1 Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of miserable failure.

2 I've said it before, and I'll beat this drum until I am blue in the face: Strife in the Arab/Muslim world is a very, very good thing for the West. Let them kill each other for awhile. And let them focus their bloodthirsty attentions on each other, and maybe fewer of our subways will go boom.

3 Holy shit. We won?

4 You can't nation build with muslims.

5 What exactly constitutes "winning" in an extremist Islamic nation? One cocksucker gone so another group of psychos can take his place?  Isn't that just great.

6 Who the fuck are these Allah and Ace persons and just exactly what the fuck do they know about waging war.  A Vietnam vet wants to know.

Sitting at home sucking a few beers are you, Allah and Ace, while you ponder the intricacies of defeating this country's enemies.
 

7 Yes we are war weary!  Even if we don't personally have to fight it...the public just can't hold out for this long, anywhere.  And I for one am getting sick network news going on about starving refugees in Somalia..you know some of these dicks expect the US to ***do something wahhh*** and that's how we get in this shit all the time.   They guilt us into it, and then dump on us whenever things go wrong.

8 Rebels within 50 miles of Tripoli
I'm guessing Qaddafi is gone in 30 days or less. And Obama will claim credit. [ArthurK] Ok, I was off by two week. But Obama will still claim credit.

9 Oh, #8 was a sidebar from July 6.

10 Sukie, Suck my dick, cocksucker. I'm an american fucking citizen.

11 So who won?

12 We have a strong interest in disarming Iran.

Say, what?!?

13 Obama's good at this war shit. Let's go to Syria next.

14 8 Rebels within 50 miles of Tripoli
I'm guessing Qaddafi is gone in 30 days or less. And Obama will claim credit. [ArthurK]

Ok, I was off by two week. But Obama will still claim credit.

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at August 18, 2011 10:12 PM (+JhHG)

Weren't they 50 miles from Tripoli like 2 weeks after all this started while Obama was dragging his feet on whether to offer our support or not?

15 And Sukie, if you knew a goddamned thing, you'd be capable of answering a single goddamned thing I said, instead of attempting your three-sheets-to-the-wind drunken-boor "Don't you know who I am?" appeal to authority.

16 Yeah, but what comes next? After Q is gone who's the next boss? Do you think the UN will be involved in setting up the next government?

At least with the "Bush" plan you have some enforcers around to keep the power freaks in the shadows for a while to let the populace have a little breathing room.

17 After we invade Canuckistan, my second term will be virtually guaranteed.

18 Why do we "buy" it if we break it?

We don't.  Colin Powell is a retard.  He was a total failure as Chairman of the JC and he was even worse as SecState.  If a nation make us break them (as they are threatening us) then they OWE US. Bush didn't understand this, either.

And I'm not sure that helping the spread of pan-islamism in the arab world - to replace the old pan-arabism is a great idea (not that Barky or any of the asswipes currently involved have thought through ANYTHING).  The arab world needs, above all, to be neutralized ... defanged.  That should be our main concern.

19 Sorry, Ace. I'm not buyin' your theory.

First, Bush did not go in heavy. He went in timid, never putting on the pressure that could have brought the "wars" in Iran and Afghanistan to a faster close. We went halfway, got tied up with rebuilding and making new buddies, and squandered American lives and money for long, long years.

Think WWII. We went in heavy then, and defeated two well-equipped world powers in four years. We did it the old-fashioned way, by beating the daylights out of them, not by being timid.

There is no way Hussein (Saddam, not Barack) could have held out against the kind of power we projected in the 1940s. There would have been more dead civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, but so freekin' what? There would have been far fewer American dead.

The stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure? He seems to have no concept of war, and has surrounded himself with officers who have forgotten how to wage war, if they ever knew. We haven't really done that in their lifetimes.

I don't think war changes. Go in hard, go in fully armed and with every piece of equipment and killing device you have, and turn the enemy's land into a giant bomb crater.

We need Patton leading this war, not Mortimer Snerd. If we're going to fight -- and I believe the wars the Traitor-in-Chief is pushing us into (Libya, Syria) will be catastrophes for us --  we will ultimately see the Muslim nations take sides, and not with us.

We have a choice to make: we fight to win, no matter how much suffering we inflict on the other side, or we stay the hell home.

I'm no military expert, but I've read enough history to feel that what you're calling for is not going to work, but will instead cost us too many American lives -- and too many American dollars -- to be worthwhile. Which, BTW, is what I think SCofMF wants.

20

Yeah let's try that theory in China.  What a load.  Look what happened in Iran when Carter left events to run their own course.  Why would the American public support covert wars if they will not support open wars?

 

The goals, reasons, and costs must be made clear for the A,merican people to understand and decide.  Not a bunch of politicians.

21 Posted by: Sukie Tawdry at August 18, 2011 10:12 PM (MPtFW)

Read the fucking U.S. Constitution you stupid fuck.

It's called freedom. If you don't like, then leave.

22 >>>At least with the "Bush" plan you have some enforcers around to keep the power freaks in the shadows for a while to let the populace have a little breathing room. At what cost? Further, if you keep your interventions light -- they're light enough to revisit. Say we kill the mullahs in Iran, fracture the state. Say some new government arises which we also don't like. Says who we can't bomb the fuck out of that new government, too?

23 Did we win?  Who are the "we" in we?

It appears that Daffy might leave his beloved country for digs elsewhere, but who or what will replace him?  Libya has good reserves of gas and oil, and infrastructure, though it will need some fixin'.

Nice little nest egg for jihadis?  Maybe.  I do not see many happy endings in the ME.

24 Great, just in time to start a new war in Syria.

25 We have a strong interest in disarming Iran.

And making glass. Lots and lots of glass. That way we won't have to risk any of our servicemen, except for maybe, just maybe a few bomber crews.

26 Just FYI, we won the war in Iraq in the terms I'm talking about in about four weeks and with about 400 casualties.

27

Get back to me in five years after the rebels take control.

Then we'll see how it worked out.

28 It's a misreading of history. Germany, Italy and Japan are not Iran, Iraq, and Libya. It's not that no one understands the political and cultural differences, it's that we have trained ourselves that it is UNSEEMLY to recognize difference.

29 >>.Did we win? Who are the "we" in we? It appears that Daffy might leave his beloved country for digs elsewhere, but who or what will replace him? This is the mentality I think is completely wrongheaded. You're like, "But how do we know a stable, peaceful regime will spring up to replace him?" Um, who cares? Kick one bastard out, let them try again. If that doesnt' work, we can alway build more tomahawks.

30

I would have to disagree with the 1000 to 1 ratio. I am a Iraq Veteran, 2 tours, in 04 and 5. There is no amount of muslim life worth one American Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine.

 

The smell. Only place in the world where I have ever been where the non smokers would the smokers to light up. Just to cover up some of the smell.

31 That's right -- Osama will claim credit for 'liberating' Libya from Q-Daffy.

Sure, Q-Daffy did support terrorism back when Osama was doing coke in college, but he has been pretty quiet once his daughter was killed.

Of course, once the muslim brotherhood / al-qaida / el fatah / paleo-libyans (or what ever the terrorist group calls themselves) takes over, Osama will provide 'humitarian aid' to rebuild the Libyan economy (& buy munitions to kill Americans)

32 >>>Get back to me in five years after the rebels take control. >>>Then we'll see how it worked out. See my last comment. I think you're missing the point that there never is a "final resolution." There will always be more war. Foreign policy is largely the art of kicking problems down the road for 8 or 10 years. Always has been.

33 Actually our method of war does not "save" civilian lives. We go to war on the vain idea that it can be a "good war" and we bend over backwards to avoid civilian casualties....and in the end, we prolong the war and encourage the enemy to target innocents to highlight our impotence. In the end, our hubris and faux-moralism about war get more people killed.

34 We could help the Israelis deal with Iran.  Hopefully President Romney or Perry will do that.

35 Posted by: Sukie Tawdry at August 18, 2011 10:12 PM (MPtFW) -------------------------------------------------- I'd say 100% sock normally, but I've known too many of these blowhard, chest-thumping losers whose only claim to fame in this life is surviving a year in a war zone they never wanted to be in. Makes them "experts" don't ya know? I still say this is a sock though.

36 Just FYI, we won the war in Iraq in the terms I'm talking about in about four weeks and with about 400 casualties.

Posted by: ace at August 18, 2011 10:19 PM (nj1bB)

That's right.  The initial invasion was a quick success, even with Turkey fucking us over a day before by closing off that border - the shitheads have NEVER paid for that.

Bush's mistake was understanding what was important and what was proper.  We should have just taken the oil fields (the only source of any threat that might emanate from Iraq - as with all the arab nations with oil fields) and left the Iraqis to run around in the desert stabbing each other in the butt, as arabs are want to do.  If they needed help, they would have to ASK for it.  Otherwise, we would have taken Saddam out, taken the oil fields (thereby neutralizing Iraq0 and the mission would be done.

37 Hmmm, but what kind of victory?  My guess is what takes his place is ten times worse.

38

It's not that no one understands the political and cultural differences, it's that we have trained ourselves that it is UNSEEMLY to recognize difference.

Germany underwent an industrial revolution in a mere 80s years and Japan did it in 20.

Krauts and Japs are exceptional people.

Arabs, not so much. They still can't even create the infrastructure needed to draw the oil out of the sand. They still need westerners to do it for them.

Not worth dying for.

39 You get what you pay for. War has never been cheap.

40 Posted by: MrScribbler at August 18, 2011 10:16 PM (YjjrR)

You make some good points, but I think that ace is actually suggesting that if we go in, we go in heavy; thus the "WWII style total war" fight comment.

But...I want to see my country care about the lives of our fighting men. No more ROE that get our boys killed. After 10 years of this shit I honestly don't give a rat's ass about anyone in the world who isn't a steadfast and loyal friend of America. We should fight for Israel, Canada, Australia, England, and a few others. If something bad starts up that seems important to us, use nice safe air power to do damage, but don't risk the lives of Americans unless we are looking after the aforementioned friends.

41 Well good, if the story is true.  Can we leave the french to clean it up with their smarmy attitudes and good pastry.

Why do we "buy" it if we break it?

Yeah, I never got that either.

42 Sock off.

43 Ace, I agree with most of this, but not the context. That is, if you don't care enough about foreign casualties to put boots on the ground, does a civil war that has nothing to do with and no impact upon us call for even air and naval power to a side?
In other words, we have no business in Libya and I've not seen a case otherwise. They were no domino. They were not building WMD's or training terrorists or hijacking ships or planes (at all recently at least).
France wanted Kadaffi gone. So Obama started another war.
What am I missing that made this a good idea by any means, generous or careful?

44 >>>We go to war on the vain idea that it can be a "good war" and we bend over backwards to avoid civilian casualties....and in the end, we prolong the war and encourage the enemy to target innocents to highlight our impotence. >>>In the end, our hubris and faux-moralism about war get more people killed. I think you are probably right. I think our collective national desire to make war safe and palatable winds up making it worse. Look, the enemy needs to be killed in great numbers to understand they've lost.

45 He was always agitating for that in Kosovo, for example. Why? I didn't give a shit about Kosovo in the first place

Actually, that reminds me - most liberals I knew in the early 90s were *strong* proponents of sending American ground troops into Serbia. The reason was the various war crimes the Serbians were committing.

Here's the thing. After the collapse of Soviet communism, and ignoring the remaining East Asian communist states, there was a clear winner for the title of worst war criminal in the world. Saddam Hussein.

Mass Democide? Yes
Ethnic Cleansing? Yes
Rape and real torture? Yes
Chemical Weapons against civilians? Yes

Hussein killed more civilians, on average, per year then the Serbs would manage..

And yet the left supported the humanity argument for the Iraq war...if it had been fought against the Serbs...

46 Just FYI, we won the war in Iraq in the terms I'm talking about in about four weeks and with about 400 casualties.

Posted by: ace at August 18, 2011 10:19 PM

That was a win, Ace?

If we "won," why are we still there? Why are Americans still dying in Iraq (granted, in smaller numbers, but one is far too many)?

I think you're setting us up for an endless war in the ME with your strategy, frankly.

47 >>>n other words, we have no business in Libya and I've not seen a case otherwise. I'm not really declaring whether you should care about Libya, but rather, in a marginal case like libya, whether a limited force involvement is better for the mission. The model can be extended anywhere. I'm not talking about the rightness of the involvement in Libya but whether the model makes sense as a general template for other engagements. We do not have to do every war WWII style with rolling caissons.

48 Um, who cares? Kick one bastard out, let them try again. If that doesnt' work, we can alway build more tomahawks.

Posted by: ace at August 18, 2011 10:20 PM (nj1bB)

That's not good planning.

Sure, Q'Daffy should have been taken out a long time ago ... and Barky should have bombed the living shit out of Tripoli the minute that Al-Megrahi landed there (and Barky should have been impeached for aiding and abetting al-Megrahi in that).  But, to just pick a day and take someone out ... that's sort of silly.  If Barky was going to seize the oil fields, adn thus neutralize Libya, then I'd say fine, but to just give a gift of the fields and the nation to some other group that you don't know?  That's not how it's done.  Put a puppet in.  Something.  Chaos?  bad plan.

49 Well if you want cheap, why don't you just hire someone to blow his head off. It just about the same. Do it in front of his kids, that'll teach em a lesson about messing around with the US they'll never forget. Exra bonus point at very little extra cost.

50 "But the advantage of this style of warfare is that it is politically possible, which I no longer thing the Bush style is."

Says Ace, above.  He seems to say we can no longer support a total war.

I would say that the style of warfare used is heavily dependent on the risk we perceive to the homeland.  In WWII, real invasion and total domination by another was considered a possibility.  We had Nazi subs off our east coast barrier islands.  Not when Japan attacked, but when we got in with both feet.

If some actual nation-state throws a nuke at us and scores, we are not going to go back at them with just planes and bombs.  The public will be crying for what Rome did to Carthage.

51

I think you're missing the point that there never is a "final resolution." There will always be more war.

Foreign policy is largely the art of kicking problems down the road for 8 or 10 years. Always has been.

Look, I'll put my cards on the table. I still follow the Reagan Welt Politik friends where we can get'em model, not the Bush's democracy for everyone model.

That being said, it's beneficial to have a nationed unified under one power, rather than a nation in name only filled with tribes in a constant state of war. A prime example being Congo.

As shitty as Ghadaffi was, the country was unified and he was no longer dabbling in terrorism.

If you're asking me what is better, a weak unified nations held together in fear by a dictator who will never again attack the west, or a nation with 2 percent of the world oil supply that will be fractured by warring tribes.

I'm probably going to go with the dictator. Obviously I'd prefer a more pro-western dictator, but a neutered anti american dictator doesn't bother me much either.

 

52 Posted by: ace at August 18, 2011 10:19 PM (nj1bB)

Ah, shit. I'm hammered, but I can't let this one go. We were so concerned with our lightning war without casualties that the Iraqis didn't know that they had been beaten. We should have spent a few more weeks kicking the shit out of them. That way they would have understood what power we welded. Instead they thought that war with America was without risk, and they killed a lot of Americans until we went back in and taught them that lesson.

53 Suck my dick, cocksucker. I'm an american fucking citizen.

Well I certainly hope so.  But what does that got to do with my comment?

Sorry Ace, I'm lost on the meaning of this one:

"And Sukie, if you knew a goddamned thing, you'd be capable of answering a single goddamned thing I said, instead of attempting your three-sheets-to-the-wind drunken-boor "Don't you know who I am?" appeal to authority."

Pissed you off, have I?

54 This is the mentality I think is completely wrongheaded.

You're like, "But how do we know a stable, peaceful regime will spring up to replace him?"

Um, who cares? Kick one bastard out, let them try again. If that doesnt' work, we can alway build more tomahawks.

Posted by: ace at August 18, 2011 10:20 PM (nj1bB)

I agree with you on the war strategy but you haven't convinced me on why we care who won and why we got involved in the first place.

What's in it for us?

55 Wars and countries are different. "What will happen" will always be something of a guess.

56

Our willingness to fight "nice" to preserve our "image in the world" has gotten us a) jack shit b) too many dead Americans, and c) too many more wounded beyond that.

 

I submit this is not in our national interest and we should stop this shit and just shoot where the shooting is needed, from as far away as possible.

57 Heh you break it you buy it? Uh no you should have insurance for that! Lol

58 The other thing is if we were going to support one side, shouldn't we want to know that side is or will be a least marginally better than the other?  If its just a civil war between two bad guys, arm both sides.  Or stay out.  Either way.

59 Normally I'm a lurker, CB Dildo, but I don't quite understand your reaction:

"Read the fucking U.S. Constitution you stupid fuck.  It's called freedom. If you don't like, then leave."

to my comment:

"Who the fuck are these Allah and Ace persons and just exactly what the fuck do they know about waging war.  A Vietnam vet wants to know.

Sitting at home sucking a few beers are you, Allah and Ace, while you ponder the intricacies of defeating this country's enemies."

60 Suck my dick, cocksucker. I'm an american fucking citizen. Posted by: ace at August 18, 2011 10:13 PM (nj1bB) That doesn't know shit about war.

61 Why does Iran need refined gasoline, or electricity for that matter?  Hard to make atom bomb material with Honda generators.

62 If we just brought our military home from all corners of the globe and turned them into bean-counters auditing the Fed, everything would be happy puppy sunshine rainbows!!!

63 I can't wait to see the sorry bunch of assholes who take over Libya next.  Remember when Obama called for the ouster of Mubarack in Egypt?  Well he is on trial in a cage. Are things better?  No, they are worse. Israel has yet another mess to worry about. 

We need to understand something very fucking basic.  Psycho dictators are oftentimes a reflection of the people they are lording over. We can get rid of them all day long but that doesn't mean our problems are solved, in fact they may be just beginning.  It comes down to the terrorist leader you know and can contain somewhat as compared to the unknown zealots who will fill the vacuum when he is out of power.

We are already stuck in 2 godforsaken hellholes with no end in sight.  We just don't have them men or the money to be opening up new fronts in the Muslim world.  In the end, they are going to have to sort this shit out for themselves anyway.  We can't babysit these fuckers forever.

64 I think you are probably right. I think our collective national desire to make war safe and palatable winds up making it worse.

Didn't Sherman say "It is good that war is so terrible, otherwise we would grow too fond of it?"
We've taken the terror out of war--that might explain the non-stop intervention. By and large our wars come from an abundance of good intentions and a dearth of humility. I know I was guilty of this (though anything but a decision maker) in thinking terrible atrocities in foreign lands merit invasions and such, and that war against Saddam was merited on humanitarian grounds, and American troops could be a civilizing force, etc.
Hubris, I suspect.

65 sukey, excuse me, what the fuck qualifications do you have, partner? Were you planning engagements or general strategy? Fucking drunk hump. Yelling that no one gets to talk about war strategy, becuase you were IN THE SHIT, MAN. Bet you barely got off the fuckin' boat. It's the chickenshits that squawk the loudest that usually turn out to have done the least

66 And let's not forget that Barky went to war without Congress even knowing, and then he (and some other foreigners) decided that the US had to release oil from the SPR because of the damage he claimed his personal war in Libya was causing. 

Does it get more insane than this?  W. T. F. ??

67 Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at August 18, 2011 10:24 PM

Your conclusions are right, IMO, but the reasons we go to war must be reexamined. Personally, I think the case for Desert Storm was marginal -- who gives a fuck about what the UN wants? And, to be honest, who really gives a fuck about Kuwait except for the oil? -- and the current adventures just don't cut it.

Okay, so OBL was in Afghanistan. Give them a week to produce him, then carpet-bomb the worthless place if they don't. No American ground troops involved. Iraq? I have my suspicions about why Dubya went in, and they are not pretty. Neither was worth getting so heavily involved.

Your list of countries worth fighting for, CBD, is spot-on. For the rest, let 'em work out their own problems -- if the masses want "democracy" (when they even know what the hell it is) let them fight for it on their own -- and simply make it clear than anyone who fucks with us will end up with glowing cities that will be uninhabitable for eternity.

My belief is that if a war is necessary -- not just because the current president doesn't like who's in charge in any given country -- we go in and wipe them out. End of story.

The rest is waste we can't afford.

68

I submit this is not in our national interest and we should stop this shit and just shoot where the shooting is needed, from as far away as possible.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at August 18, 2011 10:31 PM (ASlZL)

I would add with the biggest bombs available.

69 I see two REMF are now in the threads. Not to actually discuss anything. Just to yell a lot about how they were IN THE SHIT, MAN.

70

 The public will be crying for what Rome did to Carthage.

Yeah? I saw pictures of mourners in NY with signs that read "Our grief is NOT a call for vengeance". Way too many dipshits in this country would opt to take a nuke and then light candles and cry a lot rather than go kick ass.

71 Didn't Sherman say "It is good that war is so terrible, otherwise we would grow too fond of it?

Lee, I think.

72 I just want to say what I want is only somebody can live along with me , waiting for somebody!

73 Face so many new things, I only want to say they are obviously good! It is deserved us to try!!

74 Posted by: Sukie Tawdry at August 18, 2011 10:30 PM (MPtFW)

You come in somebody else's house and immediately shit the carpet, what do  you expect?  You obviously weren't raised right.

75
This summer is so hot,today I am just by a finger's breadth taking a bus! So hurry, so I desert the common way I ofthen walk, I choose another way to go to work, finally it make me surprised, ite is faster than the comman way ! So people often fet some experience in taking action!

76

@64 "We've taken the terror out of war"

You obviosly have never had a shell fragment bounce off your kevlar. I was pretty terrorized when it happened to me.

77 61 Why does Iran need refined gasoline, or electricity for that matter?  Hard to make atom bomb material with Honda generators.

Aren't they converting a lot of their vehicle fleet to natural gas usage as to circumvent the gasoline shortages? 

78

Says Ace, above. He seems to say we can no longer support a total war.

Have we really been fighting a total war in either Afghanistan or Iraq?  Because I don't think attempts to be culturally sensitive really makes it much of a total war.  Oh sure early on they were, but that didn't last.

79 Victory is backing the Mooslim Brotherhood over another despotic douchebag?  I'm not sure we're actually gaining anything there, Ace.

If there's no gain to be had here, not getting involved in the first place would have protected at least as many American service people.

80

I should point out that I still have a limp in my left leg from my experience in Nam.

 

We lost a lot of good men there, when i opened up that sweat shop back in '96.

 

 

81 Dear Mohammar,

Wish you were here...with me in Mark's Bush Martha's Vineyard

82

I agree with you on the war strategy but you haven't convinced me on why we care who won and why we got involved in the first place.

What's in it for us?

Posted by: robtr at August 18, 2011 10:30 PM (MtwBb)

It wasn't Basketball season and Obama wanted a team to root for, so he decided to pick Libyan rebels. I guess his bracket will advance (or whatever you say about those fantasy sports things).

/As sound a rationale as I've heard.

83 Strongly agree.
More rubble, less trouble.
If a country threatens us, blow up their capital, kill their leadership class, arm the rebels and wait 18-24 months to see if something acceptable emerges.
Rinse and repeat as often as necessary until whichever warlord takes over is no longer a threat.

The "you break it, you bought it" idea is the dumbest fucking idea in the world. And it was put forward with the goal of limiting and constraining American power, not enhancing it.

Can we admit that Powell was our first Affirmative Action General, just like Obama is our first Affirmative Action President. Powell is a decent moderate Democrat. Reasonably bright. But he rose to the top of the hierarchy because he was black. A white Colin Powell never makes general and retires after 20 to become a comfortable Beltway bandit.

84 #65: "....sukey, excuse me, what the fuck qualifications do you have, partner? Were you planning engagements or general strategy?  Fucking drunk hump. Yelling that no one gets to talk about war strategy, becuase you were IN THE SHIT, MAN.

Uhhh, Ace, I'll politely back out of this dialogue. But I will continue to lurk on your website, you magnificent bastard.

85 Posted by: Sukie Tawdry at August 18, 2011 10:32 PM (MPtFW)

ace gets to comment on the state of the country without his bona fides being questioned by a fucking drunk pissant who may or may not be a veteran. It has been my experience that real veterans understand that democracy is messy, and that they fought for the rights of all Americans, not just the ones with whom they agree. You sound like the other kind; a faux vet.

Posted by: Old grizzled gym coach at August 18, 2011 10:34 PM (QBQcg)

And you know more about war? 3 months in Da Nang getting blowjobs from 14 year old heroin addicts doesn't make you Clausewitz.

86

I have a question, something I wouldn't dare ask in Poli Sci courses back when I was in college.

Why can't a nuclear state use a nuke on a non nuclear state?

Is there some unwritten rule?

I honestly think a few low yield nukes in the mountains of Afghanistan would have solved a lot of problems pretty quickly.

87

>> IN THE SHIT MAN

 

in McMurdo I'll bet.

88

It wasn't Basketball season and Obama wanted a team to root for, so he decided to pick Libyan rebels. I guess his bracket will advance (or whatever you say about those fantasy sports things).

/As sound a rationale as I've heard.

Posted by: Randy M at August 18, 2011 10:39 PM (GtTYq)

I'll gaurantee you the if Daffy does leave we will be sending our fucking money over there to help rebuild another 3rd world shithole that we just spent our money destroying.

What was the point again?

89 I would recomend nuetrons. he radiation dies off much quicker and they are less messy.

90

>> IN THE SHIT MAN

I served honorably with Dick "VC Slaughter" Blumenthal fuck face.

How dare you speak ill of my service. We fought in the battle of Hamburgerhelper Hill. We fought in Cambodia on Christmas. That shit is seared into my mind, man.

91 I've seen things...man..

92 I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that we cannot establish a democracy in Afghanistan.  Maybe we could if we stayed there for 100 years,  but at what cost i lives?

Iraq might make it if we just sort of leave them alone.  They were more civilized and seem to value the vote.  Also,  their women are more liberated.

Bush's mistake was listening to Colin Powell.  I don't think anyone who served in Viet Nam sees war with an unbiased view.  This would also include John McCain.

93 >>. I'm not sure we're actually gaining anything there, Ace That's really not the point of the post at all. If you want to have the same discussion we all had six months ago, you may do so, but don't direct it towards me. I'm bringing up something new. Not whether we should have engaged in Libya, but if, going forward, if we need to take out Iran, if it doesn't make more sense to back a civil war with arms and airpower than do a full invasion and nation-rebuild. Some people just want to to paw over the same well-chewed food. That's fine. I'm on to something else.

94 Ace, not that I disagree with, but in regards to Libya it seems that IF our stated goal of preventing a genocide results in the rebels causing a blood letting of their enemies, then we've failed. Either way there are a lot of dead Libyans. So why get involved to begin with?

95 Hey, d'ya think we did anything like Abu Ghraib or anything worse to Germans, Italians, or Japanese, back in WWII?  Like that or worse?  How about much worse?  D'ya think?

Now fast forward to today, to a world with smartphones, the world wide web, and social networks.  Everybody a live-action cameraman, and anybody can throw up a video, from anywhere.

This has a lot to do with why, when the cause is weak as it is in Libya, we conduct a second degree hands off video game war.  No touch-em with the hands.  No boots on the ground.  Shit, no boots, even.  You can drive those drones and aim those smartbombs wearing flip-flops and listening to hip-hop.

But the good part is that the enemy never sees you, never gets a chance to catch you being vicious.  Could never video you doing anything bad, 'cause they only thing they could video would be a projectile coming in at something like 5,000 feet per second.

Y'see, we don't mind it if our smartbombs take out a hospital, or a baby-formula factory, because that falls into the category of shit happens.  But the personal stuff, the stuff like Abu Ghraib and worse, when it was some American boy or girl that did a hands-on bad thing, those are the events that make the American people turn on the war.

96

I honestly think a few low yield nukes in the mountains of Afghanistan would have solved a lot of problems pretty quickly.

Posted by: Ben at August 18, 2011 10:41 PM (DKV43)

But then you piss off the environmentalists because you killed some rare mountain goat or something.

97 What's annoying is that neither of the alleged "vets" actually shares their Wisdom of Warfare with us. They just assert I have no right to even discuss the matter. I guess they just want the post taken down on general principles. Because they were IN THE SHIT, MAN.

98 Yes, our troops are the best in the world, and not just the best at destroying the enemy -- they are the best at destroying the enemy while sparing noncombatants' lives. They are the most disciplined and most precise forces the world have ever seen, in addition to being the most lethal.

One thing: Currently the U.S. military has the most collective combat experience of any force in human history. There have never been so many officers and enlisted personnel in one armed force that have seen combat for so long.

As a result, we are now training the Israelis how to fight terrorists. Ever think that would happen? The USMC built a training center in Israel and staffed it with American instructors who cut their teeth in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was because of American training that the IDF suffered only 12 combat deaths in Operation Cast Lead, while killing at least 700 Hamas terrorists.

We've also created amazing sci-fi technology, such as a thermobaric round for the SMAW rocket launcher, smart artillery and mortar shells, guns that shoot projectiles out of the air, laser technology that detonates IEDs, jamming technology, and electronic-warfare/signals-intelligence systems such as Prophet Enhanced.

The experience of the past decade is what spurred the development and/or perfection of many of these. Yes, 6000 troops have died in our wars, but the experience our military has gained and the weapons it's developed could not have come about any other way except by combat.

99

Why can't a nuclear state use a nuke on a non nuclear state?

Is there some unwritten rule?

Yes, there seems to be.

In our case, I don't think the country at large would have the stomach for it.

100

You obviosly have never had a shell fragment bounce off your kevlar. I was pretty terrorized when it happened to me.

Posted by: GMB at August 18, 2011 10:37 PM (wY55N)

I have not. You are right. Maybe I should say we've taken the terror of war far away from decision makers--including voters? I dunno.

101 "...the reasons we go to war must be reexamined"

Posted by: MrScribbler at August 18, 2011 10:35 PM (YjjrR)

You won't get an argument from me.

And while I disagree that our doctrine should be total war or nothing, I think that we agree about the big picture: that American lives are too important to piss away on some nebulous "nation building" or "freedom fighting" ideal.

102 ...which seems to suggest that you can't have a "humanitarian intervention" using the war tactics you suggest. If we don't give a shit about foreign nationals, then why care which one kills the other.

103 John Derbyshire said it well: rubble doesn't make trouble.

104 I fought hard to escape, until I was taken prisoner by the paper bag.

105 How much did POSOTUS pay Quaddafi to leave so he could declare victory? Impossible, you say?

106 I'll be happy when q-ducky is gone. And I'll give Obama credit for not fucking it up too much.

I also think America benefits cause it shows that even when we elect a socialist fucking traitor, we'll still bomb your fucking capital. We'll just do it Obama-style, on the down-low.

107 >>>Y'see, we don't mind it if our smartbombs take out a hospital, or a baby-formula factory, because that falls into the category of shit happens. But the personal stuff, the stuff like Abu Ghraib and worse, when it was some American boy or girl that did a hands-on bad thing, those are the events that make the American people turn on the war. I don't think it was really that. I think it was all the good american men killed and maimed, plus the dawning realization-- THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT *WORTH* IT. Honestly, I think that was it. I myself began to think this in 2007, though I didn't say so. I didn't want to undercut the mission. Then the surge was successful, so I put these thoughts away again. But... I did read an article about a unit in an FOB, and heard their voices, and really respected and admired them. And I then sort of compared them to the people they were saving... and thought, "Hm, I think I'd rather just have those boys alive, and I don't really give a shit how many Iraqis get killed by other Iraqis."

108 I'm bringing up something new. Not whether we should have engaged in Libya, but if, going forward, if we need to take out Iran, if it doesn't make more sense to back a civil war with arms and airpower than do a full invasion and nation-rebuild.

Some people just want to to paw over the same well-chewed food. That's fine. I'm on to something else.

Posted by: ace at August 18, 2011 10:43 PM (nj1bB)

Oh, that was your point. Not to sure about that the way you phrased it. If we absolutely have to take Iran out then no, we will have to do it ourselves. If we don't care who wins or if anybody does and just want to fuck with them then the civil war would work.

We did that in Astan the first go around and the ruskies finally got tired of it and left but we really didn't care if they did or not, we just wanted to fuck with them.

109 First of all, an MSNBC report from unnamed US officials, that's what you're hanging your hat on, Ace, really, Second, you forget that the fall of Baghdad was the end of the beginning, as it was with Kabul in 2001. Third, there is little assurance that the rebels, in part trained by two ex Gitmo detainees will be anything less than a hindrance to us,

110

if it doesn't make more sense to back a civil war with arms and airpower than do a full invasion and nation-rebuild.

If I'm not mistaken, the CIA and other have been backing minorities in Iran for sometime now. The Balluchs among others.

Hopefully this revolution works out better than it did with Mossadegh

111

But then you piss off the environmentalists because you killed some rare mountain goat or something.

Posted by: CDR M at August 18, 2011 10:44 PM (Mv/2X)

Sounds like a win-win scenario to me!

112

Why can't a nuclear state use a nuke on a non nuclear state?

Is there some unwritten rule?

What's this about a rule?

113

Ace are you including me in that? I in no means disagree with the substance of your opinion. Just semantics. In my opinion having spent close to two years in Iraq, there is no amount of muslims worth one American Life.

 

The only thing I can vouch for are my experiences. You can take that for what it is worth I guess,

114 Some people just want to to paw over the same well-chewed food. That's fine. I'm on to something else.
Posted by: ace at August 18, 2011 10:43 PM (nj1bB)

We've chewed it well enough, but I'd like congress to give it more than a sniff or two. If we can we agree to visit "What was Libya all about?" again come election time, I'll happily let it pass for now.

115 Oh, GMB-- I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to "old grizzled gym coach" and "sukey" who just showed up to say that apparently no one but vets can even have an opinion on war. Which is an odd claim. Odder still is that they don't acutally offer us their wisdom, but just whine that no one else is permitted to discuss the matter.

116 Posted by: CDR M at August 18, 2011 10:44 PM (Mv/2X)

It's the speckled Mountain Newt.

117 Philly avoids the skunk  24-7 Steelers.

118 I have to whole-fucking heartily agree with MrScribbler.  You go in heavy and assfull of kickass - giving no quarter.  I couldn't give a chicken-fuck in Hell about civilian casualties or winning hearts and minds. Fuck their chicken-ass hearts and their terrorist minds. 

WWII was fought in this way - the JC's had themselves fought in WWI and knew how mind-wreckingly horrible war was - they sought to make our defeat of Germany and Japan be so fucking thorough that the devastation would literally span generations.  And it fucking has. 

The Germans and Japanese have taught their children - "don't fuck with the USA".  And they sure as Hell haven't - have they.

Think about it - there was no other reason for the fire bombings of Dresden or Hamburg or Tokyo.  We were sending a message - Don't ever fuck with us again.  That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you fight a war.

oh, and I almost forgot - Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of miserable failure.

119 I'm bringing up something new. Not whether we should have engaged in Libya, but if, going forward, if we need to take out Iran, if it doesn't make more sense to back a civil war with arms and airpower than do a full invasion and nation-rebuild.

Posted by: ace at August 18, 2011 10:43 PM (nj1bB)

It makes more sense to hit Iran as hard as possible so that they can't get back up. 

Then, it makes the most sense to realize that all threats emanating from the arab/persian/muslim world start and stop with control of the gulf oil fields.  That's what it all comes down to ... if you REALLY want to know the cleanest and easiest way to neutralize those threats.

But, it's not nice to say that ....

120 >>>Ace are you including me in that? No I simultaneously clarified, above. "Sukey" and "old grizzled gym coach" are whining they are vets and no one else knows anything, although neither will offer any wisdom beyond their petulant, RESPECT ME! whines.

121 We don't even do nation building right. First off, you don't build from the top down, you build from the bottom up. If you are going to engage in nation building, you make your guy the supreme commander of the whole thing, like MacArthur was in Japan. You let the locals start serving as dog catcher and whatnot. The ones that can do that will rise to serve in more important offices. You definitely don't arrange a transition where you end up with sharia enshrined in the country's constitution.

If you are not going to build a nation that will be someone who will be one of our staunch allies, as in Japan and Germany, than why bother? But, the one thing we should not be doing is installing thugs as dictators, as was all too common during the cold war. If we don't want to do the nation building, than something like what Ace describes as a decapitating military strike, or what John Derbyshire describes as, "Rubble don't make trouble" is the way to go. If a dictator rises, so be it, but we should not be installing one.

122 #87, CB Dildo: "...being questioned by a fucking drunk pissant who may or may not be a veteran."

Not drunk, but about 60-90 minutes away from it.  Although I am close to being a pissant because I'm only 5'6" tall.  But here's the deal on your final remark: a veteran I am, and I don't need your doubts my friend.  I did my best in Nam.

123

Ace, No prob. Not used to your style of comments.  It moves so quickly.

124

Powell was correct, if we break it we own it meaning we are responsible for the aftermath good or bad. We don't have to stay there to own it.

125 sukey, old grizzled, okay, you whined your way to getting attention; now that you have it, please enlighten us. Do you have anything to add except the claim that you're vets?

126 Posted by: Sukie Tawdry at August 18, 2011 10:52 PM (MPtFW)

Then accept my thanks for serving.

127 Hello, I'm busy vacation-building in Martha's Vineyard, so get back with me later.

beeeeeeeep.....

128 And I then sort of compared them to the people they were saving... and thought, "Hm, I think I'd rather just have those boys alive, and I don't really give a shit how many Iraqis get killed by other Iraqis."
Posted by: ace at August 18, 2011 10:47 PM (nj1bB)

I was kind of hoping the restraint of our soldiers and general kindness towards a lightly defeated enemy would spur some kind of Arab renaissance.
There was some of that, and I don't know if the end result of the Iraq invasion can yet be seen.
But it was quite a gamble for not such a huge pay-off to us, I suspect.

129 @26 Yeah, except we did put boots on the ground.  Quite a few of them.

While I do not totally disagree with the thrust of your argument, I do wonder how we would have sold turning right around and withdrawing all those troops immediately.

There are serious limits to airpower, even today, and we won't always have access to a just-add-money-and-bombers rebel force like the Northern Alliance or the Kurds.

130

We don't even do nation building right. First off, you don't build from the top down, you build from the bottom up. If you are going to engage in nation building, you make your guy the supreme commander of the whole thing, like MacArthur was in Japan. You let the locals start serving as dog catcher and whatnot. The ones that can do that will rise to serve in more important offices. You definitely don't arrange a transition where you end up with sharia enshrined in the country's constitution.

Something you're leaving out, and most people leave out when discussing the WW2 rebuilding and modern rebuilding.

The Germans and Japanese are exceptional people. You can't discount human material when discussing nation building.

The Germans underwent an industrial revolution in 80 years, the Japanese did it in a mere 20 years. They threw off over a thousand years of tradition and embraced modernity faster than any nation in history. Heck by 1905 they beat a Western power in the Russo-Japanese war.

To quote the Axis Chemical doctor in the first Batman, "You see what I have to work with here".  The Arabs are shit. They're are in all likelihood never going to amount to anything. They can't even build oil wells to get their oil out of the sand. Foreigners have to do that for them.

I'm not sure how you "rebuild" something that wasn't really built in the first place. All Arab governments are simply houses built on sand.

131 Posted by: exceller at August 18, 2011 10:53 PM (Z7Znk)

I think ace made the excellent point in the post (that nobody seems to have read) that we break things not because we just feel like it, but because we are provoked beyond measure. It's simply not our responsibility to clean up the mess that other countries bring upon themselves.

132 >>>Think about it - there was no other reason for the fire bombings of Dresden or Hamburg or Tokyo. We were sending a message - Don't ever fuck with us again. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you fight a war. I know for a fact this is politically impossible and looks an awful lot like the civilian-targeted mass terrorist attacks we're supposedly against. I see no point in arguing about fantasy. Are we talking real policy options or are we just going to say "NUKE EM ALL!!!" May be fun to say that but if it's not a credible option what is the point? I don't like these cathartic bleats. Communication is for more than catharsis. Sure, I like that fantasy. I'll tell you a little secret: I have that fantasy a lot. A LOT. But it's a fantasy. So are we going to jerk each other off here with childish pretend scenarios or what?

133 Absent a country throwing a mass casualty attack at the homeland, there will be no firebombing of enemy cities.

134

But then you piss off the environmentalists because you killed some rare mountain goat or something.

Posted by: CDR M at August 18, 2011 10:44 PM (Mv/2X)

It's not just the environmentalists that would be pissed off.  The loss of some sweet, sweet goat snatch would probably be too much to bear for the indigenous barbarians.

135 It is simple. If we would have withdrawn, The irianians would have walked right in.

136 >>> While I do not totally disagree with the thrust of your argument, I do wonder how we would have sold turning right around and withdrawing all those troops immediately. My objection isn't really to boots on the ground, though I know I wrote confusingly and implied that. My objection is to using the military for purposes other than what it is designed to do and do well -- break things. We actually lose very few people in the active, aggressive ground war stuff we do, because pretty much everyone is fleeing.

137

So are we going to jerk each other off here with childish pretend scenarios or what?

I do honestly believe that the American public would have accepted a few low yield nukes in Afghanistan in September 2011.

If there were ever a time where it  would have been politically acceptable, it was then.

Oh and I brough Vaseline and Jergens. You're choice.

138 We won?  Does that mean you and Libyan rebels (or whatever you're calling the Muslim Brotherhood these days)?  Does it Mr Stuttering Clusterfuck of a Miserable Failure?

Fuck you, ya fucking clusterfuck.

All this use of the word 'fuck' really has my testosterone up lately.  Fuck!

139 >>>t is simple. If we would have withdrawn, The irianians would have walked right in. Let's consider that. In this hypothethical, America would have undampened war fever due to winning two brief (limited) wars and would still have all of our weapons in the area. We would have suffered few casualties. The public would still be pretty solidly behind the idea of war. See what I'm getting at? if Iran walks in-- can we not obliterate their troops from the air? Can we not do a Highway of Death II? And don't they know we can do that?

140 Posted by: Ben at August 18, 2011 10:56 PM (DKV43)

And we set out to re-acculturate them, the Japanese moreso.  Even talking about changing the native culture of the nation we had to beat the crap out of because they made such a nuisance and threat of themselves in the world is totally off-limits these days.

Basically, after WWII, we turned around and declared illegal and immoral all the winning tactics that had just produced the greatest victory in all of human history, making our sworn enemies into our most trusted allies for decades.  But, we were bad to do that, by the laws and "morality" of today.

141 I think it was all the good american men killed and maimed, plus the dawning realization-- THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT *WORTH* IT.

Of course they are not worth it, when the cause is not there.  And we are way beyond that point where we know the cause is not there in ShitCanIstan and even Iraq.

We've seen so much of this us-versus-insurgents-in-faraway-don't-give-a-shit countries, that we cannot ever build up enough steam to perceive a cause anymore. 

A few thousand mowed down by tanks in <place name here> Square?  Who gives a shit.  Teenaged armies of khat-crazed boys hacking a few million to death in some former British colony somewhere?  Pass me the wings and gimme another Bud Light.  None of this can inflame us to action, no matter what.

No, we are going to only be able, politically, to conduct these hands-off video-game wars in future, unless, unless . . . some kind of shit really hits the fan, and the fan is somewhere within the 57 states.  And at least for a short while afterward, the American people will support the kind of in-their-face, boots-on-ground, strangle-them-with-bare-hands warfare, plus all the smartbombs, of course, war that we'll wage.  And they will accept the toll of casualties, and body bags coming to Dover.  If there even is a Dover.

142 Posted by: ace at August 18, 2011 10:57 PM (nj1bB)

Of course, and that illuminates the glory of American Exceptionalism. We don't do that kind of thing very often, and only after tremendous provocation.

Unfortunately it also gets our soldiers killed at a greater rate than those of a more brutal and less civilized country.

Our response to 9/11 was, in the context of our demonstrated willingness to conduct unrestricted warfare, a very, very measured response.

143 >>>I do honestly believe that the American public would have accepted a few low yield nukes in Afghanistan in September 2011. Yeah maybe. I sure would have. But in a preventative war situation like iRaq or iran -- I think not.

144 Depends on what you mean Bush way of war - the GWOT was pretty full spectrum. I think you probably mean that another Iraq is not in the offing - that is pretty clear. A lot of people (to include a lot of senior military) think that the problem with Iraq was that we went in on the cheap, not enough forces. I think that had we been what the world was accusing of us being we would have been in a better place. I think on April 9 2003 we should have left wheeled the Army and gone to Damascus. We should have told the Saudis "Adios mofos." We should have left behind a force of expat Iraqis to be the transitional government. Instead we went with Colin Powell's prescription. I think we missed our chances. We had Iran surrounded and we pussed out because the world was afraid of instability. Well looky what we have now. At any rate, if Khadafy is forced out, good. I will not begrudge a victory just because it would mean that Obama was "right." I am not Chris Matthews. But it is not yet shown that the approach was right - Khadafy has been days away from defeat for months now. And I suppose if you maintain a fairly low level of military action, and the press covers it up rather than covers it, you can get away with it. I mean, Clinton pulled off Serbia, and it wasn't because there was a lot of public support for that. Of course, being able to politically get away with a thing does not make it justified.

145 i wish i could dip my balls in this post. decaptaite the leadership, let the cards fall where they may and leave with a big "fuck you next time we won't be so nice". after august 9, 1945 america decided it didn't want to win wars anymore. how many kids have to die handing out soccer balls and candy?

146 If Iran moved in we would just smash them. America is really good at blowing up tank columns.

147 if Iran walks in-- can we not obliterate their troops from the air?

No, we can't, as Israel discovered in Lebanon in 2006 and NATO discovered in Libya in 2011.

148 #128, CB Dildo, man that was fast.  I'm more of a lurker, so I don't always appreciate the speed of remarks on Ace's site.

But alas:  thanks for your comments.  At the time we came home, your remarks weren't always forthcoming.  Very often the opposite.

149

But in a preventative war situation like iRaq or iran -- I think not.

Oh of couse. No way in heck. I wouldn't have supported nuking Iraq. That woulda been crazy.

150 if Iran walks in-- can we not obliterate their troops from the air? Can we not do a Highway of Death II?

And don't they know we can do that?

Posted by: ace at August 18, 2011 11:01 PM (nj1bB)

I have a question. What happens in Libya if the new animals in charge stard murdering the entire population of Tripoly? It goes along with your theory of civil war.

151

But in a preventative war situation like iRaq or iran -- I think not.

Not even to de-nuke Iran?

152 There are serious limits to airpower, even today, and we won't always have access to a just-add-money-and-bombers rebel force like the Northern Alliance or the Kurds.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at August 18, 2011 10:55 PM (9CM5J)

True.  Obama missed his chance with Iran during their protests a few years back.

153 Here;s what I don't lik,: why do we assume that in the event of we overthrow a dictator, there are only two options: us or the previous regime? Libya shows that the third option, guys who hate both, The question then becomes, "are you willing to bomb the new guys when they get out of hand too?" Followed by, "how many new guys do we take out?" The problem, it seems, is that at some point most Americans get tired of what they see as pointless killing.

154 What happens or what should happen? I say what happens is that it gets complete media blackout, and if Obama is ever questioned on it, Republicans are found to somehow be to blame.

155 Posted by: Sukie Tawdry at August 18, 2011 11:03 PM (MPtFW)

There is a tiny amount of reflexive anti-military sentiment here, and it is swiftly and nastily beaten down. So when you rose up and declared that ace (and by extension the rest of us) didn't have the pedigree to comment, I and a few others took offense.

156 No, we can't, as Israel discovered in Lebanon in 2006 and NATO discovered in Libya in 2011.

Posted by: Llarry at August 18, 2011 11:03 PM (jyUxu)

Um, yes we can.  Libya is not a good example of US Air Power except for that story of how 2 B-2 bombers destroyed a couple hundred targets over a few days earlier in the engagement.  If we use our total airpower capability, yes we would dominate Iran.

157 99 What's annoying is that neither of the alleged "vets" actually shares their Wisdom of Warfare with us. ----------------------------------------------------------- Unit and years of service in theater would suffice. Woops! They didn't provide that either.

158 >>>. A lot of people (to include a lot of senior military) think that the problem with Iraq was that we went in on the cheap, not enough forces. I don't see how that can be the case. Let's say that if we went in with 220,000 it would have forestalled that whole "Fedyeen Saddam" action, and may have retarded the Sunni resistance (they were the early resisters). But then the Shi'a fucks like Moqtada al-Sadr come later. I don't see how an extra 80,000 troops stops shi'a terrorism, because, as they say, guerrillas swim in the sea of the people. More troops really isn't obviously helpful here. Sure, more of anything is better, but it's not like you can just blow up all of Sadr City just because you have more troops. I don't see how any plausible number of troops would have stopped the civil war. I suppose if we went way up to some implausible number like 1,000,000, sure. but we really don't have that kind of Soviet-scale manpower and never will (short of WWIII).

159 The illogical comparison of Libya with either Iraq or Afghanistan is right up there with the best of the Left and their silly comparisons.

160

Ace, sorry. I was an enlisted man. Grand stategy was not in my job discription. Smoking out and killing the bad guy was. If you are ever elected president, point out the bad guys for me.

Me and my brothers will go kill them you.

161 A Democrat can wage low-level war indefinitely. 1-2 Americans killed per day under Obama and nobody cares. The seal helicopter crash is already old news, the media has moved on to SEC expansion, Miami midget boosters, and whether Perry is gay.

162 I suppose if we went way up to some implausible number like 1,000,000, sure. but we really don't have that kind of Soviet-scale manpower and never will (short of WWIII).

Posted by: ace at August 18, 2011 11:08 PM (nj1bB)

We had 500,000 there for desert storm.

163 The problem, it seems, is that at some point most Americans get tired of what they see as pointless killing.

Posted by: taylork at August 18, 2011 11:05 PM (ZyGcp)

That is a wonderful argument for letting them kill each other. It keeps them occupied, lets them do what they like, and it also prevents them from shooting up shopping malls in America.

164  should have said "for you". Sometimes i forget words. Problem when you think in one language and type in another

165

Um, yes we can.  Libya is not a good example of US Air Power except for that story of how 2 B-2 bombers destroyed a couple hundred targets over a few days earlier in the engagement.  If we use our total airpower capability, yes we would dominate Iran.

But then at that point it's essentially a sea and air blockade, right?

The hope being that we can afford to keep up the blockade longer than they can sustain.

Libya, a backwater country of 7 million has held out since March.

I wonder how long it would take with Iran. Especially considering its size.

166 Sure, I like that fantasy. I'll tell you a little secret: I have that fantasy a lot. A LOT.

But it's a fantasy.

So are we going to jerk each other off here with childish pretend scenarios or what? Ace

Ace - no, I understand that from a current geo-political sense it isn't possible.  Maybe I'm just pining for the 'good-ol days'.  I fully agree with your original  post - I'm just sayin that I wish we could fight our wars all out - would save a lot of American lives and I believe earn the respect but maybe not the admiration of the other major world powers. 

But, honestly, I really couldn't care less about winning hearts and minds.  That's never going to happen in the muslim world no matter what we do.  The pure projection of power still has a major influence in the strategy and tactics of the enemy.  If they understand when they do X, we'll do XXYY & ZZ, then maybe that deters them from doing X.

167 >>>I have a question. What happens in Libya if the new animals in charge stard murdering the entire population of Tripoly? It goes along with your theory of civil war. In my theory, IF the public were prepared for it in advance (this public is not), we do what we can to get them to stop -- withhold aid, intelligence, etc. -- but if they don't stop, we lump it. It was among the risks we assumed. It happens. Wars are bloody. If we do not establish a monopoly on the use of force (a very hard and costly thing to achieve; we can't even achieve it in bad neighborhoods in our own cities) we comprehend that these people are going to do what they're going to do, and what they're probably going to do is indulge in vengeance bloodletting. In this case Obama hasn't had a grown-up talk like that with the public and furthermore hasn't even convinced them in the first place that either side is worth supporting or even defeating.

168 ace GEN Shinseki thought it, and a LOT of military people thought it. I don't agree, but a lot of GOs thought of Rumsfeld as the second coming of McNamara. They thought we needed more troops, more armor. I think the original plan was good, but no plan survives first contact. Had we gone on to invade Syria in 2003 noone would have been arguing about Iraq in 2006.

169

But in a preventative war situation like iRaq or iran -- I think not.

Try me.

170

I'd have to say I agree with the general thrust of the O/P and the comments here except that one seemingly obvious benefit to our "interventions" (or whatever the fuck they're being called these days) in the past 10 years is that we've been largely successful in moving the fight away from our shores and corralling it in the sandbox. 

Sure it cost lives, and like everyone else, I have serious reservations about that, but there's no doubt that shit was just getting too close to home too often.  Everything is over there now for now, and for that I'm thankful.

171 Replacing Quaddeaghfy with some Islamic Jihad types isn't victory. Now if we do FrnakJ's "Nuke the Moon" idea, where we act all crazy and the world's afraid of us, that's one thing. But victory in Libya? Nope. We're just replacing enemies and the new set thinks we're idiots for helping them.

172 Um, yes we can.  Libya is not a good example of US Air Power except for that story of how 2 B-2 bombers destroyed a couple hundred targets over a few days earlier in the engagement.  If we use our total airpower capability, yes we would dominate Iran.

Nope. After the first air strikes the Libyans immediately put their tanks and APCs in storage and went into combat in civilian vehicles. They completely defanged NATO's capabilities by making themselves invisible. All the Iranians would have to do is enter Iraq in buses and minivans, surrounded by real civilian vehicles.

173 #157, thanks, CB Dildo.  Yeah believe me, I could slightly detect that.  But my instinctive and gut reaction to the post was "war is very very ugly" and there is no logic to it - before, during, after.  There just isn't.

And, of course, three Sam Adams Oktoberfests making its way through the system brought simplicity and bluntness to the fore.

I know I sure pissed off Ace though.  But that's okay.  As I've said I do mostly lurking and the guy is pretty tolerant.  It's his land, after all. 

174 GMB, I'm not knocking or attacking you! It's "sukey" and "old grizzled gym coach" who are trying to shut me up without saying where I'm wrong. They just say "I'm a vet, shut up." Sorry, did not mean to make you think I was attacking you.

175 >>I have a question. What happens in Libya if the new animals in charge stard murdering the entire population of Tripoly? It goes along with your theory of civil war. I have one too. But I'm guessing you won't answer it here anymore than you did after getting your ass kicked in the last thread.

176 This is winning?Sorry but look at the "victory" in Egypt.Here  the "cure" is worse than the disease....

177 You only have bounce the rubble of the capital once a decade max. It'll take that long for the society to build itself up enough to be a threat again.

And Americans won't get tired as long as Americans aren't dying.

Nobody is protesting this Libya crap. Nobody cares.

There are 100x more people concerned about Texas A&M leaving for the SEC than whatever the hell is going on in Libya.

Most Americans are barely aware it's still going on. They paid momentary attention the week we started bombing. That was it.

178 In this case Obama hasn't had a grown-up talk like that with the public and furthermore hasn't even convinced them in the first place that either side is worth supporting or even defeating.

Posted by: ace at August 18, 2011 11:11 PM (nj1bB)

Yeah probably right but that sure puts a wrench in Obamas humanitarian excuse for the war.

179 >>> They thought we needed more troops, more armor. I don't get that part about armor. Armor is mostly useful in the conventional war, right? It isn't a super advantage in a guerrilla war/patrol situation. (Although of course it's always helpful to have a tank.) I don't really see how having more armor really helps us in the 6 year patrol/pacification effort which followed. That is almost all dismounted troops. I don't see where armor really helps. Unless we just want to start shelling terrorist-friendly towns, but that's a POLITICAL restriction we always imposed on ourselves. Tanks don't help with that.

180 You only have bounce the rubble of the capital once a decade max. It'll take that long for the society to build itself up enough to be a threat again. And Americans won't get tired as long as Americans aren't dying. Nobody is protesting this Libya crap. Nobody cares. ... That's what I think. I think the public has a lot of patience for war-- as long as people who are not Americans are dying.

181 The stopwatch only ticks when american coffins come home.

182

Ace I know. This is the second time you have apologized. You are ok honest.

 

Like I tried to say before Ace. If you get elected president point me to the bad guys.

My brothers and I will kill them for you.

183 @138  Yeah, I know.

It's been alluded to, but we haven't really talked about our real strategic vulnerability: The Home Front.

I'm not gonna sit here and tell anybody that 6,000 dead Americans is acceptable, but compared to virtually every other war of this length and depth, our losses our astoundingly light.

The reason ace's strategy makes sense is not because it is actually the best way to defeat an enemy on the battlefield, because, in many cases, it ain't.  It makes sense because it offers at least a chance we won't lose the war at home-which we came damned close to doing in 2006-7.  Just imagine if there had been a few more Democrat Senators from 2006-2008.

And that's about the only thing that stumbling clusterfuck of a miserable failure has been good for-his election has defanged the anti-Republican-war-hypocrites.

184  have one too.

But I'm guessing you won't answer it here anymore than you did after getting your ass kicked in the last thread.

Posted by: JackStraw at August 18, 2011 11:13 PM (TMB3S)

heh, I 'll have to go check the last thread. I left after you got really quiet after I called you out for lying when you said Perry passed a dream act and was granting citizenship to children of illegal aliens.

What happened did you come to life after I left?

185 Okay, who ate the brown acid?

186 Professor Terguson: You remember that thing we had about 30 years ago called the Korean conflict? And how we failed to achieve victory? How come we didn't cross the 38th parallel and push those rice-eaters back to the Great Wall of China?
Professor Terguson: [rips a desk apart] Then take the fucking wall apart
[shouts]
Professor Terguson: brick by brick and nuke them back into the fucking stone age forever? Tell me why! How come? Say it! Say it!
Thornton Melon: [incensed] All right. I'll say it. 'Cause Truman was too much of a *pussy wimp* to let MacArthur go in there
[shouts]
Thornton Melon: and blow out those Commie bastards!
Professor Terguson: Good answer. Good answer. I like the way you think. I'm gonna be watching you.
Thornton Melon: [chuckling to his classmates] Good teacher. He really seems to care. About what I have no idea.

187

Hands hot from applauding! I agree 100% concerning the Libya's, Somalia's, etc. of the world. There are other types of engagements that need to be contemplated and placed onto a "what we shall do if" kind of list for the world to see. The South Ossetia / Georgia thing comes to mind. I think that the failure to make and publish a clear and reasonably comprehensive "what we shall do if" list is a real problem with our foreign policy. The people of the world deserve to know that if their governments or citizens do certain things, previously listed, that they shall all suffer mightily. I wish to remove the ambiguity and wiggleosis from our stance in the world.

188

Maybe instead of air power or massive ground force, we should simply ship our elderly to nations we're at war with.  Let social security and medicare destroy our enemies.

It's really a win win, no? 

Most retired people want to move to a warm climate anyway. Well I hear Iran is beautiful, especially this time of year.

189 >>heh, I 'll have to go check the last thread. I left after you got really quiet after I called you out for lying when you said Perry passed a dream act and was granting citizenship to children of illegal aliens Yea, but that never happened. You just chose to ignore facts. You should read more and talk less.

190 "I honestly don't give a rat's ass about anyone in the world who isn't a steadfast and loyal friend of America. We should fight for Israel, Canada, Australia, England, and a few others. " What a coincidence, all of the countries that President Gutsy Call, aka SCoaMF, flips the bird to. It's almost as if he doesn't like countries that support America. One would almost think that he doesn't admire America himself.

191 Think WWII. We went in heavy then, and defeated two well-equipped world powers in four years. We did it the old-fashioned way, by beating the daylights out of them, not by being timid.

Posted by: MrScribble

///
Really?  That's not my understanding (at least as to "We went in heavy then").  Please explain.  I'm curious.

192 I don't see how any plausible number of troops would have stopped the civil war.

You ought to do some reading on the Algerian War of Independence. The French had 500,000 troops in Algeria, which only had a population of 9 million at the time. That's the equivalent--in foreign-troops-to-population--of 1.5 million American soldiers in Iraq. The French also used utterly brutal methods, including summary executions, torturing to death, artillery and air strikes on civilian targets, and hostage taking.

Not only did the French lose, they also suffered 28,000 dead. The Algerians lost as many as 1.5 million.

193

Is everyone here a little drunky here tonight, or is it just me?

 

194

Then we already lost the next war before it started. If we can't fight any body because we're afraid of the home front short of nuking them in the first strike, we aren't going to win any war at all.

I love most of Ace's stuff but the US is completely doomed if that's the only we can fight.

195 So are we going to jerk each other off here with childish pretend scenarios or what?

Posted by: ace


Is this a trick question? 

196 @132 Ben, since I am being a point-of-order pedantic prick, let me add that another thing that made the Japanese and Germans exceptional was their talent for war.  Even before they industrialized. 

Something the Arab world sadly lacks.  I don't know enough to say for certain, having spent my career steaming around in circles more than ten miles from the coast of whichever shithole we were banging somebody out that month, but I suspect the Iraqi Army is probably more capable than any Muslim Army since the 16th century Ottomans.  That's just a WGAS, but I can't think of anybody else in the Islamic world worth two shits.

197 I have a glass of red meritage in front of me, but have not yet tapped it (typing).  Tomorrow night, Harris steak house.  Steak Diane!

198

Not only did the French lose, they also suffered 28,000 dead. The Algerians lost as many as 1.5 million.

Good times, good times.

199

I haven't been around here enough to tell who is drinking or not.

Does it matter?

200 Ben, since I am being a point-of-order pedantic prick, let me add that another thing that made the Japanese and Germans exceptional was their talent for war.  Even before they industrialized. 

Good point.

201 I'm sure Qaddafi's evacuated several times over the past 3 months.

202 Damn sock.

203 Ben, #132, spot on!  Re 1905, did you know that the Russian fleet had to sail to Japan from the Baltic sea?  Took a year.

204 The hard-core leftiies will get upset, but that's it. My dipshit hard-left cousin used to go down to Georgiato protest the School of the Americas where we trained Latin American rebels/allies/etc to fight the commies and drug lords.

Nobody else cared. And all the SOA had to do was change their name and the controversy basically went away. So decades of lefty protests like my rich bitch cousin and DoD says, ok, we'll change the name. The lefties cheer their victory and drive home in the volvos.

99% of the country, of course, ignored the whole saga.

At some point some graduate of the course will commit some atrocity and the bad press we'll start and left protests and they might have to ... change their name again. Oh no.

205

GMB - certainly not to me

 

206 You know where we tried this model of war before? Somalia...... how did that work out for us? You know where else Afghanistan

207 robtr, thanks for the reminder of the 500,000 in 1992, but obviously clinton shrunk the military shortly after and bush did not expand it to near that strength. Even if you support adding another diivision or two, to me, the problems are so big than another division or two isn't enough. I think you need to change strategy.

208 ace - Gen Shinseki said we needed at least two armored divisions to do Afghanistan. Now, he's a smart guy, chairman of the joint chiefs, etc. He's got some cred on this. We ended up doing it with CIA and SF and the Northern Alliance. He was wrong, and that was a lot of the reason why Rumsfeld dismissed his argument on Iraq, that we needed 500k troops. (and truth be told a lot of times people will make resource arguments - I need 500k troops, we don't have 500k troops, can't be done.) At any rate, the military of 2001 was NOT a counter insurgency military. It still hadn't transitioned fully out of the Cold War model. We had lots of big tanks etc., well, that must be what was necessary to win. There were folks who said, wait, that's not the way to do it, and they were dubbed the COIN mafia. This was Petraeus' crew, among others. They were not the favorites of the military. But regardless, the problem with Iraq and Afghanistan are not how we went in, but how we stayed. Too many State Department cake eaters in my opinion. But, again, your point that certain ways of war may be more politically palatable but that doesn't mean that it is the right thing to do. Remember "The Surge" was not popular. Until it worked.

209 Backing factions in a civil war -- whatever could go wrong? Look up Kermit Roosevelt and Norman Schwarzkopf Sr., and see. Tigers once mounted must continue to be ridden, and that can be entangling.

There's nothing strategically wrong with just bombing their cultural institutions (especially the cash-generating ones) flat, watch until they stick their heads up, and do it again. You're going to need more airplanes @$100 million+ each, of course, and some rocketry, satellites that don't shoot down or scramble easily, and battleships. Real ones, with armor. You buyin'? I'm in, but it looks like just us.

You (using the term advisedly--let's say any fucking American citizen, cocksucker) will never do that again in human history, any more than Congress will actually vote to issue a declaration of war, so long as we have a State Department. And if you can do away with the State Department, why would we have enemies anyway?

In closing just let me say that although I once did some work for the military, I was not there at the The Shit massacre. In decades of dealing with heavily-drinking veterans, I have never found it a winning gambit to post one day about how poorly educated I am, and tell off combat soldiers the next, no matter how short they are.  There is a line of difference between students of military history and armchair generals. Word to the wise Ace, don't talk like a drooling hipster.

210 >>>I love most of Ace's stuff but the US is completely doomed if that's the only we can fight. I really think you're thinking of it the wrong way. The active phase of the war is when we beat the hell out of them. I'm mostly talking about ending the patrol/rebuild phase, when we're... rebuilding them up.

211

212 Posted by: ace at August 18, 2011 11:26 PM (nj1bB)

But strategy for what end game? Why do we need to pacify the country? Does anyone really believe that our efforts in Iraq are going to result in a strong central government that is pro-American, and whose stance vis a vis this country will survive the first change of political party?

And I won't even insult your intelligence by asking the same question of Afghanistan.

213

Using a guerilla force is fine if you want to simply distabilize the local government but unless the locals really screwed up, it ain't taking out the local government on their own. The guerillas the US back will never win against a semi-competent government if the US isn't willing to send conventional forces to fight against the same government.

It wasn't the Viet Cong who rolled into Saigon in 1975.  It was the North Vietnamese Army.

 

214 >>>But, again, your point that certain ways of war may be more politically palatable but that doesn't mean that it is the right thing to do. Remember "The Surge" was not popular. Until it worked. You fight a war with the army and allies you have. you also fight it with the public you have. Seriously, do you want to occupy Iran? Let's say we can decapitate the state, arm up a rebel force, and send a column of tanks and infantry in to seize the nuke material (and then leave -- no patroling, just smash and grab). Why the hell do you want to stick around to rebuild?

215 The NVA had much better pho.

216 Politically we can do low-level Libya style wars nearly indefinitely, especially when a Democrat is President.

Big wars, with invasions and tanks in the enemy capital, have about a 2-3 year timeline before they hemorrhage public support.

That's just life. No point insisting that the American people magically become different people. War weariness is a real thing. Especially in our political system.

So we should plan big wars to be as violent as possible at the beginning so we can get it all over and done with in 2-3 years.

217 >>>The guerillas the US back will never win against a semi-competent government if the US isn't willing to send conventional forces to fight against the same government. I don't think that's true. Airpower plus indigenous ground forces seems to have worked in Libya. These states have a big advantage over rebels in artillery and tanks and jets. Obviously we take away most of that advantage in like two weeks of air war.

218 I'm ready for a new thread.

219 We used to call it gunboat diplomacy. It worked.

Then Liberals got elected.

A Liberal couldn't replace a light switch. Why does anyone trust them to run a country?

220 Why the hell do you want to stick around to rebuild?

Posted by: ace at August 18, 2011 11:31 PM (nj1bB)

Armchair general my ass!

221 >>But strategy for what end game? >>Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo This is the biggest mistake in thinking we ever make, an end game. There is no end game. History doesn't end tomorrow. There is only a question of what moves the pieces better in our interest.

222 Nope. After the first air strikes the Libyans immediately put their tanks and APCs in storage and went into combat in civilian vehicles. They completely defanged NATO's capabilities by making themselves invisible. All the Iranians would have to do is enter Iraq in buses and minivans, surrounded by real civilian vehicles.

Posted by: Llarry at August 18, 2011 11:13 PM (jyUxu)

So the problem then is the ROE, not how airpower cannot dominate.  If you see technicals engaged in combat, you blow them up.  The desire to minimize civilian casualties is why they defanged NATO's capabilities to a degree.  Libya would not have been so lucky if we fought with WWII rules.

BTW, they did not hide all of their military vehicles.  They were still getting blown up weeks after the first air attacks as they fought to retake certain cities from the rebels.

223 comatus, I see your efforts to get the public ready for an Iraq-style invasion of Iran are working swimmingly. Oh wait, they're not. We're not doing anything about Iran, are we? So while you pontificate about the Only Way to Fight a War, Iran builds its bombs. But you get to preen about knowing the right things to agitate for, even if they result in Iranian Nukes.

224

Jack Straw,

I answered you on the other thread, that was pretty weak. You should read the whole article if you are going to link to it. At least the first paragraph anyways.

225

Ace The Paulian?

 

*rubs eyes*

226 No I dont want to occupy Iran and I am not sure why you would think that I do. Read what I am writing and you will see that I agree with you. Mostly. It may turn out that the way we did Libya turns out putting Khadafy out of power. And no the French don't hate us and not a peep from Code Pink. Great, we did *something* but what did we do? I dont know if it was you or Taranto but I read this somewhere - maybe it was Kaus - that the Dems hold the cards on national defense. If a Republican did Libya the same way we would see outrage. Dems are able to say, hey, we are only on board with American foreign policy if we are in charge. Republicans dont play that.

227 Prediction: If your "plan" is for a Double-Sized Iraq War in Iran, then guess what? You aid the mullahs in Iran, because that "plan" is not going to fucking happen. I'm talking about things that can happen. Your Iraq II is a fantasy. And that's fine, except the part where Iran gets nukes while you continue insisting that only Iraq II will do.

228 @227 Oh, bullshit.

229 Amazing, got to agree with ace's whole post Damn I say we do it the Reagan way, go in hard, fuck them up bad, leave. If they didn't learn their lesson, pay them another visit

230 OT: JPM downgrades forecast.

"Growth in the current quarter looks only moderately softer than our previous projection, however the risks to our previous projection for 2.5% growth in Q4 are now very clearly to the downside and we are lowering forecasted growth in that quarter to 1.0%. We are also lowering 12Q1 growth to 0.5% from 1.5%. In sum, over the next four quarters we don't see growth that is much faster than the growth that took place in the first half of this year."

231 227

Ace The Paulian?

*rubs eyes*

Posted by: torabora at August 18, 2011 11:38 PM (6h5Da)

That's an insult to ace and very much a gross simplification of what he's thinking here.

232 @231 Um, another point-of-order, but do you recall Lebanon?  We were the fuckees, not the fuckers, but we did leave.

233 torabora, I think you're missing the point. I'm trying to think of a way we CAN go to war with Iran. Because whether you realize it or not, the country has Vietnam Syndrome again. You will not get an Iraq II in Iran. If that is what you seek, you will simply have nothing, except Iran armed with nukes.

234 This is working in Libya. Q-ducky will be gone relatively soon - days, weeks, months, who knows, but soonish. He has no support he has no allies. Each week we slowly attrit his forces. Each week the rebels get a little less incompetent.

Of course, if it wasn't for this whole Arab Spring thing Q-ducky wouldn't be so politically isolated. So this stand-off approach would be much harder if the other mideast muslim states were actively trying to resupply and rearm Libya.

Blockading Libya would be a lot harder if Egypt was trying to get through. And the risk of escalating the war to Libya's allies would be high.

But Libya has no allies right now, so no worries.

Same with Syria right now. Which is why we should be supporting the Syrian rebels. With cash if nothing else.

235 Wait just a coulpe of weeks, maybe three. The Israeli's might just cure the iranian nuke disease. No evidence. Just a gut feeling.

236 @236 You're right, but the Egyptians are just about the last people who would ever help Daffy. 

237

"I don't think that's true. Airpower plus indigenous ground forces seems to have worked in Libya.

These states have a big advantage over rebels in artillery and tanks and jets. Obviously we take away most of that advantage in like two weeks of air war."

The Libyan military and government wasn't even a semi-competent opponent. We took away their advantages, have most of the population against the tinpot in Tripoli, and isolated him this far from foreign aid, and only NOW can we talk about defeating him - its not a done deal yet.  He might survive this despite the odds.

238 What I want to know is if this works out when do we get to take out $700 million in oil since that's what we spent.  If the new regime wanted are help they should at least be happy to pay for it.

239 Hey rons, Interesting thread. As a military Veteran that has visited the third world passively and aggressively I would like to add to this conversation. The goal we all seek is to impose our will on another Country. It is Ideal that the reason is benevolent or explicitly for self defense. However, that is not my decision. The way I see it is that since Viet Nam, we lost the stomach for War. What we fight today with ROE's and precision strikes with "Smart bombs" is not war. If it's not war? What is it? Here lies the problem. I don't know and neither does anyone else. Civilians should control the military, they should not fight the war. We have a cadre of civilians that think they know more than military people. They bring their hard earned pompous rule following civility into an arena that has no rules. Then when things get all fucked up and we end up in a third world shithole for ten years and out billions of dollars of precious treasure. Hundreds of our finest citizens die and no one will tell us why, who is responsible or how the hell are we going to get out. They point fingers but they won't tell us. This is because the Government doesn't know. I think Obama slipped on a banana peel and fell into a smart move. Covert war? Well, that gets ugly too. Ask Ollie North. War is made up of charred cities and dead women and children, it's an ugly business. Its sort of like being in prison. If you have to fight, fuck the other party up so bad, that even the stupidest of convicts know that's not a good idea to fuck with you. At that point, you find yourself fighting less and enjoying peace more.

240 We used to arm and train rebels within those countries . . .  fund them, provide intelligence, spread some bribe money around, and . . . bring in the sort of Word of God that our air and naval forces issue from the air or sea . . . Such wars were messy and bloody and often very very dirty, with guerrilla tactics that often looked like "terrorism" being employed by both sides . . . They are, however, effective, much of the time at least, and with a light American involvement as far as troops on the ground.

This is pretty much exactly what we did in Afghanistan in 2001/2002. 

I agree with you on several points - the casualty toll in foreign nationals is far less important than the casualties that we take.  US interests take precedence over anyone else's interests. 

These questions have been debated before, and older generations have come up with good answers. 

One set of these answers is the Principles of War.  The first principle is "Objective."  You have to start your war preparation by defining what Objective you seek.  What are you trying to achieve?  In the Army, we have a whole bunch of dudes whose job it is to come up with cool plans of how to achieve objectives.  All they need is an objective to achieve.  We don't have that in Libya.  Define your objective, then let your generals come up with a way to do it.  That is their job. 

Another answer from an older generation is the idea of colonization.  I'm of the opinion that our stagnation in Iraq and Afghanistan comes from our policy of letting them develop their own government.  The population in both countries was not up to the task, and we have wasted time and effort letting them try.  We can't fix the problems with the Iraqi congress for the same reason we can't fix the problems with the US congress - they were elected.  I favor the British model of colonization - we kick the door in, destroy the government, take over, and then WE run things.  If we put a satrap in power, and he gets corrupt, we lock him up and replace him.  When we find that rare individual that wants to do the right thing, we promote him.  But WE make the decisions - not a bunch of locals that caused the problem in the first place. 

If we just bomb the crap out of a country and then move on, we have no influence over the outcome.  If we kick the shit out of them and then stick around, we can get Germany and Japan.  If we follow the British model, we can get India.  I suggest we should follow a model that has been tried and proven.

Limited war has been tried, and the results were not good.  I don't suggest going back to that model. 

241 >>robtr at August 18, 2011 11:37 PM (MtwBb) Yeah, I read you're "la la la, I'm not listening" reply. Sad. Same as those who keep war gaming the idea here that this is going to end with some military battle just because it hasn't in 2000 years.

242 My cousin worked in one of the Libyan oilfields until right before the current unpleasantness.  He has nothing good to say about Libyans.  Nothing.  They make the Saudi Arabians look like models of Teutonic efficiency, to hear him tell it.

243

If we're going to be helping and organizing a guerilla movement against a country we don't like - what happens if the country discovers we're doing before the guerillas can slug it out with the government? Do we let the government kill the guerillas and think about taking revenge of some kind on the US? Or do we decide to use conventional forces to protect the guerillas against the government?

244 Sure, I'm just saying the current Libya strategy doesn't necessarily work outside of this Arab Spring context.

We aren't really that stand-offish in Libya even. In the Cold War we armed and trained rebels in wars, but usually we didn't have US jets circling over the enemy capital.

By Cold War standard this Libya deal is pretty in-your-face. Our ships right off his shore, our planes over his capital. It's a Big Fuckin Deal.

245

Contra style. Let the Kurd terrorists blow up Iran.

It's a hell of a lot more realistic of a way to try to manage and respond to dozens of moderate threats evolving everywhere, than trying to invade and police the whole chaotic world for terrorists one or two countries per decade.

Else we'll break our own backs by our 4th pisshole and wind up defenseless against real threats.

246 @245 ask the ghost of john kennedy that question.

247 So, how long before this new Chinese aircraft carrier is worth a shit?  Things could get interesting in that part of the world in a few years.

248 @225, ? WTF are you talking about? Get your addresses crossed?

You are seriously having one of your episodes. Get help. You'll end up spending the next two days arguing with yourself and then apologizing. It's a "lifestyle," all right, but people laugh behind your back. 

249 The current Chinese aircraft carrier might never be worth a shit. It's the next ones that count. This one is a hand-me-down they bought from Russia just so they could practice and learn how carriers work.

250 Also ace, you are saying you are trying to lay out a case for a war we can fight with Iran. Well, not only is Iraq II not going to happen, neither is your plan. This administration will not go to war with Iran, period. They want to be friends. George W Bush wouldnt go to war with them over nukes, either. I suppose the Israelis might but I don't think so. Bottom line is that no amount of jaw jaw is going to work with the Iranians on their nuke program. I did not hear what RP said about letting Iran have nukes, but Thomas P M Barnett (Pentagons new map guy) said it a while ago. If we are going to bluster about not letting them have nukes, but we don't have the will to follow up on the threat, we are going to lose major credibility. The Iranians will get nukes - Stuxnet can only slow them down. So Barnett's argument was to say, okay, we'll support you having them, but you have to give us something in return, like help with Iraq and Afghanistan - at least stop fighting us there. Now, I think Barnett is naive because you cant trust fascists but there is something there - if we won't follow up on the threat - and we wont - then we ought not to issue it. If Iran is going nuclear, we should get something for it.

251 This "victory" = a potential Somalia on the Med, a resurgent Muslim Brotherhood , and a new ward (broke-dick Libya) on the international (U.S.) taxpayer.

Wooohooo.

Libya isn't over, the internal fight over the spoils is just about to get started.

252 What a stupid argument we have going here. Let's try the old tried and true methods, crush your enemy, and then take all his stuff.Nothing in half measures. You don't get any points for just killing a few civilians. Kill your enemy and don't worry about who gets in the way. That is life on this world. Get over it.

253 249, Carriers are becoming obsolete in wars with the big 3. The third world can't handle them but 1 silkworm gets past CWIS, and they will fire hundreds at once, especially when or if we fight over Tiawan, the USS Reagan is a smoking hulk that will have a difficult time doing any fighting. We have little nukes on torpedos and cruise missles for their big ships.

254 Funneling cash to Syrian and Iranians rebels is at least something we can do. Covertly killing their top nuke scientists is also good.

If we can get the Arab League to turn on Syria like they turned on Libya then we could get political cover to bomb Assad's military.

These brutal protest suppression videos have been huge.

255

If we're going to be helping and organizing a guerilla movement against a country we don't like - what happens if the country discovers we're doing before the guerillas can slug it out with the government? Do we let the government kill the guerillas and think about taking revenge of some kind on the US? Or do we decide to use conventional forces to protect the guerillas against the government?

Honestly?

I don't know who would advocate doing such things to countries that aren't already doing that to us. Countries like Iran, that already have that card on the table so to speak.

So what if they do find out and it doesn't work? We'd officially deny it of course.

If we armed a guerilla movement to overthrow the Dutch government, I could totally understand why they'd be a bit pissed and might think about taking revenge.

Iran? What are they going to do, hate us more? They fund hezbollah and hamas. They'll cry real crocodile tears if they suspect US links to dissidents I'm sure. Just like they already do, regardless of whether we actually do, because it's mildly useful cover for demanding shit on account of greivance either way.

256

It's a simple concept really....

If you goad us into war, our new policy is that we will take whatever we want to pay for your transgression after we beat the crap out of you. THEN you can forget any of this "war reparations" shit or any "nation building" after we pull back out. You got oil? We're gonna take that on our way out the door. You got minerals and merchant marine? Consider it ours. We'll leave what's left of you in peace in your stoneage desert when we decide we're done kicking your ass.

Now think about that and maybe reconsider BEFORE we have to kick your ass and clean out your playground. But understand that afterward, you're getting nada from us or any of our allies.

Kapiche?

257

So the problem then is the ROE, not how airpower cannot dominate.  If you see technicals engaged in combat, you blow them up.

Ace made the claim that we could use air power to prevent the Iranians from entering Iraq after we left. If the Iranians used civilian vehicles--which they would--we wouldn't be able to stop them.

They would send in soldiers in civilian vehicles, wearing civilian clothes. They wouldn't use technicals. The Libyan army wasn't using technicals; it was using plain old civilian vehicles that from the air were impossible to differentiate from real civilian vehicles. Changing the ROE wouldn't have made a difference.

To win an asymmetrical war, you need troops on the ground. The Libyan rebels are being trained by someone, probably the British SAS. Air power hasn't been decisive in that war.

258 >>>This administration will not go to war with Iran, period. Assumed from the get-go. I am talking about the next president. Even a conservative president will not do Iraq II. He might do a war with a limited goal and promise of NO OCCUPATION, though.

259 @258 That's nice.  Now tell me how we make that happen?  Show your work, and don't leave out the Democrat Party and the anti-war movement.

260

Ace made the claim that we could use air power to prevent the Iranians from entering Iraq after we left. If the Iranians used civilian vehicles--which they would--we wouldn't be able to stop them.

Posted by: Llarry at August 19, 2011 12:05 AM (jyUxu)

We didn't stop them when they went in there and were fighting against us.  Iran provided Bush with a clear cassus belli, more than few times, for bombing the living shit out of Iran and he made pretend he didn't see it.  That situation where the Iranians just snatched the brit sailors (there on coalition business) was particularly pathetic.

261 @254  And you don't get any points for demanding a position that maybe 2% of American people support.

If the goal is to stop Iran from threatening our interests with nukes ... then you need to have a strategy that has some plausible way of being adopted by the American political system.

Iranian nukes are the only time-sensitive issue here. All these other pissant dictators are just nice to kill, bonus deaths. But whether q-ducky gets whacked this year or next or never doesn't really matter.

If Iran gets nukes this year, or next, or in 5 years or 10 ... does matter.

My entire life the libertarians have been screaming about taxation is theft and regulations strangling the economy and Atlas Shrugging ... and every year the State takes more control over society.

Whether the libertarians are right or not is one question, but I do know their strategy sucks balls. Society has done the exact opposite of what the libertarians wanted. And their response has mostly been to just scream louder and call everybody else names.

The eco-scumbags have been 10x more effective than the libertarians. I hate to admit that, but it's true.

262 I didn't read all the comments but I cannot agree more strongly with this, ace. The Arab Spring has turned into a nightmare for the ME and I'm wondering the entire time if it wasn't a CIA plot all along. Hey, what if they all just start killing each other and then we just deal with the guys who are left?

We were doing well in Afghanistan when we had special forces on the ground helping the war lords on our side. The larger force footprint screwed that up. And you couldn't be more correct that the American public will not fight a war like it needs to be fought to win, ergo, I refuse to support endangering our troops lives for this bullshit and haven't since Bush pussed out and started nation building instead of your with us or against us.

263 @260 You could not be more wrong. If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came out in favor of the Ryan Plan, we'd be catapulting F/A-18s stacked with JDAMs off the deck of the nearest carrier five minutes ago.

264 Bingo, bingo , bingo! We have a winner! MrObvious gets a kewpie doll! We'll have just as many lasting fans being total dicks as we will by being all sensitive and shit. The difference is that we will profit from the being a dick part. That's what human respect anyway. Nobody wants to get the fuck knocked out of them by some touchy-feely punk. Let them know you did it on purpose and will do it again!

265 He might do a war with a limited goal and promise of NO OCCUPATION, though.

We wouldn't have to occupy Iran. It's far more advanced than Iraq was. There's also a much more active pro-democracy movement in Iran.

Don't forget that the Iraqis didn't have cell phones or the Internet. They were almost completely closed off from the world.

266 There you guys go again, fantasizing about another war and more killing.

Ace may not give a shit about killing foreign non-combatants - that just shows how black and shriveled his soul is - but God surely does.

267 The basic problem with the modern Western concept of war is that we take some stupid pride in valuing their citizens more highly than their own cultures value them.  We do the same for their mosques (which they'll blow up in a second if they are in a fight with another muslim) and their antiquities (which they never cared about, until they found that silly Westerners would actually pay money to see them ... "the idiots") and the oil (which the other Hussein showed they didn't care about, at all, and were happy to use as a weapon, even in just destroying it) and on and on and on.  We value everything of theirs and everything around them and everything they are, even, more than they do.  That is a very bad sign of a deep pathology, aside from just being amazingly stupid.

268 We didn't stop them when they went in there and were fighting against us.  Iran provided Bush with a clear cassus belli, more than few times, for bombing the living shit out of Iran and he made pretend he didn't see it.  That situation where the Iranians just snatched the brit sailors (there on coalition business) was particularly pathetic.

The infuriating thing is that Iran has a long record of not retaliating. Iran never retaliated for Operation Praying Mantis in 1988, nor for the Iraqi Operation Charge of the Knights in 2007, which took Basra back from Iranian control. Also, there are persistent rumors that Petraeus ordered the ambushing of Iranian diplomatic convoys in Baghdad, killing all the occupants, which convinced the Qods Force to leave Iraq.

The British SAS launched at least one attack into Iran in 2007. They blew up the EFP factories and killed the gun runners and financiers who were supporting the Shi'ite militias in Iraq. Iran never retaliated for that attack, either.

269 There you guys go again, fantasizing about another war and more killing.

War is bad for children and other living creatures. War never solved anything. War is not the answer.

War is a shithead.

270 Ace, you make a very, very solid case.  It convinced the heck out of me.  I think it may be the right approach for our time.

But...

I think we did the same thing in Afghanistan.  And it worked great for us.  Until the Taliban / al Qadia thing bit us on the ass.

War is tough.  There is no easy, low cost way.  There are tough choices all around.  Often times, you are just trying to pick the least costly measure.  But there are no guarantees.  And even avoiding war may lead to disaster.

Still... a solid essay.  And I think you may be right, in this case.  In Libya.  For now.  Thirty years from now?

Who can tell?

The Oracle has been silent for two thousand years.  And even then, she was a crypic bitch.

Still, well done sir.  Well done.

271 @263

About the time we get our asses handed to us for our current "Kinder, gentler, roe, that 2% will go to 90% in short order. I'm just stating the obvious.

272 Part of the issue here is what a blog like Ace and commenters like us morons hope to accomplish.

Ace is trying to think his way towards a plausible, real-world solution to, for example, stopping the Iranian nuke program.

I admire that. And tonight I'm kinda trying to do the same and help out, add my 2 cents to that constructive project.

But other nights when I comment here I'm not doing that. Instead I often advocate some extreme position that I know could never be actual policy. Why? To signal how fucking pissed off I am. To encourage others to be as pissed off as me.

The idea behind that strategy, the rage-hissy-fit strategy, is that it plausibly helps build political pressure so that other, smarter people come up with a plausible, real world solution.

I'm not sure which strategy is more effective for blog, or their commenters.

The first strategy is more intellectually honest and intellectually rewarding to participate in.
The rage strategy is more cathartic, of course. If somewhat soul-draining.

So some nights I'm, "We need to build political support, get cover from the Arab League, and use a Libya strategy on Syria."
And other night I'm just "Nuke Mecca. Fuck em all."

Not sure which strategy is best. Probably depends on how much of a minority your position is. The rage strategy has done jack squat for the libertarians for decades. Sure seemed to work for the progressive Left in 2008, though.

273

I have really tried to understand our "nation building" idea but I think history just proves that it doesn't work. We had Japan on the ropes and made them scream Uncle. THEN we spent as much rebuilding them as we spent on the war. In return they made it ILLEGAL in their country to teach kids the part of history we refer to as Pearl Harbor. From their story they were the VICTIMS of WWII.

In Desert Storm we devastated Iraq with very few losses. But then instead of cleaning house we got all sensitive and left the job undone. Guess who came back like Freddy Kruger on crack?

When G.W. pulled the trigger on Iraq again we cleaned house lickety split ....but who decided Colin Powel had a say in what comes afterward? The left was accusing us of going to war for oil like that was a bad thing for chrissakes. WHY have we done anything other than leave them in their own stone age knowing that if they didn't get their act together we'd kick their ass again. We've spent more in the intervening years than if we left them alone and let Iran take over.....and then had to go back and clean house again. And folks....they would have deserved it and we would have done it. Why is that any less palatable than taxing the Americans into Oblivion trying to make a silk purse democracy out of a goat fugging Muztard?

274

At the risk of offending ACE our host, what the crap do you think happened with Afghanistan in the first place pal?  We did exactly what you advocated arming and training the guerillas (including Osama Bin Laden) to kick out the Russians.  Mission Accomplished! 

What did we get for our trouble ACE?  We got a terrorist safehaven for al Qaeda and 911 happened.  (Bill Clinton's incompetence contributing to the mess)

The point of rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan is so that we can have Carte Blanche' slamming al Qaeda wack a mole style using the Rope-A-Dope strategy.  The morons ran straight into Iraq into the gun sights of our troops, instead of us having to go from country to country rooting them out.  When they got tired of loosing in Iraq, they then ran to Afghanistan right back into our gun sites again. Which is better strategically?  Letting al Qaeda randomly (at the time and place of their choosing) take pot shots at our interests all over the world leaving us to play defense while they get good PR for making us look helpless OR get them to volunteer most of their manpower keeping them busy while we play duck hunt in Iraq and Afghanistan making al Qaeda look stupid for wasting their people like cannon fodder?????  Either strategy would result in people getting killed as al Qaeda doesn't give a crap about whom they kill.  The point here is we killed them on our terms that best matched our force capabilities. 

You like Ron Paul and liberal Democrats are making the most basic mistake in war strategy, make the enemy die for their cause at the time and place of OUR CHOOSING.  Unfortunately, we have not fully utilized the undermining strategy in IRAN itself since they are the world's #1 financier of terrorism, there I agree with you, arm the rebels to the teeth and let the mayhem commence.  Two different strategies for two different types of enemies.

275 269.

Word.

276 Good post Ace. Much of what you are saying reflects exactly the same way I felt. I think the problem has been that the conservative perspective of war was at some point perverted to adopt liberal/RINO values. The Bush model of war is that of the "compassionate conservative". If we stayed in, we would be able to give freedom and democracy to the Muslims. We needed to stay in "for the children"(TM). Bush was a true RINO. He believed all cultures are equal. Arabs are the same as Westerners. It was actually the liberals that adopted the more reality-based/conservative perspective. Although they didn't say it in those terms, the liberal proposition had at its core, the belief that these people are 7th century savages that are, like you said, simply not worth it.

277 I don't think Bush was a rino. He was a Republican. He was more of a cino. C meaning 'Conservative'. He let way too much money be spent, and backed too much social bullshit, but it was so he could keep fighting the war as he thought he needed to. It was a call of duty to him. He wasn't hoping to be a hero or popular or anything. He just wanted to do the job.

278

It's late....I'm out.

I'll check in tomorrow to wage war again. Same Bat Time. Same Bat Station.

279

war in libya?? are we at war w/ libya?? shame the media isnt covering that. which is my point!! if bush had the kinda favorable coverage obama gets the american people would have no problem w/ the full out war we waged in iraq. if bush had tried this type of approach they would be constantly showing all the civilian casualties, playing up the seediness of the resistance we were helping, etc.

280 We armed rebels in Afghanistan only to harass the rebels. It's not like we went to war WITH Afghanistan. And we didn't arm or train bin Ladin. That is a myth. Finally, Pakistan installed the Taliban.

281 I dont' know what you are suggesting-- post the Russian retreat from afghanistan, we should have... occupied it?!?!?

282 282,
Stud, don't you mean we armed the rebels to harass the ruskies?

283

ACE, I have to respectfully disagree with your proposal, as a long-range foreign policy plan.

I can see where you're coming from, but think that you're mistaken the silence of the demostrative anti-war left, and the MBM for that matter, for American's apathy regarding wars where US soldiers aren't dying.

Dollars to doughnuts, if a Republican were currently President and did the very same foreign policy moves Obama has, the MBM would be hyperventilating nightly, questioning the purpose and rational behind the war, and lamenting the natural byproduct of civilian suffering that would be framed as part and parcel of said GOP C-in-C's "failed foreign policy".

Oh, and the code Pinkos and demonstrators toting giant paper mache heads would be on display 24/7/365 in Lafayette park; and getting media coverage to boot.

Better to get any country where we undertake regime change by force onto a "good foot" before we leave.  But, admittedly, it would have been a better choice in Iraq to have used more Iraqis to do so than US combat troops, who are better off being IN THE SHIT! MAN!11!1!

My Regards

284 The Arab Spring has turned into a nightmare for the ME and I'm wondering the entire time if it wasn't a CIA plot all along.

Sort of? I wouldn't say "CIA." It's not a well-kept secret which of our (officially "our") guys are teamed up with which of their guys, so...Google away.

And it's not a plot to accomplish that possibly good thing you said.

The idea is, we install quasi-theocracies ("Islamic democracy") run by "Westernized" Caliphate-aspirant types who went to Harvard and Oxford, instead of the regular local goat-touching shitty-bearded Ayatollahs and warlord/gangster Saddam-y guys who usually install themselves. This on the theory that the people we install are "us." Because...Harvard. Pants creases. That sort of thing.

And of course this is a very, very, very fucking stupid plan that'll pretty much inevitably wind up causing the slaughter of, oh, a billion or two people. Us and/or them. About half of each, probably.

Good times.

285 Who are you talking to ace, in your last comments?

286 Libya and Kosovo -- I call wars like these "vanity wars." They contribute little or nothing to our national security but they can serve some political ends when needed.

287 288 Libya and Kosovo -- I call wars like these "vanity wars." They contribute little or nothing to our national security but they can serve some political ends when needed.

Posted by: Mindy at August 19, 2011 12:55 AM (+zY8b)

 

Libya and Kosovo were/are mistakes.

Islam still hates us...

288

Ace,

From the bottom of my heart I do thank you for your concern about the lives of American military members. I share most of your concerns.

Having said that, I will now say that each and everyone one of us who have signed that contract know, or should know, that in reality we are signing our own death certificate. We have signed our life away to the whim of one man or woman. The President of the United States.

We have, since 1975, done this voluntarily. We have served and will continue to serve no matter what.

It does bring a measure of comfort knowing that there are people who still care about thier nations soldiers.

Soldiers die. Soldiers live. And wonder why.

 

289 And there have been "alleged" cross border altercations between Egypt and Isreal his week.  Cross border...between two former shaky "allies."  Why the cross border?  What the heck is going on in Egypt?  Just how is the "Arab Spring" manifesting?  Enquiring minds want to know.....

290 OT but Steyn's visit to the Milt Rosenberg show was awesome --be sure to download later if you're a fan.  The penultimate caller was an asshat, and Mark reamed him but good.

291 Jason @268, re-read the old testament and get back with me. Thanks.

292

 A lot of people . . . think that the problem with Iraq was that we went in on the cheap, not enough forces . . . I don't see how any plausible number of troops would have stopped the civil war.

It wasn't just the people, it was the munitions they had available and the freedom of action they had. 

My opinion, several years after the fact - we ran a cavalry style war.  Rapid advance, hit the big targets, bypass the smaller stuff and head to the end.  The results are a matter of record - we took ground at a historic rate, the Iraqi army collapsed, and we ended up with an uncontrollable rear area. 

What if we had used frontal warfare?  What if we had advanced slowly, units on line, invest and reduce all enemy concentrations and destroy munitions as we went? 

 Slower, not as dramatic, doesn't play as well on TV.  Results in a rear area without all those tons of leftover artillery shells.  But, it is harder to explain in a sound bite. 

293 What if we had advanced slowly, That's a lot of booby-trapped buildings you're talking about.

294 During the Iran/Iraq War the Iranians were losing. They sent in their children as human mine sweepers. Desperation or pure ideology, I don't know. I do know that the very idea is abhorrent to me and most Westerners.
 
This has been a great thread to read. Lots of good point/counterpoint stuff. I think it was Balrog that expressed 'sometimes I want to nuke Mecca, sometimes I say leave them all alone to fuck each other up, most times I'm somewhere in the middle' though not in those exact words.
 
War does seem to be the permanent human condition. Perhaps that is why the progs dream of a One World government. Somehow, that will stop it all and the Coke commercial comes true. "I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony. I'd like to buy the world a Coke and keep it company."
 
Bullshit.

295 Jake, I meant "political ends" in the cynical sense. Clinton and Obama were trying to shore up their political capital. This is why I mostly lurk. I have trouble expressing myself well in writing.

296

 If you're going to go to war, kill people and break things, turn everything into rubble, make the rubble bounce, until they stop fighting. Steal whatever's valuable...and come home. With the promise that if they try that shiot again, next time we won't be so nice.

 There's nothing in the constitution about nation building or saving other nations from themselves. ...not even 'for the children.'

 

 

 

297 This is why I mostly lurk. I have trouble expressing myself well in writing.

Posted by: Mindy at August 19, 2011 01:19 AM (+zY8b)

Nonsense.  It was an excellent comment you made, both in content and style.

298 @296 Nope, wasn't me.  I was mostly just nitpicking.

299

Sort of? I wouldn't say "CIA." It's not a well-kept secret which of our (officially "our") guys are teamed up with which of their guys, so...Google away.

And it's not a plot to accomplish that possibly good thing you said.

Well, I was being a sarcastic with that good part, and I agree that the plan was very, very very stupid. Had we gone with the other idea and their people it might have been a different story. Or maybe not. I'm still irritated that I spent a large amount of time backing the Bush Iraq plan thinking it was one thing while it was entirely another. Had I known up front, I wouldn't have supported it in the first place for exactly the reasons Ace has mentioned. The American public isn't capable of accepting real WWII style war, this past 10 years have proved it, as if Somalia already didn't in the 90's, and we need to stop pretending that will ever be the case again unless a nuke goes off in NYC. And even then, I'm not convinced. 

So stop wasting American soldiers lives, is where I'm at now. Get 'em home. What happens, happens.

300 See, my big fear about a One World Government is that the space aliens will then see us as a threat.

/NASA Scientist Who Makes Sculptures Out of Snot

301 Progressiveoverpeace, that was sweet, thanks. Does this mean you understood what I meant?

302 297 Jake, I meant "political ends" in the cynical sense. Clinton and Obama were trying to shore up their political capital.

This is why I mostly lurk. I have trouble expressing myself well in writing.

Posted by: Mindy at August 19, 2011 01:19 AM (+zY8b)

 

Don't lurk, you're kickin ass!

and spot on

303 a dios

304 Does this mean you understood what I meant?

Posted by: Mindy at August 19, 2011 01:27 AM (+zY8b)

Sure, though it is a bit more sinister and dangerous than that, which is all jake was saying, I think.  But, you were hitting one point and you hit it well.  They were, ultimately, props for the dems.

305 Thanks for the encouragement, Jake and progressiveoverpeace. I truly love this place. (I'd better not get too mushy in a war thread.) And with that I bid you all a good evening.

306 I always thought the best foreign policy was develop really really really advanced weaponry that would make captain kirk green with envy. Then we let our enemies know they we're going to leave them alone, but if they fuck with us we're just going to erase their country from the map.

I think right after 9-11 Bush should have just said "ok its like this, if I so much as hear alah akbar during an act of violence, I'm nuking that fucking borg cube in mecca.

307 @294 - according to Woodward's account, the JCS tried to talk Bush 41 out of going into Kuwait on the grounds that it'd take 400K troops, and his response was "do it".  I believe a number of studies were done that based on historical standards of occupation it would have taken 400K troopers to control postwar Iraq. 

What Rumsfeld and Bush 43 did, perhaps with a helping hand from Powell, was penny-wise and pound-foolish.   Rummy's line about going to war with the force you have and not the force you wish you had is fine so far as it goes, but that implies that you need to align the mission to the resources available. 

To do otherwise is a recipe for failure, and so it proved.  

Ace would have us fighting, or at least participating in, Wars of National Irritation, where we identify wounds on the body politic of our adversaries and apply a little gunpowder to, if nothing else, keep the wound perpetually inflamed.   Our nation was the product of such a war; Louis XV sent aid to the colonies primarily because it was a comparatively cheap way to be nasty to the British.   One must note in this context that history is full of cautionary tales: Louis was deficit-funding the war, and the debt France incurred contributed greatly to his grandson's date with the national razor a decade and a half later.   But I digress.

The Russians used wars of national irritation a whole lot more than we did, with varying degrees of success, Greece, Cuba, Angola, Egypt among many others, and of course they helped keep us embroiled in Vietnam for most of a generation. 

By contrast, aside from the Afghan proxy-war against the Russians I can't think of too many places we had long-term success using local insurgents to further our agenda.  Installing the Shah and disposing of Allende were not exactly popular uprisings.  Our  success in Nicaragua was incomplete and some would say transient.

What am I missing here?

308 <i> 283 I dont' know what you are suggesting-- post the Russian retreat from afghanistan, we should have... occupied it?!?!?</i>   Hindsight being 20/20, absolutely we never should have disengaged to leave them to their fate.  911 would never have occurred if we did the nation building after the Russians left and the Taliban would never have taken power in the first place coming from Pakistan.  That is the judgment expressed by many Afghans.  And nation building is not necessarily occupation.  But that now is academic, we're there, we can't leave unless there is a stable self sustaining government otherwise we have only put off the inevitable.    You ACE like the Dems and Ron Paul misjudge the enemy, they aren't interested in coexistance as we understand it.  There are only one of two outcomes here regardless what the American people accept or can tolerate:  Either they defeat us or we defeat them.  There is no middle ground here because their goal is a world wide Caliphate.  We are facing an enemy with the exact same goals of the Cold War and WWII, global domination.  We are at war with radical Islam, pull your head out of the sand otherwise like Daniel Pearl you'll get it chopped off.  That's the kind of barbarians we are dealing with, kill or be killed, there can be no negotiated settlement. The wall across England didn't save Hadrian nor did the Great Wall save China from the invading hoards.  Rolling up in a ball as a defense is suicidal with these people, they only understand - power and death.    Whether you care to accept it or not, WWIII is occuring now with Islam and has been for some time.  Our next set of hostilities will probably be directly with Iran.  It's coming, and probably before Obama leaves office.

309 I've read through most of the comments and it doesn't look like much has been resolved. I think ace's argument that the weakness of the general public makes another Iraq style war, much less a serious attempt to crush an enemy, unfeasible is probably right. I also think the general acknowledgement here that letting the locals do the fighting and drop a bomb here or there while hoping for the best isn't going to work any better than it has throughout a century of people trying to convince themselves that aerial bombardment was reliable is correct. No Democrat is going to commit the forces necessary to win (or pick any fights worth winning for that matter), and no Republican is going to be allowed either the forces or the time.

That necessarily means that there are no solutions. Much like folks who would argue over what we can do to make the economy 'good' next year, there are no solutions available because we have painted ourselves into a corner. At least until public mood improves.

That likely means Iran will get nuclear weapons absent preventative action from Israel. Unfortunately it is what it is.

310

As a couple of people remarked mid-thread, the Great Curmudgeon of NRO (John Derbyshire) has been saying for a decade or so that what our foreign policy should be is break an aggressive polity with the temerity to attack us into tiny little bits ...and then leave 'em to pick up their own pieces.

...and if they do it again, we break 'em again.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Works for me.

311 Iran would have and could have benefited from a popular uprising - the regime of mad mullahs was never overwhelmingly popular, the country was basically secular and the most modern in the Middle East when the Ayatollah and his nutbar pals took over.  Islamic democracy is one man, one vote, one time. 

But of course President Chauncey Gardiner Crybaby hadn't the spine to stand up for the protesters when they had the momentum and a chance, better chance than any of the "Arab spring" countries to have a democracy with protections for individual human and property rights and an independent judiciary.

It's a sad and dangerous situation to have such a completely unqualified buffoon in the highest office of the land any time, especially now with crises everywhere.

312 That stuttering thing is no joke:http://tinyurl.com/3box48b  Why are you mocking the clearly disabled???

313 my tinyurl's are being rejected- is this some conspiracy???

314 I scrolled all the way down post Sukie comment to guess it is Average Joe. Do I win a hobo pelt?

315 The battlefield is already being prepped for the next big war. Keep your eyes on China. At least on their basketball teams.

316 I have no problem putting your link in.

317

Who would have thought the stutterer was an idiot savant at fighting wars [sarcasm]. Didn't Bush hit them with one bomb and straighten the asses out for about a decade. I agree about Iraq, should have simply right clicked some key installations to dust, about 2000 of them, and called it a day. 

318

And isn't Kaddaffi a pussy to begin with? A Betty? Literally, he's Betty Davis trapped in a mans body.

 

There I'm done. I feel better now.

319 Thx Buzzion I s-s-s-s-s-s-salute you!!!

320

You can't nation build with muslims.

Posted by: steevy at August 18, 2011 10:11 PM (ryClw)

Unless you get the cement  - aggregate ratio just right.

321 "How many foreign citizens in an country we've gone to war with do I need to save in fair exchange for one American soldier's life?" I had a beloved family member (newlywed, to boot) in harm's way in Iraq for a whole year and I didn't stop quaking until I heard she was home safe and at her base. Here was the calculation I made for how many Iraqis I'd have seen killed before her: 1) take a standard desktop calculator 2) enter the number of Iraqis that exist 3) hit the '/' key 4) hit the '0' key 5 hit 'enter' You'll seer something like 'ERR' which means it was a mal-formed question. When it comes to the Islamic world, my view is go big or go home. Colin Powell was one of the most disastrous chumps ever to have held his office. He was the walking embodiment of the Peter Principle. By 'go home' I mean what we should have done, which is leave the mediaeval savages to stew in their own juice (yeah,we can buy their oil, but the Canadians and Latin Americans are much friendlier.) By 'go big' I mean utter, pitiless nuclear extermination. It's what they wouldd do to us, given the chance, and will, given the chance. And, one way or the other, it will happen. Note, at this point and notwithstanding the above, I do not advocate. I predict. If both Washington and Mecca are still habitable 100 years from now someone will have achieved a miracle.

322 The Soviet union is a pose a serious threat to the west of the country.I speak not only military threat, and refers to the economic GHD threat.With planning policy, coupled with the unique spiritual and material MBT Shoes stimulation method, and the combination of the Soviet economy development index is very high.Its GDP growth rate than our past more than double.If you consider the Soviet union rich natural resources, Cheap MBT Shoes if it is reasonable, then the Soviet union operation possible will we world market. SqueezeTherefore, Tory Burch we have to take action.Designed to cut down the Soviet economy, making its internal problems.The main method is dragged into the arms

323 Hey! Lets call it the Louis XVI strategy.

324 One thing: Currently the U.S. military has the most collective combat experience of any force in human history. There have never been so many officers and enlisted personnel in one armed force that have seen combat for so long. --------- The Roman Legions would probably have a thing or two to say about that but I agree with your other point about actual combat experience. It is one of the reasons I have to disagree with the ace doctrine. First and foremost our military needs actual in place combat experience from time to time. It keeps you sharp, adaptive and hungry. That probably sounds cynical and would lead some to believe Im a bloodthirsty warmonger who cares nothing for the lives of the American fighter. Hardly. I just want our troops to be the most ferocious and successful on the planet. You can't do that by avoiding every potentially hazardous conflict. Vietnam comes to mind. The objectives in Vietnam were ultimately lost because the war dragged on. It dragged on because what should have been fought as a counter insurgency (as in French Algeria) was fought WWII style (Westmoreland said the war would be won with "firepower"). America had fought counter insurgency before (Phillipines, Haiti) but those examples were not on the mind of the Vietnam war planner because WWII style was recent and had been an American victory which appealed to an ingrained American military style, firepower and technological and logistical edge. The point being that the American fighter needs to be versed in small conflict methods and counter insurgency. The big war stuff comes much more natural. The second and probably more vital flaw in the ace doctrine is this. Each theatre of conflict has its own set of variables. Those unique variable sets have different consequences for the U.S. Bomb and go would make a lot of sense in certain locations. Somalia comes to mind. Others are more problematic. Take the most serious case, Iran. Imagine that tomorrow we bomb Irans governmental and military centers. We blow up everything we know of that could be seen as a future threat. WMD centers and government centers gone. But no troops en mass on the ground. We think we got it all but its hard to know without eyes and ears on the ground. Then in a couple of years we find out the hard way that nuclear and bio weapon materials were missed and smuggled out. We find out the hard way. We had no way of knowing that such materials were even missing. So the WMD variable of Iran makes it different from Somalia in terms of requiring troops on the ground.

325 Also consider the limited ability to achieve objectives with U.S supported insurgency. They worked in certain locales during the Cold War but we should not confuse the hostility of an insurgent force to our mutual enemy as love or ultimate loyalty to the U.S. Again consider Iran. Would you trust any of the Iranian insurgency groups to turn over nuke or other WMD materials if we beheaded the multi-headed mullah snake?

326 With all of this talk of war preparations and invasions, I'm beginning to think that Teh Krugman was right, - with one clarification:  if we modify his assertion and replace "space aliens" with "terrestrial aliens,"  he may, in fact, have been correct about how we could rescue the economy. 

327 The stuttering clusterfuck of colossal failure has already endorsed an alien invasion with his sham amnesty. I guess he likes the idea of economist ferretface too.

328

While I agree with Ace, let's be honest and admit that we as conservatives (no, not all conservatives, but a large majority) backed the boots on the ground style when Bush did it.

We should admit we have learned from the mistakes and go forward with advocating the no troops style engagement while acknowledging our incorrect support for the nation-building model that was employed in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

I don't want to be like the left that changes a position when a different president is in the WH and pretend it never held the previously held position.

Also, let's admit that when we don't do the nation building, it may result in a worse gov't than the gov't that was replaced (Egypt, probably Lybia) and so we might have to start with supporting new rebels all over again and may have to do the whole thing again in 10 years. 

But I'm o.k. with that.  It is still better than what we have in Iraq, which even after 10 years of American troops hand-holding and sacrifice, looks like it's going to end up being closer to Iran than it is to the U.S.  So in reality, we probably would have been better off simply deposing Saddam, blowing the hell out of the republican guard, and leaving. 

I'll admit that I bought into the "spreading democracy" argument and thought we could build a decent country in Iraq.  but I have been disabused of that notion.  I don't think that the tribalism and islam of the middle east as it currently exists is compatible with a western style democracy.  I think all such "democracies" will devolve into a sharia law islamic state closer to Iran than to the U.S. 

Thus, unfortunately, we are better off supporting Shah style strongmen who at least are trying to westernize and liberalize their countries than democratic movements in that region.

If nothing else, the Bush foreign policy re-established that realpolitik is probably better for U.S. interests than dreams of turing all countries into clones of America.

329 I love what you guys are frequently up too. Such clever work and reporting! Keep up the terrific works guys IÂ’ve added you guys to my blogroll.

330 I know this thread is dead now, so I wil write a tome. Actually, had to get some sleep last night and dropped out. But: @309 (and ace) - this is the argument that the military made. I participate in a mailing list of West Point grads and you would be surprised at how much the sentiment was against going to Iraq. That stuff reported in the WaPo about flag officers saying that it was just a war to avenge daddy was an accurate description of how many senior officers thought. Here is the "war on the cheap" argument in a nutshell. That the decision to go to war with the force structure we did led to an incomplete conclusion to the military action, which allowed for the insurgency that ended up being the deadliest part for American forces. If we had gone in with enough force to begin with, we would have snuffed out the insurgency by having enough security in place. All of this was based on, as noted, " number of studies were done that based on historical standards of occupation." Except of course there is no scientific method to say what the headcount needs to be. First of all, there was the FACT that we could not field a force of 400k in the spring of 2003 - and that if we could scrape that many up to fight, it would have taken another year to get in place - which in itself would have changed the whole calculus. We might have lost the popular and world opinion that we had at the time, or Saddam might have just started slaughtering his populace again, or started directly and openly funding AQ, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait may have decided not to let us stay there because of a restive population and terror attacks - any number of things could have happened in that intervening year that would have been worse than entering Iraq with a force structure that was smaller than the model. Not to mention that the model had just been shown to be useless in Afghanistan - Shinseki had relied on the model to say how many troops we should have, and it was way, way more than what we ended up using - less than a thousand US forces were necessary to drive the Taliban out of power. The war on the cheap argument is used here, too, because there are those who say well if we had had enough US forces on the ground then, bin Laden would not have escaped from Tora Bora. But this leaves out the fact that we would have been very hard pressed to get a lot of troops into Afghanistan in a short enough time - had we had to wait to gather our forces to get into a LANDLOCKED country, we may not have been in Tora Bora in December in the first place - bin Laden might have been long gone without having gotten the ball rolling in early October. Here is another way where the model failed - the Soviets had way more troops in Afghanistan than we would ever be able to field there, and they were connected by land - they were not at the end of a 7,000 mile supply train. And they failed. As to this bit: By contrast, aside from the Afghan proxy-war against the Russians I can't think of too many places we had long-term success using local insurgents to further our agenda. Installing the Shah and disposing of Allende were not exactly popular uprisings. Our success in Nicaragua was incomplete and some would say transient. First, learn some history about Iran. The US did not install the Shah, the Shah (that we know, Reza Pahlavi), was installed by the British in WWII because his dad liked the Nazis. He was already the Shah in 1953. The US did not install him, in fact the coup that we stirred up caused the Shah to have to flee the country. He was able to come back. But that was one of many, many proxy wars throughout the Cold War. All around South and Central America, Africa, and Asia. A LOT more than what you have catalogued. The 67 and 73 Arab Israeli wars were essentially proxies for US/Soviet War. For whatever else about Jimmy Carter, the Camp David Accords turned Egypt from a Soviet client state to a US one.

331 I don't think the proxy war thing works as an unadulterated good. And as I noted before, a Leftist press will turn up the heat on a Republican who is engaging in one. Iran/Contra? El Salvador? I think that Democrats can get away with this type of warfare - whether they win or not. A Republican has to have a clear and decisive victory to overcome Leftism. And that is why the bigger war is necessary politically. As to Iraq, the plan was to go in and break Saddam's regime and turn it over to an interim Iraqi government, then be out of there in six months. There was a lot of dispute between DoD - in particular Rumsfeld - and State - Powell, yes, but the whole Department, on what the aftermath of the war should be. Rumsfeld did not want the military to be there long, did not want to nation build, none of that. However a lot of senior military wanted, or thought they needed, a long term military occupation, and thus more forces. Chalabi was supposed to provide a force of expats that would help in the invasion and form the core of the interim government. Depending on who you talk to, either Chalabi was a big fraud who could not do what he had promised, or Chalabi was undercut by the CIA and State and was unable to do what he promised. Regardless of what the truth is, that core wasn't there, so on the fly DoD put in a general - who got canned later because State did not like him (that oversimplifies but close enough). That's when Bremer took over and he was a creature of State, through and through. I think that putting off the formation of the Iraqi government for so long helped make things go bad. The plan was always for there to be a Shiite government - Shia are the better wing of Islam - more into a division of mosque and state. They get a bad rap because Iranian Shia are radicals. But that is an aberration. The Sunnis in AQ and Pakistan and Yemen are the really bad guys who want a world Caliphate. A big Muslim ally is a good thing. Unfortunately, plans rarely survive first contact with the enemy, and poor decisions were made along the way. Plus, the enemy gets a vote in the outcome, too.

332 "You break it, you buy it"

I would rather behave more like a bull in a china store.  Break it.  Break more of it.  Keep breaking stuff.  Leave when the asshole count is zero.  Maybe hand out a few brooms when we are done.

333 Positively fucking stupid analysis. That small force of advisors and military assistance pre 65' in Vietnam worked real well, right Ace? Yea, that's the ticket. Some Nam vets claim a super anti guerilla force would have been better at it, but the Nam war was not just guerilla. It was freakin NVA conventional, and we were winning it. Your "political" option lost it. 

334

Never thought of it that way Ace but I totally agree with you.

 

335 Hey blaster, even though this thread is dead, I appreciated reading your comments.

336 Looks like this conversation has already covered the high points of what I was going to say. 

The whole kinder, gentler war theory is a bust.  I support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and always have.  I'm not a fan of how they've been run though.  If you are going to send American troops into harms way then you have an obligation to do it overwhelmingly, get medieval on their asses, and go home.  If you can fight WWII in four years, you should be able to pacify a 3rd world shit hole in same amount of time.

The point I always go back to is the battle of Fallujah.  It was absolutely inexcusable to send those boys in to fight house to house to take the city.  Should have bombed the fucker flat first and then sent in the ground troops.

Nobody wants collateral damage, but the way we've run these wars has arguably caused more civilian deaths than if we'd just gone in and got the job done.

The entire Middle East collectively wet their pants when we invaded Iraq.  If we'd kept the heat on, the Middle East would be a different place today and the bulk of our troops would have been home several years ago.

337 There is no way Hussein (Saddam, not Barack) could have held out against the kind of power we projected in the 1940s. There would have been more dead civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, but so freekin' what? There would have been far fewer American dead.

Posted by: MrScribbler at August 18, 2011 10:16 PM (YjjrR)

Um, Saddam didn't hold out against us. His regime collapsed pretty much as fast as our tanks could reach his capital.

338 I think you're setting us up for an endless war in the ME with your strategy, frankly.

Posted by: MrScribbler at August 18, 2011 10:26 PM (YjjrR)

As opposed to what we got now? I don't think so. Ace is right.

339 Does anyone really believe that our efforts in Iraq are going to result in a strong central government that is pro-American, and whose stance vis a vis this country will survive the first change of political party?

And I won't even insult your intelligence by asking the same question of Afghanistan.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at August 18, 2011 11:30 PM (LH6ir)

Well, someone in GWB admin sure as hell thought so.

340 Posted by: dscott at August 19, 2011 12:25 AM (NGe7F)

We shouldn't even have been in Astan back then, we should've let the Russians waste their lives and resources in that shithole.

341

Two thoughts:

1) I don't even know how we worked it after WWII, but it obviously worked eally well, so why didn't we stick with that? You don't hear much about that aftermath because back then, once the govt you were at war with surrendered, or ceased to exist, they called the war "over", and the aftermath was considered uninteresting. By that definition the war in Iraq lasted, what - two months, tops? Although I suppose you could say that was immediately followed by a new war, against a different enemy (the WoT vs Al Qaida), which has many fronts. Then again, you could say that "new war" had been going on since before the Iraq War started.

2) As far as the concern for civilian casualties, I look to my father's service (in WWII again) driving his bomber over industrial targets. Plenty of civilians must have gotten killed in those raids - my father never lost any sleep over it. (When I asked him about it, he said what really concerned him was wondering if - hoping, really - that he actually hit the stuff he was risking his life to try to hit). Realistically, if those "innocent" civilians weren't at least passively tolerating our enemy, that enemy could not stay in "business". Obviously some would be more complicit than others, but we are too quick to allow the labelling of these people as "innocent victims" of our military juggernaut.

342

"You break it, you buy it"

This reminds me of a scene from a movie of one of Vonnegut's books (Catch-22?) The old Italian man, talking to the young American soldier. He describes how Italy will win - by being defeated. And how he - an old man in the war zone - was more likely to survive the war that that young soldier.

343

The Bush model of war -- go in heavy, attempt to win the war on the backs of American (and allied) soldiers, attempt to establish a monopoly on the use of violence,

Well, that part worked in WWI and WWII.

344 If we had kept up the 'monopoly of violence' and killed every last one of the mutherfuckers, the war would have been over a long time ago.

345 I'm believe in the more rubble, the less trouble theory of war. I agree with Ace about not giving a rat's a$$ about any of the wretched refuse of any of the trashcanistan countries. Fight to win and no stupid ROE. But, I disagree with his claims about the problem is the fighting methodology. boots on the ground versus air war vs proxy war. The WHO is more important than the HOW! As it stands, Jughead could nuke Iran tomorow and Ezra Klein, Andy Sullivan and Code Pink would all support his brilliant decision. As has been clearly demonstrated, the anti-war movement was just a we hate Bush fest and that the deems were willing to destroy our soldiers to advance their political agenda. So anytime there is a war with a republican prez, the dems will forment political unrest. If Bush had done the exact same thing as Jughead, there would be nonstop coverage of raped and tortured civilians, dead kids and bombed schools. Reagan had Sandinistas and Iran contra hearings, etc. With Jughead, total media blackout. So the question is are willing to let Code Pink dictate war policy so that we can only use force when there is a dem prez? I say no. But, if you let dems distract you method question then you will get lost in the weeds and dems win.

346 I agree, but only if we can back a strong player to step in once the vacuum is formed.  State enemies are a problem, but there are non-military pressures you can leverage against them.  If we topple a state and it falls into tribalism and chaos it is worse for us than an enemy state.  4GW baby.

I don't even really care if we back "good guys", buy if we're going to lend weight to knocking it down we need to see to someone being in charge afterwards.