I agree with alot of what you two say here, but in this context you have no idea how to win a war and create a lasting peace with a culture that does not subscribe to the Prussian model of warfare and European style politics.
Catch 22: The Scum We Fight
- Thread starter celtic_crippler
- Start date
True, but we're not working with those either.
Up through the mid 1800's, most warfare was in the open.
US Civil war-WW1 made it apparent that mass charges, lining up shoulder to shoulder, etc was nuts. WW2-Korea saw an evolution in combat tactics.
Vietnam saw another.
Now with 2 Iraq wars past, we see another switch. A combination of older working tactics. I've seen it said that Iraq2 was initially WWII Blitzkrieg, with the later switch to Vietnam era small unit combat with an Urban flair.
Afghanistan will require a similar evolution in thought, where we will probably borrow from the Israeli play book a bit.
It will require alot of PR to assure the locals we're only trying to stop the enemy, not blow up their 500 yr old church. It will require the local media to push the fact that we tried to minimize the damage but had no choice as they were shooting at us. That they choose to violate holy ground, not us. That they choose to hide as women, and so on. It will take more cooperation between the local military and us to diffuse things. We'll never hit 100% satisfaction. But we can take steps like these, and the ones that I hope the "smarter than me and holding more intel" guys at the Pentagon are thinking up.
Up through the mid 1800's, most warfare was in the open.
US Civil war-WW1 made it apparent that mass charges, lining up shoulder to shoulder, etc was nuts. WW2-Korea saw an evolution in combat tactics.
Vietnam saw another.
Now with 2 Iraq wars past, we see another switch. A combination of older working tactics. I've seen it said that Iraq2 was initially WWII Blitzkrieg, with the later switch to Vietnam era small unit combat with an Urban flair.
Afghanistan will require a similar evolution in thought, where we will probably borrow from the Israeli play book a bit.
It will require alot of PR to assure the locals we're only trying to stop the enemy, not blow up their 500 yr old church. It will require the local media to push the fact that we tried to minimize the damage but had no choice as they were shooting at us. That they choose to violate holy ground, not us. That they choose to hide as women, and so on. It will take more cooperation between the local military and us to diffuse things. We'll never hit 100% satisfaction. But we can take steps like these, and the ones that I hope the "smarter than me and holding more intel" guys at the Pentagon are thinking up.
Hey Don, I didn't say we should bend over. I just pointed out some reasons why the world doesn't love us. Personally, I say do what you've got to do, and don't worry about love lost. I think Patton would have been good with that.
Archangel M
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,555
- Reaction score
- 154
The whole "missile shield" thing. If the Europeans dont really care then screw em I say. Let them deal with it. Just dont come crying if Allahdinnerjacket launches on you.
The problem is..if the **** hits the fan...for all the "let them take care of it rhetoric" we like to spout, you know that we will be over there fighting. AGAIN.
The problem is..if the **** hits the fan...for all the "let them take care of it rhetoric" we like to spout, you know that we will be over there fighting. AGAIN.
blindsage
Master of Arts
Here's a map, if anyone can explain how a "missile shield" in Poland and the Czech Republic would be a good strategic location to defend any part of Europe except for Sweden and Norway from an attack by (non-existent) long range weapons from Iran, I'm open to hearing it.
On the other hand they are a very good locations for missile defense against Russia (if it had a chance of working). If you look at it logically, this was a Bush administration (neo-con specific) attempt at putting pre-emptive defenses up against a future, likely resurgent Russia at a time when Russia can't do anything about it and using Iran as an excuse. It also assumes Russia as an enemy.
On the other hand they are a very good locations for missile defense against Russia (if it had a chance of working). If you look at it logically, this was a Bush administration (neo-con specific) attempt at putting pre-emptive defenses up against a future, likely resurgent Russia at a time when Russia can't do anything about it and using Iran as an excuse. It also assumes Russia as an enemy.
Archangel M
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,555
- Reaction score
- 154
Sounds like a good strategy to me. Poland is now pissed off. Dropped the plan on the anniversary of Russia's invasion/pogrom on Poland too.
Nice.
Nice.
In the present climate, other than the fact that we've been helping America achieve her global ambitions since the end of the Second World War, why would Iran want to do such a thing? Then again, their leader is a religious loony ...
It is a pity that you have in some unfathomable way been inconvenienced by America hanging us out to dry for a couple of years both times the Old World power centre exploded into total warfare. I can understand the emotion as it's exactly the same way I feel about France but it's not a very constructive point of view.
If you don't want your government getting involved in the affairs of the world, even when it is in your own long term interests to do so, then tell them. Your great advantage in the game is that 'you' are far away from the consequences of your interactions with the world stage (other than the poor sods who come home for burial).
Of course, isolationism only takes you so far too. The Great Game is an endless round of musical chairs with some in ascendancy and some in decline at any one time. Sit out of the game for too long and your interests become irrelevant. There is always the unpalatable fact too that the world is now more inter-related and 'reachable' than at any other time in history. Even voluntarily 'sitting out' the dance may not be an option with any viability anymore (unless you're Switzerland
).
OP
celtic_crippler
Senior Master
- Thread Starter
- #28
I'm down with that.
Archangel M
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,555
- Reaction score
- 154
In the present climate, other than the fact that we've been helping America achieve her global ambitions since the end of the Second World War, why would Iran want to do such a thing? Then again, their leader is a religious loony ...
It is a pity that you have in some unfathomable way been inconvenienced by America hanging us out to dry for a couple of years both times the Old World power centre exploded into total warfare. I can understand the emotion as it's exactly the same way I feel about France but it's not a very constructive point of view.
If you don't want your government getting involved in the affairs of the world, even when it is in your own long term interests to do so, then tell them. Your great advantage in the game is that 'you' are far away from the consequences of your interactions with the world stage (other than the poor sods who come home for burial).
Of course, isolationism only takes you so far too. The Great Game is an endless round of musical chairs with some in ascendancy and some in decline at any one time. Sit out of the game for too long and your interests become irrelevant. There is always the unpalatable fact too that the world is now more inter-related and 'reachable' than at any other time in history. Even voluntarily 'sitting out' the dance may not be an option with any viability anymore (unless you're Switzerland
The thing is Suk..why is it that out of all of NATO and the UN Our countries (along with Canada and a handful of others) do all the heavy lifting? If the Russians are stirring up again (like they and the Germans did 60 or so years ago). Why do WE have to be the ones to pay for and run a "missile defense" shield to protect European countries who then bad mouth us? But if we dont do anything then we are "leaving them to hang out to dry".
Is it our business or is it NOT or business..or is it only our business when we are wanted/needed?
Ah, I see your point more clearly, Angel.
Apologies; I'll have to play my usual "It was late" card to excuse my lack of acuity. I really should stop myself when the hours get long - my posts get sloppier and display weaker/shallower thinking.
I can only say, in answer to the part that is focussed on America, that the reciprocal benefit that America gets with regard to her foreign policy for spending money 'abroad' is that it allows her to enact her policy objectives.
No government does things out of the goodness of their hearts, even if they'd like to convince us that they do. The the most generous touchstone for the 'good guys' is always enlightened self interest.
So something like the proposed missile defence was not targeted for the benefit of the 'host' country (tho their benefitting from it was not considered a negative) but for the benefit of American objectives in the region. Just like all those bases maintained during the Cold War - yes, they worked to defend the countries they were in from USSR military expansionism but their purpose was to prevent the Soviets from taking resources and territory that it could later use to it's advantage against the USA.
The view from the 'other side' can be just as emotive of course. I heard that there was a strong negatve reaction from the 'host' as they felt they were being turned into a first strike target for the benefit of American interests. It's one of those issues where you have no choice but accede that both sides of the coin are valid but which one lands face up is determined by expedience, perceived threat and so forth.
I do understand your thoughts and feelings at a personal level tho - as an individual it must feel like your taxes are being spent to protect someone else for no tangible 'gain' that you can see. The Damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't dichotomy comes into play too, I do agree. Someone will always be vigorously upset no matter what America does.
Apologies; I'll have to play my usual "It was late" card to excuse my lack of acuity. I really should stop myself when the hours get long - my posts get sloppier and display weaker/shallower thinking
.I can only say, in answer to the part that is focussed on America, that the reciprocal benefit that America gets with regard to her foreign policy for spending money 'abroad' is that it allows her to enact her policy objectives.
No government does things out of the goodness of their hearts, even if they'd like to convince us that they do
. The the most generous touchstone for the 'good guys' is always enlightened self interest. So something like the proposed missile defence was not targeted for the benefit of the 'host' country (tho their benefitting from it was not considered a negative) but for the benefit of American objectives in the region. Just like all those bases maintained during the Cold War - yes, they worked to defend the countries they were in from USSR military expansionism but their purpose was to prevent the Soviets from taking resources and territory that it could later use to it's advantage against the USA.
The view from the 'other side' can be just as emotive of course. I heard that there was a strong negatve reaction from the 'host' as they felt they were being turned into a first strike target for the benefit of American interests. It's one of those issues where you have no choice but accede that both sides of the coin are valid but which one lands face up is determined by expedience, perceived threat and so forth.
I do understand your thoughts and feelings at a personal level tho - as an individual it must feel like your taxes are being spent to protect someone else for no tangible 'gain' that you can see. The Damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't dichotomy comes into play too, I do agree. Someone will always be vigorously upset no matter what America does.
Last edited:
