Iran Sending Warships Close to US Maritime Borders

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:
If the photos of the ships that I saw were accurate, it’s more of a joke than a threat.[/quote]

It’s not intended to be a threat. Swaggering is the peaceful exercise of force, usually to enhance state prestige.

See number 4 in this concise summary of Art’s four functions of force.
http://www.waynemclean.com/docs/Art%20-%20Four%20Uses%20of%20Force%20(2).pdf[/quote]

From the article-

It’s nice that you are trying to lend some common vocabulary to the conversation, so allow me to do the same-

Sucker Punch- Thats when you walk up to someone and punch them in the face. The recipient may see you coming, or not. It doesn’t really matter. The whole idea is to hit as hard as possible on the first strike and fuck what ever happens after that. You got yours in and that is all that matters. It could be a TKO or you could get beaten to a pulp.

For more on the art of the sucker punch see the USS Cole, 9-11, etc.

My take on this is that we’d entered a new socio-political realm about 20 some years ago and have been engaged by an enemy that is writing their own book on unconventional politics and warfare. Heck, some of them may never even have heard of Robert J. Art. In fact, I would bet that they haven’t.

In response to these new tactics the US military developed a division called JSOC. They’re pretty well aware of the functions of force and how to apply it too.
[/quote]

Art’s four functions have analytical utility. Your “sucker punch” does not. Terrorist attacks are almost always an attempt at compelllence, and can therefore be studied within Art’s analytical framework.
Actually, JSOC was founded in the aftermath of the failure of Operation Eagle Claw. Thanks for the (a)historical lesson though.[/quote]

Yes, the attempted rescue of hostages in Iran. I should have said thirty some years.

If they are an attempt at compellence, to what end?

What political or strategic value does a terrorist act have, and more importantly, does it work to the desired end?

Lay it out for me. Pick a specific act and how it achieved the desired result.

[/quote]

Ah…removed the US from Lebanon for starters?

43

Apparently the Iranian Ships have now entered the South Atlantic Ocean.

44

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:
If the photos of the ships that I saw were accurate, it’s more of a joke than a threat.[/quote]

It’s not intended to be a threat. Swaggering is the peaceful exercise of force, usually to enhance state prestige.

See number 4 in this concise summary of Art’s four functions of force.
http://www.waynemclean.com/docs/Art%20-%20Four%20Uses%20of%20Force%20(2).pdf[/quote]

From the article-

It’s nice that you are trying to lend some common vocabulary to the conversation, so allow me to do the same-

Sucker Punch- Thats when you walk up to someone and punch them in the face. The recipient may see you coming, or not. It doesn’t really matter. The whole idea is to hit as hard as possible on the first strike and fuck what ever happens after that. You got yours in and that is all that matters. It could be a TKO or you could get beaten to a pulp.

For more on the art of the sucker punch see the USS Cole, 9-11, etc.

My take on this is that we’d entered a new socio-political realm about 20 some years ago and have been engaged by an enemy that is writing their own book on unconventional politics and warfare. Heck, some of them may never even have heard of Robert J. Art. In fact, I would bet that they haven’t.

In response to these new tactics the US military developed a division called JSOC. They’re pretty well aware of the functions of force and how to apply it too.
[/quote]

Art’s four functions have analytical utility. Your “sucker punch” does not. Terrorist attacks are almost always an attempt at compelllence, and can therefore be studied within Art’s analytical framework.
Actually, JSOC was founded in the aftermath of the failure of Operation Eagle Claw. Thanks for the (a)historical lesson though.[/quote]

Yes, the attempted rescue of hostages in Iran. I should have said thirty some years.

If they are an attempt at compellence, to what end?

What political or strategic value does a terrorist act have, and more importantly, does it work to the desired end?

Lay it out for me. Pick a specific act and how it achieved the desired result.

[/quote]

Ah…removed the US from Lebanon for starters?[/quote]

I don’t know how he missed this one.

The Marine barracks bombing directly and unequivocally led to the removal of the US military from Lebanon. If that isn’t a specific act leading to a desired result I don’t know what is.
[/quote]

Ah, sometimes I just get a bad case of “the stoopid”.

45

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:
If the photos of the ships that I saw were accurate, it’s more of a joke than a threat.[/quote]

It’s not intended to be a threat. Swaggering is the peaceful exercise of force, usually to enhance state prestige.

See number 4 in this concise summary of Art’s four functions of force.
http://www.waynemclean.com/docs/Art%20-%20Four%20Uses%20of%20Force%20(2).pdf[/quote]

From the article-

It’s nice that you are trying to lend some common vocabulary to the conversation, so allow me to do the same-

Sucker Punch- Thats when you walk up to someone and punch them in the face. The recipient may see you coming, or not. It doesn’t really matter. The whole idea is to hit as hard as possible on the first strike and fuck what ever happens after that. You got yours in and that is all that matters. It could be a TKO or you could get beaten to a pulp.

For more on the art of the sucker punch see the USS Cole, 9-11, etc.

My take on this is that we’d entered a new socio-political realm about 20 some years ago and have been engaged by an enemy that is writing their own book on unconventional politics and warfare. Heck, some of them may never even have heard of Robert J. Art. In fact, I would bet that they haven’t.

In response to these new tactics the US military developed a division called JSOC. They’re pretty well aware of the functions of force and how to apply it too.
[/quote]

Art’s four functions have analytical utility. Your “sucker punch” does not. Terrorist attacks are almost always an attempt at compelllence, and can therefore be studied within Art’s analytical framework.
Actually, JSOC was founded in the aftermath of the failure of Operation Eagle Claw. Thanks for the (a)historical lesson though.[/quote]

Yes, the attempted rescue of hostages in Iran. I should have said thirty some years.

If they are an attempt at compellence, to what end?

What political or strategic value does a terrorist act have, and more importantly, does it work to the desired end?

Lay it out for me. Pick a specific act and how it achieved the desired result.

[/quote]

Ah…removed the US from Lebanon for starters?[/quote]

I don’t know how he missed this one.

The Marine barracks bombing directly and unequivocally led to the removal of the US military from Lebanon. If that isn’t a specific act leading to a desired result I don’t know what is.
[/quote]

Yep. Moghadam’s “Suicide Terrorism, Occupation, and the Globalization of Martyrdom: A Critique of Dying to Win” examines the efficacy of suicide terrorism in depth.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10576100600561907#.UxAbVvldXg8

46

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
It’s nothing but swaggering to enhance state prestige. [/quote]

Yeah same with the Nazis. Just swaggering. They’re both completely sane and pose/d no threat to the free world. Your ideas on foreign policy are brilliant.[/quote]

Nice straw man. Where exactly did I say anything that could equate to the alcohol induced statement above?

47

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:
Yeah, That’s not good news to me either. But, why would I worry more about that than within a few months period of time
1st. China claiming a restricted air space that both US and Japan were disputting the claim. Then China started inforcing that air space and pretty much last I heard, that is now China’s air space by the looks of it.
2nd. Iran, even though they have far inferior capabilities, start moving some of their warships towards our maritime borders.

Even though I agree that most likely nothing is going to happen. Aren’t these actions, that could be considered “testing the US”?

If it is not “testing the US” what is it?[/quote]

Because it sounds scary to the uninformed. Don’t get news about international politics from sites that you can also check your email on. That’s why international relations journals exist.

Dude, I’ve only written twice it in this thread and provided a link to the summary of a seminal work on the analysis of military force. Anyone who wants to have an IR discussion should be at least somewhat familiar with Jervis’ four functions of force. It’s a short read. Do it.[/quote]

You never answered the question I asked you.

Why should I be more worried about Al-Qaeda gaining control over a city in Iraq, over Iran sending warships to our Maritime Borders?

Is your answer? Because, Iran is just Militarily Swaggering at our Maritime Borders.

Because if it is? That is my concern that countries that could be considered an enemy of America are starting to act like they CAN Militarily Swagger at our borders.
[/quote]

Yeah Iran was just ‘swaggering’ when they planned and carried out the truck bombing murders of hundreds of US Marines via their proxy Hezbollah. I’m sure the families of those marines agree.[/quote]

That’s an example of an act compellence. You do realize you’re agreeing with my position, yes? Stop shooting from the hip cowboy.

48

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:
If the photos of the ships that I saw were accurate, it’s more of a joke than a threat.[/quote]

It’s not intended to be a threat. Swaggering is the peaceful exercise of force, usually to enhance state prestige.

See number 4 in this concise summary of Art’s four functions of force.
http://www.waynemclean.com/docs/Art%20-%20Four%20Uses%20of%20Force%20(2).pdf[/quote]

From the article-

It’s nice that you are trying to lend some common vocabulary to the conversation, so allow me to do the same-

Sucker Punch- Thats when you walk up to someone and punch them in the face. The recipient may see you coming, or not. It doesn’t really matter. The whole idea is to hit as hard as possible on the first strike and fuck what ever happens after that. You got yours in and that is all that matters. It could be a TKO or you could get beaten to a pulp.

For more on the art of the sucker punch see the USS Cole, 9-11, etc.

My take on this is that we’d entered a new socio-political realm about 20 some years ago and have been engaged by an enemy that is writing their own book on unconventional politics and warfare. Heck, some of them may never even have heard of Robert J. Art. In fact, I would bet that they haven’t.

In response to these new tactics the US military developed a division called JSOC. They’re pretty well aware of the functions of force and how to apply it too.
[/quote]

Right.
Gay Dude: “I have read many books on the art of War”

King: “Tell me, what would you do in regards to the uprising?”

Gay Dude: “AAAAAGGGHHHH!!!”(As he is falling from getting thrown out the window)

You could say that it would be a great Military tactic to act like you are just going to do some Military “swaggering” and then sucker punch them.

Miyamoto Musashi: Confuse your opponent…Become your opponent…Draw your opponent in…Never use the same tactic twice…The head of the rat, the neck of the bull… I could go on.

[/quote]

You sound like a 13 year old who has been playing too much Call of Duty for his own good.

49

[quote]mbdix wrote:
Apparently the Iranian Ships have now entered the South Atlantic Ocean.[/quote]

Notice how no practitioners or scholars of IR are giving a fuck. That’s reserved for those who get news of international politics from a site you can also check your email on. I suppose it is easy to get oneself in a tizzy over something so trivial if one doesn’t possess a cursory knowledge of something as elemental to IR as classical or structural Realism.

50

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:
If the photos of the ships that I saw were accurate, it’s more of a joke than a threat.[/quote]

It’s not intended to be a threat. Swaggering is the peaceful exercise of force, usually to enhance state prestige.

See number 4 in this concise summary of Art’s four functions of force.
http://www.waynemclean.com/docs/Art%20-%20Four%20Uses%20of%20Force%20(2).pdf[/quote]

From the article-

It’s nice that you are trying to lend some common vocabulary to the conversation, so allow me to do the same-

Sucker Punch- Thats when you walk up to someone and punch them in the face. The recipient may see you coming, or not. It doesn’t really matter. The whole idea is to hit as hard as possible on the first strike and fuck what ever happens after that. You got yours in and that is all that matters. It could be a TKO or you could get beaten to a pulp.

For more on the art of the sucker punch see the USS Cole, 9-11, etc.

My take on this is that we’d entered a new socio-political realm about 20 some years ago and have been engaged by an enemy that is writing their own book on unconventional politics and warfare. Heck, some of them may never even have heard of Robert J. Art. In fact, I would bet that they haven’t.

In response to these new tactics the US military developed a division called JSOC. They’re pretty well aware of the functions of force and how to apply it too.
[/quote]

Art’s four functions have analytical utility. Your “sucker punch” does not. Terrorist attacks are almost always an attempt at compelllence, and can therefore be studied within Art’s analytical framework.
Actually, JSOC was founded in the aftermath of the failure of Operation Eagle Claw. Thanks for the (a)historical lesson though.[/quote]

Yes, the attempted rescue of hostages in Iran. I should have said thirty some years.

If they are an attempt at compellence, to what end?

What political or strategic value does a terrorist act have, and more importantly, does it work to the desired end?

Lay it out for me. Pick a specific act and how it achieved the desired result.

[/quote]

Ah…removed the US from Lebanon for starters?[/quote]

I don’t know how he missed this one.

The Marine barracks bombing directly and unequivocally led to the removal of the US military from Lebanon. If that isn’t a specific act leading to a desired result I don’t know what is.
[/quote]

Yep. Moghadam’s “Suicide Terrorism, Occupation, and the Globalization of Martyrdom: A Critique of Dying to Win” examines the efficacy of suicide terrorism in depth.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10576100600561907#.UxAbVvldXg8

[/quote]

So instead of answering the pertinent question, you quoted a pathetic, hard left paper written by a notorious feminist, activist and sociologist? After the Iranian revolution she became ‘joined the Iranian student movement and became a left-wing activist.’ After that she worked in France ‘as the Chief of the Section for Gender Equality.’

In addition she has also ‘aided in the establishment of the Palestinian Women’s Research and Documentation Center, located in Ramallah.’

'Today, the global issues that most concern Moghadam are “the adverse effects of economic globalization, militarism.”

Yeah, thanks for that. Any explanation of how Hamas forced Israel…er sorry, ‘the Zionist entity’ out of Gaza? You know, the city David conquered over 3000 years ago? And didn’t coalition forces pull out of Iraq? Aren’t they pulling out of Afghanistan? Didn’t Italy pull out of the region after a single insurgent attack? Shall I go on?

51

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:
If the photos of the ships that I saw were accurate, it’s more of a joke than a threat.[/quote]

It’s not intended to be a threat. Swaggering is the peaceful exercise of force, usually to enhance state prestige.

See number 4 in this concise summary of Art’s four functions of force.
http://www.waynemclean.com/docs/Art%20-%20Four%20Uses%20of%20Force%20(2).pdf[/quote]

From the article-

It’s nice that you are trying to lend some common vocabulary to the conversation, so allow me to do the same-

Sucker Punch- Thats when you walk up to someone and punch them in the face. The recipient may see you coming, or not. It doesn’t really matter. The whole idea is to hit as hard as possible on the first strike and fuck what ever happens after that. You got yours in and that is all that matters. It could be a TKO or you could get beaten to a pulp.

For more on the art of the sucker punch see the USS Cole, 9-11, etc.

My take on this is that we’d entered a new socio-political realm about 20 some years ago and have been engaged by an enemy that is writing their own book on unconventional politics and warfare. Heck, some of them may never even have heard of Robert J. Art. In fact, I would bet that they haven’t.

In response to these new tactics the US military developed a division called JSOC. They’re pretty well aware of the functions of force and how to apply it too.
[/quote]

Art’s four functions have analytical utility. Your “sucker punch” does not. Terrorist attacks are almost always an attempt at compelllence, and can therefore be studied within Art’s analytical framework.
Actually, JSOC was founded in the aftermath of the failure of Operation Eagle Claw. Thanks for the (a)historical lesson though.[/quote]

Yes, the attempted rescue of hostages in Iran. I should have said thirty some years.

If they are an attempt at compellence, to what end?

What political or strategic value does a terrorist act have, and more importantly, does it work to the desired end?

Lay it out for me. Pick a specific act and how it achieved the desired result.

[/quote]

Ah…removed the US from Lebanon for starters?[/quote]

I don’t know how he missed this one.

The Marine barracks bombing directly and unequivocally led to the removal of the US military from Lebanon. If that isn’t a specific act leading to a desired result I don’t know what is.
[/quote]

Yep. Moghadam’s “Suicide Terrorism, Occupation, and the Globalization of Martyrdom: A Critique of Dying to Win” examines the efficacy of suicide terrorism in depth.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10576100600561907#.UxAbVvldXg8

[/quote]

So instead of answering the pertinent question, you quoted a pathetic, hard left paper written by a notorious feminist, activist and sociologist? After the Iranian revolution she became ‘joined the Iranian student movement and became a left-wing activist.’ After that she worked in France ‘as the Chief of the Section for Gender Equality.’

In addition she has also ‘aided in the establishment of the Palestinian Women’s Research and Documentation Center, located in Ramallah.’

'Today, the global issues that most concern Moghadam are “the adverse effects of economic globalization, militarism.”

Yeah, thanks for that. Any explanation of how Hamas forced Israel…er sorry, ‘the Zionist entity’ out of Gaza? You know, the city David conquered over 3000 years ago? And didn’t coalition forces pull out of Iraq? Aren’t they pulling out of Afghanistan? Didn’t Italy pull out of the region after a single insurgent attack? Shall I go on? [/quote]

Wow. You can wiki an author’s last name. Unfortunately for you, you only entered a last name. The essay in the link was written by Assaf Moghadam, a fellow at the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. The fact that you were familiar with neither the author nor the work demonstrates that you ludicrously missed the mark and are uniquely unqualified to be debating the merits of his scholarship.

You must be drunk, have serious reading comprehension issues, or both. FOR THE LAST TIME, YOU ARE AGREEING WITH MY POSITION. Terrorist attacks are carried out with the function of compellence in mind. Almost all of the acts you are describing above are consistent with what I have written previously. I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise. The discussion can do without your straw men and confirmation bias regarding my political ideology, which I can assure you is quite middle of the road.

52

[quote]CMdad wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:
We are just talking here, and I don’t think they will try anything. But, what if they do get close to our borders? Then what? Do we sink their battle ship? Doesn’t that start a war? Do we kindly ask them to leave? And what if we let them leave? Doesn’t that now give other countries an opening to do the same thing? What if China decides to send a couple of their ships close to our borders? Russia?

I know what I think our response should be. We stop them before they even get close. I don’t know man, the more I think about Iran deciding to do this the more I don’t like it.[/quote]
I think if they did get close to the US you’d see something similar to what happened in the Cuban missile crisis. I think they’d be surrounded by US warships and planes well before they got into US waters and be told in no uncertain terms to turn around or they’d be erased. Just like the Russians did, I think they’d run back home with their tails between their legs. Iran knows they have no chance if they went toe to toe with the US and that they would very quickly be annihilated in such an encounter. I have 2 friends who served in Afghanistan in the Canadian Army, one of whom served in JTF-2 (Canada’s version of Delta Force) and they both said the same thing: that for all their big fanatical talk, these so called mujahideen and Islamic fundamentalists are self-serving pussies. There is a reason why it’s always the 16 yr old goatherd who’s blowing himself up and not the Zarqawi’s and Osama’s. They are willing to manipulate simpletons into dying for their cause but they themselves would never put themselves in harm’s way. And for all their religious zeal, my friend in the SF said all you’d have to do when you brought one of these assholes in was offer them a few dollars and they’d be willing to give up their own mother. Similarly, the Iranian leadership knows damn well that at any second of the day there are numerous warships and warplanes within a minute’s striking distance and that, in the event of any attack on the US, they wouldn’t even have a chance to wipe their ass and get out the door before a cruise missile wiped it for them. The global reach of the US Navy puts these assholes in the crosshairs just as much as the “cadets” on these ships and they know that very well. They aren’t stupid enough to try anything that would surely result in their deaths. However, the game changer in all of this is if Iran is successful in developing nuclear capability. By all accounts, they are deadset on developing a weapon and the only reason why they haven’t so far is the heroic and unsung actions of the Mossad working in conjunction with the CIA and MI6. I suspect that if they ever get close, you will see an Israeli air strike to destroy it such as what happened In 1981 on the Iraqi Osiris nuclear reactors.[/quote]

Nuclear weapons states don’t like it when others try to join their club. Most forget that Israel possesses approximately 400 nuclear warheads and is not a party to the the NPT. The IDF does not have the capability to neutralize Iran’s nuclear program. They themselves have said as much, which is why they seek to enlist aid of the U.S. military.

53

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]CMdad wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:
We are just talking here, and I don’t think they will try anything. But, what if they do get close to our borders? Then what? Do we sink their battle ship? Doesn’t that start a war? Do we kindly ask them to leave? And what if we let them leave? Doesn’t that now give other countries an opening to do the same thing? What if China decides to send a couple of their ships close to our borders? Russia?

I know what I think our response should be. We stop them before they even get close. I don’t know man, the more I think about Iran deciding to do this the more I don’t like it.[/quote]
I think if they did get close to the US you’d see something similar to what happened in the Cuban missile crisis. I think they’d be surrounded by US warships and planes well before they got into US waters and be told in no uncertain terms to turn around or they’d be erased. Just like the Russians did, I think they’d run back home with their tails between their legs. Iran knows they have no chance if they went toe to toe with the US and that they would very quickly be annihilated in such an encounter. I have 2 friends who served in Afghanistan in the Canadian Army, one of whom served in JTF-2 (Canada’s version of Delta Force) and they both said the same thing: that for all their big fanatical talk, these so called mujahideen and Islamic fundamentalists are self-serving pussies. There is a reason why it’s always the 16 yr old goatherd who’s blowing himself up and not the Zarqawi’s and Osama’s. They are willing to manipulate simpletons into dying for their cause but they themselves would never put themselves in harm’s way. And for all their religious zeal, my friend in the SF said all you’d have to do when you brought one of these assholes in was offer them a few dollars and they’d be willing to give up their own mother. Similarly, the Iranian leadership knows damn well that at any second of the day there are numerous warships and warplanes within a minute’s striking distance and that, in the event of any attack on the US, they wouldn’t even have a chance to wipe their ass and get out the door before a cruise missile wiped it for them. The global reach of the US Navy puts these assholes in the crosshairs just as much as the “cadets” on these ships and they know that very well. They aren’t stupid enough to try anything that would surely result in their deaths. However, the game changer in all of this is if Iran is successful in developing nuclear capability. By all accounts, they are deadset on developing a weapon and the only reason why they haven’t so far is the heroic and unsung actions of the Mossad working in conjunction with the CIA and MI6. I suspect that if they ever get close, you will see an Israeli air strike to destroy it such as what happened In 1981 on the Iraqi Osiris nuclear reactors.[/quote]

Nuclear weapons states don’t like it when others try to join their club. Most forget that Israel possesses approximately 400 nuclear warheads and is not a party to the the NPT. The IDF does not have the capability to neutralize Iran’s nuclear program. They themselves have said as much, which is why they seek to enlist aid of the U.S. military.[/quote]

You know nothing of foreign affairs. You are merely a student.

54

[quote]Liberation wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]CMdad wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:
We are just talking here, and I don’t think they will try anything. But, what if they do get close to our borders? Then what? Do we sink their battle ship? Doesn’t that start a war? Do we kindly ask them to leave? And what if we let them leave? Doesn’t that now give other countries an opening to do the same thing? What if China decides to send a couple of their ships close to our borders? Russia?

I know what I think our response should be. We stop them before they even get close. I don’t know man, the more I think about Iran deciding to do this the more I don’t like it.[/quote]
I think if they did get close to the US you’d see something similar to what happened in the Cuban missile crisis. I think they’d be surrounded by US warships and planes well before they got into US waters and be told in no uncertain terms to turn around or they’d be erased. Just like the Russians did, I think they’d run back home with their tails between their legs. Iran knows they have no chance if they went toe to toe with the US and that they would very quickly be annihilated in such an encounter. I have 2 friends who served in Afghanistan in the Canadian Army, one of whom served in JTF-2 (Canada’s version of Delta Force) and they both said the same thing: that for all their big fanatical talk, these so called mujahideen and Islamic fundamentalists are self-serving pussies. There is a reason why it’s always the 16 yr old goatherd who’s blowing himself up and not the Zarqawi’s and Osama’s. They are willing to manipulate simpletons into dying for their cause but they themselves would never put themselves in harm’s way. And for all their religious zeal, my friend in the SF said all you’d have to do when you brought one of these assholes in was offer them a few dollars and they’d be willing to give up their own mother. Similarly, the Iranian leadership knows damn well that at any second of the day there are numerous warships and warplanes within a minute’s striking distance and that, in the event of any attack on the US, they wouldn’t even have a chance to wipe their ass and get out the door before a cruise missile wiped it for them. The global reach of the US Navy puts these assholes in the crosshairs just as much as the “cadets” on these ships and they know that very well. They aren’t stupid enough to try anything that would surely result in their deaths. However, the game changer in all of this is if Iran is successful in developing nuclear capability. By all accounts, they are deadset on developing a weapon and the only reason why they haven’t so far is the heroic and unsung actions of the Mossad working in conjunction with the CIA and MI6. I suspect that if they ever get close, you will see an Israeli air strike to destroy it such as what happened In 1981 on the Iraqi Osiris nuclear reactors.[/quote]

Nuclear weapons states don’t like it when others try to join their club. Most forget that Israel possesses approximately 400 nuclear warheads and is not a party to the the NPT. The IDF does not have the capability to neutralize Iran’s nuclear program. They themselves have said as much, which is why they seek to enlist aid of the U.S. military.[/quote]

You know nothing of foreign affairs. You are merely a student.
[/quote]

Friends shouldn’t know friends’ T-Nation profile handles.

55

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Wow. You can wiki an author’s last name. Unfortunately for you, you only entered a last name. The essay in the link was written by Assaf Moghadam, a fellow at the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. The fact that you were familiar with neither the author nor the work demonstrates that you ludicrously missed the mark and are uniquely unqualified to be debating the merits of his scholarship.

You must be drunk, have serious reading comprehension issues, or both. FOR THE LAST TIME, YOU ARE AGREEING WITH MY POSITION. Terrorist attacks are carried out with the function of compellence in mind. Almost all of the acts you are describing above are consistent with what I have written previously. I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise. The discussion can do without your straw men and confirmation bias regarding my political ideology, which I can assure you is quite middle of the road.
[/quote]

Firstly, the post I read of yours did not contain the author’s surname. Secondly, considering the plethora of hard left/quasi-Nazi links you continually post I made an educated guess and failed to fully investigate your point. And yes, we do agree if what you are saying is that acts of terrorism can have profound effects on the foreign policy of the targets.

56

Bismark, you have said your line “don’t get your international news from a site you get your emails on” Which is a cute little saying. What about the original link do you find to be wrong? From everything I have read on the subject, that article is correct in what it says is taking place.

[quote]
It’s not intended to be a threat. Swaggering is the peaceful exercise of force, usually to enhance state prestige.

See number 4 in this concise summary of Art’s four functions of force. [/quote]

I hope that you are correct that it is just swaggering. And Art’s summary of the four functions of force seem to be correct, I wouldn’t not base my military decisions on just those guidelines.

To expand on my 13 year old logic behind this, I think it would be very foolish for US Defense Department to look at Iran’s decision to send ships to our borders. And decide “look this falls into Art’s summary of the four functions of force as swaggering, and we have nothing to worry about”

Where I see a place to apply Art’s summary of force is after an act of force has been completed. To try to apply Art’s summary while an act is being performed is an act of assumption. And a simple, smart military mind would look for ways to possibly use a swaggering act as a cover for an attack maneuver. Oh wait, Art’s four functions of force doesn’t state an ‘attack maneuver’, so that doesn’t exist.

Unless I am not understanding you correctly, your views on this seem to break one of the most fundamental laws of conflict…never underestimate your opponent.

57

It isn’t incorrect per se. It’s inconsequential. This is why no experts, be they practitioners or scholars, have so much as made a peep about the Iranian naval maneuvers. If anything, the U.S. Navy will now have a better understanding of Iranian naval operations, which is definitely a good thing. The event is not being ignored, as you falsely contend that I advocate. The balance of forces is incredibly asymmetrical. Intelligence as a discipline is based upon varying degrees of probabilities. By the way, there exists no “simple, smart military mind.” A simple mind is one who finds this entire exercise of dick waving to be of any great importance. Clausewitz is rolling in his grave right now.

58

[quote]mbdix wrote:
Unless I am not understanding you correctly, your views on this seem to break one of the most fundamental laws of conflict…never underestimate your opponent.
[/quote]

I’d argue that most people are saying that you shouldn’t overreact.