vroom,
I respect your right to an opinion. I haven’t been able to decide exactly what you would have done differently.
However, I trully believe in our current course.
Stop calling people names. It’s very “grade school.”
Better yet, come up with an alternative. People who criticize without offering a better solution, are just plain sad.
Jeff
Jeff, you might have missed it, but I’ve posted some ideas about things that could be done or things that need to be done before:
We need to stop the cycle of youth being turned into fanatics. Killing off those of figthing age today is just a holding action.
We need to have some type of strong media presence in the area. This media has to be respected as media, not as a propaganda tool, and it has to work against extremism.
Frankly, I’d suggest covert ops as a trump card. Instead of getting into the restructuring of countries, eliminate the leadership. If you cut off a snakes head, the body can’t strike anymore.
With these types of tools, those that aren’t involved in terrorism are really unlikely to be directly affected by any actions. You’ll notice option three is violent, deadly and manly. However, the heros risking their lives would generally be invisible and nameless. We would not have Abu Ghraib, we would not have collatoral damage, we would not have pissant clerics declaring private holy wars against US troops.
The costs for these types of things, the alternative actions I’m talking about, would be much less. Less people dying of US or other nationalities. Less money spent supporting soldiers abroad. Less foreign youth converted into fanatical time bombs. Less interference in the affairs of other governments, whether we like their style of government or not.
However, these actions are not very sexy and they don’t bring immediate, visible and strong action, so the populace won’t jump up and down and may not consider the president a hero if he does these things.
It would be along the lines of “walk softly but carry a big stick”. The US isn’t walking very softly these days, even though it does carry a big stick.
Combining the elimination of leadership with the use of media to help combat extremism might offer a chance at a long term solution. Sending soldiers into every country that generates terrorists just spreads hatred of the US in that region.
Anyway, you don’t have to agree with my opinion, but dammit, at least I have one – and I know why.
I want a solution. I want the world to truly be a safer place, not one that has US troops keeping away the bad guys. I do not want a holding action presented as the way to eliminate terrorism. No matter what happens in Iraq, it won’t have much to do with the threat of terrorism today.
The threat of terrorism runs much deeper than the situation in Iraq. Which of your leaders is addressing the source of the problem with a comprehensive plan towards a better future for the planet?
vroom,
Sorry, I missed your post.
“We need to stop the cycle of youth being turned into fanatics. Killing off those of figthing age today is just a holding action.”
Great. Now how? I submit deterrance is one way (aka…what we are doing). Want examples? Qadafi and Pakistan.
“We need to have some type of strong media presence in the area. This media has to be respected as media, not as a propaganda tool, and it has to work against extremism.”
Right on. Couldn’t agree more. However, in Afghanistan, women ( and many men) wouldn’t have been able to watch/read/listen to any of it had we not overthrown the Taliban. Same in many parts of Iraq. Have to have education (schools) to be able to read, see through biases, and understand a topic. Therefore, we have spent nearly 125 billion dollars restructuring the infrastructure (schools, hospitals, etc…)
“- Frankly, I’d suggest covert ops as a trump card. Instead of getting into the restructuring of countries, eliminate the leadership. If you cut off a snakes head, the body can’t strike anymore.”
Covert is great, unless the country (aka Syria) doesn’t let you in. Only way to make that work is to speak softly and carry a big stick (aka invade Iraq and topple the regime within a short period of time). You don’t really mean that about targeting leaders do you? I know you’d be the first person to accuse the U.S. of imperialism if we killed leaders at will.
“With these types of tools, those that aren’t involved in terrorism are really unlikely to be directly affected by any actions. You’ll notice option three is violent, deadly and manly. However, the heros risking their lives would generally be invisible and nameless.”
Deterrance (aka visibility works!!) Example: Qadafi relinquishing his weapons, Kim Jung Il coming to the table on the day Baghdad fell, Mushareef launching the spring offensive against Al Qadea.
“The costs for these types of things, the alternative actions I’m talking about, would be much less. Less people dying of US or other nationalities. Less money spent supporting soldiers abroad. Less foreign youth converted into fanatical time bombs. Less interference in the affairs of other governments, whether we like their style of government or not.”
Wrong. To make covert actions stick, we’d have to bribe the unwilling governments. That would take A LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY. Don’t you think we would be in as great or greater jeopardy of causing hatred if we snuck through people’s borders without asking? Didn’t you just say eliminate the leadership? Can’t think of a more direct interference with people’s governments.
“Which of your leaders is addressing the source of the problem with a comprehensive plan towards a better future for the planet?”
George W. Bush. Don’t just read the headlines, this guy is thinking ahead. He’s using deterrance. It works. Another example? Taiwan. Our presence stops China from crossing the strait. Another example? South Korea.
We are rebuilding infrastructures in Iraq and Afghanistan, providing the ability for people to vote, work, and think. That is fighting a bad idea (terrorism) with a better idea (hope). Listen to the man, he tells you what he’s thinking.
vroom, I think you trully do want the world to be a better place. However, it would be nice if you would acknowledge that just maybe Bush and his Administration may be doing exactly what is necessary. You simply cannot summarily dismiss these arguments in their entirety. Too many courageous and brillant men/women around the world agree with what I am saying.
Jeff
Jeff, you have a strange way of agreeing. Anyhow, I don’t think the actions I’ve suggested actually have the problems you’ve identified.
It is different, it isn’t the plan that Bush is following. Hmm, and yes you have to be careful with covert ops as well. Permission would be wise, but compared to invading a nation and pissing off everyone I think the odd covert op would be less destructive.
In any case, the key to terrorism is stopping the spread of fanaticism. It is a cult that is indoctrinated into the minds of young men. My opinion, and you are welcome to disagree, is that having troops on the ground or being visibly seen to interfere in the region (the Middle East) feeds this scourge.
The only way to stop that is to either eliminate those doing the indoctrination or to get these young minds “immunized” against this. Do you know why some people over there hate the US? It isn’t because they “hate freedom” or “hate democracy”.
Do you have any understanding of Arab culture? The rich history it has? The earlier “scientific” contributions to humanity? What has made youth over there a fertile ground for a fanatical splinter religion? Go befriend some moderate Arabs, perhaps foreign students, and learn about what is going on first hand. There are always two sides to every issue.
I don’t claim to have all the answers. I do have ideas that could be discussed. However, it is probably pointless, but you do keep asking for people to post alternatives. If you wish, we can debate the relative merits of alternatives, but I’d rather do so outside of a Bush/Anti-Bush arena.
Whatever you do, don’t mistake me for a pacifist or a someone who is anti-american. I am simply a critic of current policies. Sure, I might be wrong, but the strength of the US is precisely that critics can speak and their comments can be used to improve things. Unfortunately, party politics seems to interfere with that sort of thing.
Cut those strings and present some more of your own thinking on issues…
Covert ops would be great if we had the resources. Among the things Bush I (somewhat) and Clinton (a lot) chose to slice-and-dice was investment in human resources in our intelligence services. Part of the “peace dividend,” as you recall, was the gutting of spending on the military, even enough for maintenance of forces and technology.
In the area of covert ops, unfortunately, the cutbacks were largely in human-intelligence resources. Satellites, you see, were supposed to be able to give you all the info you needed. Probably the result of a mixture of administrations who wanted to cut military/intelligence spending combined with excellent lobbying from the Lockheed’s of the world.
But at any rate, we don’t have sufficient people trained to do the types of covert ops that would be necessary in this case. We don’t have resources in terms of language skills or operatives, let alone a convergence of the two, to pull it off.
Then there’s that whole “anti-assassination” thing that the Democrats in our Congress foisted upon the executive branch after Kennedy’s bold yet failed attempt at the Bay of Pigs (and yes, I do know that it’s an executive policy – but it was still forced by the legislative branch – adopted by the executive as a tactical measure). It has become an ingrained part of politics on the Hill, and while it should be eliminated, there is a bloody outcry from the press and the opposition in the Congress every time it is proposed.
Bottom line is, vroom, I agree with you that covert ops would have been a good first try on this. But, unfortunately, it was not really an available option.
BTW, given the whole “we were duped” line of argument, which directly questions the competence of the CIA (irrespective of the fact that intelligence is a matter of probabilities rather than facts), would those opposing what has been done in Iraq really have been more comfortable with a covert op? (Not you in particular vroom – I’m presuming you would, given your suggestion.)
BB, I think covert ops were tough in the past politically, but I think they might be a better option against a covert enemy. After 9/11 I suspect they could have been approved.
My guess is that the main military forces are trained for figthing a war against another military force. While the terrorists do use force, they try to hide themselves. They don’t wear uniforms. They don’t mill about in large numbers. They don’t use conventional tactics. Their numbers are small compared to the populace they hide in.
It just seems like covert ops is a better match for the threat. Anyway, I realize that it takes time to develop intelligence assets, and hopefully this is ongoing as we debate.
Hopefully, the next series of presidents will have the fortitude to use this tool as it matures, but also the wisdom not to abuse it.
Perhaps foreign governments will be willing to give clandestine approval for use, but deny knowledge if a mission is discovered?
Anyway, it’s nice not to be blasted for an opinion from time to time.
Vroom,
“Do you have any understanding of Arab culture? The rich history it has? The earlier “scientific” contributions to humanity? What has made youth over there a fertile ground for a fanatical splinter religion?”
Yes, and the backsliding of a once great Muslim/Arab empire is not the fault of the West.
It is the fault of religious tribalism, gender apartheid, theocratic government, and monopoly of power by elites.
It is self-inflicted. Jobless, hopeless Arabs have their own culture to blame. They despise the West for our liberal institutions and what is perceived as an expoitation of them because we do business with the ruling elites in most cases.
In fact, they are being exploited by their own history and culture - first and foremost, a raging rivalry between those that believe Muslim government should come from a descendent of Muhammed and those that believe the people can select a government from non-descendents. Blaming the West is a faulty argument.
Thunderbolt, to be clear, I am not blaming the west. However, it is possible that they are blaming the west, as you state.
However, I suspect the situation is a bit more involved than you state. The middle east had been an area where the US and USSR could supply aid to opposing sides and let dictators throw their citizens away as they pleased.
For generations the countries in the areas were pawns in a giant chess game. This does not excuse terrorism, but it does provide fertile ground for hatred of superpowers. Meddling, sanctions and other actions that are easily and visibly cast onto the shoulders of the west, by an all to willing media, have created a well of hatred and terrorist organizations are drinking deeply.
Today’s war does nothing to stem these issues. I’m not suggesting appeasement, but eventually these issues do need to be overcome. Getting back out of Iraq and helping it to regroup and succeed certainly could be used to this effect.
http://www.rightwingnews.com/reader/tragicfrench.php
At the end of the article it says:
If you enjoyed this parody by William A. Mayer, you can read more of his work at PipeLineNews
Even if it is a parody, I do understand the point that anything can be made to look bad by a biased press.
It’s interesting to see the totally opposite views on this board: On one side you have the Bush is right and Kerry/liberals/democrats are wrong and can’t have good ideas and on the other side you have the Bush is wrong and conservatives/Republicans are wrong and can’s have good ideas.
Well, it’s good to be back again…been doing some serious ass-kickin training. And I see that politics still grace the off topic board. Alright, I saw that covert ops were the subject of previous posts. Now, I didn’t really get to read all of the posts in depth, but just to tell ya, special forces are probably the busiest they’ve ever been in the history of the special forces community. Most of the SF guys are stuck up there and can’t come home and that is causing them to speed up the SF Q-course to get fresh men in there. Those guys are really smoked up there, and they are doing all they can. Most of the stuff they do you will never hear about. Anyways, say a prayer for the guys over there and tip one back for the Ranger in the sky. BTW, I should be going back over to that shithole called Iraq anytime now, so I’ll kick some ass for yall. RLTW
rangertab75
While that treaty did give cause to the conditions that allowed Hitler to come to power, the reason for the War was that France and Great Britian abdicated their obligation to enforce said treaty. Read any text on WWII history, Hitler and Germany were very concenred that France and GB would attack and enforce the German agreements early in the war. Germany would have had no response to this in the mid/late 30’s. Their lack of response only emboldened Hitler and he kept pushing and pushing until it was too late for them to stop him. It was their appeasement that lead to the war, that and that alone was the reason D-Day became necessary.
Rangertab75
I wondered where you were, but I did figure it was training related. An acquaintance of mine who is in SF recently came back from Iraq and I was glad to see he made it back OK! You are headed back over there soon I see. Well, we all know you will kick a lot of ass, just make sure you make it back in one piece!
Elk
Good to hear from ya again, elk. I’m also glad to hear your SF buddy got back OK as well. I look forward to hearing from you again in the future. RLTW
rangertab75
Hi guys, i just thought i would put a slightly different perspective into this, u may or may not think it adds anything but after reading the previous replies i felt compelled to respond.
I am an Australian, i have a somewhat undecided view on whats happening in the middle east, i do not like fanatics of any kind, i hate uneducated opinions and stubborness to change them. Having said this i must say that the widely held view of america, its citizens and its politics is that its largely self serving and almost incapable of seeing itself as anything other than the centre of the universe.
After reading this thread i have been relieved to find that there are educated, well informed americans out there who do have opinions along with reason and fact to substantiate their claims. A lot of times i have met and spoken with americans on the topic of terrorism and found the most common train of thought on this was “blow all the f**kers up”. Understandable in light of 9/11 but ultimately not going to ensure a stable world climate and invite everyone to lay down there arms and live happily ever after. It’s good to see some deeper discussions of the whys and what fors assosciated with the middle east question.
I do have some thoughts on my own countries involvement and why Bush is so adamant that Australia and the other “allies” continue their involvement in the region. Basically america cannot be seen to be going it alone or it will look like revenge firstly and an illegitmate claim on control of an oil rich nation secondly. Through exerting trade pressures et al on other countries it has the a seeming conglomerate of international interest in defeating terror. The Bali bombings were all that the Australian govt needed to justify our presence when the majority of ppl here dont really want to be involved.
From here it looks like another Vietnam in the making and everyone knows how that ended. For those of u who dont know, Australia was heavily involved in that conflict and is now fairly heavily involved in the middle east, mainly logistically but also with a high number of our SAS soldiers (similiar to Navy Seals, actually rated militarily as one of the best SF in the world). The numbers may not look huge but for a nation of 20 million ppl it is a large percentage.
People here do not have much time for Bush and the current perception is of a distrust for ulterior motives on his part. The reason for being there now Saddam has been removed, for most is gone and they want to handover and get out asap. We produce over 70% of our own oil needs so our interest in that dept is low and it looks like we are being handcuffed into staying by the US with other trade pressure being brought to bear and there is growing resentment towards this end as activity stalemates and the body count grows.
Um i may have got a little off track but just thought i would put an outside perception into the discussion. Feel free to questions and i will elaborate on it, i have no delusions that what i have said will be entirely popular but its an opinion and perception issue and should be treated as such. Got anything to add???
Soon an Iraqi government will be in place and the terrorists will be killing thier own people exclusivly. This will be a different slant on things, relative to the “world view.”
Rangertab75-
Nice to see you back on the forums. We missed you 
Rangertab,
I can one-up Elk (as usual). I support both you personally AND your mission.
Jeff
nthnbeachesguy,
I’m as surprised to hear an Australian with a case of the run aways as I am when I hear a Canadian (vroom). Your nation has a proud battle history. It’s too bad to hear that Australia has their own version of Liberal Democrats. Let me guess, you didn’t vote for the leader in power now. Therefore, no matter the cause, you are against him.
I wonder at people who oppose an effort to remove Saddam. This guy gassed his own people and the Iranians. He invaded his neighbors twice. He fired Scuds at Israel. He murdered, raped, and tortured at will. He supported Al Qaeda and Palestinian terrorists.
I just will never understand people who put party over principle.
I support our troops, your troops, and our effort.
Jeff
P.S. By the way, stop with the “America the Bully” crap. It’s as stale as it is unwarranted.
Hmm, if everyone outside the US thinks it is warranted then you’d better figure out how they are getting that impression instead of dismissing it…
[quote]vroom wrote:
By the way, stop with the “America the Bully” crap. It’s as stale as it is unwarranted.
Hmm, if everyone outside the US thinks it is warranted then you’d better figure out how they are getting that impression instead of dismissing it…[/quote]
Vroom, america the bully crap??? If thats what u want to call it be my guest, i spose its as good phrase as any to coin. Maybe as the other poster suggested try and look at whay that may be the case. As i have said earlier i didnt think my views would be all that popular in an american based forum but i put them up as an alternative outside perspective because i thought it may have been of interest to more broad minded americans who want to know what the rest of the world thinks about their country.
I didnt go into it as an exercise in US bashing but if thats how it came across so be it.
The govt in power here is the Liberal Party, the other being the labour party, similiar to ur republican party i think. I didnt vote for either if it matters although i did vote as here it compulsory for everyone. I voted for a couple of smaller parties, Australians Against Further Immigration and another couple that i cant remember. I didnt vote for these smaller parties because i was hugely enamoured with their policies but because i prefferred them to the 2 big parties, almost like a small voice of protest i suppose.
My voting preferences are a whole other topic, probably boring and mostly very foriegn to u.
As for the troops, i will back them 100%, they do not make policy, they arent allowed to ask questions, their lot is to do as ones told. I think its disgusting to take out ur dissapproval of a govts policy on defence personnel. They are not afforded the right to pick and choose the where, what how and why of missions. They just go in and do it and for that they deserve our respect.
As for our proud fighting history, i am honoured to be able to say that on my fathers side my great grandfather fought WW1 in france as infantry, my grandfather fought WW2 in the pacific as infantry and on my mothers side my grandfather fought in the pacific as a tail gunner in a bomber. I would not hesitate for one second to step forward if Australia was presented a threat like that again.
If u read my post correctly u might have seen that i said i wasnt totally decided either way if we should have gone to Irag or if we should stay there. i was however pointing out that the popular opinion in this country is to get out.
This subject certainly makes u think and there is a lot of passion surrounding different views, im not trying to offend, just put forward a viewpoint.