - Again" If nothing, we are consistent at least. :rolleyes:
Oh, and Stobey, I see you've been paying attention.;)
IMO, one of the biggest threats we are facing in this non-state conflict is coming from south of the border. It's well past time to pay attention to Latin America. But until we change our thinking and MO we will not be effective at securing our vital interests in our own back yard either. Just reread Old Dog's post as a brief reminder.
Gutes Lessen! Sorry for the brief interuption - Carry on. :D
I find it kinda funny have people are now looking at ISIS. Gee who was it that was going up against al-Assad in Syria?
ISIS has been in a shaping phase for some time. But the sad thing is no one cared or really was looking at what was happening. Yet ISIS Syrian rebel fighters have been going back to their home countries. So what do you think they will be doing?
For me, guys best get spun up on what they have done in Iraq and their different relationships and where there fighters had come from during OIF and inside Syria's civil war.
The Islamic State Of Iraq And Greater Syria: Two Arab Countries Fall Apart
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-islamic-state-of-iraq-and-greater-syria-two-arab-countries-fall-apart-2014-6#ixzz34dDpuM4Q
Tree Potato
06-14-2014, 16:29
Well, at least there's some "good" news coming out of Iraq.
The IqAF launched a coordinated airstrike today; here's a video sent to our air advisor team from one of the crews we trained. The IqAF and ISOF are still working to blunt the ISIS offensive and haven't turned tail.
http://youtu.be/wr7bz3K1h7U
drivfast
06-14-2014, 18:21
From Sdiver's post:
"The American contractors collected the weapons left behind and were able to hold off further immediate advances."
We can train the Iraqis to patrol, raid and ambush. We can train them to break contact and we can beat battle drill 1A into their brains. We can train them to set up Hasty TCPs and do Cache Searches. We can teach them convoys operations and vehicle borne tactics. We can set up heskows and train them to breach doors and clear rooms. We can teach them to hande detainees. We can teach them all of the technical skill, but you just can't teach what the above sentence embodies. The testicular fortitude that comes issued in our DNA and is further developed through service in combat arms. The American warrior philosophy imho. Fight until the last round, until the last blade goes dull, until the last breath of life leaves your body.
Hold hard guys, my prayers are with you.
. ..Whomever made decisions to impose democracy on those people were #1 not a student of history #2 lack S/A on the social construct of that region.
Were we bound by the Iraqi Liberation Act, which became Public Law 105-338, that Bill Clinton signed in 1998, to impose a democracy on the people of Iraq, after toppling Saddam Hussein?
. Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government....
> http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm
Could you point me to where it says that the US Military should be the toppling force?
It doesn't. The following came later:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/s237
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
I was curious to know if that is why we went to such lengths to try and facilitate a democracy there, since it was Public Law?
I agree with what WarriorDiplomat posted....
Edited to add - sorry for the hijack...
Could you point me to where it says that the US Military should be the toppling force?
Maybe when Obama appointed Samantha Power as UN Ambassador, she then became the point man for the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine.
You may remember her for the great work regarding Libya........
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/world/30power.html?_r=0
WarriorDiplomat
06-15-2014, 03:51
The naïveté of this worthless administration never took the time to learn about "our assholes" and why assholes rule the body general.
There is proof positive that the coups of the early to late seventies leading to assholes like Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarak, Muammar al-Gaddafi, and yes, even Yasser Arafat, Bashar al-Assad, and Perves Musharraf were by financial and military support at one time or another - our assholes! In fact we owned all the assholes in the Middle East lest the Ayatollah Khomeini after we failed to ensure our asshole the Shaw Pahlavi of Iran was ousted. Big mistake! (We started that failure a decade earlier and now repeat with abandon.)
They ruled the mob of illiterate serfs with an iron fist, they kept order or did things that some western minds could only dream of in a democracy gone wrong. They knew better than the meddling politicos of the west that peace is an imaginary line between utter chaos and complete loss of control (power).
Well, in light of the bumbling idiots in Washington and a failed foreign policy dating back to Eisenhower. This administration of idiots has doubled down on da stupid.
The world needs assholes, the Middle East needs a head asshole in each country to keep all the asshole minions busy cleaning up their own shit! This lesson is lost on Harvard graduates!
GWBush shoved a rag into the toilet and now it's overflowing, Obama has not the skills or knowledge to know where to begin and has selected the bottom of the class to show him how. C. Hagel, Gen M. Dempsey and J. Kerry, couldn't find their ass even if they had to first extract their heads from it. I'd just as soon watch them all get swept down the river of shit they helped create but, unfortunately many Americans and some of my friends died over there the first and second time we thought better of giving someone "Freedom and Democracy" they haven't earned, nor wanted.
I'd gladly pay a few bucks more at the pump to watch the whole of the Middle East implode without anymore of our help. Send in the Marines to evacuate the Americans and pop smoke after the last extraction. This is not our problem, let the toilet overflow and spend money to build levies to keep it contained - over there!
AMEN
WarriorDiplomat
06-15-2014, 04:15
I find it kinda funny have people are now looking at ISIS. Gee who was it that was going up against al-Assad in Syria?
ISIS has been in a shaping phase for some time. But the sad thing is no one cared or really was looking at what was happening. Yet ISIS Syrian rebel fighters have been going back to their home countries. So what do you think they will be doing?
For me, guys best get spun up on what they have done in Iraq and their different relationships and where there fighters had come from during OIF and inside Syria's civil war.
The Islamic State Of Iraq And Greater Syria: Two Arab Countries Fall Apart
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-islamic-state-of-iraq-and-greater-syria-two-arab-countries-fall-apart-2014-6#ixzz34dDpuM4Q
Really we should look back at what T.E. Lawrence ( Lawrence of Arabia ) did his book The seven pillars of wisdom should be a cautionary tale. Overthrowing the Ottomans was one thing but dividing Arabs lands into LON recognized governments was a bridge too far. The league of nations should never have divided up Arab homelands into countries and assigned leaders. In someones mind the tribal warfare would end and the same unity of effort to defeat the Turks would continue under a LON supported leader. Thousands of years of tribal disputes would dissappear what the hell were they thinking?
Trapper John
06-15-2014, 08:15
Really we should look back at what T.E. Lawrence ( Lawrence of Arabia ) did his book The seven pillars of wisdom should be a cautionary tale. Overthrowing the Ottomans was one thing but dividing Arabs lands into LON recognized governments was a bridge too far. The league of nations should never have divided up Arab homelands into countries and assigned leaders. In someones mind the tribal warfare would end and the same unity of effort to defeat the Turks would continue under a LON supported leader. Thousands of years of tribal disputes would disappear what the hell were they thinking?
:lifter Everyone - PAY ATTENTION we have encountered a significant teaching point. You may experience mental turbulence followed by an ah-ha moment!
T. E. Lawrence and the Treaty of Versailles - a point/counterpoint lesson. IMO, most of the past and current issues in foreign policy can be traced back to the failings inherent in the constructs of the Treaty of Versailles and/or by not heading the wisdom of the great T.E. Lawrence - the genius father of modern precepts of UW.
Between Tsun Tzu and T. E. Lawrence, I don't know who I regard more - absolutely inseparable for a modern practitioner in the profession of arms.
Gutes Lessen WD! :lifter
Well drawing all those straight lines in Africa that split tribal lands after WWI didn't do that continent any favors either.
Maybe when Obama appointed Samantha Power as UN Ambassador, she then became the point man for the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine.
You may remember her for the great work regarding Libya........
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/world/30power.html?_r=0
What in the world does that have to do with Iraq? Are you not aware that the US invaded Iraq, and toppled Hussein's govt in 2003....10 years before she became the UN Ambassador.
Javadrinker
06-15-2014, 12:57
Entire Post
Here, Here! Very well put, Sir! :lifter
American Airstrikes!!!!!!!
Not a smart idea.
This is not a war, it's tribal warfare and when American pilots are shot down this time, and they will be, they will be beheaded on terrorist TV for all to view. This will only enrage the 50% of the American public that gives a shit and they will want this outrage paid for in rivers of arab blood. But the current spineless coward deserter administration and barry soetoro will turn and run after the first pilot is beheaded and this will only embolden the sunni's to kill more Americans.
Another factor of employing American airstrikes will be islamic attacks on American interests worldwide. Watch for it if the airstrikes start.
Someday the Western sheeple might understand that islam is at war with the West and by the time they do it will be too late.
The same guy who wouldn't sign the status forces agreement know wants us back there to help.
If the goddamn Department of State would concentrate more on their fucking jobs instead of promoting LBGT agendas OCONUS; they would've seen this shit coming!
It's Ametuer hour in the White House. But in their defense Maliki wouldn't sign a status force agreement. But who knows how much pressure was put on him to sign it. Without the SFA we had no choice but to pull everyone out.
Those people have no quality of life over there to even care to defend.
Ret10Echo
06-15-2014, 16:13
Really we should look back at what T.E. Lawrence ( Lawrence of Arabia ) did his book The seven pillars of wisdom should be a cautionary tale. Overthrowing the Ottomans was one thing but dividing Arabs lands into LON recognized governments was a bridge too far. The league of nations should never have divided up Arab homelands into countries and assigned leaders. In someones mind the tribal warfare would end and the same unity of effort to defeat the Turks would continue under a LON supported leader. Thousands of years of tribal disputes would dissappear what the hell were they thinking?
Plenty of other items out there....but if you have not read "A Peace to end all Peace"by David Fromkin I would recommend it.
Tree Potato
06-15-2014, 21:59
Did ISIS wake the sleeping giant? Probably won't see many shia surrendering to them now.
"The claim by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant [ISIS] that it has massacred 1,700 Iraqi Shia air force recruits in Tikrit is horrifying and a true depiction of the bloodlust that these terrorists represent," US state department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in a statement.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-16/isis-insurgents-publish-photos-of-mass-execution-in-iraq/5525342
At what point should we consider ISIS to be a direct threat to the US and do something about it?
Streck-Fu
06-16-2014, 05:54
Did ISIS wake the sleeping giant? Probably won't see many shia surrendering to them now.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-16/isis-insurgents-publish-photos-of-mass-execution-in-iraq/5525342
At what point should we consider ISIS to be a direct threat to the US and do something about it?
I'm seeing some M-16s being held by the ISIS boys....
WarriorDiplomat
06-16-2014, 06:27
Plenty of other items out there....but if you have not read "A Peace to end all Peace"by David Fromkin I would recommend it.
I think I heard of this book during language school, my first target language was Turkish if you remember our school at Bragg is cultural and historical training in our target language. We spent a considerable amount of time on the Ottomans and it's empire since so many Turkish words were borrowed from the varous regions it ruled. Of course understanding how the British, French, U.S. and others decided the new middle east and africa was my own research.
I like the T.E. Lawrence book because I feel as TJ said it is the most relevant book to Military involvement in tribal cultures, it gets really personal about the how he was able to influence and the motivating factors he was able to influence and leverage. Today we have a name used in not just our community for soldier's who get too attached to the indgenous T.E. Lawrence syndrome. I can tell you I have had it before as is the pitfall of being a true believer. And today with what is happening with the instability in Iraq I think about the friends I have made and the personal conversations we had about our families, religion, ecpnomics, the fear of U.S. leaving, Maliki and how so many Sunni and Shiite alike wish Saddam was still in power.
Us Americans talk about the whole region should just be wiped off the map but then I think about how we re-constituted the military and government with our idealistic design. We gave people who had no idea or education on politics the right to vote, this concept is not culturally compatible, the people selecting their leader is as foreign to them as Chinese to me. The U.S. military trained and develped their military with the promise that if you you do what we say your military will be strong and your country will be secure. The naivete of how we imposed our culture on them and now we curse them for the falling apart of the house of cards we built. We forget that we as Americans are a country of immigrants who marketed shared values to cultures all over the planet, freedom and opportunity. Us Americans are currently in a battle to stop a charismatic leader from disintegrating the rule of law into a democracy which historically is the fast track to dictatorship.
The funny thing about that region is they actually have free market capitolism which is a IMO a cornerstone in freedom to choose. Imagine if you went to a store and could barter for the cost of beef and if they don't budge ou walk to the next butcher and barter for a better price or at least higher quality?. We have central banks controlling our economy we have Wall Street a signal of capitolism but destructive to free markets, we have corporations who vilate antitrust laws and use the government to subsidize their company as in Walmart's salary keeping employees poor enough to qualify for benefits like food stamps. We have corporate strategies dictating the prices of products. Free Market competition barely exists in our culture but in most cultures the system of barter is alive and well. We are not even free to choose in a way that forces healthy competition, bartering for trade is discouraged because the IRS can't tax me trading my tomatoes and labor for xxx pounds of farmer johns beef cow, or eggs for corn.
Damn where are we going in a few years.
I will definitely get this book and add it to the collection.
Trapper John
06-16-2014, 08:33
Today we have a name used in not just our community for soldier's who get too attached to the indgenous T.E. Lawrence syndrome.
WD- pretty common in our community. I hold a very special place in my heart for the 'bodes I trained, lived with, fought with, and cared for. As I am sure you have too, I have had many conversations with Brothers from different eras about this. I think that is the better part of us and our humanity, wouldn't you agree? ;)
WD- pretty common in our community. I hold a very special place in my heart for the 'bodes I trained, lived with, fought with, and cared for. As I am sure you have too, I have had many conversations with Brothers from different eras about this. I think that is the better part of us and our humanity, wouldn't you agree? ;)
Amen Brother.
.
The funny thing about that region is they actually have free market capitolism which is a IMO a cornerstone in freedom to choose. Imagine if you went to a store and could barter for the cost of beef and if they don't budge ou walk to the next butcher and barter for a better price or at least higher quality?.
Don't we have the right to go to another store that has better prices, and/or better quality? Have you never asked a store to meet or beat a competitor's price? My wife shops a store A, and they honor all competitors coupons...Store B send weekly $5.00 cash off....A honors them, on top of their
own. It saves us $300 to $400 a year
use the government to subsidize their company as in Walmart's salary keeping employees poor enough to qualify for benefits like food stamps.
So you blame Walmart for their employees education level, lack of job skills, and having families larger than they a capable of supporting.
We have corporate strategies dictating the prices of products. Free Market competition barely exists in our culture but in most cultures the system of barter is alive and well.
I was in my own business for over 30 years, and was always able to negotiate terms that were beneficial to my business and my customers. I never saw the need to let someone else dictate/control what I sold products for.
:munchin
Oldrotorhead
06-16-2014, 10:06
If you have an hour this video pretty well sums up IAISs' position on the West and anyone else that doesn't go along with them. Of course Susan Rice will not blame this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKELtjoNrPU
WarriorDiplomat
06-16-2014, 19:30
WD- pretty common in our community. I hold a very special place in my heart for the 'bodes I trained, lived with, fought with, and cared for. As I am sure you have too, I have had many conversations with Brothers from different eras about this. I think that is the better part of us and our humanity, wouldn't you agree? ;)
Absolutely agree TJ its the part of us that makes out efforts genuine.
In case anyone misunderstood T.E. Lawrence syndrome is not new when I say today I am meaning that since the Lawrence of Arabia it is a common phrase to describe SF guys going native so to speak.
It was disheartening to me to see young GB's make derogatory comments about people that have our lives in their hands. Or refusal to sit, break bread and eat their food and commune with them as fellow warriors.
Trapper John
06-16-2014, 20:24
It was disheartening to me to see young GB's make derogatory comments about people that have our lives in their hands. Or refusal to sit, break bread and eat their food and commune with them as fellow warriors.
Sounds like a training fail to me. Hope you took advantage of the teaching moment and offered a little constructive attitude adjustment. :D
WarriorDiplomat
06-17-2014, 09:37
I wasn't going to respond but....I was a little concerned with your response
Don't we have the right to go to another store that has better prices, and/or better quality? Have you never asked a store to meet or beat a competitor's price? My wife shops a store A, and they honor all competitors coupons...Store B send weekly $5.00 cash off....A honors them, on top of their
own. It saves us $300 to $400 a year
The above example is not free markets and healthy fair competition the above is a marketing strategy you take advantage of. Yes you can price shop for products and challenge stores to meet prices, but how much flexibility do you think a chain has on the price? your impression of the consumer having some control of the market is an illusion. Can a mom and pops compete with a 1,000+ chain with enormous resources? The answer is usually no they cannot how about antitrust laws. I will give you a case in point and maybe you will understand why mom and pops are going out of business. I worked for Pepsi and Coca Cola prior to the military as a route salesman/delivery driver. We would fill a pop machine with a case of soda and 9.98 per case selling at .50 cents per can which equalled to $12 per case and I would fill a larger machine with 24 cases. I made .34 cents per case which was considered good for the time.
Volume and prices below at the time around 1992
mom and pops stores
Under 100 cases 12.98 per case
Sale price 9.98 per case if over 100 cases.
Corporate Pepsi/Coke sale price 4.98 case
Corporate/Chain high volume stores
Under a 100 cases 7.98 per case
Over a 100 cases 4.98 per case year round
sale price 4.98
special price 3.98
We sold bag in the box (BIB) syrup to corporate and chains for 37.00 which is the same as Mom and Pops but.....
When you buy the beverage products at Walmart for example the store generally does not make any profit. The profit is used as a gimmick to get you into their store yes that is correct Walmart does not need the money from beverages they want to sell the cheap foreign crap where their real profit is. The stores are designed to flow a certain way that forces a consumer to walk through all these fantastic deals to get what you came there for. Merchandising 101. When we would have corporate sells to Walmart due to the sheer volume of their purchases they would get the corporate price of 3.98 per case if they bought over 100 (Usually they would buy thousands) cases I made .29 cents per case. This corporate price is for stores that could move that volume within the 6mos. expiration date of regular products and 3mos for diets.
The Mom and Pops stores cannot compete and or ever meet the prices of the corporate giants and chains trust me when I say they want to give you the best deal it is impossible without suppliers giving them the super deals corporate giants receive. So though they make profit off the $37 BIB they can't afford to entice you into their store to sell fountain drinks because they can't price any product low enough to beat the giants without going bust. Walmart can take advantage of the super blowout prices extended to all and will never be in a position to purchase the volume needed to purchase 100+ cases without product going bad. The sad thing is you may love the people at the mom and pops, they may have personal relationships with them and they may go out their way to give you the best service but they will never have the cash flow to compete. All they have is service the prices go to the giant. The only true free market competition we have is yard sales, farmers markets, flea markets etc…where the consumer has the ability to barter for the best price.
Do you understand why corporations hijack economies and destroy fair competition and free markets? As far back as the Romans they understood the danger of allowing someone to dominate a market. They all those years ago understood the importance of free market competition to economic stability. Below is the law that governs the free market that these huge corporations with their enormous influence on government have found ways around. Hard to estimate tax based off of sales when bartering causes constant flexes; how can governments budget without an idea of the taxes incoming. It is in the best interest of Big Government to dabble in the control of keeping the value of the dollar at a certain level.
Competition law, or antitrust law, has three main elements:
Prohibiting agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business. This includes in particular the repression of free trade caused by cartels.
Banning abusive behavior by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position. Practices controlled in this way may include predatory pricing, tying, price gouging, refusal to deal, and many others.
Supervising the mergers and acquisitions of large corporations, including some joint ventures. Transactions that are considered to threaten the competitive process can be prohibited altogether, or approved subject to "remedies" such as an obligation to divest part of the merged business or to offer licenses or access to facilities to enable other businesses to continue competing
In the U.S. we have the Sherman Act of 1890 that attempted to eliminate the Antitrust laws for the sake of corporate this era is also known as the
So you blame Walmart for their employees education level, lack of job skills, and having families larger than they a capable of supporting.
Economics are far more complicated than that. I have never blamed a business for a citizen's responsibility but since you made the comment someone has to work there should we as taxpayers be burdened with subsidizing the employees of the wealthiest family in America? No, I do not blame Walmart I applaud their business genius; they have the government by the nuts by keeping so many employees at lower wages they keep the economy flowing as intended.
C'mon you should know better than to make blanket statements like that. Contrary to your above comment not all are uneducated, have too many children or are unskilled believe it or not, some have had their business go under, wives have had husbands leave them supporting their children, old people who can no longer do anything but greet at the door. A guy at my hometown Walmart who died had been crippled on Iwo Jima as an Infantry Marine he was a rancher by trade but lost his ranch when his 1000+ head of livestock ranch went under when the beef prices bottomed out (I worked for him).
I was in my own business for over 30 years, and was always able to negotiate terms that were beneficial to my business and my customers. I never saw the need to let someone else dictate/control what I sold products for.
:munchin
I can't speak intelligently about your business, but I assure you as a route sales/driver us vendors had conversations about how bad we felt not being able to help the local businesses we grew up with due to business deals made at corporate levels. This was not limited to just beverage guys it included, medical vendors, tool guys etc… To have a local small town grocer beg for the same price courtesies extended to the giants and get upset in disgust knowing they cannot compete or price match. Imagine you have the best most courteous service in town your store is clean but Walmart moves in and undercuts you into bankruptcy. Then another Grocer moves in and the chain is large enough to compete with Walmart now you have 2 giants occupying the same town. Store A offers you coupons on a product they have, Walmart offers to price match or exceed the price savings; this is not fair competition these are giants playing ball with each other and is a marketing strategy and has nothing to do with us. Giants will price match but do not make it a habit to lose profit margins.
Old Dog New Trick
06-17-2014, 10:01
Rant/on - read if you want.
A desert storm is brewing anew. Gulf War Part Four!
As time goes by we can look back on two generations, five U.S. Presidents and their Cabinet Secretaries, and the failed foreign policies that have led to three unfinished wars in the Persian Gulf state of Iraq.
During the late nineteen seventies and early eighties, a new man emerged on the scene in Baghdad, his name was Saddam Hussein. He was a ruthless Sunni who would at the time do the bidding of the United States of America in its war against the newly appointed rulers of Iran: the Ayatollah Khomeini, who happened to be the most hated person of the year before, to gain the unpopular support of the West.
You see, when political expediency outweighs common sense, American politicians will climb all over themselves like hungry rats and forgo all the rules and laws of our country to gain political power to show the world how tough they are. Of course they are tough, neither them or anyone in their family will pay the ultimate price for their failure to grasp the obvious: war is a direct result of failed diplomacy. And wars are always more messier than getting your feelings hurt.
So we jumped in bed with Saddam Hussein and provided him a capable military after he was losing to the Iranians to take on and fight the Shi'a religious fanatics across the border in Iran. At the same time, the brilliance of Washington chose to drive the final nail into the Soviet Union's coffin by waging a clandestine CIA war in Afghanistan to bankrupt the Russians there. What could go wrong?
Saddam Hussein conducted a brutal war against Iran, many hundreds of thousands were killed on both sides of the border, it didn't matter to Saddam though, they were all (mostly) Shi'a or Kurdish, both long time enemies of the Sunni. We chose our poison and it was working until real poisons (nerve and mustard agents) were being used in great quantities because it was cheaper and more effective than bullets. Good wars go bad when pictures of dead women and children make the front page of international newspapers and TV. Again, American politicians without the stomach for wars they helped start, find ways to undermine them and cause their failure. The end result, Iran and Iraq ceased hostilities when the funding ran out, the UN stepped in, and military support for equipment sold to Saddam by the U.S. sat broken. The Iranians claimed victory over the western puppet masters and emboldened them to continue their own anti-American ideology. Saddam, shattered by the abrupt turn of events, waged a new campaign again the Kurdish people of the north and the remaining Shi'a to the south in Iraq. America had lost control of its puppet and do what they always do; create a foreign policy on containment and international sanctions. Saddam's millions of barrels of oil and his main source of revenue just became worthless on the world market.
It only took a few years of harsh controls and an effective International blockade to cripple the Iraqi nation and all of it's people: no wonder they hate us, we cut them off the tit and gave them a ruthless murderous dictator. Thus forcing Saddam to take matters into his own hands, he chose to invade Kuwait and gain access to a seaport to smuggle his oil onto the world market. Well, we know where that ended up. Oh and by the way, we succeeded in Afghanistan, the Taliban (another little known peaceful group of community organizers like the Muslim Brotherhood) had just succeeded in running the Soviet Union out after years of defeat at the hands of U.S. supplied arms and training. The "terrorist group" Contra Rebels of Nicaragua had no idea that they were getting into bed with a country that leaves people out to hang when difficult decisions need to be made and deals with terrorists finally get leaked to the press for yet another political advantage by the rats that inhabit the Nation's Capital. Makes my skin crawl to even imagine the skeletons that reside in the closets of the political elite that gain power over the people who foolishly elect them, but some rats are hopefully less harmful than other rats and so it goes.
Gulf War (2) Operation Desert Shield/Storm, would be one of the shortest large scale wars in history; not counting the build up of American and foreign (coalition of international forces) to stop and repeal the Iraqi army's infiltration into Kuwait City. The last Great War for old iron horse Generals to flex their muscle and use Main Battle Tanks and mounted Infantry in a combined arms race across the desert floor. Combined with superior air power and mobility unmatched by any military in the world the ground war lasted 100-hours and nary a shot was fired before the Republican Guard turned and beat feet for home...on the way they encountered A-10 Warthogs and other coalition aircraft that turned a major highway into the "Highway of Death." Well, once that was splashed across every TV set in the free world, it had to stop - not fair - the people cried, and again the politicians listened and abruptly pulled their support for continued military action against a dictator gone mad...more sanctions, more appeasement, more failed foreign policy.
A few good things did happened though in the lead up to crossing the border into Iraq. The Iron Horse Generals of old lore (like Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf) found that American and British Special Forces and the rest of the SOF community were indispensable in keeping the enemy off guard, at bay, and whereabouts known when all of the orbital technology in the world couldn't be relied upon to make tactical battlefield decisions. From hunting SCUD missiles in the desert to creating the second largest seaborne ruse in history a few brave men out performed the latest satellite gadgetry known to man. And with that success behind us, we descended on another un-winnable and politically charged mission to feed hungry people in the Horn of Africa, some little shit hole called Mogadishu, Somalia.
Over the course of the next ten-years (1992-2001), the United States of America would follow up one political military folly with another and cut and run after a day or two of things going wrong, or fail to engage the enemy when engagement was necessary and prudent. Whether it was right or wrong to stay in the Middle East (Barracks in Riyadh, oil facilities all over the place, Navy ports in Yemen, etc...) isn't the point of this essay. What happened in Somalia was only the beginning of U.S. Military despair and degradation under the Clinton administration. Attacks on American facilities, ships and it's people went unchecked and unanswered by the White House. Our enemies got stronger and bolder. They didn't fear the occasional Tomahawk missile strike launched far away and out at sea a safe distance from harm. Those aforementioned satellites were still no better at giving real-time data and damage assessments than they were earlier. The enemy hid in the safety of the earthen caves and got away, again and again. Telephone and live broadcast TV signals are still faster than a speeding Tomahawk, and it can take some time from launch to target and shock and awe aren't really that shocking unless the payload makes a mushroom cloud! Without boots on the ground to verify target acquisition and verify damage assessment and the target eliminated - it didn't happen. No picture - no proof!
Old Dog New Trick
06-17-2014, 10:03
Enter September 11, 2001, and watching a Boeing 767 fly into the World Trade Center live on TV, now that is shocking and not so much awe, but awe shit! Only problem is the same political actors that were in-charge the last time around are back in-charge again and now it's payback for ten-years of weakness shown to our enemies - which have only gotten stronger, bigger and more dangerous. Only problem is the U.S. Military really is weak! The sharp edge so honed to perfection and refined during the eighties under Reagan's race to bankrupt the Soviets had been lost during the nineties under Clinton. Special Forces got better at doing everything with nothing, Navy SEALs were more capable and could actually navigate on land, and Army Rangers became better equipped and hungry for a fight outside of the local bars and taverns. But big Army, the Marines, and the Air Force fighter squadrons had for the most part languished over the past decade of no budget, no training, no new equipment...no real purpose.
Remember the Taliban? Oh yeah, those miserable cretins we supported for our own little black war against the Soviet Union whom later took power in Afghanistan after the fall of a duly elected democratic government in the vacuum left by our hasty retreat from Iran-Contra Gate. Hell, under the budget saving costs imposed by the Clinton's we even shuttered a well known and working DEA operation in Afghanistan that remained in place after the Taliban took control - no chance whatsoever to keep tabs on them now; we left the hen coop and the fox took over. Well, they installed a Caliphate hyper religious Islamic sect of draconian rules. Stoned women, raped little girls as well as little boys, blew up religious artifacts that didn't coexist with their radical Islamic faith, created the worlds largest opium crops, and yes, gave safe refuge and "political" cover to a little known group calling themselves al-Qaeda. But I digress...different sand box...different story. Back to Iraq.
Gulf War (III), Operation Iraqi Freedom. Kill or capture on site one each Saddam Hussein and all members of his family, we have got to cut off the head of the snake - he threatened my daddy on U-Tube!
Whether or not all the intelligence agencies in the world got it wrong, and whether or not the UN was asleep at the wheel or not, the Washington political apparatus got into full swing and received unparalleled access to 24-hour propaganda to sell the American people on why we should invade Iraq. There wasn't a news anchor or journalist, or a talking head that was going to question the superior thinking of the White House or anyone else who stood up and shouted where is this Yellow Cake you speak of? I happen to like Yellow Cake with Chocolate Icing and maybe some Vanilla ice cream. I don't know why that is so hard to believe. Plutonium 239, isn't that the stuff Marvin the Martian was looking for, I can't remember. Anyway, none of it was found, not a trace! No Mustard agent, no VX Nerve Gas, nada, zilch, none-of-it! (Maybe it really was shipped off to Syria before we got there, because we know ((knew)) Saddam Hussein and Bashar al-Assad were BFFs before the war broke out. Right?) Anyways, the premise of why we needed to go was perhaps the greatest lie ever told (sold) to the American people, or an early sign that not only was our Intelligence collecting agencies and analysts not up to the task, but that after the cost cutting and savings of the Clinton years the CIA was broken too. It is possible, but maybe it wasn't just the cost cutting and savings, it's been broken pretty much since shortly after it was formed by two very important people from the OSS days and changed from a state sponsored spy and espionage agency to an insurrection and coup d'état for hire agency and has led to more undesirable follies and colossal (f)_uck up than most Americans can remember or credit to our own intellectual foreign policy since the end of WWII. Everybody of some age has heard of the Bay of Pigs where we tried to overthrow Cuba and Fidel Castro, but not many can remember how we overthrew a very pro and champion western believer in capitalism, the democratically elected PM Mohammad Mosaddegh, of Iran in 1953, and replaced him with a good dictator (Shah Pahlavi) that was an evil son of a bitch, but supported Washington's and Briton's thirst for cheap oil and labor. More of the Middle East and North African coups at least had the hallmarks of our non-participation but who knows (that shit is classified), and if they were successful or not and we weren't implicated. Good outcomes never come from hastily prepared decisions and even the best laid plans on a drawing board do not become reality once the actions begin to take movement on the ground. Really, really smart people that sit in situation rooms and what-if something to death, are usually not the ones putting their ass on the line when everything goes haywire in the field. But again, I digress.
We hastily invaded Iraq, it was supposed to start with "Shock and Awe" according to the architects Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld, it looked more like a Fourth of July Fireworks show for sure, and only really destroyed all the personnel records and country documents needed to help set up the new incoming government. Too bad, those could have been handy in the months and years to come looking for people that served in the military or government positions or were on some payroll to the masters before. Then we were told the Iraqi people would welcome us with open arms after we disposed of their dictator, that didn't materialize either, but the locals did take advantage of empty office buildings as soon as the dust cleared to clear them of furniture and air conditioning units. The U.S. Army combat teams without Military Police at the ready are so adept at keeping law and order. Speaking of the military, that was another architectural plan of Rumsfeld, disband the Iraqi Army and chase the generals into hiding, death, or capture...a deck of playing cards with pictures of the most wanted (hell, even Baghdad Bob, Jay Carney's equivalent was wanted.) I must have missed that class or slept through it in Phase III and again at O&I and SOT-A. I thought if there was a remote chance the standing army was willing to accept defeat they could keep their troops, their guns, and their commands to help transition during the reconstitution and restructuring phase of war. Again, Rummy was wrong...we really did need about 400,000 troops to occupy Iraq and pacify the people, only we weren't there to "occupy" anything; we went there to destroy it first and then somehow rebuild it from the ground up. That became very evident over the course of the next three years. Brilliant (f)_ucking plan Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Chaney and Bush JR. What do you guys do for an encore, oh yea, drop the ball in Afghanistan. Personally I think that mission ended in the mountains of Tora Bora on December 29, 2001, and should have become an International Law Enforcement/SOF operation to hunt down Osama bin Laden and the other actors of al-Qaeda. Nowhere to hide, we will find you, we will kill you - Allah willing! Special Forces were so successful in the early months at capturing and killing bad guys that everybody who should leave - left. Mission accomplished! If we have to come back in a year or two we will, until then we are going to stay and teach the Afghan people that are glad you left how to kill you when you return. COIN/UW straight out of the manual. Yes, your goat path and mud hut are perfect, you've never had electricity and you are not likely to miss it, here, grow coffee and get your goats to eat it and then shit it out and piss on it - Americans can't get enough high priced bean, make it special. Change comes from within, it may take a generation or two to realize that, and be able to send your daughters back to school again, but that is up to you, not the rapists we chased across the border into Pakistan where they are from. Put a political period with an open exclamation next to Afghanistan - Where Empires Go To Die - Charley Wilson already tried, we can read history books, we were here once before. Good luck! Back to Iraq.
Well, the brilliant plans developed and carried out during the "occupation" of Iraq by under qualified and not right for the job first military (LTG Jay Garner - who wouldn't follow bad orders) and then patsy civilian (L. Paul Bremer) it took three years to install a "friendly" (puppet) government by first importing an exiled dissident (Ahmed Chalabi - who knew nobody knew him) and then through monitored and accredited "free" elections resulted in a complete lack of accountability and have led to a disastrous support of someone (Nouri al-Mailiki a Shi'a) who has resisted inclusion of Sunni tribes to balance the government and to create a truer "democracy" has failed. I suppose the whole mission was a failure when after all the blood, sweat and new headstones in Arlington and elsewhere in the United States could not press the new POTUS and Secretaries of State and Defense to find a way to ensure a SOFA to continue the hard work that went into getting this far...all is lost on the campaign trail promise that - "I will end the wars and bring the troops home!" Yeah! To hell with doing the right thing, to hell with seeing something through to a sustainable and successful end, where, when the last man (or woman) leaves and turns out the lights, someone (an Iraqi) can give them a firm handshake and say with confidence, "We'll take it from here, we've got all the bases covered. Thank you!"
Old Dog New Trick
06-17-2014, 10:05
Cut and run, we've got that down in spades!
I'm not advocating for us to return, I really could give a rats ass for the outcome of the Middle East and their future in the global market. When you add up the costs of cheap oil and the costs of keeping it flowing you have to add in the costs and price of freedom, and I strongly believe we could either produce enough of our own oil or switch to other forms of energy to meet our demands for much less blood and conflict than the Middle East deserves. Some costs are just too high, this is all they have, it had a good run but looking back to the seventies and onward to today, they poisoned their own wells of good fortune. Not my problem. Blood oil costs more to burn.
On the other hand, I also feel that we broke it and it's our responsibility now to fix it. I don't know what that will take, but if in the interest of the Truman doctrine (many will die to save the lives of many more) then turning a few more highways into "Highways of Death" sounds just about right for the Air Forces of NATO to go hunting. Happy hunting boys!
And with that, I'll say we broke Iran in 1953, and should probably do a better job at creating a sustainable foreign policy of inclusion and verify the threat before jumping to conclusions without verification of facts. It may be cheaper in the long run to let them have nuclear power than constantly being afraid of what Don Rumsfeld so eloquently said, "Reports that say there's -- that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things that we know that we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know." Maybe it's better to know our enemies than to make incorrect assumptions and plunge headlong into ill begotten wars without end. At least Iran has the potential to become; dare I say it, "a Western loving civilization with educated young people seeking change."
As a person who dabbles in U.S. history, and military history, I often wonder if our elected leaders have given much thought to where their legacy will stand ten to twenty years after they have left office or even further into the future. What will be the cause and effect of their policies and programs that sound so good at the time, but will have lasting and permanent effects on the generations that follow. Our history suggests they have made things worse for each generation that follows. My belief is the decisions being made by the incompetent naive group leading now, will come back to haunt us all in the future and it won't take ten years to find out.
Rant/off
Trapper John
06-17-2014, 10:48
Old Dog, that is the best summary of the situation in the ME that I have ever read! F'n great job Brother:lifter
With your permission, I would like to borrow that (giving credit to you) for others to read. You make a very compelling argument through out that has the ring of simple truth. Very, very persuasive.
Thank you!
De Oppresso Liber
Old Dog New Trick
06-17-2014, 10:55
Old Dog, that is the best summary of the situation in the ME that I have ever read! F'n great job Brother:lifter
With your permission, I would like to borrow that (giving credit to you) for others to read. You make a very compelling argument through out that has the ring of simple truth. Very, very persuasive.
Thank you!
De Oppresso Liber
Share where?
I really don't mind at all, although after my fifth read, there are a few mis used words and syntax errors. :o
But be my guest, information educates...
I have no experience in the soda pop business, but from my experience as a manufacture's agent, a manufacturer, exporter, wholesale distributor, and a wholesale/retail service provider.... I would find it hard to believe that a route salesman would be privy to the actual bottom line price that a national/international account is getting. Pricing shown on an invoice means little to nothing.
Trapper John
06-17-2014, 11:45
Share where?
I really don't mind at all, although after my fifth read, there are a few mis used words and syntax errors. :o
But be my guest, information educates...
Information does educate and that was my point. I am involved in a discussion with a local social group of friends that are mostly left-leaning politically. I am one of the few libertarian/conservatives in this group and for some reason they actually listen to what I have to say.
I've been doing a little social experiment to see how pretty intelligent folks' views and thinking can be influenced and what is the best means to doing so. I started out on Twitter, learned a few things about Twitter's limitations in the process
(best as a source for pulsing a group, not influencing it IMO).
Moved on to Facebook and a group where I am a known entity that is respected (I think) for my views albeit those views are in the minority. I am sensing that after about 1 year I can actually influence group thinking.
The subject of re-engaging in Iraq has come up and I have engaged in that conversation and am getting some traction. Your post here would be an excellent follow-on to the current discussion and will definitely generate some discussion. I would really like to gauge the nature of the responses. I know what they would have been a year ago. I would love to see what they are now.
What do you think?
During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush argued against nation building and foreign military entanglements. In the second presidential debate, he said: "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'"
The United States is currently involved in nation building in Iraq on a scale unseen since the years immediately following World War II.
Too bad he didn't follow that course.
Old Dog New Trick
06-17-2014, 11:50
Information does educate and that was my point. I am involved in a discussion with a local social group of friends that are mostly left-leaning politically. I am one of the few libertarian/conservatives in this group and for some reason they actually listen to what I have to say.
I've been doing a little social experiment to see how pretty intelligent folks' views and thinking can be influenced and what is the best means to doing so. I started out on Twitter, learned a few things about Twitter's limitations in the process
(best as a source for pulsing a group, not influencing it IMO).
Moved on to Facebook and a group where I am a known entity that is respected (I think) for my views albeit those views are in the minority. I am sensing that after about 1 year I can actually influence group thinking.
The subject of re-engaging in Iraq has come up and I have engaged in that conversation and am getting some traction. Your post here would be an excellent follow-on to the current discussion and will definitely generate some discussion. I would really like to gauge the nature of the responses. I know what they would have been a year ago. I would love to see what they are now.
What do you think?
PM an email and I'll send the text version. It would also be interesting to hear responses from your group.
Old Dog New Trick
06-17-2014, 11:52
Too bad he didn't follow that course.
No kidding! :mad:
Trapper John
06-17-2014, 12:10
Old Dog- PM outbound
Old Dog New Trick
06-17-2014, 13:35
Mail is out. Funny, I made some good changes, but not enough to repost it. Just little things to make it read better.
War is complicated creature, I'm glad I never had to survive one. Training and "other" missions were enough hazard, to understand the difference. Sacrifices made nonetheless.
If this does return to a ground war for control, ya all keep your head on a swivel and your wits about you, come home!
The only true free market competition we have is yard sales, farmers markets, flea markets etc…where the consumer has the ability to barter for the best price.
Your use of the term "free market" doesn't jive with what I was taught as a young pup business major in college.
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Free_market.html
I also don't understand your use of "barter for the best price", since barter doesn't include the exchange of money.
I had no idea T.E. Lawrence was a major influence regarding foreign policy and unconventional warfare. I will have to read up on this man. Regarding Iraq, I would say one major problem made was invading the country and thinking a functioning liberal democracy could be set up quickly. That can take years, even decades, to establish. But it's not like all this had to happen. We got an extremely left-leaning president unfortunately. South Vietnam falling also didn't have to happen, but the Democratic party cut the funding to the South, and then it fell to the North.
Or..... George W Bush didn't have us invade Iraq , topple it's govt and infrastructure. Read his lips..."No more nation building".
The Mom and Pops stores cannot compete and or ever meet the prices of the corporate giants and chains trust me when I say they want to give you the best deal it is impossible without suppliers giving them the super deals corporate giants receive. So though they make profit off the $37 BIB they can't afford to entice you into their store to sell fountain drinks because they can't price any product low enough to beat the giants without going bust. Walmart can take advantage of the super blowout prices extended to all and will never be in a position to purchase the volume needed to purchase 100+ cases without product going bad. The sad thing is you may love the people at the mom and pops, they may have personal relationships with them and they may go out their way to give you the best service but they will never have the cash flow to compete. All they have is service the prices go to the giant.
The "Mom and Pop" grocers are better for the consumer because??? Lower prices; open more hours; wider variety of items???????
Do they (M&P) provide better hourly wages and benefits; safer working place; provide more jobs, give more money to local charities?
BTW, Didn't Sam Walton begin as a M&P?
WarriorDiplomat
06-17-2014, 15:00
The "Mom and Pop" grocers are better for the consumer because??? Lower prices; open more hours; wider variety of items???????
Do they (M&P) provide better hourly wages and benefits; safer working place; provide more jobs, give more money to local charities?
BTW, Didn't Sam Walton begin as a M&P?
Fellas, I do not want to hijack the thread as I feel Old Dog New Trick wrote an awesome synopsis on the ME. And that should be the topic od the thread.
I will post a laymans terms paper on economics that your average american doesn't understand about corporate hijacking of economies.
Old Dog New Trick
06-17-2014, 15:03
Sir, are you saying that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a bad thing? Or are you saying that waging the war in Afghanistan against the Soviets was a bad idea? And if the latter, might not Afghanistan have turned out to be just as bad, as the Soviets were fighting to establish a communist dictatorship, and unless they succeeded, Afghanistan would have become a vacuum.
I'm not saying that directly, but perhaps the collapse of the USSR was a bad thing. Perhaps the ending of the Cold War was a bad thing. I don't know. I fought it from both a strategic POV with nuclear missiles and as an Infantry grunt preparing for the invasion of the Fulda Gap. The likelihood of both those were zero to nil, but that would not be an interpretation from Washington during the eighties. We stayed on high to medium alert because if it did happen we had minutes to run. Run where, I was never sure of.
What I was saying is that we pick sides on a whim and support the side we pick even if we know down the road, we would probably have to reconsider that strategy as being sustaining and in our "best" interests.
Also, perhaps (again I don't want to speculate too much) but had the Soviets taken control of Afghanistan, would we have had 9/11, would we have had to go there the last 13-years, would we have had to go into Iraq in 1990? 2003? And maybe be going back - soon, again?
Describe Afghanistan turning out worse than it became since the 1990s?
I think these days, that having two world superpowers on edge kind of kept things in check, better than all this non-state terrorism sweeping the world. That just my POV others may disagree.
Old Dog New Trick
06-17-2014, 15:17
I think that foreign policy always will involve getting involved with actors who down-the-line will be trouble for us, because a lot of times, it's just choosing the lesser-of-multiple evils. I did not say that Afghanistan would have been worse had the Soviets taken control, I said even if we hadn't fought the Soviets indirectly that if they ended up pulling out anyway, Afghanistan probably would have turned out just as bad.
I think that the world is a better place with the Soviet Union gone. Remember, the Cold War wasn't some time of stability or anything either. The Soviets were constantly trying to prop up communist regimes all over the place, to the point that many thought the United States was in decline. And the Soviets were very aggressive in their behavior too. They backed down under Reagan because he wasn't going to take that.
Agree with the first.
It's only speculation to agree or disagree with the second. We really don't know. And we really don't know how much shit we were fed from the intelligence agencies to support one coarse of action over another.
P.S. I added a bit between your post and the earlier reply. Don't know that it makes much difference.
Old Dog New Trick
06-17-2014, 15:28
Regarding the Soviet Union collapse, I agree things aren't black-and-white, but I think overall, it was good.
I would just like know I bit of your perspective, why good?
Not shooting messenger, just asking.
And yes I believe there were good things that came with its fall.
Old Dog New Trick
06-17-2014, 16:07
After fighting the Soviets there, I read that the U.S. government just wanted to get out of there, not wanting to have a thing to do with that area of the world again. Unfortunately, that inadvertently led to conditions that pulled us back in.
Regarding the Soviet Union collapse, I agree things aren't black-and-white, but I think overall, it was good.
Afghanistan has a long history predating Alexander, but in Alexander's quest to rule Persia he had to first win over the Afghan tribes to fight with him. He was in history the only military commander to do that with any degree of success. Empires from France to England tried to tame and control Afghanistan, but as each subsequent journey into the country began for control they were defeated at great personal and financial loss. This ultimately was the path that Russia took too, and were defeated (with a little help from us.)
Rep-D (Tex) Charley Wilson was the man that got us into Afghanistan to defeat the Russians, he used his position to fund the CIA and after the war ended went to congress and ask for an appropriation to fund Afghan schools and villages. He was shot down in flames, and that ended our involvement in Afghanistan in 1990. Some of it was backwash from Iran-Contra, most of it was congress didn't want to get sucked in to the morass that Afghanistan was known for.
Some credit Wilson, with the demise of the Soviets, but that's a stretch. He only funded a small part of what was at the time a non-sustainable future for the Russian Empire. Marxist-Leninism was proving to be non-sustainable and that was there weakness. Reagan capitalized on it and spent them under the table at great cost to us years later.
Old Dog New Trick
06-17-2014, 16:38
Well for one, lots of people freed and no longer living under oppression, two, the threat of nuclear war gone. The threat of various communist puppet states springing up all over the place also gone.
The threat of nuclear war is gone?
What puppet states? Communist expansion began in the aftermath of WWII when the Eastern European countries occupied by Germany were in despair and the Allies couldn't move fast enough to secure them after Nazi withdraw. By 1950 they had taken most of Southeast and East Asia, and some of the Middle East and North Africa. As time went on that power slowly receded and by 1985, six years before the fall of the USSR only those that choose to stay aligned with Moscow remained. Many had left for perceived greener pastures from Europe. That was the writing on the wall...Russia no longer controlled it's natural resources like it had earlier.
While it may have been bluster from many congressional members of the day, Cuba and a splinter group or two in Central America would become controlled by the Communist Party in Russia. Vietnam was a holdout until the Indo-China war pushed the North to expel the Imperialist from the French out, dragging us in to a West vs East showdown winner take all. We lost.
We are seeing a modern day example of the new Russia asserting control over the eastern region of Ukraine but it's hard to tell at this point if that is not a local choice by people disillusioned by failure and weakness of the west and strength of unity and nationals pride be the east.
Economics are far more complicated than that. I have never blamed a business for a citizen's responsibility but since you made the comment someone has to work there should we as taxpayers be burdened with subsidizing the employees of the wealthiest family in America? No, I do not blame Walmart I applaud their business genius; they have the government by the nuts by keeping so many employees at lower wages they keep the economy flowing as intended.
What about those who are employed by mom & pops, should they be paid more because of their personal economic situation. Are you saying if there was no food stamp program Walmart would have to increase their employees wages
C'mon you should know better than to make blanket statements like that. Contrary to your above comment not all are uneducated, have too many children or are unskilled believe it or not, some have had their business go under, wives have had husbands leave them supporting their children, old people who can no longer do anything but greet at the door. A guy at my hometown Walmart who died had been crippled on Iwo Jima as an Infantry Marine he was a rancher by trade but lost his ranch when his 1000+ head of livestock ranch went under when the beef prices bottomed out (I worked for him).
Are you saying Wmart should pay someone more (to do a job) because they lost their business, their husband left them and they don't have more marketable job skills; their too old to do anything more productive than be a greeter. Sorry about your rancher friend, if he had been in the business for a long time why didn't he have the cash reserves to see him through bad times?
Years ago a friend of mine employed about 100 people re-manufacturing parts for GM....they were threatening to unionize and demand higher wages and more benefits. They were already being paid well, and had excellent working conditions. He told them that he couldn't pay more or keep the operation going under union demands. He shut down that department and kept 4 employees working in another department. The three upper floors of his building were left to gather dust. His business did well and his 4 loyal employees inherited the business and property when he passed away about 15 years later.
Old Dog New Trick
06-17-2014, 16:49
How did Reagan's spending them under the table come at great cost to us years later? It also wasn't just Reagan that brought down the Soviets, it was Gorbachev's actions himself. From what I have read, Gorbachev was a product of Reagan, i.e. a more "moderate" Soviet leader as opposed to a hardliner, as the Soviets realized the hardliners wouldn't scare Reagan. But Gorbachev went and tried to reform the Soviet Union, and in doing so, undermined the whole system, which contributed to its falling apart as well. This was in addition to the actions Reagan was taking.
Reagan borrowed trillions of dollars against future debt. That debt became collectible roughly on 2008. It's now part of our national debt.
All the military hardware purchased and began service in the 1980s until he left office was never paid for. Some of that bill became due upon his leaving office, which G.H.W. Bush had to contend with, massive troop cuts, all this ran through the Clinton years, Clinton isn't to fault for all his spending cuts and budget cuts,those were part of Reagan's legacy. We are still feeling it today.
The Russians couldn't keep up, but tried either as national pride, or as a genuine fear of the U.S. exerting power and influence around the world. Gorbachev was trying to hold the last vestiges of the USSR together but it was already crumbling from its own weight. Reagan pushed them over the edge.
Golf1echo
06-17-2014, 16:49
Old Dog New Tricks
History doesn't seem that important to the short term thinkers in politics these days, that is a shame, it is the context that they need to make relevant decisions. How would a person make good decisions without context? From my perspective that is one of the things that is wrong with many of today's leaders, their time is taken up with fund raising and the game, their agendas do not have the long term included. Most great leaders I can think of have that context and use it to program solutions. As an illustration, currently one uses Abraham Lincoln...but takes bits and pieces not whole context, I guarantee his place in History will not be beside President Lincoln's. I would not wish it on you but the country is in dire need of well rounded experienced leaders...like you.
Thanks too for the advice you gave me, it paid off in spades today...
Best
Thank you for the informative posts Old Dog New Trick!
WarriorDiplomat
06-17-2014, 20:07
I have no experience in the soda pop business, but from my experience as a manufacture's agent, a manufacturer, exporter, wholesale distributor, and a wholesale/retail service provider.... I would find it hard to believe that a route salesman would be privy to the actual bottom line price that a national/international account is getting. Pricing shown on an invoice means little to nothing.
OK well believe what you want sounds like you have it all figured out.
WarriorDiplomat
06-17-2014, 20:36
Reagan borrowed trillions of dollars against future debt. That debt became collectible roughly on 2008. It's now part of our national debt.
All the military hardware purchased and began service in the 1980s until he left office was never paid for. Some of that bill became due upon his leaving office, which G.H.W. Bush had to contend with, massive troop cuts, all this ran through the Clinton years, Clinton isn't to fault for all his spending cuts and budget cuts,those were part of Reagan's legacy. We are still feeling it today.
The Russians couldn't keep up, but tried either as national pride, or as a genuine fear of the U.S. exerting power and influence around the world. Gorbachev was trying to hold the last vestiges of the USSR together but it was already crumbling from its own weight. Reagan pushed them over the edge.
Excelent posts ODNT, preach on the education.
Excellent posts by QP ODNT.
Quartz_MJC
06-18-2014, 13:03
2 cents. Before "reengaging" in Iraq or the Middle East in general we need to first figure out what our strategic end game in the region needs to be and how we plan to achieve it. Given the current administration this is like asking a person stricken with sever Down syndrome to solve Kepler’s equations of planetary motion. Currently, I can think of only one reason to give that global shit hole any strategic value- the flow of cheap OIL. So now we know why we need to be there next thing is to identify those who have ideology and capability to actively disrupt or strategic goals. The first country which comes to mind as opposition is Iran. Iran currently has 100 times more influence in Iraq than we do. So…The current Iraq government is not receptive to our long term goals. We did try for 10 years to make IRAQ US friendly but that proved as fruitless as milking a male water buffalo. So, who can be a legitimate partner? Saudi Arabia perhaps, perhaps not they are Sunni, finance the Sunni insurgency in Syria and not to mention the Saudis are more degenerate than sailors on free hooker night. Turkey, well they have not been a reliable ally in well…forever. So, who is left? The Kurds are left and why not. They have their problems but they are the least ugly girl at the bar. We have one thing they need the ability to legitimize them as an independent nation on the world stage and oh they have oil.
GratefulCitizen
06-18-2014, 14:42
Policy decisions seem to be driven by news cycles and election cycles.
This is much too short-sighted.
There is a confluence of interests among various nations/factions in the Middle East and around the world: energy.
In particular: natural gas.
Competing pipelines (a Shia one from the east, a Sunni one from the south) look to converge in Syria.
From there, access to a rich European market will produce profits, and power.
Enter Russia.
They have an interest in how competing gas sources affect their influence in Europe (supplying Europe with gas is a powerful tool for them).
The US could go over there and focus resources directly meddling in the matter as well.
Or, the US could focus on a method which should prove less costly in blood and treasure.
Loosen restrictions on domestic energy production.
Remove export restrictions.
Ship natural gas to Europe across the Atlantic.
The US will soon be the leading producer of oil and gas in the world, efforts of the current administration notwithstanding.
Energy independence should be reached within about 5 years.
Build the domestic economy.
Influence the world through economic might.
Rebuild the military.
Train and equip for the next war, quit fighting the last one.
Too late to do anything about this season's harvest.
Time to start planting for the future.
WarriorDiplomat
06-19-2014, 06:48
2 cents. Before "reengaging" in Iraq or the Middle East in general we need to first figure out what our strategic end game in the region needs to be and how we plan to achieve it. Given the current administration this is like asking a person stricken with sever Down syndrome to solve Kepler’s equations of planetary motion. Currently, I can think of only one reason to give that global shit hole any strategic value- the flow of cheap OIL. So now we know why we need to be there next thing is to identify those who have ideology and capability to actively disrupt or strategic goals. The first country which comes to mind as opposition is Iran. Iran currently has 100 times more influence in Iraq than we do. So…The current Iraq government is not receptive to our long term goals. We did try for 10 years to make IRAQ US friendly but that proved as fruitless as milking a male water buffalo. So, who can be a legitimate partner? Saudi Arabia perhaps, perhaps not they are Sunni, finance the Sunni insurgency in Syria and not to mention the Saudis are more degenerate than sailors on free hooker night. Turkey, well they have not been a reliable ally in well…forever. So, who is left? The Kurds are left and why not. They have their problems but they are the least ugly girl at the bar. We have one thing they need the ability to legitimize them as an independent nation on the world stage and oh they have oil.
Good post
WarriorDiplomat
06-19-2014, 06:52
Reagan spent yes, but he did so in order to rebuild the nation's military. G.H.W. Bush engaged in large-scale troops cuts because of the breakup of the Soviet Union. How were Clinton's defense cuts part of Reagan's legacy?
Have you ever heard/read Dwight Eisenhower's speech on the military industrial complex? It is prophetic
Old Dog New Trick
06-19-2014, 10:03
The problem with the Middle East isn't just it being a nice source of oil, but that if the oil flow from it is ever really hampered, even if we are energy independent, it is going to create a global shitstorm (pardon the word). The U.S. already gets a minority amount of our oil from the Middle East (most of it comes from Canada and Mexico). But if we got ourselves 100% independent of Middle East oil, China and Europe are not independent, and if the oil flow to them is hampered, it will sent their economies into such a tailspin that it will yank our economy right down with theirs. It would not be where our economy remains independent and chugging along all by itself while Europe and China go down the toilet.
So until the vast majority of the industrialized world becomes independent from Middle East oil, the U.S. is going to be playing a role in that portion of the world unfortunately.
Also, like your analogies;):cool:
And how exactly is that "our" problem?
Are you saying that Iraqi oil helps to stabilize the world market? Because if so, why was the world oil supply so stable during the decades long embargo before OIF?
There was a movie a few years back about the crusades and the battle for Jerusalem where Saladin answers the question what is Jerusalem worth?
" Nothing..........Everything"
Strategically the geography of Iraq makes it similar and the heart of the Middle East, it's bordered by just about every major player in the region, and has Oil the world for now still needs. We sent a clear message to every despot in the AO, behave and choose us over AQ or suffer Saddam's fate. As the superpower isn't our strategy whenever possible spoiling actions to maintain the status quo and stifle nuclear proliferation? Every player in that regional snake pit has pro's and cons, and in the end everybody at the table is a carpet salesmen, no friendships just shared interests. I don't see a renaissance blooming in the region any time soon, so would another 8 year Iran/Iraq war keep them busy? Help both sides IF like 1980 it is in America's best interest.
Personally I think odds of this are slim. Is the ISIS in Iraq out of strength or because The Syrians began to get the upper hand and forced them out? Do they really have the force to take Baghdad or just enough to carve out and defend an AO in northern Iraq? Do they have the capability of mounting any sort of real threat through the mountanous terrain of Iran? ISIS is surrounded by powerful enemies in Syria, Turkey, and Iran, not to mention the US if provoked.
I would also sell any notion of some history bucking Shiite Sunni collaboration going forward, these people like killing each other, and do except for brief periods when they focus against an external threat.
The reason to go back in to Iraq is the same as it ever was anywhere. If we believe it like A-Stan devolves into a safe haven for training, coordinating, and mounting terrorist attacks against the CONUS. Which it could considering how badly the current regime has botched military victories US forces achieved there.
Old Dog New Trick
06-19-2014, 11:02
Sir, I am not saying Iraqi oil stabilizes the world so much as that the world is too dependent on Middle East oil period, and thus the United States is going to be involved in that area of the world, i.e. the Middle East, for many years to come unless/until the majority of the industrialized world becomes independent of Middle East oil.
Not sure I get what you mean about how is it our problem. If the Middle East oil gets cut off enough and sends the European economies and the Chinese economy and so forth into a total tailspin, this will pull our economy down with theirs. Thus even if 100% independent of Middle East oil, we still are tied to it through the global economy via the other nations that are not independent.
Also consider this: if the Middle East oil supply got cut off enough and caused the Euro and Chinese economies to go into a tailspin, it could cause mass rioting and an environment ripe for radical politics in those countries. China would be a huge concern because of the potential for instability there, which is checked by the government's continuing to keep the economy growing or at least appearing to grow and Europe, well we might see a repeat of the 1930s.
I fully comprehend what you are saying, but the US is not the world's military force for stability. Doing the bidding (for hire) for countries like China, or Europe is not in our best interest no matter how good it sounds to be that.
The status quo before OIF, the Arab Spring and the fall of Libya are all related to "shaking things up" and our failed foreign policies of the current and previous administrations that landed us here.
Yes, those people seem to only understand absolute power, so you have accept corruption and horrible human rights and bad negotiations from time to time if you really want something for less. Create global competition but choose wisely who you get in bed with.
Have you ever heard/read Dwight Eisenhower's speech on the military industrial complex? It is prophetic
I watched/listened to Ike give that speech live on TV back when Shep was a pup! I still think of Ike when I'm crusing down the Interstate in my merry Oldsmobile!
Old Dog New Trick
06-19-2014, 11:22
Would have to disagree with you on this Sir. I would say that the United States is the world's military force for stability. It is the United States that keeps the sea lanes open and underwrites global trade and global security. The whole post-WWII geopolitical structure of the free world is essentially based on this. It is the United States for example that prevents Iran from controlling the world by keeping the Strait of Hormuz open where some 60% of the global oil supply flows through. It is the United States that has provided a defense umbrella that Europe has lived under for 60+ years and which has allowed the Europeans to get by spending so little on national defense.
Let's agree to disagree. :)
WarriorDiplomat
06-19-2014, 13:25
I watched/listened to Ike give that speech live on TV back when Shep was a pup! I still think of Ike when I'm crusing down the Interstate in my merry Oldsmobile!
I wasn't born until 68, so I didn't watch it until I was older and had read a book of my dads he mentioned the speech as he was leaving office. I watched it on youtube and was blown away at what he was saying a modern version of the Smedley Butlers book "war is a racket".
WarriorDiplomat
06-19-2014, 13:44
Would have to disagree with you on this Sir. I would say that the United States is the world's military force for stability. It is the United States that keeps the sea lanes open and underwrites global trade and global security. The whole post-WWII geopolitical structure of the free world is essentially based on this. It is the United States for example that prevents Iran from controlling the world by keeping the Strait of Hormuz open where some 60% of the global oil supply flows through. It is the United States that has provided a defense umbrella that Europe has lived under for 60+ years and which has allowed the Europeans to get by spending so little on national defense.
Broadsword, ODNT is a seasoned SF veteran with a perspective and experience most can't understand. We appreciate what you are saying and it sounds good in idealistic books but many of us have been around the world and know first hand that we are not the worlds stability force, the world lives on different planes of existence and our purpose for sending our soldiers into other countries is for the U.S.'s economic stability. It just so happens Global economics puts all in a situation to be involved with the balance of the worlds stability. Trust me when I say the other worlds powers do the exact same thing for their countries economic needs see China and Turkeys quiet move into Africa. Our media does not come close to reality it is biased infotainment to convince the American people to support the Governments agendas or stand against it, fundamental information is secondary.
Again we only get involved in countries where the United States have a significant interest in the resources and influence of a region if their fall will disrupt our balance of economic stability then we act. The Marine Corps and the Navy were built to protect OUR commerce interests overseas from piracy and unstable regions because OUR economy required the protection.
Here is reccomended reading for you start with 2x MOH recipient Smedley Butlers book "war is a racket". Understand who and what Lt General Smedley Butler USMC was and at what level of being in the know within the highest levels giving him insight you and I will never have, he was awarded a brevet rank as an officer during the time period when Officers would receive brevet rank instead of MOH's due to Officers not being allowed to receive it. In reality his brevet was awarded in lieu of a MOH and he is technically a 3x recipient of the MOH. Watch the video by President Ike video "Military Industrial Complex"and finally read "In Search of Wars" by retired CIA operaive Marine Corps Col John Stockwell and his follow on book the "The Praetorian Guard". Read these.
Surf n Turf
06-19-2014, 18:01
we didn't re-build Europe and Japan right after WWII for pure charity purposes, it was to help check the Soviets.
Broadsword,
There were many more issues in play in addition to stopping the evil communist hoards.
The Marshall plan for Europe and MacArthur's plan for Japan / Asia prove that sometimes our National Interest can coincide with other nations wants / desires. These endeavors were possible because the major industrial economies and infrastructures of the world were wrecked in WWII, leaving just USA / Canada unscathed. These plans allowed the following US National Interests to be addressed:
Avoided a repeat of a worldwide depression
Allowed the United States to set the terms for Axis peace treaties
Established the United States as THE dominant WORLD ECONOMY, and the dominant LENDER NATION.
Established the US Dollar as the WORLD RESERVE CURRENCY
Established the United States foreign policy as the guiding instrument of "soft power" throughout the world, and required borrowing nation cooperation with the United States.
Established the United States as the SUPPLIER NATION for Global rebuilding. This allowed the massive expansion of our manufacturing base, and mitigated any losses from no longer supplying war materials'.
Provide employment and upward mobility for over 8 million returning veterans.
Opened the World Markets to American participation, expansion, and dominance
Blunted the movement westward of Stalin's effort to establish communism throughout Europe.
"To clarify the US's position, Marshall gave the address to the graduating class of Harvard University on June 5, 1947. The speech described the dysfunction of the European economy and presented a rationale for US aid.
"The modern system of the division of labor upon which the exchange of products is based is in danger of breaking down. . . . Aside from the demoralizing effect on the world at large and the possibilities of disturbances arising as a result of the desperation of the people concerned, the consequences to the economy of the United States should be apparent to all.
the Marshall Plan included Britain, West Germany, France and Italy and smaller nations outside the Soviet orbit. It required each government to set up a national economic plan, and for the countries to cooperate in terms of financial and trade flows.
The rebuilding of Japan after the second World War was overseen by General Douglas MacArthur. It was included in the Marshall plan in the 1950's
The Economic Cooperation Act of 1948 (Marshall Plan) was implemented. The United States included the former enemies, Germany and Italy, in its plan — thereby preventing a reprise of the worldwide economic depression of 1929.
In practical application, the proposal involved the constructive solution of thousands of detailed problems of international life. While attempting to go ahead with the program, the American government found itself temporarily blocked by the inability of the other Allies to reach agreement on the terms of treaties of peace with the major axis countries: Germany and Japan.
The plan was not a simple cash handover, but the temporary creation of an entire bureaucratic structure and extension of American government management in Europe.
To become eligible for assistance under the act, each participating country was required to conclude an agreement with the United States Government that committed it to the act's purposes.
Participants stabilized their currency, promoted production, cooperated with other participating countries in the interchange of goods, furnished the United States with needed materials, submitted progress reports and took other measures to expedite a return to economic self-sufficiency.
The Marshall Plan benefited the American economy as well. Marshall Plan money was used to buy goods from America, and the goods had to be shipped across the Atlantic on American merchant vessels. By 1953 America had pumped in $13 billion, and Europe was on the way to standing on its feet again.
Much of the Marshall Plan aid would be used by the Europeans to buy manufactured goods and raw materials from the United States and Canada
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1852.html
GratefulCitizen
06-19-2014, 18:40
Established the US Dollar as the WORLD RESERVE CURRENCY
There's the primary US interest in the Middle East.
The petrodollar.
Saudis (and others) get protection.
In return, they sell oil for dollars.
Iran, China, and Russia keep trying to find ways around the dollar.
They understand the importance.
WarriorDiplomat
06-20-2014, 05:48
Sir, thank you for the reading list. I will check out those books and read Eisenhower''s speech (or watch it). I understand your point about how much of our involvement globally is for our economic interests, but at the same time, does this not still make us the world's military force for stability? One could say that we are the world's military force for stability because it benefits us as a nation and our economy and security, but in terms of how the current structure is set up, we still operate as the stability force overall it seems, even if ultimately for ourselves.
For example, I would assume our having the Navy at the Strait of Hormuz isn't out of charity purposes, it is ultimately for our own national security. And we didn't re-build Europe and Japan right after WWII for pure charity purposes, it was to help check the Soviets. But since our security is tied into so much else in the world, this makes us the military force for stability, does it not?
to a more ideal world, we could divide the security of the free world with the other powers, but the problem was that without the United States, the other powers, at least in Europe, would have been unable to stand up to the Soviet Union. So we became the anchor.
We only stabilize regions that protect our interests, the French stabilize regions that protect theirs, the British still has an enormous empire they influence and it is in their best interest to stabilize theirs, China, Russia etc...have their regions of influence and an economic strategy. We all also destabilize regions, delegitimize governements and sponsor war of movements of countries in which the parties in charge are not willing to allow us into their market or exploit their resources.
No it does not make us the stability force those incidents were power grabs just like the division of North Africa and the middle east. We did not rebuild Japan or Germany they did and the allies refused to ever again allow those countries a significant war making capability. The United States was not considered a world power during either WW1 or 2 we were an isolated country with an interest in the markets. What happened in both campaigns especially in Europe was the other countries had been fighting Germany and its allies for so long when we got involved we were the infusion of a fresh Army that could finally fatigue and HELP in defeating perhaps the most powerful military force ever seen the German war machine. The U.S. did not win that the Allies won that. Without the French resistance and our OSS operatives D-Day the 6th of June 1944 may have been the slaughter of the century with the Germans superior positioning and better equipment and a far more sesoned war hardened military. With some trickery the resistance w/OSS and other similar types were able to cut communications from German Command and create diversions tat pulled the military away from the invasion points. We lost alot of men fighting the Germans and Italians but without the years of efforts and the resolve of our european partners we would have never have defeated the Germans.
You know that the Russians assisted in the defeat with the help of mother nature they lost between 10-30 million Russians fighting the Germans had it not been for winter in Stalingrad the Germans may very easily have taken Russia. But splitting efforts between the more powerful and better trained, equipped Allies was where we as a world effort were able to defeat Germany.
Again the Japanese was a world effort and again suggest you read Smedley Butlers Book "war is a racket" to gain insight on the events that leade up to our involvement and why.
Understand that the President may tell us we are the leaders of the free world therefore responsible for its security understand that this is politics to gain popular support of his actions. But what we do always goes back to our economics.
The points you bring up are valid, when we get involved in places like the ME we are attempting to keep their massive supplies of oil from countries like Russia and China in power grabs and have it at OUR disposal. We are doing the same thing in Africa with all the Uranium mines controlled by the French, we have no control but we have an interest in a country like Iran or N Korea sworn enemies of the U.S. from having access to it.
Hopefully you see the complexity.
Trapper John
06-20-2014, 05:56
There's the primary US interest in the Middle East.
The petrodollar.
Saudis (and others) get protection.
In return, they sell oil for dollars.
Iran, China, and Russia keep trying to find ways around the dollar.
They understand the importance.
And I do believe Iran/Russia and China have found that path running right through Iraq & Syria through friendly territory straight to the Ukraine with Russia controlling distribution.
Trapper John
06-20-2014, 06:00
We only stabilize regions that protect our interests, the French stabilize regions that protect theirs, the British still has an enormous empire they influence and it is in their best interest to stabilize theirs, China, Russia etc...have their regions of influence and an economic strategy. We all also destabilize regions, delegitimize governements and sponsor war of movements of countries in which the parties in charge are not willing to allow us into their market or exploit their resources.
No it does not make us the stability force those incidents were power grabs just like the division of North Africa and the middle east. We did not rebuild Japan or Germany they did and the allies refused to ever again allow those countries a significant war making capability. The United States was not considered a world power during either WW1 or 2 we were an isolated country with an interest in the markets. What happened in both campaigns especially in Europe was the other countries had been fighting Germany and its allies for so long when we got involved we were the infusion of a fresh Army that could finally fatigue and HELP in defeating perhaps the most powerful military force ever seen the German war machine. The U.S. did not win that the Allies won that. Without the French resistance and our OSS operatives D-Day the 6th of June 1944 may have been the slaughter of the century with the Germans superior positioning and better equipment and a far more sesoned war hardened military. With some trickery the resistance w/OSS and other similar types were able to cut communications from German Command and create diversions tat pulled the military away from the invasion points. We lost alot of men fighting the Germans and Italians but without the years of efforts and the resolve of our european partners we would have never have defeated the Germans.
You know that the Russians assisted in the defeat with the help of mother nature they lost between 10-30 million Russians fighting the Germans had it not been for winter in Stalingrad the Germans may very easily have taken Russia. But splitting efforts between the more powerful and better trained, equipped Allies was where we as a world effort were able to defeat Germany.
Again the Japanese was a world effort and again suggest you read Smedley Butlers Book "war is a racket" to gain insight on the events that leade up to our involvement and why.
Understand that the President may tell us we are the leaders of the free world therefore responsible for its security understand that this is politics to gain popular support of his actions. But what we do always goes back to our economics.
The points you bring up are valid, when we get involved in places like the ME we are attempting to keep their massive supplies of oil from countries like Russia and China in power grabs and have it at OUR disposal. We are doing the same thing in Africa with all the Uranium mines controlled by the French, we have no control but we have an interest in a country like Iran or N Korea sworn enemies of the U.S. from having access to it.
Hopefully you see the complexity.
Most Excellent :lifter
Would have to disagree with you on this Sir. I would say that the United States is the world's military force for stability. It is the United States that keeps the sea lanes open and underwrites global trade and global security. The whole post-WWII geopolitical structure of the free world is essentially based on this. It is the United States for example that prevents Iran from controlling the world by keeping the Strait of Hormuz open where some 60% of the global oil supply flows through. It is the United States that has provided a defense umbrella that Europe has lived under for 60+ years and which has allowed the Europeans to get by spending so little on national defense.
The US does things because it is in it's best interest to do so. If it didn't or it wasn't in it's best interest, it would not partake in an action otherwise.
The straits of Hormuz presence is yes, to keep Iran at Bay but also to protect Saudi and US interests and to ensure the oil supply does not get affected in any way by wayward/lost Iranian submarines or patrol boats way down south of Kuwait.
I don't think Europe was ever going to spend the sort of money America has spent on defence and on the European theatre but again, it was in America's best interest to hold the line and ensure there was a force in place alongside Nato should ever the situation turn into an all out war with the Russian bear...something that thankfully never happened..
But then again...Ukraine...
Barbarian
06-20-2014, 10:41
Most Excellent :lifter
Concur. I did not previously realize the complexity.
Old Dog New Trick
06-20-2014, 12:50
The US does things because it is in it's best interest to do so. If it didn't or it wasn't in it's best interest, it would not partake in an action otherwise.
The straits of Hormuz presence is yes, to keep Iran at Bay but also to protect Saudi and US interests and to ensure the oil supply does not get affected in any way by wayward/lost Iranian submarines or patrol boats way down south of Kuwait.
I don't think Europe was ever going to spend the sort of money America has spent on defence and on the European theatre but again, it was in America's best interest to hold the line and ensure there was a force in place alongside Nato should ever the situation turn into an all out war with the Russian bear...something that thankfully never happened..
But then again...Ukraine...
Oh, she partakes all too often, and when she does it usually has a predictable outcome. If not soon after, someday in the future. Not always will good intentions have good outcomes.
If anyone wants to know the rest of the history of that part of the world and why we are there, listen to the Marine Corps hymn. (Note, we've been over there long before anyone knew what oil was.) Since oil was found in great supplies under the sand we have had a national interest in that region of the world. It was cheaper and environmentally safer to produce oil in the Middle East than say Texas. Too many drilling disasters led to Ameican policies to curtail drilling on the American home front, and to import it from over there. Hence we keep the sea lanes open and protected from piracy and terrorism.
The Marshall Plan was needed after WWII, but some parts of it were ill conceived by westerners that had not a clue about tribal religious people and drew lines in the sand along geographic boundaries and not religious ones. They (League of Nations) thought "fairness" would prevail and it hasn't. Thousands of years of fighting over the best land (as seen at the time) was split up and uneaqually shared among the inhabitants. It was only a matter of time, and then since such time some had unfathomable wealth under the ground and others were left holding sand in one hand and sh!t in the other. As far as the Marshall Plan (Europe/Africa) and the MacArthur Plan (Pacific) goes, let's just say the "Crytal Ball" used has had some flaws. Flaws that left us engaged in all the cracks in the plan.
First Rule, (law) of land warfare, the victors own the rebuilding and security - if you break it, you fix it!
Second Rule, the victors make the rules - with that you have to enforce them! Sometimes that means doing things and paying for things long after the war is over, refer to rule number one.
Third rule, anything that can go wrong, will go wrong, given enough time - something will go wrong! Refer to rule number one.
Europe enjoys spending OPM and the wages of all it's people on its social programs without having to spend money on its own defense, long after it was capable of creating its own defense without us. A crack in the Marshall Plan, one that costs us dearly.
Old Dog New Trick
06-20-2014, 14:03
Does it though? We get a huge amount of economic benefits from defense spending, and it also allows us to address any major problems in the world quickly if need be. If no one country has the power to by itself address any major problem, and instead the only way such a problem can be addressed is if some coalition is formed, then the problem will likely not be addressed or only end up addressed at too late a time as the countries will be bickering about who should lead and so forth. IMO, for global security, it is better if one country can take command and lead the others and act by itself if necessary.
I'm really sorry (maybe "disappointed" is a better word) for you that you believe our country is better off spending a great deal of its wealth on policing the world when our elected leaders fail achieve diplomatic success through formal and informal negotiations with other world leaders.
Tell me what is the economic benefits of the last 13-years vs the costs of the conflicts we have been the leader of? And how that has had a positive effect on our world standing?
Just because you have the power and capability to do something, doesn't always mean you should. Selective and limited engagement can persuade as effectively as total domination, and sometimes as recently witnessed total domination results in more problems than it was intended to fix.
Unintended consequences!
Please tell me how me, and my family benefit economically from military spending. We are not part of the military industrial complex.:munchin
The Reaper
06-20-2014, 14:41
"Power flows from the muzzle of a gun." - Mao
TR
Military spending is about 1/4 of what we spend on Social Security, Unemployment, Labor, Medicare and Health.
16% of our 2015 budget vs 60%.
Vet benefits is only 4% of the budget.
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/
WarriorDiplomat
06-20-2014, 16:23
Yes, I am aware that the United States didn't win WW2 all by itself. I don't know if I buy into the notion that we destabilize regions of the world where they won't let us into their markets or economy. Sounds a bit too conspiratorial to me. As long as we are the leader of the free world, we are responsible to a good degree for ensuring its security. This doesn't mean we ourselves have to be the sole ones to bear the burden, but even if a shared burden, we are the ones responsible for making sure that this shared burden is set up and organized properly.
Broadsword there is a phrase that comes to mind reading your naive responses."you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink". You have just left me speechless and concerned about the future of America. I noticed your profile says you were an 18X a and your responses tell me you had no idea what you were joining. I am curious what you think we do? So I will say it we love healthy discussion but before you continue in your arguement read the books I recommended before you post again. then I want you to read about what psyops/can/special forces do and what UW is. After that i suggest reading books about the Chicago school of economics and its involvement in supporting the Chilean government being toppled by Augusto Pinochet in 1973. What you call a conspiracy theory we through our vast experience know there is enough evidence to that there is a high degree of probability. Once you have educated yourself somewhat then you will have the necessary foundation of information to discuss these subjects with us.
Old Dog New Trick
06-20-2014, 17:52
That's okay WD, I was thinking how much better PowerPoint enhanced our mission briefs. :D
Of course having traveled back and forth to Europe since the early 1980's and continue to to this day I can see how saving and spending trillions more on infrastructure and people can improve a societies life over having the most sophisticated and consequently the most expensive military in the world. That has provided no greater peace, just lucent periods of standoff.
Me thinks, he thinks I am anti military, which after having served 21+years I am not. I just know the military is not the solution to all which ails us. No matter how many Iraqis (Sunni or Shi'a) we kill, train or coddle; it will not create peace, stability, or economic fortune for all.
Remembering my medical oath: First, do no further harm!
And my personal SF/CA motto: I'm here to help you, help yourself.
Old Dog New Trick
06-20-2014, 18:54
PEACE = The Absence of War.
Broadsword, how traveled are you? (CONUS/OCONUS)
WarriorDiplomat
06-20-2014, 19:33
PEACE = The Absence of War.
Broadsword, how traveled are you? (CONUS/OCONUS)
Careful ODNT that is a loaded question travelled to some is the touristy hot spots, to others it is a zoo exhibit feeling bad about how poor and underprivelaged some people are of course enroute to a political career. What we do and have done is the invisible world of shadows where politics, economics and militaries collide.
Old Dog New Trick
06-20-2014, 20:45
Careful ODNT that is a loaded question travelled to some is the touristy hot spots, to others it is a zoo exhibit feeling bad about how poor and underprivelaged some people are of course enroute to a political career. What we do and have done is the invisible world of shadows where politics, economics and militaries collide.
Just looking for perspective.
But yes, it's an unmistakable question as to one's experience.
Old Dog New Trick
06-21-2014, 13:18
Not traveled at all right now Sir.
I think you should broaden your horizons and break bread with more people who are faceless, nameless, and only really care about the economy of house and family.
BTW in the US (CONUS) they used to thrive in local economies before the Interstate Highway system bypassed their homes and businesses and abandoned them to the backwaters and dusty dirt roads of a different time.
OCONUS in developing countries, most people of the world don't even know the power of the US and could care little about its military might unless an errant JDAM falls on their neighbors house. They've likely never even seen or heard of the good things we do after catastrophe and human suffering.
Propaganda is powerful tool, all too often used to control and sway people to support or defend an idea borne of political gain; even if that ideology is a misrepresentation of truth. Everyone in power uses it for good and bad.
WarriorDiplomat
06-21-2014, 17:29
Just looking for perspective.
But yes, it's an unmistakable question as to one's experience.
ODNT, Well my suspicions as yours from his textbook view of the world that he was young. Alot of the X rays coming through training are from educated somewhat privileged kids who have travelled on vacation or some other adventure. Right now I have a soldier in training worked for USAID with the same naive view.
Not traveled at all right now Sir.Look up "institutionalized" education.:munchin
Old Dog New Trick
06-22-2014, 14:55
You guys are tough! So if I held the view that America should not have a more active role in the world, I would be considered less naïve? I know many would consider the latter a naïve view too:confused:
Never pick a fight you are sure to lose. Never open Pandora's box unless you are sure you can contain what's inside. Some situations require a deep understanding of many more facets than just power to seize and control. In medical speak - a delayed primary closure is preferred to a surgical intervention and the infection that may ensue.
I was lucky in my early education. I attended a private Quaker school until 4th grade, then a Catholic school from 5th through 8th grade, then public school for high school. However, my high school was small and pretty conservative. Being liberal there made you an outcast. My social studies teacher was very conservative-minded. I remember being shocked later on when I found out just how left-leaning the overall education system is and how much of an exception my high school was.
In terms of my foreign policy views though, those are not from my education from school, those are more formulated just through my own self-education and reading.
It sounds as if your education plays a significant role in your views. Nothing wrong with what you say or believe. It's just that it is a bit narrow and "in the box" thinking. Life is more complicated and what's makes Special Forces so good is that it's a team from many backgrounds and levels of education and experience that gives it a unique somewhat unorthodoxed view "outside the box" thinking that finds success; even if it goes against your core beliefs. We are strong because we are one when the rubber meets the road.
ODNT. My preferred thinking is not In the box, outta the box thinking. It's Make a bigger Box. That is were we, as QP's, excel. ;)
Old Dog New Trick
06-22-2014, 15:32
BTW - the Sunni (ISIL) have taken four more Sunni (Bathist) cities back and the new Iraqi (Shiite) Army has withdrawn without a fight.
As if anyone didn't see this coming years ago. The current administration (ours) has ignored it from the beginning.
It should be a lesson that you can't pick sides and pit one against the other. Also that you if you are going to support both sides (even if in different locations - Syria and Iraq), don't act shocked when they butt heads. This feud is older than us.
Old Dog New Trick
06-22-2014, 15:34
ODNT. My preferred thinking is not In the box, outta the box thinking. It's Make a bigger Box. That is were we, as QP's, excel. ;)
👍
........, I mean that the U.S. plays the role of the stabilizer to prevent such conflicts from occurring in the first place, keeping the thugs of the world at bay.
Today's thug is tomorrow's ally....
And today's ally might be tomorrow's thug...
In most places you keep a thug in place by using your "thug" in the region.
A good thug is getting hard to find these days.
Old Dog New Trick
06-22-2014, 16:07
A good thug is getting hard to find these days.
You'd think a Chicago politician would know that, but I guess not. (Unless)
...the U.S. plays the role of the stabilizer to prevent such conflicts from occurring in the first place, keeping the thugs of the world at bay.
For someone that hasn't traveled anywhere (self admitted no third-world first-hand knowledge) you don't know much of Jack squat. For us to act the part of stabilizer would mean deploying troops there to act as UN-like "Peace Forces." The last time I checked, we were Special Forces and were considered combat forces; I'll check on that again tomorrow when I get into work.
If only Obama would treat our enemies the way he treats his political opposition.
I see what you did here...
...you used "our" wrong
Just because you consider a group enemies doesn't mean he does...
Would have to disagree Sir (with regards to having troops deployed). We have troops in Germany that acted as a check on the Soviets for many years. We have troops in South Korea to check the North Koreans. We have troops in the Philippines and Okinawa, we have naval forces near Iran, etc...all of these play a role in helping to act as a stabilizer.
Those countries were not in a civil religious war where suicidal fanatical combatants want to kill everything in their path that is not from their clan/tribe. And how has that "navel forces near Iran" worked out?
Case in point where our brothers were killed doing exactly what you want: Beirut, Lebanon, October 23rd 1983.
With your attitude and lack of worldly education you would make an excellent member of our esteemed State Department working in the Consultant section handing out visas.
Would have to disagree Sir (with regards to having troops deployed). We have troops in Germany that acted as a check on the Soviets for many years. We have troops in South Korea to check the North Koreans. We have troops in the Philippines and Okinawa, we have naval forces near Iran, etc...all of these play a role in helping to act as a stabilizer.
TPTB in the US Government have deployed troops to those areas as well as many 3rd world cesspools ruled by dictators and in all cases there is a segment of the populous in areas that did not and do not want the intervention of the US Government.
If it was up to WE, as in We the People I am nearly certain that WE would vote to use our wealth and resources at home and not to waste the lives of friends and family on people who don't like us and our ways.
For starters, how about check the influx of illegal border traffic and stabilize our own border?
Surf n Turf
06-22-2014, 22:33
Sir, you seem to think I am arguing to keep soldiers in very dangerous areas such as Iraq, that is not what I am arguing. Regarding Iran, the naval forces that keep the Strait of Hormuz open are needed or else the world would be at the mercy of the Iranians because some 60% of the global oil supply flows through there.
Broadsword,
Try this out.... imagine what would happen (2nd,3rd order) IF someone (Iran, Iraq, 3rd party) did blockade the Straits. Then outline what countries other than the United States would do...include Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Iran, as well as Japan, Great Britain.
Think it through, and opine :munchin
SnT
WarriorDiplomat
06-23-2014, 05:38
Today's thug is tomorrow's ally....
And today's ally might be tomorrow's thug...
In most places you keep a thug in place by using your "thug" in the region.
A good thug is getting hard to find these days.
That is awesome the "one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist" for the current generation nice.
WarriorDiplomat
06-23-2014, 06:06
If you mean never start something like an Iraq war unless you are sure you can win it, I agree there. My view is that one should always maintain the capability to fight such a war just to be on the safe side. It's like having nuclear weapons and survival shelters for the military and government bureaucracy in case of a major catastrophe (nuclear/biological/chemical warfare), you don't intend to ever have to use them, but have them just in case. But don't start conflicts if one doesn't absolutely have to.
On the issue of wars, I think that prudence with military intervention is something that is naturally conservative because conservatives always point out how government programs always balloon exponentially in cost because of all of the unforeseen variables. Wars are no different, and thus one can never really predict how much a war will cost or how long it will last.
In terms of the U.S. playing an active role in the world, I do not mean the U.S. needs to be getting itself into Iraq wars here and there, I mean that the U.S. plays the role of the stabilizer to prevent such conflicts from occurring in the first place, keeping the thugs of the world at bay.
In a college debate where everyone has the same institutionalized foundation of knowledge with variations you would be a champ, persistance is a trait you do not lack.
It is the depth of the knowledge and a true perspective we have that you and many educated people lack. There is the view from the U.S. and the views from the rest of the world with all the vast experiences and knowledge.
In any culture it is the same when it comes to institutionalized thinking, it means social norming. For SOF whether it is CA, PSYOPS or SF we have the luxury of seeing how confusing our country is simply because of a skewed view of what reality is. In the U.S. our news is really not news it can best be described as entertainment/news or infotainment. When we deploy we see what real news should be just clean impartial information for the most part. No drama, no shock value, no sensationalism just plain old boring information. After having spent considerable time in these other countries we come home and our news is more like a Jerry Springer show than important information. Make no mistake our news does not have healthy debate it is entertainment so you will tune into their channel and therefore more advertising dollars. And yes beneath the rhetoric there is some form of marketing to us even if it is partisan funded guests, nothing is free.
Every situation you desribe where the U.S. has a military presence there is an interest by our government that ties back to our economy.
BTW you said you were an 18X, what happened? and did you go to the needs of the Army I assume for the remainder of your contract?