Comments Posted By B.Poster
Displaying 71 To 80 Of 397 Comments
Funny Man,
I did not suggest that Iran would be the odds on favorite in a war with the United States but they certainly can win. It would be the height of arrogance to think other wise. In fact, given the general lack of will among the American people and among the political elite and the worn down nature of the American armed forces I would say Iran has a very real chance of defeating the United States in a war.
Notice I never suggested that an invasion of Iran would be a good idea. I'm familiar with the argument that Iran has a young pro-Western population, however, I'm a little skeptical of such thinking. These people have been exposed a steady diet of "death to America" for their entire lives. Nevertheless for now I'm going to assume you are correct. As such, the question becomes how do we play for time until things can change while preventing the current rulers of the country from destroying us? My suggestion above sounds even better. This is especially so when the massive national debt and the worn down American military is factored in.
It may be true that the individuals you mention above favored a small invasion force. I'm not sure if they expected a long stay in Iraq. In any event, the way those men have been demonized in the media I don't think a fair evaluation of their performance is possible. These people had become lightning rods of controversy and were almost universially hated. As such, giving these people the boot was the only thing that could have been done by that point. According to General Franks he was the one who made the decisions on troop sizes. IF we were going to invade Iraq, we should have used enough troops to eliminate the government, secure the weapons caches, secure the borders, secure the ports, secure all known potential WMD sites, and secure the country. This would have probably required a minimum of 500,000 troops.
It's hard to be "seen" as an "honest broker" in the Israeli/Arab war when the media is not giving us a fair presentation. Our policy has been even handed and has generally favored the Arab side in the last fifteen years or so. Israel gets about 80% of its oil from Russia. If Russia were to cut this off, this would have a greater impact on Israel than the loss of financial and military aid from America would have. Since the Arabs seem at Israel and they must blame someone, they are mad at the wrong country!!
You are correct to point out that size matters. This is why Israel really needs these settlements. They act as a valuable buffer between Israel and its enemies. Without these settlements the point at which Isreal would need to consider drastic measures such as using nuclear weapons assuming Israel really has such weapons would come much sooner. As for the Arabs living there, Jordan and other Middle Eastern countries should be able to resettle them. They have plenty of room and resources available. A settlement that compromises Israel's defense is not going to be a good idea for Israel or us.
As I point out in the previous post, the best thing for America to do is to stay out of this. I don't think the Israeli/Arab conflict is our business any way. I suspect Israel will win. HAd we not acted to restrain Israel during its wars with Hezbollah and Hamas Israel would have likely delivered crushing defeats to both terrorist groups. This would have been an enormous benefit to America. Both Hezbollah and Hamas are bitter enemies of America.
I agree with you regarding energy efficiency. I did not mention this because much has already been done in this area. We need to do more on the other side and produce more. As for alternative energy sources, these would be helpful. I think I've mentioned it elsewhere on this site in other posts. The problem I have with it is a great deal of money has already been spent here with minimal results. I'm a bit uncomfortable about spending large sums of money here on something that so far hasn't yielded any real fruit when we have known technologies that work.
We may not have a choice but to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. We should do so, as soon as our transport planes can get our people out. The military is beginning to crack under the strain of continued operations in the Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in the Global War on Terror.
The other option is for our NATO allies to contribute more troops. If each NATO member put in 10,000 combat troops this would probably be enough. As for Iraq, this is winding down. We will be out of it by mid 2011 at the latest and probably much sooner. As such, more troops for Iraq probably are not needed unless they are requested by Iraq's soverign government.
To give an example of the precarious nature of the American military, I disrember the exact dates but I think it was late 2007 there were problems with the planes that defend the skies over Alaska from Russian penetration. Given the increased activity of the Russian Air Force, this defense is mission critical to American national security. The planes that would normally have filled in the gaps were being used in Iraq. We had to rely on the Canadian Air Force to plug the hole in Alaska!!
The choices are either pull out "hasitly" or get assistance from so called allies. Given the time it would take to get those troops in, I'm not sure the US military can hold the line for much longer. Ensuring stability for their countries is the job of Afghans and Iraqis. Securing America is the job of Americans. If we continue to run the military inot the ground, the ability of the military to carry out its most basic taks of defending the American homeland will be severly compromised, if it hasn't been already. America's position is even more precarious given the massive national debt.
Finally, in his post Rick points out that we may be in a situation where we are spending blood and treasure as long as we seek to maintain superpower status. With the advances that Russia and China have made to their militaries in recent years a "superpower" status has likely been lost, however, the US is still a major power. As I've pointed out before, the American people really do need to ask themselves, "do we want to be a major world power?" If the answer to this question is no, some expenditures may be unnecessary. Another good question to ask is "what will the world be like if America is no longer a major world power?" I certainly don't know the answer to that question.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 16.05.2009 @ 14:21
I meant to say that an indefinite moratorium on immigration from Muslim countries should be put in place. Also, I forgot to point out that the biggest problem with Iraq was a failur to use enough troops at the start. IF we were going to invade Iraq, we should have used at least 500,000 troops and probably more but as stated in the previous post I did not think invading Iraq to be a particularly good idea. Unfortunately poor planning and faulty intellegence compounded our problems.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 16.05.2009 @ 00:43
"Israel needs the United States more than we need them...." I don't think this is true. Israel is a highly advanced country. They would do fine without our assistance. In fact, I think they might do better without us. To often I think the US acts to restrain Israel. If we lose the alliance with Israel we lose a valuable source of intellegence and valuable technical expertise. As such, I think we need them far more than they need us.
"it takes time to mend fences after the neocon episode in Iraq..." The bottom line is our intellegence about many aspects of the Iraq war turned out to be wrong. Specifically WMD. Maybe the WMD was moved or maybe it did not exist. In any event, for largely political reasons the type of investigation that would be necessary to determine this is impossible. At least it cannot be done publically. In event sanctions had largely failed and the EU nations were on the take with the oil for food program. Perhaps if they were the ones being threatened they might have thought about this differently. Instead they were profiting. American lives were not particularly important in their calculations.
Please understand based upon what we knew at the time I probably would not have suggested that an invasion of Iraq would have been a good idea at the time it took place, however, I can understand why some would have supported it. To blame the affair on some sort of necon conspiracy I don't think is entirely helpful. While it is true that the necons along with many supported the invasion of Iraq for a variety of reasons, they were not any more important than anyone else nor did they have a more substantial role than many others in the planning or the execution.
When the Iraq war began the obhjectives were three fold. 1.)a Democratic Iraq, 2.) a stable Iraq, and 3.)an allied Iraq. This seemed to be the order of the goals. From the start, I thought this was mixed up. The order should have been an allied Iraq, a stable Iraq, and a Democratic Iraq. As it stands right now, we may be able to achieve a democratic and stable Iraq, however, it is unlikey Iraq will be strongly allied with us at this point. The best we can probably hope for here is that the the post Saddam-Iraq will not actively oppose American interests they way Iraq of the Saddam error did.
I think we may have been able to achieve all of our goals in Iraq had the media and various government officials actually worked to support the effort rather thna to try to undermine it but we may never know. Also, help from Western European nations would have certainly been helpful. They were getting richer off the oil for food progam. By their calculations Aemrican lives could be sacrificed to keep this going. Another possibility is that the Europeans were making so much money here they simply shut their eyes to the threat. They simply did not want to see the threat. If this is so, they are not the first nor will they be the last. While they surely feel some bitterness egged on by the press to a large degree about the "neocon episode in Iraq" some Americans feel a bit bitter about what seem to be their inceasent efforts to undermine our interests.
"I know it is fashionable to beat up on Europe in some conservative circles but that is stupid and shortsighted in my opinion." It is fashionable in many European cirlces to beat up on America. This works both ways. I agree it is shortsighted and stupid. We both must find a way around this. I think this should start with Western Europe. Unfortunately they don't seem ready to do this. There seems to be smug arrogance with many Western Europeans. They can never admit when they are wrong or acknowledge the role they play in certain misunderstandings. The Americans tend to be the exact opposite. We are to quick to apologize and make concessions when not warranted.
"While I support Israel and think we should honor our commitment to protect her it is not in our interest to alienate the whole Muslim world." If you protect Israel, you will alienate the Muslim world. I agree it is not in our interest ot alienate the entire Muslim world. Collectively they are far strogner than us. In fact, while not Muslim, Iran is a Middle Eastern country that is capable of taking on and defeating the United States in a military confrontation by itself. In fact, many people in the media and the Government who have obsesed about preventing an American attack on Iran have been worrying about the wrong thing. What they really need to be worrying about is preventing an Iranian attack on America!!
With regards to Israel I think our best bet would be to get out of Israel's way and allow them to defeat their enemies. In other words, don't meddle in their affairs. Currently they seem obsessed with maintaining the "special relationship." With Aemrica significantly weakened militarily by the ongoing operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in the Global War on Terrorism, a struggling economy, and a massive national debt I don't see them being particularly worried about the so called "special relationship" for much longer. If America plays its hand properly, it can have a strong ally in Israel that is able to operate completely independently of America.
With regards to national defense our best bet going forward would be to do the following: 1.)Withdraw all troops, equipment, and other military personnel from Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere throughout the world. 2.)Secure the borders. 3.) Place a moratorium on immigration for at least 10 years. This gives the people already here a chance to assimilate into our country and allows us time to fix our immigration system. Exceptions might be made for certain work visas but this needs to be closely monitored. Immigration from Muslim countries should be indefinite. 4.)Build more refineries and drill for all domestic oil and natural gas supplies on US land and off the US coasts. 5.)Expand and upgrade the nuclear arsenal. Doing these things would give us greater utility for our national security interests than invading Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other country ever would or likely ever could.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 16.05.2009 @ 00:33
Maybe we can get our "allies" ro honor their committments to NATO for Afghanistan. That would be an excellent start.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 15.05.2009 @ 23:17
Funny Man,
That might very well be the case, if in fact they are allies. The problem is they are heavily dependent on Russian and Middle Eastern oil. Also, the European Union and the nations that make it up typically seem to have tended to view the United States as a strategic competitor. As such, I don't think they are really allies.
In contrast, Israel acts as a buffer between the United States and the free world and Islamic terrorism. If Israel were not there, the terrorists assets would be deployed elsewhere. Probably more operations against Western Europe or the American main land. Also, America tends to get valuable intellegence on its enemies and potential enemies from Israel. As such, Israel is probably our most important ally. The European nations who are so called allies are at best fair weather friends. At worst, they are not even allies.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 15.05.2009 @ 23:13
Funny Man,
I'm not suggesting we lose sleep over them. What I am suggesting is we need to pay closer attention.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 15.05.2009 @ 20:18
Manning,
Thank you for your service to our country. That is some impressive experience and accomplishments you have. Actually, from reading your posts, I suspected you had substantial experience with the military or you had extensively read what those who have experience with the military have written.
Michael,
My basic premise I believe is correct, however, I forgot to add North Korea to the list. This is another country who would be capable of beating the United States in a stand up war. At least this is according to people I know wha have served in South Korea. Should the North decide to invade, we would need substantial reinforcements very quickly to hold this off. There is significant questions as to whether we could get them there in time and do with the military stretched extremely thin due to ongoing operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in the Global War on Terrorism there is some doubt as to whether the neccessary forces are even available.
To address a couple of your points, the countries listed by Manning did in fact build impressive military forces in a very short time. Germany even did this while having to pay reparations from the end of WWI. At least this is how I understand it, that Germany had to pay reparations at the end of WWI. Russia faces no such constraints. Neither does China. In the case of Iran or North Korea, any such sanctions are not very effective.
Manning's contention is we have 10+ years. Assuming we still lead Russia in military technology, we may not have that long. Its been quite a while since the US has been adding new weapon systems. My memory is a bit fuzzy now but in July 2001 I remeber reading that Russia and China were engaging in cyber war fare in attempt to counter the "lop-sided conventional strength of the Americans." It is your contention that Russia has not developed any new weapon systems that can challenge America. Since most of your post reads like the talking points from the main stream media, I'm not surprised you missed it, as I only remember scant coverage on this in the main stream news media. The Russians have been extensively upgrading their missles and delivery systems, as well as their nuclear submarines. The missle defense systems that Russia has employed and is in the process of upgrading in Iran is believed by some analyists to be the best in the world.
"One wonders why the DoD was unable to produce humvees in three years." I suspect a combination of a lack of will, perhaps a dash of incompetence, and perhaps even elements of fifth column within the Government who does not want America to be successful on the battlefield. With the will and the competence any of the weapons you mention should be able to be constructed in a two to three year period. Also given the poor state of US intellegence these weapons may already be in place.
"They have zero meaningful allies." If you said this about America, you would probably be correct. The only meaningful ally we have is Israel which Obama seems to be undermining in order to try and placate American enemies. In contrast, Russia has Iran, Syria, Venezuela, much of the Middle East and much of Central and South America, and China. Russia is building an impressive coalition of allies.
"Find me a credible military analyist who believes Russia will be able to take us on in 10 years." I'm not sure what you mean by credible. According to General Colin Powell, the Russian nuclear arsenal could destroy America in under an hour. Any confrontation with Russia would probably use nuclear weapons. Given the poor state of American intellegence, and the fact that our nuclear arsenal has not been upgraded in a long time, the Russians may be able to finish the job before we could respond.
The premise of ten years is probably contingent on the US being able to maintain its weapons. Due to the massive national debt that the Bush Administration left us with and that the Obama Adminstration seems to be increasing the ability of the Americans to maintain their weapons will likely become problematic at best in the next few years, if it has not already. Assuming we are still ahead, I would assert that we may not have more than a couple of years.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 15.05.2009 @ 20:16
Yes, Checnya has historically been a part of Russia. The pont was the military buildup that Russia justified to hold on to this part of its territory seemed to be way beyond what would have been necessary to subdue the region. Perhaps Russia should have other worries but they do not seem to have changed posture from the days of the Cold War. America is still percieved as the main enemy. Given that Russia has upgraded its nuclear arsenal in recent years as well as its conventional forces and they are actively supporting those who are opposed to American interests around the world, I think this is some thing Americans and their leaders should be concerned about.
Any way back to what seems to be the main thrust of Rick's post. I think Michael Reynolds may be correct. The best thing may be for the Republican party to split. The "Religous Right" can establish its own political party and the so called "Moderates" can estabilsh their own party. This may be the only option since the so called "Moderates" don't seem open to reasonable compromise at this time. This would free both groups up to offer their own policy perscriptions to the American people without having to try and weld the policies ideas of both together.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 13.05.2009 @ 23:16
Mannning,
Excellent posts ( #18 and #24). I think you are largely spot on, however, I think to suggest that we have a 10 year horizon may be overly optimistic. In fact, we may already be behind Russia and China.
You correctly point out that our intellegence peneatraion is not very good within Russia or China. In fact, our intellegence have performed quite poorly for a long time in all phases. As such, we cannot be sure where our enemies are.
We do know that Russia, China, and others I mention above have invested heavily in their militaries in recent years. Add to this fact that the US military is worn down form continued operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the global war on terrorism.
While it does seem to be true that the US spends more moeny on its military than any other country does, there is substantial waste. Spending a large amount of money on something does not necessarily mean it will be better. It's a very strong possibility that the United States already trails its enemies.
You also point out that miitary build ups can be disguised up to a point. This seems to be what is happening now. China's build up accross from Tawain comes to mind. The build up is such that is way beyond what is needed to take Tawain. The Chinese would be able to take Tawain quite easily any time they wanted to with their military build up. This build up is likely in preparation for an invasion of the American mainland. We may not have ten years before China carries it out. The only thing holding them back may be America's nuclear arsenal which we haven't upgrded in years and there seem to be no plans to maintain it!! I think Russia's inavasion of Chechnya is simillar. It is in preparation for military actions elsewhere in the world. There have been some commentators who have alluded to this possibility.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 13.05.2009 @ 21:31
"Only a fool like Saddam will challenge us in the future to a stand up battle..." With all due respect I don't think thats true. There are at least three countries on earth now who are capable of beating America in a stand up war. These are Russia, China, and India. In fact, with Russia's advamced muclear arsenal it would probably prevail in any confrontation with Aemrica. Iran, Venezuela, and Pakistan to name just three are builing impressive militiaries. Any of those countries is fully capable of winning a conventional war with the Unitd States right now. In fact, America's victory in the first Gulf War against Iraq was far from certain. It is more attributable to excellent planning on the part of the Allied and American military planning and execution of the plan than to a huge power imbalance.
I think it may be a bit premature to think that only a fool would challenge the United States to a straight up war. After all I've named six countries in this post who could defeat the United States in a military conflict. This does not mean tha the odds would necessairily be in favor of some of these countries to win the war but they could. As such, if they think a war with the United States to be in their interests, it would not neccessarily be foolish of them to try. With the proper leadership and execution they could very well win.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 12.05.2009 @ 20:31
