The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

[FreshFish]

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

It's too expensive to save these countless morons from themselves and get nothing in return except years of occupation that they don't want and the minute we leave, boom Civil War.

Is that how the Marshall Plan worked out? Must be something wrong with my history books. I guess Japan has been a real wasteland of insurrection and violence over the past 70 years as well.

[FreshFish]

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

If it moves, shoot [tax] it. If it keeps on moving, nuke [regulate] it. If it stops moving, send in Halliburton at 10x the normal cost to rebuild it [subsidize it].

very droll, my friend. well played.

[SteveP]

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

Scooby for the win! There's something basic that all knuckledraggers miss, whether they're on Meet the Press bleating their tired nonsense or out here on the USCHO message board, which is "what would you do differently in the Middle East". Its a question no one will answer. So, I put it to SteveP - what would YOU do differently than Obama in Iraq and Syria? Send in US ground troops??? If that's the goal, conservatives need to man up and say it instead of posting bitter screeds with no solutions.

I'm not and never have been in favor of putting troops back in-country - with the exception of SpecOps forces on specific operations.

What I AM in favor of is for President Feckless to grow a pair, stop trying to be a community organizer and act like the President of the United States and the "Leader of the Free World." Hell, even Diane Feinstein thinks he's too cautious!

It's quite obvious by his words and inaction that he has no stomach to lead and no interest in listening to the military and intel leaders that for at least a year (and likely longer) have been telling him and his minions that ISIS/ISIL (or whatever you want to call these butchers) have become an increasing threat, not only in the Middle East, but to the civilized Western World.

One minute he's saying the goal is to "degrade and destroy" ISIS, then he quickly walks that back to ISIS being a "manageable problem."

As my wife said after hearing that, your daughter's tattooed boyfriend is a manageable problem. ISIS needs to be wiped out, not managed.

[The Sicatoka]

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

... ISIS/ISIL (or whatever you want to call these butchers) ...

They're to be called the "junior varsity".

[ScoobyDoo]

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

Is that how the Marshall Plan worked out? Must be something wrong with my history books. I guess Japan has been a real wasteland of insurrection and violence over the past 70 years as well.

My history book says everything changed after World War II. Evidently you didn't read the same book.

Oh, and while you're at it please enlighten us to all the benefits we Americans have received due to the Iraq and Afghan wars we've been waging. I'd really like to know.

[Rover]

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

I'm not and never have been in favor of putting troops back in-country - with the exception of SpecOps forces on specific operations.

What I AM in favor of is for President Feckless to grow a pair, stop trying to be a community organizer and act like the President of the United States and the "Leader of the Free World." Hell, even Diane Feinstein thinks he's too cautious!

It's quite obvious by his words and inaction that he has no stomach to lead and no interest in listening to the military and intel leaders that for at least a year (and likely longer) have been telling him and his minions that ISIS/ISIL (or whatever you want to call these butchers) have become an increasing threat, not only in the Middle East, but to the civilized Western World.

One minute he's saying the goal is to "degrade and destroy" ISIS, then he quickly walks that back to ISIS being a "manageable problem."

As my wife said after hearing that, your daughter's tattooed boyfriend is a manageable problem. ISIS needs to be wiped out, not managed.

So, in short, you have no solution other than what the President is already doing (putting special ops in there). So, are you calling yourself a feckless weakling?

But, if you want in depth analysis from an internet tough guy, check this profound solution out...

I'd say "nuke it to the 14th Century" but why would I want to *advance* that "culture" 200 years.

Yup, this is conservatism for ya.

[SJHovey]

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

You have about four options, none of them great.

Option 1 is the colonial option. Basically, once you go in and subjugate a country, you make it a colony of your own. You govern it, you are responsible financially for it. This was the go to option for centuries, right up to the early 20th century. Assuming you are a relatively stable country like France or England or the U.S., you can probably make it work. 100 years from now, if it looks like they have their $hit together and they are pushing for independence, you let them go, assuming you yourself haven't lost the colony to some other big country. The problem is, colonies are ****ed expensive to own and operate. It's probably the option we should have taken with Iraq once we decided to invade. Just let the oil money pay the freight.

Option 2 is the so-called Marshall Plan option that we apparently tried in Iraq. This option has had some proven success. However, as far as I can tell it really only works when the subjugated people is homogeneous, has you as it's common enemy. You beat them down, tell them to behave, help them get back on their feet financially, let them go. But if they can't get along with each other, let alone you, it won't work. As noted, you're just left with civil war.

Option 3 is the vacuum option. You go in and crush them, then leave and see what happens. This option worked great in Germany following World War I, and appears to be the option we are leaning towards in Iraq. If you're lucky, all you end up with is a civil war. If you're unlucky, as we were with Germany, you get something a little bigger.

Option 4 is the hands off option. It was the preferred option in the U.S. up until World War II. Unless they're crapping in your yard, you sit on the sidelines until the warring factions either get tired of fighting, or one side eliminates the other. It's a bit cold, but it keeps you out of expensive entanglements. It's an option I'm starting to prefer, candidly. But it certainly has its risks, especially in a global economy. By the way, this option too has a civil war component to it.

[SteveP]

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

I'd say "nuke it to the 14th Century" but why would I want to *advance* that "culture" 200 years.

So, in short, you have no solution other than what the President is already doing (putting special ops in there). So, are you calling yourself a feckless weakling?

I've not seen any indication of spec op teams doing much more than guarding the embassy in Baghdad and other installations and US personnel in other Iraqi cities. I'm talking about actively seeking out and eradicating the ISIS leadership and command structure, whether in Iraq or Syria. Of course, he'd have to get Congressional approval for that.

As for Sic's suggestion, not a bad idea, but not totally necessary. The limited airstrikes have been, well, limited in their effectiveness. Bush 41 undersecretary of defense Jed Babbin has a better idea:

The goal of airstrikes should be to stop all of them in their tracks and hit ISIS "anywhere they have vehicles moving," he said.

"We could put a satellite above Iraq, put a couple of JSTARS Battle Management aircraft in the air there, and really pound the ISIS forces," said Babbin. "They should not have a vehicle able to move without an American airstrike going after it."

Time to bring the A-10 Warthog back to operational status!

[ScoobyDoo]

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

Rand Paul has flipped flopped. He would go to war against ISIS.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...tion-rand-paul

Speaking to a ballroom later, some of the loudest applause for Paul came when he quipped: “If the president has no strategy, maybe it’s time for a new president.”

In an emailed comment, however, Paul elaborated by saying: “If I were President, I would call a joint session of Congress. I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily.”

I knew he'd flip. He's flipping on other stuff too.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/0...re-109746.html

[Slap Shot]

Is that how the Marshall Plan worked out? Must be something wrong with my history books. I guess Japan has been a real wasteland of insurrection and violence over the past 70 years as well.

You can't seriously effing think that's a relevant reply.

[Rover]

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

I've not seen any indication of spec op teams doing much more than guarding the embassy in Baghdad and other installations and US personnel in other Iraqi cities. I'm talking about actively seeking out and eradicating the ISIS leadership and command structure, whether in Iraq or Syria. Of course, he'd have to get Congressional approval for that.

As for Sic's suggestion, not a bad idea, but not totally necessary. The limited airstrikes have been, well, limited in their effectiveness. Bush 41 undersecretary of defense Jed Babbin has a better idea:



Time to bring the A-10 Warthog back to operational status!

You do realize the special forces probably aren't broadcasting their location live to Fox News but are more likely bagging enemy targets in secret so you wouldn't be too up to date on what they're doing?

But, to the larger point, bombing ISIS most effectively happens when the Kurds or the useless Iraqi armed forces are engaging with them. Randomly dropping bombs isn't going to work nearly as well as they'll most likely hide within the existing civilian population. Unfortunately for them, and fortunately for the rest of us, they have to come out when faced with an invading army. This however takes time as those forces slowly advance as this isn't a video game we're playing here. ISIS is getting what's coming to them, slowly but surely. If they weren't they wouldn't be trying the desparate tactic of killing reporter hostages in order to get the US to back off.

[FreshFish]

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

You can't seriously effing think that's a relevant reply.

Often it is helpful to look at what has worked well in the past and see what part of it can be replicated. The difference between those successes and the failures listed by Scooby could provide very useful contrasts that we all could learn from. (cf SJHovey post # 1057)

[ScoobyDoo]

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

Often it is helpful to look at what has worked well in the past and see what part of it can be replicated. The difference between those successes and the failures listed by Scooby could provide very useful contrasts that we all could learn from. (cf SJHovey post # 1057)

rotflmao

[Kepler]

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

Option 2 is the so-called Marshall Plan option that we apparently tried in Iraq. This option has had some proven success. However, as far as I can tell it really only works when the subjugated people is homogeneous, has you as it's common enemy. You beat them down, tell them to behave, help them get back on their feet financially, let them go. But if they can't get along with each other, let alone you, it won't work. As noted, you're just left with civil war.

It worked in Germany and Japan, both of which had developed their own technocratic class and the economic and educational institutions that supported it long before we ever got near them. Basically, it works as long as the nation has already made it on its own merits. It doesn't nation-build, it nation-restores.

[ScoobyDoo]

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

It worked in Germany and Japan, both of which had developed their own technocratic class and the economic and educational institutions that supported it long before we ever got near them. Basically, it works as long as the nation already has a history of productivity. It doesn't nation-build, it nation-restores.

Ding Ding Ding.