Your War Policy Please...Draw You Plans

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by canyonman00, Oct 14, 2002.

  1. Ok, seems as though there are many camps that have formed their opinions here. Let's stop ragging on whose policies are to blame. We have the forum to discuss the solutions. So let's do just that.

    I personally challenge you all to bring your noise. Tell me what you would do. Remember, you are opening yourself up to world scrutiny of your plan. Please take into consideration the fact that your plan impacts the rest of the world also.

    Profanity, hold it to the barest of minimums as you have to convince and/or sway the world opinion here. There are sensitive toes and geopolitical allegiances that might be offended with your heavy handedness, or your deer-in-headlights, approach.

    I see and hear a ton of male (appearing) responses, maybe we do need a female touch. Don't go for the easy road of alliance as we need all the opinions initially. You may have a point that has not been addressed as of yet.

    Make sure that you tell me your ethnic makeup as that does impact how the world reacts to you (as an African American I can attest to this directly). That little part DOES make for certain suspicions and doubts about your motivation and sincerity.

    I think that you'll find this is tougher than you might imagine. Oh, and keep the outside links and quotes to a minimum. I want your opinion not some redressed quote from some pseudo professional that I can counter with another so-called expert opinion.

    I'd really love a moderator or two to earn his badge here. Barron, the gauntlet has been thrown down. I think your opinion on the world affairs might prove interesting. In handling Elite, you have the diplomatic experience now. To all I say, Good Luck :D
  2. I think that Iraq can be handled much the same way as Afghanistan. Why reinvent the wheel.
  3. The terrorists only respect one thing: superior force. They are beyond reasoning.

    The US should take lessons from the Israelis: take out the masterminds with extreme prejudice while trying to minimize collateral damage. If this means sending forces into other countries suspected of harboring terrorists, then so be it. In the meantime, the US will try to appease the UN even though this is just to placate their ego. The world REALLY knows who the big kahuna is!

    Admittedly, the US has made its mistakes over the years with its foreign policy. They are partly to blame for creating and propping up the Saddams of this world. That doesn't mean that they can't tear down what they've created if US interests are threatened. You just can't bite the hand that feeds you without suffering the consequences.
  4. rs7


    I had promised myself to refrain from further "chit chat" debates. But I find this subject so compelling, and today's trading so dull that I can't resist. Besides, I haven't been personally attacked by Max or his ilk for a few days. Was gone to see my oldest son over the weekend at college.

    I agree with Goldenarm here. I believe that the terrorists are beyond reasoning, and only respect force. I also agree that Israel has come to recognize this a long time ago, and has managed to contain thier enemies pretty well considering the size of their country, and the enormity of their opposition.

    And of course, it must be admitted that the US has made significant mistakes in the past. But we have to go on. We cannot let "guilt" over past transgressions limit our responses to today's problems.

    So essentially, I believe that we must deal from a position of strength. We are certainly THE power in the world today. But being powerful does not in any way assure we will use the power correctly. It does not mean that the exertion of power can not backfire on us. If we attack Iraq today, and accomplish all our goals there (whatever they may be construed as), will it lead to further anti-American terrorism? Is there a way to anticipate this with any kind of accuracy?

    So my belief, and I have stated this previously, is that the use of force in a conventional manner is now obsolete. We are in a different world. Obviously the internet alone allows communications among terrorists, enemy states, everyone, in a manner not imagined only a few years ago. In 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, there was not even a "hot line" between Washington and Moscow. The crisis led to the implementation of the "hotline" 40 years ago today (I believe). Today, Osama Bin Ladin, or Saddam Heusein can, in theory, speak anonymously to anyone anywhere at any time. As can we all.

    So technology has changed the world. And only technology can be used to maintain our freedom and our political, military, and social objectives.

    I have mentioned before that my younger son has joined the Navy. He is going into the Nuclear Propulsion Program. This required him to obtain "top secret" clearance status, even though he still has the rest of his senior year of high school left. And he is still only 17. But because he has qualified to meet the requirements for this level of security, he has already been approached by the intelligence arm of the service. He is so far committed to following through with the Nuke program (and I hope he does), but obviously the intelligence branches of the services will become more and more important as the world progresses technologically. Now at his age he is thinking about his future after the Navy. He knows that he can get his nuclear background and come out of the service and get a "Homer Simpson" job and get paid quite well. What he hasn't thought about (to my knowledge) is that if he goes into the intelligence branch, he will have great opportunities too. He could work with law enforcement, or industrial security, or perhaps fields not yet invented. Not yet even conceived of.

    What seems to me to be of great significance is that "intelligence" is what will determine the strengths of countries in the future. Having nuclear weapons, or any weapons of mass destruction will eventually proliferate to any country or government that wants them. The PREVENTION of the deployment of these weapons is what will be important. And this can only be accomplished with superior technologically supported "intelligence". This is the future. Having weapons, having manpower, having heavy armament will be meaningless in the future. A "stealth" aircraft is only "stealthy" to an unsophisticated opponent. An arsenal of nuclear weapons is nothing but a deterrent insofar as "mutually assured destruction". The days of who has the biggest weapons is over. Or will be shortly. The time for "out-thinking" the enemy is here. As it always has been. But now it is the only truly effective "weapon" of victory. Sept. 11th is vivid proof of this. We were caught flat footed. Al-Qaeda exploited our weakness. They achieved their tactical strike. Their strategy was poor, but their tactics were strong. The result was they accomplished only bloodshed. They did not accomplish their strategic goal of elevating support for their cause. It is all about deeper planning. Playing chess thinking 20 moves ahead.

    When the US and Russia were armed to the teeth with missiles pointed at each other, it was like two guys standing in a swimming pool filled with gasoline. Each guy had a book of matches. What difference would it make who's matches were bigger? Or who got to throw their match first? No difference at all. What would make a difference is knowing exactly what the other guy was thinking. Or planning. Or who was outside the pool and what they had, and what they planned.

    So I envision the day in the very near future where our armed forces will be reduced to a mere fraction of what we have even now. And that our resources must be put into the training of, and equipping of a very small, but very elite and effective core of our most qualified and intelligent young men and women. An armed force that is able to maintain strength and superiority not with brute strength, but with the ability to anticipate every move our enemies may plan, and to avert them with whatever it takes. And when force is needed, it must be on a very efficient and very focuses basis. There is never a reason to fight an army if the enemy is just one leader. Or a handful of strongarmed thugs.

    Israel may have violated international laws by selectively eliminating their perceived dangers (step right up, Traderfut2000). But Israel still exists against overwhelming odds. We in the US have a big advantage right now. We need to maintain that advantage by keeping up with the times. To waste our money and our human resources with obsolete weapons programs is counterproductive. We are in a never ending chess game. And only thought and strategy matter. Tactics of the past are essentially worthless in today's world. We let loose with so much firepower in Afghanistan in the last year, but we have no confirmation of the existence, or lack of existence of our intended main targets. And this is with deploying billion dollar aircraft with multi-million dollar missiles against men on donkeys living in caves. What is wrong with this picture?

    Time to develop a 21st century policy and let the old soldiers fade away. How many tax dollars are spent on a tank. How many tanks do we need? Where will we use them? A tank would have been a devastating weapon in 1776. It was a common weapon in 1916. What purpose does it serve in 2002? And beyond? Yet we are spending money developing newer and faster and heavier tanks to fight wars in the deserts? Rommel is long dead. And so is his approach to winning a war.

    God bless America.
  5. Won't Sadam disappear into the woodwork just like Bin Laden? And who fills in the void of leadership? It seems as though these people, the Iraqi, would support shelter and support anything this guy would do. If he isn't killed what makes them change horses? :)
  6. Thanks for lending me your brainpower. You'll never have me calling you names or belittling your character. You have MY attention and the delegation is now listening. True, Rommel is long dead and the face of war has changed. You're now advising and I need a plan to start this whole thing into motion. Articulate your plan to me as though I had to now convince the powers that be. Talk to me! We have to stop this Sadam in power thing and I don't think sitting still with sanctions for another ten years is an acceptable solution. How do we go about the action at hand? :)
  7. So I am interested. You make a good case for your position. Now, with the same articulation, tell me what our next steps should be. I have a war room to deal with. The French just lost an oil tanker. Bali just underwent a major shakeup. I see the ability to form a coalition and I need your plan of attack. :)
  8. rs7


    Yes, well that is the thing. I am not smart enough or knowledgeable enough to really know. Understanding this is why I believe we need to develop more "intelligence" and the ability to understand different cultures. We need to be "smarter" than the enemy. We need to be able to predict the reactions to our actions. If it were simple, we could just go into Baghdad, kill or arrest Saddam, and be done with it. But it isn't that simple. We (I) don't know what the ramifications of such an action would be. We need to know these things. We need to be able to anticipate. So this is my whole point. Right now, we can kill at will. But we don't know what the results will be. I wish I had a simple answer for you.

    We certainly learned that our "assets" and our intelligence in Afghanistan is weak. We offer a $25,000,000 reward for UBL and we still don't have a clue where he is? If he is dead or alive? We need to develop the ability to KNOW what we are doing. And how to achieve our goals. We have the strength. We lack the knowledge. If UBL offered $25,000,000 for the head of President Bush, he would find an American to deliver. Maybe even Max or Smokey...good capitalists:) But we don't know the culture we are dealing with. They do. We need to smarten up. And we can. It just will take great effort, and hopefully not too much time. But it won't happen over night.

  9. rs7


    A little "aside".

    A while back, I was talking to a friend who works for NASA. He made an interesting point about manned flight. He said even if they could figure out a way to put astronauts into "suspended animation" (like in Alien or 2001), it would make no sense to send an interstellar expedition. Because eventually technology would catch up and surpass the mission. So if they send a crew to the closest solar system today, and then sent another crew in say 100 years, the crew they would send later would arrive sooner. So in some cases, you just need to wait it out, because that is the most efficient and ultimately the fastest route to success.

    Hopefully, we can resolve the threat from the terrorists and maniacs in the Middle East and elsewhere much more expeditiously, but still, it may be better to wait and plan and succeed than to rush into something we don't know the full consequences of.

    #10     Oct 14, 2002