Vince said:
What des technology have to do with it? That's a horrible cop out Natoma. How did the technical edge help the Soviet's relativly in Afghanistan or us in Vietnam? Or even in Iraq concerning IED's and such asymmetrical warfare. Even internal DoD wargames have shown that the technological edge can easily become overcome in such enviroments - which is the very nature of asymmetrical warfare.
Technology has
everything to do with it Vince. Not in terms of the superiority over the enemy, but in how you're able to conduct the campaign. You missed the point of what I've been saying all along. We have a huge increase in the ability of our troops to fight a tactical campaign due to technology increases, which in fact is the reason why we were able to send in so few in the first place. But, technology only gets you so far in terms of human troop strength on the ground.
And you cropped out what I believe is the most compelling part about using so few troops and relying on "the locals" as you put it.
Natoma said:
You honestly believe the warlords didn't let the Taliban and Al-Qaeda get away if they were paid enough? They're ruthless mercenaries. They were that way before we went in, and they're that way today. How can we possibly trust them with an issue of the utmost national security? I can't believe you actually consider that a stroke of brilliance on our part. :?
Vince said:
Putting, say, 100,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan would do little in truth. The country is increasingly rugged and has a low-population density. Information gathering as in Iraq would be very hard and the features I mentioned would work against the US and allow for such asymmetrical war to be carried out en masse.
Putting that amount of troops on the ground wasn't about controlling grasslands. It was about cornering Al-Qaeda and the taliban with our own troops and taking the weapons out of the hands of the warlords who now dominate Afghanistan and the resurgent Opium trade.
Vince said:
I'd posit that our offensive strategy was groundbreaking and correct (as almost all have agreed) and that due to the natuyre of the country, this counse of action is the most correct. Outside of the few large cities there is nothing, there is little infastructure: no roads, no electricicty, communications, water. What, IMHO, is the best decision to to realize that you won't pacificy the country via massive envolvement. It's not like a game of CivIII were you can stop the rioters by putting more units in a city. Rather, they need structural reforms and those will emerge from Kabul by way of governmental doctrine, a standing army and infastructure rebuilding. Take it step by step and progress when you can.
Also, it's not like the US only "controls" Kabul. We control where ever we drop troops in that country, I just posit that it's not worth it to fill the country with troops at this time.
The offensive strategy was certainly groundbreaking in terms of winning a direct conflict. It's been pretty absymal as far as controlling a country and reducing the level of violence perpetrated by the warlords. See the TIME article I linked to in my prior post.
Vince said:
Natoma said:
I don't understand your thinking here Vince. Our troops didn't know the culture in Iraq nor the terrain either, but we went in anyway with 150K troops didn't we? Not all of Afghanistan is mountainous either. The majority of the country could have been maintained with armored divisions. And at least if soldiers were dying in Afghanistan, we'd know they were dying for a good reason, i.e. the leaders of Afghanistan were openly harboring those who directly attacked us.
First of all, Iraq is a structured and mostly secular state which is modernized and has the typical western infastructures in place to facilitate their stay. They also entered Iraq and fought a convential conflict with a standing-army.
And no, the majority of the country [Afghanistan] can't be held with Armored divisions. Look no further than the numerous and sucessful attacks against armor in 1980 IIRC against the Soviets.
Iraq's infrastructure was devastated by 12 years of sanctions and lack of rebuilding after Gulf War I. And a secular state you say? The shi'ite majority that wants to install an islamic state would disagree with you, especially Ayatollah Ali Sistani.
And I just don't understand why you continue to look at the soviet occupation in 1980 as the bellwether standard of afghani conflict. Our armed forces are far superior in every way, as is our intelligence gathering abilities and using those abilities to coordinate attacks. As I said before, sending in 150K troops today would have a far more devastating effect on Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Warlords than it had in 1980, because of how the technology is integrated with our armed forces.
Vince said:
And your constant rhetoric against Iraq is tiring and insulting. Any soldier dying in Iraq is dying for a cause and just as worthy as any other fallen American. They know that the world is a complicated place and that defense isn't just worrying about those "who directly attacked us" but rather those who threaten their families back home. Regardless of youir position, the fact that Iraq was hostile and was a threat is beyond question when you look at it objectivly: from financing terrorists to trying to assasinate American leaders, to their terrorist harboring and possible connections with Al-Qaeda.
Oh stop. I
am looking at Iraq objectively. If the stated reasons you go to war turn out to not be true, there are going to be questions as to the validity of the war. President Bush on Meet the Press admitted that they were wrong on WMD, wrong on terrorist ties. And said that he'd do it all over again nonetheless because Saddam was an evil inhuman dictator.
That's not why we went to war. We went to war because of what he said they were wrong about. That calls into question the validity of the war as well as whether or not the deaths from that war were necessary. War isn't some game Vince that you can just wage simply because you can and attribute any reason to it and make it worthy of fighting. We go to war for specific reasons, and when those specific reasons turn out to be spurrious, there are questions that need to be answered.
Natoma said:
We went into Iraq for WMD and the threat of Terrorist Ties. Neither of those have turned out to be true. In many people's eyes, those were the reasons we went to war. Now that they have turned out not to be the case, it's somewhat difficult to support the deaths that have occurred.
Vince said:
Natoma said:
Vince, the power of 9/11 was that it was 4 coordinated strikes against US interests, 3 of which succeeded, not that it was a terrorist strike on US soil. That doesn't mean that a single deadly strike cannot occur from an isolated cell. The highly destructive attacks in Bali for instance was not planned from the top. It was an isolated cell. That occurs quite often around the world.
Natoma, you're supporting my argument.
9/11 was special for it's planning, size and synchronization - all of which were provided for by the central hierarchy of Al-Qaeda. This is basically beyond dispute, you have yet to show me how the single cell did all the planning, funding and traning for Al-Qaeda- when will you do it?
Bali is regionalized, but look at the scale. Wow, some moron's can drive in front of a nightclub and blow themselves up. Clearly, everything about 9/11 which was spectacular is gone - I've posited why.
There have been 17 bombings worldwide attributed to Al-Qaeda since 9/11, 18 if you count the bombing in spain as an Al-Qaeda attack. There were 5 after the 1994 WTC bombing, leading up to 9/11. I'm sure the victims of those 17 attacks wouldn't classify them as any less deadly. 200 people died in that Bali blast, and hundreds more were wounded. 3000 people died on September 11th, of which at least 90% were in the WTC. Take that out, and you've got a couple hundred at the pentagon and Pennsylvania. Would that have made the attacks any less "spectacular" or deadly? I think not.
Vince said:
Natoma said:
That isn't the point Vince. We're not funding security enough to get even a level of security that would be described as minimal at best. Port inspections needs to be done at a rate of 20%, but we're only inspecting 1%. The money just isn't there to increase the rate of inspection.
And what good is 20% going to do? Unless you can check every cargo container it's futile; and this isn't even touching the ability of employee's to be manipulated upon entry. Hell, why even put it a container? Just go to Canada, take a drive into the country and walk across the border yourself. Or borrow a Drugrunner's boat or tunnel from Mexico.
Natoma, if you can agree that there will never be a 100% checking rate - the only option is to virtualize the border and rely on intelligence. It just makes sence and any attempt at defending against terror that broadly, on such a level, is ridiculous it's infeasibility.
You're missing the point Vince. 20% is the rate that is required for
minimal security. We're inspecting 1% currently, which means what? We're not meeting the
minimal requirement for secure ports. Do you agree or disagree that we should at least be at the minimum? Let's not even talk about getting 100% inspections. Let's just get to the minimum posited by government officials to be "safe" ok?
Vince said:
(a) No, of course there would have been no strategic launch against a neighbor. Because once he bombs started falling the US was dropping a large percentage of the ordinance on suspected WMD sites. The Western desert was already overrun by Special Operaions forces and outside of tactical uses (which it outside this responce) it would have been increasingly hard.
Also, AFAIK, the 45min referense was in regard to what MI6 heard concerning Iraq's ability to attack their base in Cyprus (?) or some Med island.
Suspected sites Vince. You can't tell me that we would have gotten all of it, if it had existed in the quantities expounded upon by the administration.
The 45 minute reference was with regard to how quickly iraqi troops could get and deploy chem-bio weapons on the battle field in iraq.
Vince said:
(b) I figure because a Biological or Chemical weapon is largely ineffective against a mobilized army - this is known. Outside of a nuclear attack, they would have just pushed threw the attack - which would have an American responce. Hell, the Coalition already drove to Baghdad in their Chem suits basically.
The problem with Chem/Bio weapons is their use against unprotected Urban Centres - which is why it was such a percieved threat with Iraq already supplying and funding terrorists.
Yes, but I said on top of long range bombs. And that doesn't provide any help to the bordering nations who if Iraq really did have the WMD and long range bombs we professed them to have, would have all been at risk. I asked how do you figure not as "ok we're going to drop chem-bio balloons on them from a rooftop" but from long range scuds that would have caused collateral damage to kill lots of troops on top of the released chem-bio agent after that.
Vince said:
Natoma said:
I didn't say anything about qualifications. I'm talking about stacking a comittee with no dissenting opinions. That is not good in any form imo. It's just a "yes man" committee atm and tells the administration precisely what it wants to hear. Just like the OSP did. Just like Chalabi and his cohorts did. Etc etc etc.
This is wrong Natoma. First of all, it is about qualifications because you're challenging Kass's judgement and integrity. His qualifications show that he's been consisitent in his views and that he is a man of dignity and high moral standards concerning work ethic.
You (and John) are tar-and-feathering him based on nothing and against a massive body of evidence which shows that he's been an honorable man.
Oh good jeebus Vince, look at what I'm saying. This has nothing to do with the qualifications and about the
opinions of the presiding members. If you're all PhDs and you all think one way, that's still a bad situation vs all PhDs and some provide dissenting opinions on topics vs others. It's good to get differing opinions and offer both sides of a debate to the President, not just one set of opinions.
I'm not challenging anyone's judgment or integrity, or tar and feathering anyone. I want to make sure that committees that are set up to gather intelligence, do research, and provide data, have two sets of eyes looking at it that can provide multiple angles, rather than being stacked with people you know will give you exactly what you want to hear.
Vince said:
Natoma said:
My reason for segueing into this in the first place? Your original comment stated that the debt isn't a problem in the long run, when taking into account relative levels of our debt to GDP. Then you went on to say that spending is a problem and has been reigned in somewhat. That is an overly rosy picture of what we're facing in the next 20 years, and too simplistic when taking into account the fiscal problems and combining them with the political inertia to do anything about it, from both parties, until it's too late.
WTF? Think about what I said.
The National Debt - which is a point metric - is controllable in the long-run. Economic Fact. In the long-run, anything is changable or remanifestable think about why). The debt at it's current levels or within proportionality of GDP is controllable.
The level of spending - which is a rate of change - influences the debt over time and is a problem. I admitted this and stated that it needs to be controlled. This too is an Economic Fact. There is no way around this.
As I said, that's too simplistic. You can say at any point in history that the national debt is controllable and spending is controllable. That doesn't mean that it deals with the socio-eco-political forces that affect both of those factors. When delving into those, what you originally stated on the matter is in conflict with greenspan's statements. He made those statements because in fact that debt
is a long term problem and spending
is a long term problem. And I agree completely.
