Comments Posted By B.Poster
Displaying 181 To 190 Of 397 Comments
SENATE SUGGESTS TELLING THE JIHADIS WHEN WE'RE LEAVING
Dick Tuck
I agree with you that President Bush is a bad president but here is a prediction for you. Bush will sign the bill or the Bush administration will reach a compromise with Congress where Congress gets most of what they want. Still it is hard to believe either Congress or the Administration would play these games while Iran is making the moves they are making. This indicates to me that virtually no one in the halls of power in the US or its allies understand the gravity of the threat we face. After all, if our allies got it, they would put pressure on the Administration and Congress to reach an accomodation.
President Bush especially does not seem to grasp the nature of the threat. This bill, for all its flaws with the pork, funds the troops. If the troops in Iraq are allowed to run out funding, they could become vunerable to an Iranian attack. Even if the troops are fully funded, Iran is a very formidable foe. If the troops don't have the resources they need, they would be vunerable to being routed by the Iranians.
Even if the President insists on the veto, The supporters of the bill will probably make concesions to backers of the President to get them to switch sides. They may put more pork in the bill or something. As a result of the compromises, the binding timetable for withdrawl from Iraq will remain in the bill and a veto proof bill will arrive on the President's desk, so that if he vetoes it Congress will over ride the veto and the troops will get the funding they need.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 29.03.2007 @ 00:20
Gill
Thanks for the reply to my post. For the US to have any chance of achieving all three goals of, 1.) an Iraq that is allied with the US in the GWOT, 2.) an Iraq that is stable, and 3.) an Iraq that is a representative Democracy will require a mass infusion of more troops either from the US or its coalition partners. Colin Powell and others were right when they suggested that we needed overwhelming force. The problem is we can't get the type force structure we need. The military simply is not big enough nor are the American people or our willing to make this kind of commitment.
To continue the current strategy is just slow motion defeat and by the time we are defeated we would no longer have a military capable of defending the American homeland. It seems to me that it would be better to withdraw now and secure our borders. In all likely hood this is an enemy who will follow us home. Also we need to focus more on the biggest threats of Russia and China. Withdrawl may buy us some time to rebuild our military. Also. we would do well to develop more of our own oil and gas reserves.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 29.03.2007 @ 00:00
Roderick
I never gave any suggestion that I am a "right-wing type." I don't think there is a military answer to every thing. Also I don't think every thing has a diplomatic answer either. The strategy employed by many of our enemies whether they are Islamists or communists sems to be try and tie us up in endless diplomacy while they get stronger. A proper foreign policy will focus on both diplomatic and military efforts. Perhaps with better human intellegence we can identify more Arab "moderates" and provide support for them. This is another area the US is very weak in. American human intellegence is not very good. With better human intellegence capabilities we may be able infiltrate our enemies and prevent attacks from occurring. In time, this would serve to lessen the need to use the military.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 28.03.2007 @ 19:04
Roderick
Thanks for the reply to my post.
"How long do you think it will take to obtain this goal and how much money do you think the American taxpayers are willing to spend to obtain this unrealistic goal?" I honestly don't know how long it will take to obtain this goal. As I recall from someone who was a boy during WWII, many American leaders thought it could take twenty years or longer to defeat Nazi Germany. I would be willing to give it as long as it takes but the American people must be behind it. Right now they are not. Unfortunately the Administration has not done a very good job of explaining the stakes and the main stream media has been no help at all either. For a variety of reasons, I don't think the media or the Administration get it.
As for how much money the American taxpayers would be willing to spend, we spent over a trillion dollars adjusted for inflation during WWII. We have not spent that much on the GWOT yet. To date, in American history, we spent more on WWII than on any war we have fought. The current enemies of Iran and Al Qaeda pose a far greater threat to the American homeland than Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan ever did or likely ever could have. Also, we are only spending about 2% of the economy on military operations right now. During WWII, Korea, and Vietnam a much higer perecentage of our economy was spent on the war efforts. If the Administration will explain the stakes, they could probably get the American people on board. The bottom line is you spend what ever it will take and I don't think the goal is unobtainable. Failing to achieve the goal laid out previously likely means conceding the country to Iran, Al Qaeda, or some combination of them. If this happens, American national security and probably the very survival of the country could be placed in grave danger. You don't win a war against an enemy who poses an survival threat to your country by conceding ground, especially when we don't have to. If Al Qaeda and/or Iran are allowed to gain complete control of Iraq, they would have an oil rich country as a base of operations. This would make an already formidable foe much more formidable. By withdrawing from Iraq now, it may actually mean we have to spend more on national defense, at least in the short term, as our enemies will be in a much stronger position than they are now. Its hard to tell. With that said, in the long term, we could help ourselves greatly by developing more of our own oil and gas reserves, by implementing tough fuel efficieny standards, and having a more sensible immigration policy. At a minimum, there needs to be a moratorium on immigration from Arab lands.
"Would you support a return of the draft because that is the only way you could get that amount of troops that you need for all of these missions?" Right now the American people would not support all of these missions so I'm thinking long range. Assuming we withraw from Iraq without achieving a situation where Iraq is stable and allied with the US in the GWOT an enemy who already poses an existential threat to the US will probably gain control of the country and American security will be in even more dire straits than it is currently in. Those additional trained and well armed troops will probably be needed to defend the homeland. With that said the thought did cross my mind. You see, in order to win the GWOT decisively, the regimes in Iran, Syria, and Pakistan are probably going to need to be removed. This will require a much more more potent force structure than we currently have. Also, we will need to keep close tabs on Russia and China. In any event, the US faces a survival threat. If this is not dealt with now, it will only grow even more dangerous. I think we need to have the proper force structure to meet the looming threats of the 21st century. This will probably require a draft. Even if we are not going to use them for foreign missions, they can and should be used for border security.
I was not aware that General Petraeus only gave the "surge" a 1 in 4 chance of working. Frankly, had I been the President or a member of Congress, I would have told him to go back to the drawing board and come up with a plan that has better odds and if you can't or won't we will find someone else for the job. Congress whether they are Democrats or Republicans are not in the business to give the President the man he wants. They are there to evaluate the candidates based on their qualifications and confirm the candidate accordingly. In other words, they are not in the business to rubber stamp presidential appointees. Personally I think President Bush is the worst President in US history. I think he is certainly worthy of impeachment. I hope and pray we can make the surge work between now and 8/31/08 because this is how much time we have. If we fail, this will probably be catastrophic for American security interests.
With all of this said sometimes the optimal policy cannot be implemented. I'm going to suggest a policy that we should acutally be able to do. 1.) Develop more of our own oil and gas reserves. 2.) Implement tough fuel efficiency standards. Much of the money from our foreign oil purchases is finding its way into the hands of our enemies. Doing these two things will greatly limit the amount of money available to our enemies. This should hamper their ability to wage war on America and the West. 3.) Secure the borders, place a moratorium on immigrants from Muslim lands, and closely monitor the mosques. If we do these things, in time, we should be able to defeat our enemies. We may even be able to do it without firing another shot. Actually these suggestions are all good ideas regardless of the situation elsewhere in the world. In fact, we should have implemented these things right after 911.
Given that we are unlikely to get the resources we need to deliver a decisive defeat the Jihadists in Iraq, it would probably be best to pull back to Kurdish areas and only intervene in the Iraqi Civil war to try and prevent Al Qaeda from gaining control of the country and to attempt roll back the influence of Iran.
Is leaving US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan indefinitely the only way to contain Iran? We practiced a policy that included containment against the Soviet Union for almost fifty years. I would hope and pray this one does not take as long but it could. Perhaps it could take longer.
How do we fight this threat? You are right that this never gets discussed enough. First we have to understand that the enemy poses an existential threat to the US. This enemy is every bit as dangerous to the US as Nazi Germany was. Perhaps even more dangerous. Nazi Germany had no realistic chance of attacking the American homeland successfully, at least not when we joined WWII they did not. This enemy can successfully attack the American homeland. They can even defeat America. This is especially apparent when we factor in their alliances with Russia and China. President Bush did say we will fight a different war. What I think the biggest mistake was we did not use enough troops and we never corrected that problem. I tend to agree with your assessment of "doo doo bird Bush", however, regardless of what he is or what we think of him or his Administration the US still faces an enemy who poses an existential threat to it. This will remain so whether he is impeached or not. To fight this enemy, I would begin by increasing the size and strength of the military. I would enhance border security and I would implement a more sensible immigration policy. Also, I would open up all of domestic oil and supplies for drilling. In addition, I would implement tough fuel efficiency standards. Fianlly, I would withdraw from Iraq without delay. The American people are unwilling to support our continued involvement there. We need to take whatever time this will buy us to strengthen our military so we are ready for them when they try to attack the "Great Satan." If I'm wrong about them and they don't attack, then we have a strong military deterent against anyone who would consider attacking us!!
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 28.03.2007 @ 18:51
Roderick
The criteria for eventual withdrawl from Iraq should be after we have established a government that is allied with the US in the GWOT and is stable. If we are not going to make an effort to do this, then we should withdraw to "fortress America" straight away.
It is going to be very difficult to root out Iran's influence. The best we may be able to do is to contain it in much the same way that we contained the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
I don't smoke. Smoking is for fundamentally unserious people. You are correct that Bush has played politics with the military. I have called for him impeachment on this site and others. Whether Bush has played politics with the military or not does not alter the fact that the US faces an enemy who poses an existential threat to it. I also agree that the size of the military should be increased. I don't think 96,000 is nearly enough. I think we should go on a war footing simillar to the mobilization we did for WWII. Even if these additional troops are not used in Iraq, they will likely be needed somewhere. They will probably be needed for homeland defense.
When the Democrats voted to confirm General Petraeus they should have known full well what his strategy would be. An anti-war position is an honorable one, however, the way the Democrats have gone about it is questionable. They should simply vote to cut off funds immediately and bring the troops home and they should not have voted to confirm General Petraeus. The Democrats, like President Bush, seem to be playing politics with this.
Finally, Republicans may be dispicable vermin. Democrats may be dispicable vermin or they may be angels. The fact still remains that the US is in a fight for its survival. Conceeding Iraq to Al Qaeda, Iran, or some combination of those two will make an enemy who poses an existential threat to the US even more formidable. No matter how bad Bush or the Democrats are we cannot afford to allow ourselves to be distracted.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 28.03.2007 @ 10:54
Rick
I think you are one of the best bloggers on the internet, however, there is a part of your analysis that I very respectfully think you got wrong. You write: "Even though the American people support the idea of a timetable for withdrawl, the troops in the field only have enough funding through April 15th. After that things start to get dicey for the troops and pressure will mount on the Democrats to give in to Bush in order to fund the troops. Do they dare play chicken with the Commander in Chief on Chief by refusing a bill he can sign."
Very respectfully I think a more accurate representation would be as follows: The American people support a timetable for withdrawl. The troops in the field only have enough funding through Apil 15th. After that things start to get dicey for the troops and pressure will mount on President Bush to give in to the Democrats in order to fund the troops. Does President Bush dare play chicken with Congress by refusing to sign whatever bill they send him that will fund the troops.
Unfortunately both sides may have stepped to far out on a proverbial ledge. They may think they cannot reach an acceptable compromise and save face. In the mean time, our troops get screwed. Also, if things should get dicey for the troops, Iran may choose this time to launch their attack. It is truly sad to see both major political parties playing politics with our troops during the middle of a war for our survival. I think most of them either can't or won't grasp the stakes.
John McCain had this about right when he pointed out that setting a timetable "risks a catastrophe for American national security interests." Unfortunately few people are listening. If the US withdraws from Iraq to quickly, Al Qaeda, Iran, or some combination of them will gain control of the country. If the US continues with this "Democracy" thing, Iran may use the democratic process to gain control of the country. They have already gained significant influence within Iraq. Its hard to see how having Al Qaeda and/or Iran gaining control of Iraq could have a good ending for the US. This becomes even worse now that both political parties have decided to play politics with the military. This is truly disgusting.
The bottom line is President Bush and the Republicans will likely have to accept the binding resolution for a date certain for withdrawl of the troops from Iraq. This is going to make American national security far more difficult. We will just have to win the Global War on Terror some other way. Sometimes the optimal policy cannot be implemented. We must stick to policies we can implement.
I suggest the following: 1.)Secure the borders. Halt all immigration from Muslim lands. The mosques will need to be monitored closely, after all we know which groups that terrorists are likely to be from. Common sense would seem to suggest that these groups should be watched closely. 2.) The US is sitting on about 140 billion barrels of recoverable oil under its land and off of its coasts. We should immediately begin to develop this oil. If we do this, we can limit some of the money that is available to our enemies. In time, we may be able to defeat them without ever firing another shot!!
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 27.03.2007 @ 22:13
ARE WE DAYS AWAY FROM WAR WITH IRAN?
Mark
I think you may be right there. I suspected this myself. Also, Russia fans the flames of anti-Americanism by spreading the lie that the US will attack Iran. The only way the US or its allies attack Iran will be if Iran or its proxies attack the American home land or American interests outside of the Middle East.
We do seem to be being played for fools by Russia. As a result of the invasion of Iraq, the price of oil has risen to very high levels. This has served to enrich Russia who is the most dangerous enemy of the US and Western Europe. Somewhere Putin and the guys in the Kremlin must be laughing their heads off at us.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 26.03.2007 @ 22:46
The only way the US will take military action against Iran will be if Iran or its proxies attack the American homeland or American interests outside of the Middle East. What to make of the increased activity? I suspect it is either false reporting by the media wishing to fan the flames of Anti-Americanism or we may have receirved information that we deem to be credible that an attack by Iran or its proxies on the Aemrican homeland or American interests outside of the Middle East is imminent. In this case, we sould want our military assets to be properly positioned to take appropiate action.
This would be the only way Romania, Bulgaria, or anyone else would allow their territory to be used to launch a military operation against Iran. If they allow their territory to be used by the US to engage in military operations against Iran, they will become a target for Iran or its proxies. With the desire of appeasement that currently grips the world, the only way they would assist the US in this manner would be if the US presented clear evidence of an imminent Iranian attack.
While the US will not be taking military action against Iran until after Iran attacks it, Israel is a different matter. A nuclear armed Iran would be very dangerous to the US but it is something we probably could manage, however, due to its small size and its close proximity to Iran combined with Iran's hatred of Israel a nuclear armed Iran is an existential threat to Israel. The Israelis will have no choice but to act preemptively to take out this threat.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 25.03.2007 @ 20:53
DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU ON THE WAY OUT
Drongo
I don't trust my elected leaders much either. The problem with only a defensive strategy is you never gain any ground. The enemy who is constantly playing offense will eventually defeat you. So a defensive only strategy will eventually lead to the defeat of the US. If the US is defeated, Western Europe would likely not be far behind.
Frankly the US and the West face an existential threat. To allow Al Qaeda, Iran or some combination of them to gain control of Iraq would place United States survival in grave danger. At a minimum, failure to achieve a situation where Iraq is stable and allied with the US in the global war on terrorism will mean the end of the US as a major power. It will in all likelyhood place the survival of the country in grave danger. As the survival of the US is placed in grave danger, so is the survival of Western civilization. A country and a civilization simply cannot survive by constantly appeasing its enemies. We should have learned this after WWII. With all of this said, a purely defensive strategy may be the only one we can implement. This would mean stalling for time and pray for the best. Hopefully we can somehow survive.
As for Alberto Gonzales, it appears he lied. He should step down or be removed from his office, however, this will not change the fact that the US faces an existential threat from Al Qaeda and its allies. The US faced an existential threat from Al Qaeda long before Gonzales became the AG and the US will face an existential threat after he leaves office. Unfortunately we have allowed us to become distracted.
The US and Western civilization face an existential threat and they should begin to conduct themselves accordingly. As it is, the last I heard we have been unable to get NATO members to honor their committments to Afghanistan. Western civilization is fundamentally unserious. Eventually we will get serious but it may be too late.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 28.03.2007 @ 09:01
Drongo
I don't plan to watch "24". Don't have time. TV is for largely unserious folks. Actually, from Rick's summaries of the show, it seems to me that the producers of the show do not grasp the gravity of the threat that Islamic extremists pose to the US.
If you support the nations of Iran and Syria who support the Islamists this is the same as supporting the terrorists they support. Russia actively supports every major enemy of the US. Also, the Islamists seem to largely ignore Chechnya, at least those in Iran and Syria do. The Communists and the Islamists are drawn together becuase of mutual enemies. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" seems to be the philosphy. The notion that the Islamists and the Russians hate one another does not seem to be accurate. At least their actions seem to indicate that they are close friends. Russia has the best intellegence agency on earth. I find it highly implausible that these guys can't track down Chechen terrorists. I suspect the Russians may be arming the Chechens and using them as an excuse to establish a police state. It also serves as a good excuse for them to mobilize their formidable military machine. Russian defector Alexander Litvenenko tried to warn of things like this. He was assainated.
How would they occupy you? As I stated they could inflict enough damage to make in the initial attack to make resistance all but impossible. Their invasion would not be with the use of precision weapons, in an attempt to minimize civilian casualties, the way the US and its allies have done in Afghanistan and Iraq. Due to the lax readiness of the US nuclear arsenal, an American response would be problematic at best.
Why would they occupy you? I'm not sure they would. They could reduce much of the country, if not all of it, to an uninhabitable radioactive zone. This would accomplish their goal of being the world's sole power. Russia already is the most powerful country in the world, however, China is gaining on them. With the US out of the way they would have no rival for the foreseeable future. Since the Americans thought the Cold War ended, the readiness and the effectiveness of the nuclear deterrent has been allowed to erode. In contrast, Russia has been testing their nuclear arsenal and has made significant upgrades to it. Russia now has the most advanced nuclear arsenal in the world.
The US has no plans to occupy Russia. Even if it wanted to its military is inadequate to perform that task.
I don't think MAD is applicable here. A Russian invasion would not come by ships. It would likely come by nuclear weapons launched by submarines and by land based ICBM silos. The US would have only minutes to respond. Due to the poor nature of US human intellegence and the low level of readiness that the US currently has it is highly questionable whether the US would have time to respond. The ships might come later, should the Russians choose to occupy the country. Obviously an occupying force would need bio protection suits. I suspect that if there is a covert force in the US they probably already have these suits.
The problem with the command and control structures of the US is they are not sufficiently protected to withstand even a suit case nuclear attack, much less an all out attack from a major power like Russia or China. The Russians and the Chinese have worked to harden their command and control structures in recent years. The US and Western Europe lag behind the Russians and Chinese in these efforts.
"What do you mean by win?" What I mean by winning is eliminating the ability of the Islamic terrorists and their Communist allies to pose an existential threat to the US. Currently these groups pose a survival threat to America. This cannot be allowed to continue. If they did succeed in taking out the US, Western Europe and anyone else who was even remotely allied with the US probably would not be far behind. That is unless they surrendered.
I should point out that George W. Bush's idea of victory seems to be a little different than mine. He seems to want to establish "democracy" throughout the Middle East. Unfortunately the policies of the Bush Administration have been horribly inconsistent. I have already said I think Bush is the worst President in US history.
The effort will ultimately require extreme sacrifice. I would suggest a mobilization for war simillar to the one that was undertaken by the US and its Western European allies for WWII. Ultimately I expect the Americans and the Western Europeans to fight vigorously. Unfortunately by the time they wake up it may be to late. Western civilization is in a fight for its survival. It is time for Americans and Western Europeans to conduct themselves accordingly.
"How is fighting in Iraq helping you defeat the Islamists sleeper army in the US or the invading Russians?" In my previous post, I don't recall taking a stance for or against the Iraq war. In any event the way the Bush Administration and America's allies are fighting the war it is not helping, in fact, it seems to be making things worse, however, it could help us, if fought properly.
The lift cost per barrel of Iraqi oil is less than the lift cost per barrel of Russian, Saudi, or Iranian oil. If we could bring stability to the country, we could flood the market with Iraqi oil. This would cut into the revenue of Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. This would go a long way toward neutralizing their ability to harm American interests. It would also hamper their ability to support terrorists. In addition to this, establishing security would go a long toward giving representative democracy the space it needs to give it a chance to work. If we could get a democratic ally out of Iraq the benefits to us and Western Europe would be fabulous. Even if it is not a demcocray a secure allied Iraq would be of enormous benefit to us and Western Europe.
With that said a plan no matter how good it may be on paper has to be one that can be implemented. The kind of commitment that it would take to achieve the above mentioned outcome requires more of a committment than the American people, Congress, America's allied, or even the Bush Administration are willing to make. Given that current realities make it impossible to achieve many of the goals mentioned above, it would be best to try another approach. It would probably have been better to have not invaded Iraq at all. I had my doubts going in.
As for an Iraq strategy going forward, I would suggest pulling Allied troops back to Kurdish areas and only intervene in the Iraqi Civil War to halt the spread of Al Qaeda or Iranian influence within the country. The primary goals for Iraq should be: 1.)Annihalte Al Qaeda in Iraq. 2.)Contain the influence of Iran within Iraq.
The above mentioned strategy may not work but it has the benefit of being something we can actually implement. What I would like to see done is a full mobilization for war. Then we would take out the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as the terrorist supporting governments of Iran and Syria. While doing this, we will need to be on guard for the Russians and Chinese. Ultimately this will be the only way to win but we cannot implement this policy right now. For now all we can do is stall for time until we can. When we finally wake up I pray it will not be to late.
This thread was supposed to be about Alberto Gonzales. The point I'm trying to make with this is as follows, so far, George W. Bush has been a horrible president. I think he has been the worst president in US history. He may even be despicable person. He may even be evil. His entire administration may be the most evil and corrupt in American history, however, regardless of what he or his advisors are this will not change the fact that the US is in a fight for its survival. The enemies we currently fight in places like Afghanistan and Al Qaeda in Iraq, as well as their allies, posed an existential threat to the US before Bush came to power and even if he were impeached tonight they would still pose an existential threat to the US.
No matter what we think of President Bush we cannot allow ourselves to become distracted. The US and Western Civilization face an existential threat. The sooner they begin to conduct themsleves accordingly the better.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 27.03.2007 @ 19:10
