Let's finish one war before we start another

[billvon 2,400]

It's clear that the war effort in Afghanistan is winding up. US battle groups are coming home, some countries (Australia and England) are pulling their troops out, and opium farmers who feared for their lives during the war are growing poppies again.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like we've accomplished the original objective, which was to get Bin Laden and shut down his terrorist training camps. Bin Laden is still at large, and a new UN report indicates that Al Quaeda terrorist training camps are reopening in eastern Afghanistan as the war effort is reduced.

"Remember 9/11!" was the rallying cry a year ago. I sure hope we haven't forgotten what Al Quaeda did to us a year and a half ago, and I hope we do not give up tracking them down out of boredom. Iraq would definitely be a fun (and popular) new war, but imagine what a _new_ set of Al Quaeda training camps in Afghanistan would mean to the US. If you think they hated us before . . .

[freeflir29 0]

Unfortunately, Afghanistan is going to be a LOOOONG term committment. It's become "just another rotation" to the military folks. Like Kuwait/Saudi, Korea, and Germany. I don't think we are forgetting....we are just realizing that the only way to deal with it is to be there for the "long haul." I think Iraq and North Korea are very important other things to deal with.

[billvon 2,400]

>Like Kuwait/Saudi, Korea, and Germany. I don't think we are forgetting....

I hope not, and I definitely hope that Saudi Arabia isn't an example of what we can expect from Afghanistan in the future!

[jfields 0]

Come on, Bill. Be realistic!

Stale, old, boring wars don't get votes. Voter's don't want to see soldiers slogging around doing routine patrols to maintain a military presence. Voters want to see smart bombs, cruise missiles, stealth bombers, and the other "cool" weaponry. They don't want to think of people on the ground, or our casualties.

It's all about the votes and the media, baby! Substance means nothing. Image is everything!

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

I definitely hope that Saudi Arabia isn't an example of what we can expect from Afghanistan in the future!

Anytime you have a weak central govt those things are going to happen.

[Gawain 0]

It has been the military doctrine of this country to be able to support two "major" warfronts at once. I agree that we should not falter hunting down and destroying Al Qaeda, and I believe that time is on our side in dealing with Iraq if we choose containment for while.

I do not subscribe to the argument that a campaign in Iraq would consume our resources to the point that we coudln't handle another major conflict.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 2,400]

>I do not subscribe to the argument that a campaign in Iraq would
> consume our resources to the point that we coudln't handle another
> major conflict.

I think we _could_; I just hope we keep that in mind, and are willing to do what it takes to support the efforts in Afghanistan. It will be expensive.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

I do not subscribe to the argument that a campaign in Iraq would consume our resources to the point that we coudln't handle another major conflict

I'm really starting to fail to see any advantage to attacking Iraq. What do they have for us to destroy? In 91 they had a large deployed military and infrastructure. Now we are looking for WMD's. I think international pressure and expanding the weapons inspectors is probably a more effective solution. Now...if they kicked the inspectors out again....that will be a differen't story. On N Korea...I think we need to stop screwing around and use some more heavy handed tactics.

[jfields 0]

Deciding to be the world's cop is an expensive undertaking. You are right.

My personal method would be to pay our delinquent UN bills, then work to make change through that body. Let the financial burden and the moral responsibility of peace be more of a global undertaking. Where the peaceful approach doesn't work, let the costs of war be global as well, with the peacekeeping force a multinational UN one.

Just my $.02.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

On N Korea...I think we need to stop screwing around and use some more heavy handed tactics.

The real problem there is the artillery aimed at Seoul. Apparently there are thousands of guns within range, and it would only take one shot from each to cause a significant civilian casualty risk. I could be wrong.

I do think we could use a slightly heavier hand...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 2,400]

>On N Korea...I think we need to stop screwing around and use some
>more heavy handed tactics.

Didn't we try that around 50 years ago? As I recall it didn't work that well.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

The real problem there is the artillery aimed at Seoul. Apparently there are thousands of guns within range, and it would only take one shot from each to cause a significant civilian casualty risk

Oh definately....I was kinda suprised to find out some of the logistical problems that exist there. Basically the armor BN's are supposed to stop the N Koreans while the Mech guys are responsible for evacuating the Non cambatants. I think the figure for Camp Casey/Hovey area was something like 6000 rounds per hour if they chose to concentrate their fire. The arty can't actually reach Seoul. Their 122MM rocket arty could hit the northern suburbs but that's about it. Lot's of concern about persistant chem from the Scud type missles down south. The plan is to counter the arty threat with air power. We were always told that we might get only 1 or 2 missions for Close Air Support per day in the first 3-4 days of a conclict. All the rest would go to hunting those guns. I really don't think the North would be all that anxious to start a real fight though. Their military is pretty weak. Not much fuel...not much food...poor training...shoddy equipment. They also know that China would most likely totally sit the next one out.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

Didn't we try that around 50 years ago? As I recall it didn't work that well

True....but we had a couple serious problems. #1 Our military had been left to rot after WWII #2 We kicked N Korea's ass just fine. It was the Chinese we had major problems with.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>On N Korea...I think we need to stop screwing around and use some
>more heavy handed tactics.

Didn't we try that around 50 years ago? As I recall it didn't work that well.

We had DPRK beat, until MacArthur got a little too zealous and too close to China, drawing them into the conflict. From then on, it was a stalemate.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 2,400]

>We had DPRK beat, until MacArthur got a little too zealous and too
> close to China, drawing them into the conflict. From then on, it was a
> stalemate.

I think we'd be kidding ourselves if we thought that, this time around, we could fight them in a vacuum. I don't think China would come to their aid militarily this time, but we'd see tremendous international pressures against us. "US bombs N Korea for using a US supplied reactor in their weapons program." We are pretty strong militarily, but even a partial embargo on oil shipments to the US would cripple us economically (for example.)

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

"US bombs N Korea for using a US supplied reactor in their weapons program."

It doesn't really matter what we sent them. They agreed to suspend their nuke program. Which they lied about. I'm hardly suprised but still...it was an international agreement that they signed. We kept up our end by sending food and fuel (which went to their military not the starving civilians)

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I think we'd be kidding ourselves if we thought that, this time around, we could fight them in a vacuum.

I never suggested that. I simply stated that we have leverage to use a heavier hand on the issue.

Even if we perceived that PRC wouldn't get involved, they get very nervous with activity near their borders. That is how they got involved the last time. MacArthur pushed too far north, too fast, and no political objectives or communiques to reach China. MacArthur wanted to go into China, and before the political leadership in the UN could turn down the heat, China launched its own attack to "repel" the conflict on its borders.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 2,400]

>It doesn't really matter what we sent them.

In terms of our military success it does not matter. When it comes to whether or not the rest of the world will dislike what we're doing enough to start embargoes, it matters a great deal. We are currently pulling out all the stops to make the world think Hussein is a pretty evil guy; Bush would not do that if world opinion was not critical.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

When it comes to whether or not the rest of the world will dislike what we're doing enough to start embargoes, it matters a great deal

For the rest of the world an embargo would be a kin to cutting off their nose to spite their face. The rest of the "developed" world would shrivel without the US economy driving and supporting it. No embargo would last long if it ever got to that. World opinion is still important but I think it's more for PR than any other reason.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

We are currently pulling out all the stops to make the world think Hussein is a pretty evil guy; Bush would not do that if world opinion was not critical.

We don't need to pull out any stops on this issue. The world is critical of us, and Hussein, and given a choice, the French, Germans and Russians would rather tolerate this freak, his weapons and conduct business over lancing the boil. This is not divine diplomacy from the seasoned EU, it is fear of economic consequence and the willingness to compromise too much.

The list of companies that "aided" (knowingly or not) Iraq's nuclear program will eventually leak. When it does, you will see French, German, US, UK and Russian enterprises on that list for the most part. If there are dates attached to those transactions, you will see the most recent belong to France, Germany and Russia.

Who are the countries most likely to stall on Iraq? France, Germany and Russia.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 2,400]

>We don't need to pull out any stops on this issue. The world is critical
> of us, and Hussein, and given a choice, the French, Germans and
> Russians would rather tolerate this freak, his weapons and conduct
> business over lancing the boil.

Exactly. It is why we are going to such efforts to convince the world that he is really bad. If we didn't care about world opinion we would already have invaded.

>The list of companies that "aided" (knowingly or not) Iraq's nuclear
>program will eventually leak. When it does, you will see French,
> German, US, UK and Russian enterprises on that list for the most
> part.

And American, including Halliburton (Cheney's former company.) They sold Iraq the pulse neutron sources that are critical to any plutonium based bomb. We also supplied most of the seed material for his biological weapons program, with cultures like anthrax, botulism, and west nile.

>Who are the countries most likely to stall on Iraq? France, Germany and Russia.

If your theory held, we'd be stalling too.

[hagar 0]

If US/NATO forces conquer afghanistan they will have accomplished something no foreigners have done since Alexander the Great (325BC).

---
PCSS #10

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

I'm really starting to fail to see any advantage to attacking Iraq.



I think international pressure and expanding the weapons inspectors is probably a more effective solution.

a voice heard from the depths of hell: "brrrrr!!!"

steve

[kopelen 0]

Take this with a grain of salt Clay, but when did you become a defense expert???? I see lots of people here post opinions. Please keep it at that. Unless you have personally written doctrine or established battle plans, I would keep general comments to yourself and ensure opinions are NOTED!!!
thanks
Too much heresay floating around, kinda like much of what goes on here!!!!

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

but when did you become a defense expert????........Unless you have personally written doctrine or established battle plans

Haven't personally written any of them but have studied MANY of them rather extensively. As a Forward Air Controller I saw LOTS of the higher level planning for most of the theaters. Especially Korea. Just giving my insights from my personal experiences.