Rebel Wrote:

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:Only about 5 years late. We should have been doing more of this and less occupation for a long time.

Get in, kill the bad guys, get out. That needs to be our MO, not nation-building.

....and if we'd have left Germany after kicking their asses, we'd have yet another Hitler. Our policies after WWI allowed that to happen. Japan? Same damn way. I'm not a fan of nation-building, but it DOES serve a purpose.

You go to war with a country, beat the ever-living-**** out of'em, and just leave, you leave a nation of pissed off people. You're a smart guy. I don't know why that's hard to understand for you.

Our polices after WWI.. particular the Versaille treaty..likey caused Hitlers nationalism to connect with the people and thus his rise to power. Some say we shouldnt have been involved even the WWI and I wouldnt argue too strongly against that viewpoint.

We DO have a history of being our OWN worst enemy when coming to foriegn policy gaffes.

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought, "No way, Arnold took out the Predator a long time ago".

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

cb4029 Wrote:Why do we keep tracking these guys like it matters. Once we kill Osama Bin Laden, there will be 1000 guys ready to step up and lead. Nothing will change.

What's to say he's not dead now. Do you hear anyone talking about him anymore?

Lord Stanley Wrote:Cause I think (wonder) if the promise of American citizenship and $5 mil, plus the support of, for instance, the Witness Protection Program, would be quite attractive. Especially to a ISI agent with a little overheard intel. As trite as this sounds, a little gas station / c-store in Helena, MT or Greenville, SC wouldn't be such a bad life.


Hell, lets cash in some world chits and say the guy is living in the States as an American citizen, with $5 mil in his pocket. But he is actually living in New Zealand / Scotland / Hong Kong with twice the cash and and a brand new Kiwi passport.

The guy that dropped the dime on Uday and Qusay Hussein up in Mosul back in 2003 pocketed a $30 million reward AND a Green Card....

ETSUfan1 Wrote:

cb4029 Wrote:Why do we keep tracking these guys like it matters. Once we kill Osama Bin Laden, there will be 1000 guys ready to step up and lead. Nothing will change.

What's to say he's not dead now. Do you hear anyone talking about him anymore?

I don't worry about about UBL so much... he is just the figurehead and ideological leader.

The "jackpot" is Ayman Zawahiri. His cell is the "brains" of the outfit. He runs the operations.

For years we have always got the AQ #3... We have killed or captured Atef, Abu Zubaydah, and KSM. We need #2...

Getting Zawahiri and his infrastructure could collapse the entire network.

cb4029 Wrote:Why do we keep tracking these guys like it matters. Once we kill Osama Bin Laden, there will be 1000 guys ready to step up and lead. Nothing will change.

The reason that there are presently "1000 guys" ready to step is that we have not focused sufficiently on taking out the top guys. Once they know we are seriously intent on shortening their life expectancy, the position will lose some of its appeal. These guys are not heroes. They hide behind women and children, remember.

Perhaps more importantly, in order to pull off anything major these cells rely on a cadre of non-doctrinaire mercenary technocrats. Think Jackal if you saw either version of the movie, to give you an idea of their mindset. If these guys get the idea that we are seriously pursuing the top dogs, that looks to them like too much heat in the kitchen and they bail. A-Q still exists, but at a much lower level of capability. I read an articlle in the Sydney paper in Nov 2003 which addressed this and suggested that they had all bailed out after our initial flurry of action but that the longer we went without getting Osama, the more likely they were to reassociate and restrengthen A-Q.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:Because of my military background and experience in the Middle East, people have asked me how I think we should find Osama bin Laden.

Take our best intel. I'm guessing we probably know where he is within a 20-mile radius or so. Go into the first village in the area, knock on the door of the first house, and ask the guy who answers the door where Osama is. He says he doesn't know. We kill him and everybody else in the house, and burn down the house. Go to the second house, repeat. On the way to the third house, the head of that household meets us in the front yard with a map.

There are people who know where Osama is. They don't tell us because they also know (1) we won't kill them if they don't, and (2) he will kill them if they do. We can only change one of those perceptions. That's hard for Americans to do, because our culture doesn't operate that way. But if we plan on ever winning this "war on terrorism" we are going to have to learn how.

Tsk tsk. You didn't learn anything from My Lai, did you?

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:If these guys get the idea that we are seriously pursuing the top dogs, that looks to them like too much heat in the kitchen and they bail. A-Q still exists, but at a much lower level of capability. I read an articlle in the Sydney paper in Nov 2003 which addressed this and suggested that they had all bailed out after our initial flurry of action but that the longer we went without getting Osama, the more likely they were to reassociate and restrengthen A-Q.

I read something similar. AQ was expecting large scale cross border raids into Pakistan after Tora Bora, or maybe a hammer-anvil operation.

But it never happened...

3 months later they were crossing back into Afghnistan and that gave rise to Anaconda in early 2002.

Right now I don't think any High Value AQ leadership target is residing in an above-ground dwelling within 20 miles of the Afghan border. That is just asking for a Hellfire missile to come in your window.

Pedators are hard to spot. to begin with.

perunapower Wrote:Tsk tsk. You didn't learn anything from My Lai, did you?

Sure we did.

You don’t do that type of persuasion on an indiscriminate basis.

You use it on the people that have the information, or know who has the information.

You use verifiable intelligence to get you “in the ballpark” and then “refine” the data using whatever methods the Rules of Engagement allow.

If the carrot doesn’t work, use the stick.

But you always make sure the person being questioned knows that he has an option to make any unpleasantness “go away" by giving accurate information (which of course will be verified)

Is the resurgance of the Taliban mostly a home-grown phenomena or is it fueled to a large extent by Al Qaeda and others coming in from Iraq or elsewhere outside of Afganistan? It seemed like before the surge, when we cracked down in one location they just shifted their forces to a less well defended location. Has this happened on an even larger scale?

WMD Owl Wrote:

perunapower Wrote:Tsk tsk. You didn't learn anything from My Lai, did you?

Sure we did.

You don’t do that type of persuasion on an indiscriminate basis.

You use it on the people that have the information, or know who has the information.

You use verifiable intelligence to get you “in the ballpark” and then “refine” the data using whatever methods the Rules of Engagement allow.

If the carrot doesn’t work, use the stick.

But you always make sure the person being questioned knows that he has an option to make any unpleasantness “go away" by giving accurate information (which of course will be verified)

Thanks for picking me up.

WMD Owl Wrote:

ETSUfan1 Wrote:

cb4029 Wrote:Why do we keep tracking these guys like it matters. Once we kill Osama Bin Laden, there will be 1000 guys ready to step up and lead. Nothing will change.

What's to say he's not dead now. Do you hear anyone talking about him anymore?

I don't worry about about UBL so much... he is just the figurehead and ideological leader.

The "jackpot" is Ayman Zawahiri. His cell is the "brains" of the outfit. He runs the operations.

For years we have always got the AQ #3... We have killed or captured Atef, Abu Zubaydah, and KSM. We need #2...

Getting Zawahiri and his infrastructure could collapse the entire network.

and Zawahiri is known to have an operational relationship with....Saddam and his govt. i.e. a "State Sponsor of Terrorism", one of many links. Iraq wasn't a diversion from the 'good war'.

that said, AQ is just one leg of this beast we are confronting. This is a Global War, of Ideology and force. Iraq and Afghanistan have just been battlefields and infrastructure killers for AQ.

We still have Hezzbollah, Hamas and other legs of the Muslim Brotherhood to deal with and to do with the current Islamic Baby Boom, not to mention Iran and their Hidden Imam theology.

Its a Global War, the world is getting smaller practically speaking as we are as interconnected as ever.

This thread would be much more exciting if "The Predator" had taken out the terrorists.

So if we eliminate the Islamic terrorist threat, or negate it, what takes its place in the void? Are we back to state-sponsored terrorism? Will there be peace in our time?

I personally think China's sabre is rusting in it's sheath, and is itching for a rattle. A successful Olympics (TBD) will really swell nationalist pride.......

perunapower Wrote:Tsk tsk. You didn't learn anything from My Lai, did you?

Rereading this, I think you missed my point.

My point was not to advocate going into a village and killing people until someone fessed up. My point was that if we planned to "win" this war, at some point that's what we are going to have to do.

That is the reality, and so far we haven't faced up to that. If one asks how the strongest military power in the world can fail to succeed in this endeavour, my answer is quite simply that we aren't fighting in a way that will succeed. And that is a lesson that is hard for Americans to discern, from My Lai, or from the entire war in Vietnam, or from the other "limited" engagements that we have fought. We want everybody to think "western" because we do, and we know the superiority of that approach; unfortunately, most of the world, including this particular part of it, shares neither our "western" way of thinking nor our belief that it is superior.

To reiterate, we have three options:
1. Continue to fight this war as a western nation, following western principles, and in so doing squander all the material and numerical advantages, and lose.
2. Abandon the war as a lost cause.
3. Adopt eastern thinking and eastern fighting principles, giving us a chance to win.

I would call #1 "staying the course," and would state my unequivocal opinion that it is the worst of the three options. I believe you would agree with me on that.

I would describe #2 as the alternative being pushed by most democrats. It is a better solution to the immediate pressing concerns than #1, if for no other reason that we don't have American soldiers being killed every week. Unfortunately, it leaves a number of issues unaddressed and unanswered. Are we willing to abandon any pretense of exercising influence in a part of the world from which comes a significant portion of a commodity (oil) upon which the entire world economy depends? One thing to note is that the majority of that commodity which comes from this area goes to other nations than ourselves. If the Japanese, Chinese, Indians, and Western Europeans do not feel compelled to maintain military presence in this area to protect their interests, should we?

Option #3 is one that we have not looked at objectively as a nation. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that it is an option, and that if we plan to have an active role in Middle Eastern affairs going forward, at some point we are going to have to elevate this to our "active list" of possible responses.

As a libertarian, I would strongly favor non-intervention in the affairs of other nations. Option #2 is simliar but also somewhat different, because we no longer have the option of never having intervened in the first place. As a realist, I believe we may have dug ourselves into such a hole in several places that we may have to resort to a bit of option #3 in order to extricate ourselves. If so, that needs to be a very short-term solution. I don't see #1 as viable in either the short or long runs.

Interesting that you mention My Lai. I could have written these same words about Vietnam. I certainly spoke them, or their equivalent, to many at the time. "Never fight a war that you don't intend to win," was what I was saying then, and what I am saying now.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:To reiterate, we have three options:
1. Continue to fight this war as a western nation, following western principles, and in so doing squander all the material and numerical advantages, and lose.
2. Abandon the war as a lost cause.
3. Adopt eastern thinking and eastern fighting principles, giving us a chance to win.

I would call #1 "staying the course," and would state my unequivocal opinion that it is the worst of the three options. I believe you would agree with me on that.

Nope. I don't agree. I do believe that limited warfare has led to quagmires like Vietnam and Iraq, but I don't think we should go around killing civilians in order to intimidate information out of their neighbors. Call me a bleeding heart, but I don't think that's respectable warfare. Just because our enemies are cowards doesn't mean we should stoop to their level of cowardice, which I think that's what Option #3 is.

Quote:Interesting that you mention My Lai. I could have written these same words about Vietnam. I certainly spoke them, or their equivalent, to many at the time. "Never fight a war that you don't intend to win," was what I was saying then, and what I am saying now.

We lost in Vietnam for many reasons, not just because of our limited military action. Our government officials had little knowledge of Southeast Asia. We supported a pretty ruthless leader in Ngo Dinh Diem, just because he was Catholic, after we partitioned Vietnam into two parts in the early 60s. Madame Nhu, the de facto first lady, mocked the Buddhist suicides as "barbecues". We didn't make many friends by supporting this guy.

Our foreign political blunders stoked so much anti-American sentiment that we crippled ourselves before we really escalated the war.

With your Option #3, we would draw domestic and international outrage that would have irreversible consequences. It would provide be the spark to draw new recruits to anti-West and anti-American terrorist cells.

It is my belief that civilian casualties should be avoided at all costs. This perverted new form of pillaging would make us more enemies than it would cause us to capture.

You believe what you believe because your thought process is western. The people in that part of the world don't think that way. You allude to this in your comment about our leaders not understanding Southeast Asia. I'm not saying what's right or wrong. I'm asking you to look at things a different way and then make the decision.

We think it's the right thing to build schools and hospitals and roads and bridges and water treatment plants and to try to liberate their women. The mullahs tell them these things violate the will of Allah, and at least the most extreme ones believe that.

We think that it's a good thing to bring democracy to Iraq. They don't have the social and economic institutions to deal with it. I would predict that shortly after we pull out, whoever is in the majority will take over and try to rule as a dictatorship. My guess is that one reason Maliki has expressed support for the Obama timetable is that the sooner we get out, the sooner he can take over. If Maliki is not strong enough (and I think he probably is not), then someone else will. If so, then we have accomplished exactly nothing with our entire effort.

We've constantly gotten ourselves in trouble by looking at everything through western eyes and being surprised when other people don't. If we limit ourselves to "respectable warfare" with western rules of engagement, then we will always lose in the east. A decison to pull out of Iraq tomorrow, and indeed to pull out of the entire Middle East, is consistent with that view. I believe you favor pulling out, and that's at least an intellecually honest position.

I think you are trying to debate an issue that I'm not debating with you. I'm just saying that if we are going to continue to fight "respectably," then we need to call this war a loss and come home now. If we want to stay and accomplish anything, then we are going to have to allow some things that aren't "respectable" in western terms.

What I have a problem with is sacrificing Americans in an effort that is doomed to fail because we have unilaterally taken off the table those things that would allow us to succeed.

perunapower Wrote:

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:To reiterate, we have three options:
1. Continue to fight this war as a western nation, following western principles, and in so doing squander all the material and numerical advantages, and lose.
2. Abandon the war as a lost cause.
3. Adopt eastern thinking and eastern fighting principles, giving us a chance to win.

I would call #1 "staying the course," and would state my unequivocal opinion that it is the worst of the three options. I believe you would agree with me on that.

Nope. I don't agree. I do believe that limited warfare has led to quagmires like Vietnam and Iraq, but I don't think we should go around killing civilians in order to intimidate information out of their neighbors. Call me a bleeding heart, but I don't think that's respectable warfare. Just because our enemies are cowards doesn't mean we should stoop to their level of cowardice, which I think that's what Option #3 is.

Quote:Interesting that you mention My Lai. I could have written these same words about Vietnam. I certainly spoke them, or their equivalent, to many at the time. "Never fight a war that you don't intend to win," was what I was saying then, and what I am saying now.

We lost in Vietnam for many reasons, not just because of our limited military action. Our government officials had little knowledge of Southeast Asia. We supported a pretty ruthless leader in Ngo Dinh Diem, just because he was Catholic, after we partitioned Vietnam into two parts in the early 60s. Madame Nhu, the de facto first lady, mocked the Buddhist suicides as "barbecues". We didn't make many friends by supporting this guy.

Our foreign political blunders stoked so much anti-American sentiment that we crippled ourselves before we really escalated the war.

With your Option #3, we would draw domestic and international outrage that would have irreversible consequences. It would provide be the spark to draw new recruits to anti-West and anti-American terrorist cells.

It is my belief that civilian casualties should be avoided at all costs. This perverted new form of pillaging would make us more enemies than it would cause us to capture.

There's an ethical issue that exists in most of Asia that we have not had to deal with in western Judeo-Christian philosophy, dating back to the time of the Promised Land.

In most of south Asia, there has historically never been enough food to go around. It can be because of overpopulation (India, China) or lack of productive agriculture (Arabia, Iran), or sometimes both (Pakistan, Bangladesh). This means that unless some of us die, there won't be enough to keep any of us alive. Therefore, we need an ethical way to figure out who has to die so that the rest of us can live. China is currently addressing it by deciding who can't be born in the first place (multiple children). In that framework, the sanctity of human life which is so critical to Judeo-Christian simply cannot and does not exist.

That's a very different frame of reference for viewing things like suicide bombings, or a lot of the other issues we face in that part of the world today.