Comments Posted By B.Poster
Displaying 201 To 210 Of 397 Comments
America seems worried about the likes of Iran, Syria, Al Qaeda and other terrorist supporting states and terror groups. The country we really need to be concerned with is Russia. Russia is the primary supporter of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and other American enemies. Russia is the only nation on earth who poses an existential threat to the US and it supports all of America's enemies. Islamic extremists are simply useful idiots that Russia uses in it's proxy war with the US.
Without the support of Russia Iran is nothing. It would be farily easy to contain. If we can use diplomacy to get Russia to withdraw its support from Iran, this would go a long way toward winning the Global War on Terror. In order to do this, we will need to admit that Russia is an enemy. Unfortunately very few leaders have the courage to admit that the country with the largest and most advanced nuclear arsenal in the world is actuallly an enemy.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 22.12.2006 @ 19:49
PRAGMATISTS GAINING GROUND IN IRAN
If this analysis is correct, it seems that Iran may be about to take a less confrontational approach. It appears their goals will largely remain the same but the approach will be different.
In America, with the Democrats in control of the House and the Senate America's foreign policy is likely to be less confrontational. The goal of winning the GWOT will remain the same but the approach will likely be different from the approach used by the Bush Administration and the Republicans.
With the Iranians and the Americans following less confrontational approaches maybe a peaceful solution can be found that we can all live with. I'm not opptimistic that a peaceful solution can be found, however, we can hope and pray.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 18.12.2006 @ 23:00
I've had problems accessing the site a couple of times over the last week and was unable to comment a few times. Also, I ahd a comment lost. I thought the lost comment was my error.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 14.12.2006 @ 15:02
IF BUSH GOES "ALL IN," I'M WITH HIM
While I would like to go "all in" for Iraq and achieve a situation where the country is stable and allied with the US, we will need to ask how such a decision impacts broader American national security. We need to get back to basics and properly identify our enemies and then list them in the order of how dangerous they are to American national security. Once this done, then we can devise plans to deal with each of them or all of them together.
In the following order, America's most dangerous enemies are Russia, China, Venezuela, Iran, Al Qaeda, North Korea, and Iraqi "insurgents." We need to determine if a greater commitment to Iraq helps or us or hurts us when dealing with these threats.
With regards to Iraq our primary goals should be containing and rolling back the influence of Iran and Al Qaeda within Iraq. Patrolling the streets during an Iraqi Civil War should not be the top priority unless it can somehow be demonstrated how this helps us with the above mentioned national security threats. Right now I just don't see it.
With all of this said, if we can maintain the ability to deal with other national security threats, I would like to go all in for Iraq, however, I'm concerned that all of the focus on Iraq has caused us to lose sight of other more serious threats to national security.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 15.12.2006 @ 02:05
Perhaps even more important than an increase in the number of troops is allowing the ones who are currently in Iraq and Afghanistan to actually fight. Right now American troops are essentially fighting with one hand behind their backs. I think both more troops are needed and the ones who are there need to be allowed to pursue the enemy more aggressively.
Also, part of a successful war effort is effectively getting our message accross. Essentially we have allowed the lies of the enemy to go virtually unchallenged. This will need to change.
Johnny
I'm not aware of a major war effort that has been fought with only non drafted troops. I could be wrong of course. A draft was used in WWII and I think a draft was used in other major wars. The enemy we currently face has goals that are every bit as mbitious as those we faced during WWII and they are steadily growing stronger. I estimate we have, at most, a five year window to be able to deal with this. After five years, we may find ourselves either unable to deal wtih this enemy or our enemies will force on us a war that will be even more costly in terms of lives lost and money spent than WWII was.
In the past, we have tried to appease implacable enemies and it did not work out. It appears some people want to go down the same path. If we do so, I don't think it will end any better than it has in the past. I don't want to make the same mistakes again. This is why I think it is imperative to defeat this enemy now while we still can.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 14.12.2006 @ 21:51
This post is spot on. I could not have expressed this better myself. I have been saying for years that we need more troops in Iraq. We needed them all along. This should have been obvious by about June 2003 that we needed more troops. This should be a lesson that we need to learn should there be future wars. What we did in the past is only relevant with regards to lessons to be learned. I'm pleased to see that perhaps someone has figured out that we need more troops and maybe the issue will be seriously addressed.
The notion that we can't commit more troops is an just an excuse not to do it. It is a valid point that more troops for Iraq may make us vunerable elsewhere. This is why, for the long haul, we probably need a draft.
What many Americans do not seem to understand is that failure to achieve an Iraq that is at least nominally allied with the US in the GWOT and is stable is inconsistent with the US remaining one of the world's major powers and may, in fact, place the very survival of the country in grave danger.
The US has faced greater challenges than it currently faces in Iraq and has survived them and even prospered. In order to win, we will need to properly define the enemy and it will need to make the appropiate commitment of troops and resources. The terrorist enemy is a group of people who adhere literally to their religous text of the Koran. the tactics we choose going forward must have the goal in mind of either eliminating the current Iranian government or removing it entirely.
If any politician thinks they are going to save their political skins by abandoning Iraq, they are mistaken. If we fail in Iraq, America's global position will be lost and the very survival of the country will probably be in grave danger. In other words, there will not be any political skins to save.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 14.12.2006 @ 14:24
BRAMMERTZ ZEROING IN ON ASSASSINS OF HARIRI
Had Israel not been forced into a cease fire last summer, Hezbollah would likely be either destroyed right now or they would be degraded tot he point that they would be ineffective. Had Israel simply been allowed to complete the job against Hezbollah the March 14th forces would have been free to establish a stable democracy.
Israel will get another chance to deal with Hezbollah. Hezbollah will see to it. They will diretly attack Israel when they are ready. The next time it will be tougher than it was before, however, Israel will still be able to do it. The next time the US should veto any cease fire resolution at the UN.
Allow Israel to complete the mission against Hezbollah. This would be a huge vicotry in the GWOT.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 13.12.2006 @ 23:18
TAKING THE EMPTY SUIT TO THE CLEANERS
If this turns out to be the case, it is good that we are finally getting around to taking on Al Sadr and his Mahdi army. Our goals for Iraq should be three fold. They should be: 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. It appears goal number 3 has been abandoned for now. In any event, goal 3 was going to be up the Iraqis and is not mission critical to us. Achieving the first two goals are vital. Clearly having Al Sadr and his Mahdi army running around is inconsistent with achieving goals one and two. He and his army must either be removed or neutrailized. If this plan works out, it would go a long way to achieving goal 2 and it may even help with goal number 1.
The broader goals need to be containing and rolling back the influence of Iran and Al Qaeda in Iraq and elsewhere in the world. Having an Iraq that is stable and allied with us in the GWOT should help us achieve the broader goals.
With all of this said there does seem to be a problem. Through out the Global War on Terror the US has trouble, at least publically, identifying its enemies. At least publically, this may not have changed. If we end up strengthening the Badr Brigade, we may end up strengthening Iran. This could leave us in a worse position than we are now.
In any event, right now we should focus on eliminating Al Sadr and his Mahdi Army. If we have to fight the Badr Brigades, we should deal with them, at that time. Obvuously we should plan for future battles and we should learn from previous battles but it is important to fight the current battle now and not the next one or the last one. I would like to think that the military commanders are competent enough to be planning ahead for a possible confrontation with the Badr Brigade.
If we are going to finally do something about Al Sadr and the Mahdi army, this is an encouraging development. It is only a small step, there remains much work to be done but it is a steop in the right direction.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 11.12.2006 @ 19:59
OUR GOVERNMENT IS UNSERIOUS ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY
"Our government is unserious about national security." The title of this post says it all and it is spot on. The jaw dropping unseriousness applies to both Republicans and Democrats. Given the fundamental unseriousness and general cluelessness of our policy makers that has existed since we declared the "War on Terror," I find it absolutely astonishing that we have not been attacked again on our home land.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 10.12.2006 @ 17:13
AMERICA COMING TO ITS OWN CONSENSUS ABOUT THE ISG
RGJunior
You are quite right. The trends you mention are headed downward. If America is to have a constructive role in improving any of these things, we will need to be begin by establsihing a secure environment. This would have to begin with committing significantly more troops. We can do it, if we had the national will. The notion that we cannot do it is simply an excuese to not do something that is difficult. While our Iraq polices are a failure to date, this can be turned around. It will need the appropiate course corrections and the appropiate commitment on the part of the American government and the American people. Nations and people have faced tougher challenges in the past than America faces in Iraq and they managed to emerge victorious.
Rick
I think your notion that the ISG report sucks is spot on. Our terrorist enemies are extrenely pleased with this report. The Kurds are unhappy with this report. The Kurds are our second most important ally in the Middle East. The terrorist pose the greatest threat to the US in the Middle East. Great nations and great civilations do not remain great for very long by trying to appease their enemies while simultaneously squeezing their friends.
I think the most ridiculous suggestion of all is to have a regional conference and not even invite Israel, our most important ally. They seem to think that some how pressuring Israel to give up the Golan Heights will get Syria to help us. The bottom line is, to date, America has horribly botched its Iraq policy. Israel had no say in America's decision to invade Iraq and Israel had no role in planning the invasion or its aftermath. It would be unethical to punish Israel for mistakes made by American leaders. To top this off, Syria is not even interested in helping us.
A better message to send to Iran and Syria would be if you do not stop aiding and abetting the Iraqi "insurgency" you will receive the same treatment from the American military that was delivered to Dresden, Germany during WWII.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 9.12.2006 @ 11:12
