The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Free trade is mutually beneficial, and that's true to all first world - and many third world - nations. If it weren't, the trade would never occur in the first place. We, the USA, have taken on a disproportionately large chunk of maintaining free trade. The US Navy can patrol the waterways to abate piracy on the open waters. What good does an Air Force or Army base within the middle of the plains of Germany do to enforce free trade? We can trim the military budget, push the security of European land onto Europe, while using our navy to keep safe those waterways traveled by American merchants.

Sounds very reasonable to me. Really, we've got bases all over the place, at least some of which it's hard to say they are really needed. But, I'm sure once a base is in place somewhere, it's hard to dislodge. Maybe we need a BRAC process for overseas bases, like we had for domestic bases. Kind of ironic we keep expanding bases overseas, but shut them down at home.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Free trade is mutually beneficial, and that's true to all first world - and many third world - nations. If it weren't, the trade would never occur in the first place. We, the USA, have taken on a disproportionately large chunk of maintaining free trade. The US Navy can patrol the waterways to abate piracy on the open waters. What good does an Air Force or Army base within the middle of the plains of Germany do to enforce free trade? We can trim the military budget, push the security of European land onto Europe, while using our navy to keep safe those waterways traveled by American merchants.

Perhaps yes, perhaps no. Indirectly, I was questioning whether it makes sense to look at these budgets in isolation or to have a more holistic interconnected overview of all our competing priorities.

One of my daydreams if we had a Romney presidency would have been to hear him say, "why do we have 15 Cabinet departments with so much overlap and so much redundancy? What a waste! Here is my plan to consolidate agencies yada yada yada."

On a related vein at least we would have had consistency in our foreign policy across situations and across enemies as well. This piecemeal, wing it on the fly, make it up as we go along, crap has been a total disaster. "leading from behind" is sounding more and more like a fancy way to dress up "I don't know what the f I am doing" after the fact.

[SteveP]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Canada joins the air war against ISIS.

OTTAWA - Powered by a majority of Conservative MPs, the House of Commons voted Tuesday night in favour of an air combat mission in Iraq.

Liberal and New Democrat MPs voted against the motion, after two days of trying to outdo each other in opposition of the government.

The vote passed with 157 MPs in favour and 134 against.

The mission will see six CF-18s sent to war-torn Iraq to help protect civilians from the brutality of ISIS fighters.

Up to 600 supporting crew members will also be sent, along with two surveillance aircraft and a refuelling tanker.

[St. Clown]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Canada joins the air war against ISIS.

So Canada was able to muster up a full half-squadron of fighters, two recon planes, and an airborne fuel tanker. Gee, thanks. Were they going to add a few spit wads into the mix, too?

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

So Canada was able to muster up a full half-squadron of fighters, two recon planes, and an airborne fuel tanker. Gee, thanks. Were they going to add a few spit wads into the mix, too?

To be fair, the Canadian military is used to going home at 5 most days.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

On a related vein at least we would have had consistency in our foreign policy across situations and across enemies as well. This piecemeal, wing it on the fly, make it up as we go along, crap has been a total disaster. "leading from behind" is sounding more and more like a fancy way to dress up "I don't know what the f I am doing" after the fact.

Do you really think it would make one iota of difference? I don't. I don't see any evidence it would either.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

And the promise of better relations between Turkey and the Kurds looks to be taking a hit.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0HX0XF20141008

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Washington said its war planes, along with those of coalition ally the United Arab Emirates, had struck nine targets in Syria, including six near Kobani that hit Islamic State artillery and armored vehicles. It also struck Islamic State positions in Iraq five times.

Nevertheless, Kobani remained under intense bombardment from Islamic State emplacements, within sight of Turkish tanks that have so far done nothing to help.

U.S. officials were quoted voicing impatience with the Turks for refusing to join the coalition against Islamic State fighters who have seized wide areas of Syria and Iraq. Turkey says it could join but only if Washington agrees to use force against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as well as the Sunni Muslim jihadists fighting him in a three-year-old civil war.

Yikes. That's pretty hardcore negotiating. "Nice ethnic minority ya got here. Would be a shame if somethin' happened to it."

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

So, for Turkey to save itself we have to fix Syria? And if we fix that does it just turn into another Iraq that we supposedly fixed?

**** the whole area. Get out.

[St. Clown]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

If ISIS invades Turkey, would that be a foreign invasion in which we'd be required by NATO treaty to come to Turkey's defense? If so, that might be the height of irony.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

If ISIS invades Turkey, would that be a foreign invasion in which we'd be required by NATO treaty to come to Turkey's defense? If so, that might be the height of irony.

I seriously doubt ISIS would invade Turkey, but if they did, it would certainly be ironic. Of course I suppose we could say our bombing, which we're already doing, is coming to their defense. Turkey in recent years seems to be behaving less and less as an ally and responsible member of NATO.

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

If ISIS invades Turkey, would that be a foreign invasion in which we'd be required by NATO treaty to come to Turkey's defense? If so, that might be the height of irony.

Since ISIS is not a recognized state, it's not an invasion, it's a terrorist attack. I do not know if we are obligated to respond to that (though we should).

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Since ISIS is not a recognized state, it's not an invasion, it's a terrorist attack. I do not know if we are obligated to respond to that (though we should).

Why? They won't let us use their airfields. They won't protect their own state. Why should we respond????

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Why? They won't let us use their airfields. They won't protect their own state. Why should we respond????

Because they are an ally under treaty. If we would refuse to defend them then we should sever the alliance. But as long as they are a formal ally we should honor the alliance, to protect the integrity of the concept of "alliance."

It may well be time to rethink Turkey's membership in NATO. NATO exists to deter attack by Russia on Western Europe by formally committing the US to military response. All well and good -- NATO has done a great job and as a side effect has helped stabilize Europe after the two world wars. But that mechanism is not enhanced by including Turkey. Heck, Australia isn't part of NATO. Alliances have different purposes.

Turkey is in NATO because:

1) The US wants every forward deployment base we can get surrounding those delicious Middle Eastern oil reserves

2) As a symbolic gesture that Turkey is "part of Europe"

3) Because Turkey used to be a secular counter-example to the religious states of the Muslim world

If Erdoğan indicates the future of Turkey, 3) is eliminated. 1) becomes less and less important as we move away from our slavery to the Saudi royal family. That leaves 2), which is a hardly a good enough reason to tolerate all the additional stresses on NATO that Turkey's membership creates.

If they fail to live up to their NATO responsibilities that's a good pretext to kick them out.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

They're more responsible for the three state Iraq solution (the only one that made sense) not happening because they cower in fear every time the Kurds are mentioned.

Yes, kick them out of NATA. Fine with me. They're worthless anyway.

You appear to want the US to police the World as much as anyone else does. I don't. Complete waste of money, treasure, time, and effort.