3 years later is the US winning the war?

[Mike AI]

> http://www.stratfor.com/
>
> .................................................. ...............
>
> THE GEOPOLITICAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT
>
> September 11: Three Years Later
> September 9, 2004
>
> By George Friedman
>
> The U.S.-jihadist war is now nearly three years old. Like most
> wars, its course has been an unfolding surprise. It is a war of
> many parts -- some familiar, some unprecedented. Like all wars,
> it has been filled with heroism, cowardice, lies, confusion and
> grief. As usual, it appears to everyone that the levels of each
> of these have been unprecedented. In truth, however, very little
> about this war is unprecedented -- save that all wars are, by
> definition, unprecedented. Only one thing is certain about this
> war: Like all others, it will end. The issue on the table on the
> third anniversary is: What is the current state of this war, and
> how will it end?
>
>
> The war was begun by al Qaeda, and therefore its state must be
> viewed through al Qaeda's eyes. From that standpoint, the war is
> not going well at all. Al Qaeda did not attack the United States
> on Sept. 11 simply to kill Americans. Al Qaeda wanted to kill
> Americans in order to achieve a political goal: the recreation of
> at least part of the caliphate, an empire ruled by Islamic law
> and feared and respected by the rest of the world.
>
>
> Al Qaeda's view was that the real obstacles to such a caliphate
> were the governments of Muslim countries. These governments
> either were apostates, were corrupt or were so complicit with
> Christian, Jewish or Hindu regimes that not only did they not
> represent Islamic interests, but they had sold out the immediate
> interests of their own people.
>
>
> From al Qaeda's point of view, the power of these regimes resided
> in their relationship with foreign powers. Moreover, the
> perception of these foreign powers -- particularly the United
> States, which had become the latest edition of Christianity's
> leading foreign power -- was that they were irresistible. Muslim
> countries had not defeated a Christian power in war for
> centuries. Hatred ran deep, but so did impotence. Al Qaeda was
> far less interested in increasing hatred of the United States
> than in showing that the United States was vulnerable -- that it
> could be defeated. Al Qaeda argued that the mujahideen had
> demonstrated this in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, and
> the Soviet Union collapsed as a result. If al Qaeda could
> demonstrate America's vulnerability, a sense of confidence would
> infuse the Islamic world and regimes would fall or change their
> policies.
>
>
> The Sept. 11 attacks were designed to demonstrate the
> vulnerability of the United States. They also were designed to
> entice the United States to wage multiple wars in the Islamic
> world while pursuing al Qaeda directly and indirectly, further
> opening the United States up to attack and attrition. Al Qaeda
> did demonstrate American vulnerability, and the United States did
> surge into the Muslim world. It did encounter resistance and took
> casualties.
>
>
> But al Qaeda completely failed to achieve its strategic goals.
> There was no rising in the Islamic street. Not a single Muslim
> regime fell. Not a single regime moved closer to al Qaeda's
> position. Almost all Muslim regimes moved to closer cooperation
> with the United States. Viewed through the lens of al Qaeda's
> hopes and goals, therefore, the war so far has been a tremendous
> failure. In various tapes and releases, al Qaeda officials --
> including Osama bin Laden -- have expressed their frustration and
> their commitment to continue the struggle. However, it is
> essential to realize that from al Qaeda's strategic point of
> view, the last three years have been a series of failures and
> disappointments.
>
>
> This is the objective reality. It is not the American perception.
> The first reason for this perception gap is the definition the
> administration has given the war: It is a war on terrorism. If
> the goal of the war has been to deny al Qaeda strategic victory,
> then the United States is winning the war. If, on the other hand,
> the goal of the war is to protect the homeland against any
> further attacks by al Qaeda or other groups, then that goal has
> not been achieved.
>
>
> Al Qaeda's primary operational capability is its ability to evade
> U.S. intelligence capabilities. This is not a trivial capability.
> Three years into the war, the precise shape and distribution of
> al Qaeda and related organizations are still not transparent to
> U.S. intelligence. However much more the United States knows
> about al Qaeda, it does not appear that its abilities are
> sufficient to guarantee the security of the United States or
> allied countries against enemy attacks. There are too many
> potential targets, and al Qaeda remains too invisible to
> guarantee that.
>
>
> Therefore, on a purely operational level, the United States does
> not see itself as winning the war. During World War II, for
> example -- by 1943 or even earlier -- the United States was
> secure from German or Japanese attacks against the homeland. That
> is not the case in this war. Therefore, there is an interesting
> paradox built in. On the strategic side, al Qaeda is losing --
> and thus the United States is winning -- the strategic war, and
> this, of course, is the decisive sphere. On the operational side,
> even though there has thus far been no repeat of the Sept. 11
> attacks in the United States, the war is at a stalemate. Public
> perception is more sensitive to the operational stalemate than to
> the strategic success.
>
>
> This has led to a crisis of confidence about the war that has
> been compounded by a single campaign -- Iraq -- which has dwarfed
> the general war in apparent importance. As readers of Stratfor
> know, our view of the Iraq campaign has been that it was the
> logical next step in the general war and that the Bush
> administration knew that by February 2002, when it became
> apparent that U.S. intelligence could not strike globally to
> destroy al Qaeda. It has also been our view that the Iraq
> campaign was marred by extremely poor intelligence and planning.
> We have also argued that such failures are not only common in war
> but inevitable, and that these failures, however egregious, were
> to be expected.
>
>
> We have also argued, and continue to be amazed, that the single
> greatest failure of the Bush administration in this war has been
> its inability to give a coherent explanation of why it invaded
> Iraq. The public justification -- that Iraq had weapons of mass
> destruction -- was patently absurd on its face. You do not invade
> a country with a year's warning if you are really afraid of WMD.
> The incoherence of the justification was self-evident prior to
> the war, and the failure to find WMD was merely icing on the
> cake. The consequence was a crisis of confidence that was a very
> unlikely outcome after Sept. 11 and which the administration
> built for itself. In other words, the decision to invade Iraq
> was, from our point of view, inevitable following the failure of
> the covert war. What was not inevitable was the catastrophic
> failure to explain the invasion and the resulting crisis of
> confidence.
>
>
> The clearest explanation for this failure has to do with Saudi
> Arabia and the U.S. relation to the kingdom -- a relationship
> that goes far beyond the Bush family or either political party.
> Saudi Arabia was one of the reasons for the invasion. The U.S.
> intent was to frighten the Saudis into policy change,
> demonstrating (a) that the Saudis were now surrounded by U.S.
> troops and (B) that the United States was no longer influenced by
> the Saudis. The goal was to force the Saudis to change their
> behavior toward financing al Qaeda. Stating this goal publicly
> would have destabilized the Saudi regime, however, and the United
> States wanted policy change, not regime change. Therefore,
> Washington preferred to appear the fool rather than destabilize
> Saudi Arabia.
>
>
> If this is the explanation -- and we emphatically do believe,
> from all analysis and sources, that the administration did have a
> much more sophisticated strategy in place on Iraq than it has
> ever been able to enunciate -- then it was one with severe costs.
> Apart from the specific failures in the war, the generation of a
> massive crisis of confidence in the United States over the Iraq
> campaign has become a strategic reality of the wider war. To the
> extent that this is a war of perception -- and on some level, all
> wars are -- the perception that the United States is deeply
> divided is damaging. The actual debate is over the Iraq campaign
> and not the war as a whole, but this has increasingly been lost
> in the clamor. There is much more consensus on the war as a whole
> than might appear.
>
>
> Therefore, we can say that al Qaeda has failed to achieve its
> strategic goals. At the same time, the United States is facing
> its own strategic crisis. Since Vietnam, the fundamental question
> has been whether the United States has sufficient will and
> national unity to execute a long-term war. One of the purposes of
> the Iraq invasion was to demonstrate American will. The errors in
> what we might call information warfare -- or propaganda -- by the
> Bush administration have generated severe doubts. The
> administration's management of the situation has turned into a
> strategic defeat -- although not a decisive one as yet.
>
>
> Massive dissent about wars has been the norm in American history.
> We tend to think of World War II as the norm, but, quite the
> contrary, it was the exception. The Revolutionary War, Mexican
> War, Civil War, Vietnam War and others all contained amazing
> levels of rancor among the American public. The vilification
> among the citizenry of Washington's generalship or Lincoln's
> presidency during the action was quite amazing. Thus, it is not
> the dissent that is startling, but the perception of U.S.
> weakness that it generates in the Islamic world. And the
> responsibility does not rest with the dissidents, but with the
> president's failure to understand the strategic consequences of
> public incoherence on policy issues. Keeping it simple works only
> when the simple explanation is not too difficult to understand.
>
>
> Let us therefore consider the salient points:
>
>
>
> Al Qaeda has failed to reach its strategic goals.
>
> The United States has not secured the homeland against attack.
>
> There has been a major realignment in the Muslim world's
> governments, due to U.S. politico-military operations that have
> favored the United States.
>
> There has been no mass uprising in the Islamic world as a result
> of the Sept. 11 attacks.
>
> The Iraq campaign has involved massive failures, but the casualty
> rate remains less than 2 percent of the total killed in Vietnam.
> That places the problem in perspective. In addition, the
> political situation is increasingly manageable in Iraq.
>
> The strategic management of information operations has been the
> major U.S. failure. It is serious enough to threaten the
> strategic thrust of the war against al Qaeda. The inability to
> provide a coherent explanation for Iraq has substantially harmed
> the war effort.
>
>
>
>
> At the same time, this should not be overestimated. It is
> interesting to note the problem that John Kerry is having in
> articulating his own challenge to the president over Iraq and the
> war in general. He has three potential strategies:
>
>
> Reject the war in general
>
> Reject the Iraq campaign but embrace the rest of the war
>
> Accept Iraq and the war and argue that he would be more competent
> in executing both
>
>
> Kerry vacillates between the last two positions for a reason. If
> he takes the first position, he risks alienating the center,
> where voters are uncomfortable with any anti-war position but
> want superior leadership and execution. If he accepts the third
> position, he can take the center but risks the possibility that
> hard-core anti-war leftists will stay home on Election Day.
> Therefore, he is avoiding a strategic decision between the last
> two positions -- shifting tactically between the two, hoping to
> bridge the gap. This is a difficult plan, but it seems the only
> one open to him. It is also the factor that will limit the extent
> of strategic damage stemming from Bush's presentation of the Iraq
> campaign. Kerry won't be able to effectively exploit that damage
> because of his own political problems.
>
>
> Therefore, at this moment, we would argue that the war, on the
> whole, is being won by the United States or, more precisely, is
> being lost by al Qaeda. The purely military aspects of the war
> are going better for the United States than is the politico-
> military effort, primarily due to the complexity of coercing
> allies without causing them public humiliation. But that is also
> the weak point of the U.S. campaign and the point at which al
> Qaeda will try to counterattack. That covert coercion could, al
> Qaeda hopes, energize a political movement it is trying to
> create.
>
>
> The war is far from over. The snapshot of the moment does not
> tell us what either side may do in the future. The United States
> clearly intends to move into Pakistan to find bin Laden's command
> center. Al Qaeda clearly intends to destabilize Saudi Arabia and
> any other target of opportunity that might open up -- Pakistan or
> Egypt. And in the end, as in all wars, there will be a
> negotiation. It is impossible to really envision what that
> negotiation would look like or who the parties would actually be,
> but -- returning to the point that this war, like all others,
> will end -- complete victory by either side is the least likely
> scenario.
>
>
> Whatever the outcome, this much must be understood. On Nov. 8,
> the United States will have a president who will never again
> stand for re-election. He may have the office for four more years
> or for only two more months. In either case, we can expect that
> an attempt at decisive action will occur. Win or lose, Bush will
> be looking for his place in history. A Bush acting without
> political constraints will be the wild card in the next phase of
> the war.

[Weg Cory]

That was a great read.

He seemed to be a bit pro-war at times, indicating the anti-war crowd to be the ones to blame for whatever lack of success could be proposed. I think the US is built on freedom of thought, without those in dissent, many prior wars are somewhat devalued.

I would also argue that the war really started before 9-11, it is just more official in political rhetoric now.

Outstanding points on the ideology behind Al Quada. They have not been successful in war terms. I also believe he is correct in his assessment of the Bush administration failing to properly execute a PR validation for the Iraq war.

And our homeland security is unique to this war, it will never be safe, anyone who believes so in this day and age really isn't seeing the big picture. The only plausible security strategy would involve foreign affairs change, and by now it is rather evident that the US is planted pretty firmly within the middle-east for some time now.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by WEGCashCory@Sep 23 2004, 04:50 PM
That was a great read.

He seemed to be a bit pro-war at times, indicating the anti-war crowd to be the ones to blame for whatever lack of success could be proposed. I think the US is built on freedom of thought, without those in dissent, many prior wars are somewhat devalued.

I would also argue that the war really started before 9-11, it is just more official in political rhetoric now.

Outstanding points on the ideology behind Al Quada. They have not been successful in war terms. I also believe he is correct in his assessment of the Bush administration failing to properly execute a PR validation for the Iraq war.

And our homeland security is unique to this war, it will never be safe, anyone who believes so in this day and age really isn't seeing the big picture. The only plausible security strategy would involve foreign affairs change, and by now it is rather evident that the US is planted pretty firmly within the middle-east for some time now.


Cory this think tank tends to be hawkish, so you can see that in the analysis.

I think it is pretty fair though.

[Weg Cory]

Originally posted by Mike AI+Sep 23 2004, 01:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ Sep 23 2004, 01:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-WEGCashCory@Sep 23 2004, 04:50 PM
That was a great read.

He seemed to be a bit pro-war at times, indicating the anti-war crowd to be the ones to blame for whatever lack of success could be proposed. I think the US is built on freedom of thought, without those in dissent, many prior wars are somewhat devalued.

I would also argue that the war really started before 9-11, it is just more official in political rhetoric now.

Outstanding points on the ideology behind Al Quada. They have not been successful in war terms. I also believe he is correct in his assessment of the Bush administration failing to properly execute a PR validation for the Iraq war.

And our homeland security is unique to this war, it will never be safe, anyone who believes so in this day and age really isn't seeing the big picture. The only plausible security strategy would involve foreign affairs change, and by now it is rather evident that the US is planted pretty firmly within the middle-east for some time now.


Cory this think tank tends to be hawkish, so you can see that in the analysis.

I think it is pretty fair though. [/b][/quote]
I think he was pretty fair. For sure a good read.

[PornoDoggy]

Stratfor starts out from the premise that "[Iraq] was the logical next step in the general war..." I think that's questionable at best. When the pirates challenged us at Tripoli we did not invade Portugal because it was a handier target. Any chance at using Iraq as a secure base for future operations was seriously damaged the day we made the oil ministry the first place protected in Baghdad; it was destroyed when we failed to provide enough troops to provide even basic security. The damage, btw, was not just done to our efforts in Iraq - it will carry forward into whatever future operations we may actually NEED to undertake.

I also question whether the problem really is an inability to articulate the policies at play, whereas I personally think there is an absence of a real policy. I honestly believe that the Bush Administration was shocked to find that we were not greeted with palm leaves and cries of Hosanna, and has been scrambling to come up with a policy since.

One thing I do agree with:

In truth, however, very little about this war is unprecedented

The methods we are employing in this war are identical to the methods used by the colonial powers as their empires crumbled. They failed. The methods we are employing have not succeeded anywhere in the region. I have seen little to suggest that they will succeed in Iraq, in spite of President Diem's nice little speech to the Congress today.

[Opti]

Like PD says, you need to accept an arguable premise up front to really say "Yes that shows the US is winning". but it's not a bad argument to at least say it's not as clear who might be ahead right now as some of us might have been thinking.

I really don't agree with this statement though "In addition, the political situation is increasingly manageable in Iraq."

Still wondering if the "Bush without constraints" wildcard comment at the end was meant to sound hopeful or scarey. :blink:

[RawAlex]

The "war on terror" is like the "war on drugs". The US is finding it extremely hard to fight a war where the other side is ill defined and not a state per se. As a result, yes, Iraq was the next logical step, but the next logical step down the wrong road.

That road is the one where some how Saddam and Bin Ladin became best of buddies, somehow sharing the secret decoder ring and whatnot. You KNOW Saddam caused 9/11, that is why they went to spank his ass. No wait, it was the WMD. No it wasn't there wasn't any.

The premise for all of this action is bullshit, and as a result, any "logical" deducations based on it are equally bullshit.

Sad but true, the region was more stable and less likely to become a terrorist training ground when Saddam was in power. Now it is a festering sore, knocked back 50 years in development and likely to degreade into civil was and ethnic strife. That is the EXACT recipe for creating terrorists, not getting rid of them.

Based on all of this, what is the next logical step? Taking out Iran? Syria?

Where does it end?

Alex

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Sep 23 2004, 09:58 PM
The "war on terror" is like the "war on drugs". The US is finding it extremely hard to fight a war where the other side is ill defined and not a state per se. As a result, yes, Iraq was the next logical step, but the next logical step down the wrong road.

That road is the one where some how Saddam and Bin Ladin became best of buddies, somehow sharing the secret decoder ring and whatnot. You KNOW Saddam caused 9/11, that is why they went to spank his ass. No wait, it was the WMD. No it wasn't there wasn't any.

The premise for all of this action is bullshit, and as a result, any "logical" deducations based on it are equally bullshit.

Sad but true, the region was more stable and less likely to become a terrorist training ground when Saddam was in power. Now it is a festering sore, knocked back 50 years in development and likely to degreade into civil was and ethnic strife. That is the EXACT recipe for creating terrorists, not getting rid of them.

Based on all of this, what is the next logical step? Taking out Iran? Syria?

Where does it end?

Alex


My vote is Iran!

[Hell Puppy]

Syria

Iran

N. Korea


All are going to need to be bitch slapped I fear.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Sep 23 2004, 10:20 PM
My vote is Iran!
How about we finish off the two nation-building projects we have now before we start on any more?

BTW ... with what resources do you plan to attack Iraq? You know, soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines?

[slavdogg]

Good read Mike :okthumb:

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Sep 24 2004, 02:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Sep 24 2004, 02:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Sep 23 2004, 10:20 PM
My vote is Iran!
How about we finish off the two nation-building projects we have now before we start on any more?

BTW ... with what resources do you plan to attack Iraq? You know, soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines? [/b][/quote]
You mean Iran?

I think it is a mistake by Bush to not be growing the military back to suitable sizes. I would add at least 100k soldier to army, and 100k Marines.

Our military is the best in the world in combat, it is the post-comabt that is the tough part. We probably need a specialized branch inthe military for miliary police, and civilian affiars. People who can specialize in winning the peace.


We could over run Iran in less then 6 months of combat - probably faster then that. Syria would take a long weekend.

[Rolo]

Send in agents and start the revolt in Iran, that would be good karma, and its cheap... :okthumb:

[grimm]

Originally posted by Mike AI+Sep 24 2004, 06:41 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ Sep 24 2004, 06:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Sep 24 2004, 02:00 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Sep 23 2004, 10:20 PM
My vote is Iran!
How about we finish off the two nation-building projects we have now before we start on any more?

BTW ... with what resources do you plan to attack Iraq? You know, soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines?
You mean Iran?

I think it is a mistake by Bush to not be growing the military back to suitable sizes. I would add at least 100k soldier to army, and 100k Marines.

Our military is the best in the world in combat, it is the post-comabt that is the tough part. We probably need a specialized branch inthe military for miliary police, and civilian affiars. People who can specialize in winning the peace.


We could over run Iran in less then 6 months of combat - probably faster then that. Syria would take a long weekend. [/b][/quote]
That *should* be the UN, as ar as rebuilding and peacekeeping go

like germany and france and Australia couldnt hold down the fort against a few suicide bombers, and let daddy do the grunt work

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by grimm+Sep 24 2004, 10:35 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (grimm @ Sep 24 2004, 10:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Mike AI@Sep 24 2004, 06:41 AM
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Sep 24 2004, 02:00 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Sep 23 2004, 10:20 PM
My vote is Iran!
How about we finish off the two nation-building projects we have now before we start on any more?

BTW ... with what resources do you plan to attack Iraq? You know, soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines?
You mean Iran?

I think it is a mistake by Bush to not be growing the military back to suitable sizes. I would add at least 100k soldier to army, and 100k Marines.

Our military is the best in the world in combat, it is the post-comabt that is the tough part. We probably need a specialized branch inthe military for miliary police, and civilian affiars. People who can specialize in winning the peace.


We could over run Iran in less then 6 months of combat - probably faster then that. Syria would take a long weekend.
That *should* be the UN, as ar as rebuilding and peacekeeping go

like germany and france and Australia couldnt hold down the fort against a few suicide bombers, and let daddy do the grunt work [/b][/quote]


Australia is actually one of our key allies in this war.

It was the French, Rusians and Germans who had financial ties with Saddam, and thus tried to block the war. Ironicly, if they would have supported UN resolution and not whispered in Saddam's ear that they would keep the US out, the outcome could have been vastly different.


Rolo - I am all about covert warfare. I think it is something we should be dedicated to. There are many ways to destablize Iran without a massive attack. Including forced oil embargo - we have the Navy to pull it off. We could create safe zones in parts of Iran like we did in Iraq, letting resistence orginize and build up.

[Rolo]

grimm, problem is that arabs do not like or trust the UN... they see the UN as a place controlled by jews and the US :unsure:

Also the problem with putting the UN in a warzone, is that seldom are UN troops used to "create peace" by attacking... only place I really can remember the UN fought back, was in Somalia and one story from Bosnia:


TUZLA, Bosnia, May 4 1994

TUZLA It was late at night when the Bosnian Serbs began to shell a United Nations observation post called Tango Two in the Sapna Finger, a Muslim-held salient near Tuzla. Danish Lt. Col. Lars Moller of the Nordic Battalion ordered two platoons of his Leopard tanks to charge to the rescue, which was just what the Serbs expected. As the seven tanks reached the foot of Sugarloaf Mountain, the Serbs opened fire with antitank missiles, artillery and machine guns.

``It was an ambush, and a damn good one,'' Colonel Moller said. ``Tango Two was the cheese, and we were the mouse. But this time the mouse ate the cat.''

One Danish platoon took cover behind buildings; the other maneuvered to high ground and counterambushed. When it was over, nine Serb soldiers were dead.

The ``Nordbat'' suffered no casualties. More important, it had done what no other U.N. peacekeepers in Bosnia had done before: strike back at the Serbs with force.

The April 30 battle of the Sapna Finger does not signal a change in U.N. strategy; in fact, U.N. officials in Sarajevo later played down its significance and hinted that Moller's troops had overreacted.

For some, though, it made a deadly point about how Western peacekeepers might fare against a Serb force that until now has had the field to itself.

Confrontation with the Serbs is not in the U.N.'s official playbook. That was clear a few days after the Sapna Finger fight.

When Bosnian Serbs violated their own agreements and blocked a convoy of British peacekeepers on their way to the U.N.-designated ``safe haven'' of Gorazde, the U.N.'s special representative, Yasushi Akashi, cut a deal.

In exchange for letting the U.N. troops go in, he allowed the Serbs to move at least five tanks across the 20-kilometer zone around Sarajevo from which heavy Serb weapons are banned under threat of NATO airstrikes.

The tanks reportedly were redeployed on the Serbs' southern front. Incensed, Bosnian government authorities demanded Akashi's resignation as the top U.N. official in the former Yugoslavia.

Other U.N. officials in Sarajevo tried to cover up the continued presence of 100 Serb soldiers within three kilometers of Gorazde and some heavy weapons within the no-go zone around that city, too, despite NATO's orders that they withdraw or face airstrikes.

In contrast, the Nordic Battalion, drawing on a long history of peacekeeping work by its Danish, Swedish and Norwegian troops, has showed how a tough stance can work in Bosnia.

When Croat troops massacred the villagers of Stupni Do, Nordbat moved in, protecting survivors and preventing further violence against Muslims in the nearby town of Vares. Then, when Muslim troops took Vares, Nordbat intervened to make sure there were no reprisals.

They didn't go looking for a fight at Sapna Finger; the battalion's Tango Two post had been shelled 28 times since February, and their tanks had come under Serb attack nearly a dozen times in a month.

Moller, 40, the battalion's deputy commander and its top tank officer, is a past karate champion; his father was a Danish Resistance fighter in World War II, and his brother is also a U.N. soldier in Croatia.

He speaks English sprinkled with American slang he picked up on NATO maneuvers, but with an English officer's accent that seems to match his walking stick. ``Turning your cheek is the wrong way down here,'' he says. ``There's a lot of macho bullshit down here and you have to adapt your behavior accordingly.''

The battle at Sapna Finger was an important lesson in what might be in store if a NATO peacekeeping force is sent here.

``The ambush was bad juju on their part. We are not here to take incoming,'' Moller said. ``Fortunately for them, we are not here to get involved either. We could have destroyed all of them and been in Zvornik by morning.''

In setting their ambush, the Serbs had deployed Soviet-made T-55 tanks in fixed positions; they are accustomed to fighting artillery duels against forces with little ability to fire back.

The Danes watched the tanks' infrared searchlights try to find and target their Leopards, but easily stayed out of their sights.

The T-55s were sitting targets, but the U.N. tanks never opened fire against them: under U.N. rules of engagement, they are not allowed to attack Serb tanks unless sensors show that the opposing cannons are warm, meaning that they have recently been fired.

Tank commander Maj. Carsten Rasmussen said the Danes prevailed thanks to superior training, tactics and technology all assets that a NATO peacekeeping force would bring to Bosnia.

Most U.N. troops on peacekeeping duty in Bosnia have been neither as aggressive nor as successful as Nordbat. Although last week U.N. commander General Sir Michael Rose praised the tank action during a visit to Copenhagen, many U.N. officials privately have criticized the Scandinavian troops.

Rose himself has repeatedly turned down their requests for airstrikes when they are attacked by artillery beyond their cannon range. Unless some kind of settlement brings NATO peacekeepers to the country, Moller's dragoons will remain more of an exception than an example.


When everyone agree for peace, then the UN is good, but not in a warzone (yeah, I know Bush declared that the war ended, but the UN wouldn´t have changed anything for the islamists).

[RawAlex]

Grimm, the UN has little or no interest in cleaning up after a war that the US created by itself in the UN's name. The US told the UN to get stuffed, and went about taking out saddam alone. They should not be surprised when the UN isn't in a rush to come to help out once the US is in over it's head.

Like the sign in the store "you break it, you buy it". The US broke Iraq... so now it is their's to fix.

Alex

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Sep 24 2004, 12:53 PM
Grimm, the UN has little or no interest in cleaning up after a war that the US created by itself in the UN's name. The US told the UN to get stuffed, and went about taking out saddam alone. They should not be surprised when the UN isn't in a rush to come to help out once the US is in over it's head.

Like the sign in the store "you break it, you buy it". The US broke Iraq... so now it is their's to fix.

Alex


UN has always been worthless.

How can we go to UN on Iraq when the people running the UN were making millions helping Saddam pilfer money from the Oil for Food program.

[RawAlex]

Alas, Mike, there in is the rub, see... because Bush went to war because Saddam didn't respect the UN's resolutions. Yet the US didn't respect the UN either on this issue.

Hello kettle? Pot calling!

Alex

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Sep 24 2004, 02:12 PM
Alas, Mike, there in is the rub, see... because Bush went to war because Saddam didn't respect the UN's resolutions. Yet the US didn't respect the UN either on this issue.

Hello kettle? Pot calling!

Alex
Alex you just don't get it. Bush went to UN to satisfy the Democrats, and to hopefully encourage our allies to help put pressure on Iraq.

IT FAILED. Bush had to do the dog and pony show to make everyone feel better and a last attempt to handle situation through diplomacy.

Do you think things would have been different had France, Germany and Russia backed us and told Saddam cooperate or ele we will turn Bush loose?

The advantage kerry has is he can continue to make statements like " if I was in charge I would havd done everythign differently" Of course with 20-20 hindsight its easy to say that.

Kerry is a putz. He is going to loose this election, and I will be laughing my ass off at all the liberals and foreigners who whine and cry....

It'a pretty good rule of thumb that if you anger the French population or leaders, you are on the right track.

[RawAlex]

Mike, I think you really don't get it.

Why did the US go to war with Iraq?

It wasn't about terrorists - there were no real terrorists in the country (except Saddam himself, but he wasn't a terrorists in the Bin Ladin way).

It wasn't because the US felt threatened - maybe only Isreal was vaguely threathened.


The US went to war on Iraq because they failed to let UN inspectors in to try to find the (non-existant, apparently) weapons of mass destruction. The war was started because Saddam failed to lilve up to the UN resolutions on the issue. That is EXACTLY what your President said.

In reality, you can trace this one all the way back to W's Daddy...

Please don't re-write history Mike, go back and read... do the timeline thing. See what the President said in his speech (you know, the one where he talked about "shock and awe"). See why he said 1000+ americans had to die in Iraq.

It isn't anywhere near as nice as they try to make it now.

Alex

[OldJeff]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Sep 24 2004, 04:12 PM
It'a pretty good rule of thumb that if you anger the French population or leaders, you are on the right track.
I think I have finally found something I agree with Mike 100% on.

If for no other reason pissing off the French is fun.

I think I am giving up on political argument, although good mental masturbation, it is really about as usefull as a dry hump in the back seat of a 72 Volkswagon, fun at the time, but pretty much a waste of time.

[Mike AI]

Alex, I get it. Thankfully a majority of American public do as well, and thus Bush should win election.



Iraq is Not Vietnam, It's Guadalcanal
Friday, September 24, 2004
By Powl Smith


Pundits these days are quick to compare the fighting in Iraq (search) with the American loss in Vietnam (search) 30 years ago. Terms like "quagmire" evoke the Southeast Asian jungle, where America's technological advantages were negated and committed Vietnamese guerrillas wore down the U.S. will to fight.

People love to draw historical analogies because they seem to offer a sort of analytical proof—after all, doesn't history repeat itself? In fact, such comparisons do have value, but like statistics, it's possible to find a historical analogy to suit any argument. And Vietnam's the wrong one for Iraq.

In fact, World War II is a far more accurate comparison for the global war we are waging to defeat terrorism. Both wars began for the United States with a catastrophic sneak attack from an undeclared enemy. We had many faint and not-so-faint warnings of the impending Japanese assault on Pearl Harbor (search), not least the historical precedent of Port Arthur in 1904, when the Japanese launched a preemptive strike against Russia.

We had similar ill-defined warnings and precedents about Al Qaeda (search) and Islamist terrorism (search) (the East Africa embassy bombings (search) in 1998; the USS Cole bombing (search) in 2000), but in 2001 as in 1941, we lacked the "hard" intelligence requisite to convince a country at peace that it was about to pitched into war.


Historical apologists say that the Japanese were "forced" to attack us because we were strangling their trade in Asia. Sound familiar? American foreign policy in the Middle East is responsible for the anger and rage that has stirred up Al Qaeda, right? In fact, there is a crucial similarity between the Japanese imperialism (search) of 50 years ago and Islamic fundamentalism of today: both are totalitarian, anti-Western ideologies that cannot be appeased.

As Japan amassed victory after victory in the early days of the war, America and our allies could see that we had a long, hard slog ahead of us. Americans understood there was no recourse but to win, despite the fearful cost. This was the first and foremost lesson of World War II that applies today: Wars of national survival are not quick, not cheap, and not bloodless.

In one of our first counteroffensives against the Japanese, U.S. troops landed on the island of Guadalcanal (search) in order to capture a key airfield. We surprised the Japanese with our speed and audacity, and with very little fighting seized the airfield. But the Japanese recovered from our initial success, and began a long, brutal campaign to force us off Guadalcanal and recapture it. The Japanese were very clever and absolutely committed to sacrificing everything for their beliefs. (Only three Japanese surrendered after six months of combat—a statistic that should put today's Islamic radicals to shame.) The United States suffered 6,000 casualties during the six-month Guadalcanal campaign; Japan, 24,000. It was a very expensive airfield.

Which brings us to the next lesson of World War II: Totalitarian enemies have to be bludgeoned into submission, and the populations that support them have to be convinced they can't win. This is a bloody and difficult business. In the Pacific theater, we eventually learned our enemies' tactics—jungle and amphibious warfare (search), carrier task forces, air power—and far surpassed them. But that victory took four years and cost many hundreds of thousands of casualties.

Iraq isn't Vietnam, it's Guadalcanal—one campaign of many in a global war to defeat the terrorists and their sponsors. Like the United States in the Pacific in 1943, we are in a war of national survival that will be long, hard, and fraught with casualties. We lost the first battle of that war on Sept. 11, 2001, and we cannot now afford to walk away from the critical battle we are fighting in Iraq any more than we could afford to walk away from Guadalcanal.

For the security of America, we have no recourse but to win.

[gonzo]

Originally posted by OldJeff+Sep 25 2004, 06:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (OldJeff @ Sep 25 2004, 06:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Sep 24 2004, 04:12 PM
It'a pretty good rule of thumb that if you anger the French population or leaders, you are on the right track.
I think I have finally found something I agree with Mike 100% on.

If for no other reason pissing off the French is fun.

I think I am giving up on political argument, although good mental masturbation, it is really about as usefull as a dry hump in the back seat of a 72 Volkswagon, fun at the time, but pretty much a waste of time. [/b][/quote]
You saw what happened to that bartender at the Bada Bing when he tried to talk politics with Tony Soprano....

[JR]

i think that aside from all the semantics and arguments about right and wrong, who said what and what weapons weren't where... we can probably all agree that in light of 9/11 and the growing terrorist threat at hand, the UN is not only innefective at dealing with suchs threats (other than through appeasement) and that it was time to start drawing some difinitive lines in the sand with rogue regimes.

of course, a person in Montreal might have a different perspective that the average American... but that hardly changes the fact that the UN is useless and was nowhere near effective when it came to dealing with Iraq back when it was a universally accepted fact that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, was stealing all the oil for food money and squandering it on palaces while child mortality rates were creeping up to 15% and that he was in no way, shape of form cooperating with the UN. he was a terrible person, doing terrible things and no one disputed that he had more sinister intent.

i don't think the UN should pay for Iraq... but i do think Iraq is a problem that was largely created by the UN.

there is no right or wrong in war and warfare. there is only national interests, survival or death. there have been several hundred armed conflicts that the UN did not stop since its inception and countless millions of lives lost. why would any country place its own security in the hands of the UN if they did not have to? some have to... some don't. France, Russia, Syria and other rotating members could certainly care less about the threats the US faces unless it is one that affects them directly. If not, then every issue is simple political currency to be spent on the world stage.

even with the UN being the biggest humanitarian organization on the planet, it has still killed more people than it has saved through its own ineptitude and unwillingness to act. thats something to think about... while pointlessly discussing the Security Council, the political process and International law.

... to protect the peace, you must prepare for war.

[RawAlex]

i don't think the UN should pay for Iraq... but i do think Iraq is a problem that was largely created by the UN.

JR, at this point, if you follow the UN's course of action ( or inaction) then Sadddam would be in power, 1000 americans would be sleeping at home, and the price of oil would probably be lower.

More importantly, there wouldn't be a huge new training and indoctrination lab for terrorists called "Iraq".

I am NOT a big fan of the UN in it's current form, an impotent forum for whiners and tinpot despots to make like they are really leaders, but I am a fan of having a place where all the world gets together to discuss and look for solutions. Alas, those solutions are often blocked by those who need the most solving, but there ya go.

The UN didn't create the current situation in Iraq, only Bush as his "coalition of the willing (stupid way to say only a few countries provided meaningful amounts of troops) created the mess, and they are now stuck with it. Sucking up to the UN after deed is done is, well, sucky.

Mike, likening (9/11 to pearl harbour is a HUGE stretch.

Pearl Harbour: The US was attacked by japan. I can point to Japan on a map. I have been there. I know tokyo well. I know where to find the japanese, and the US won that was specifically by dropping a really big bomb on the place where they knew the japanese were.

9/11: A small group of terrorists, detroyed a major building. These terrorists were from a number of different countries, none of which sanction their acts (although some permit and encourage it on the QT). I don't know where they are. The US doesn't know where they are. The US cannot just drop a bomb somewhere and make them surrender. You need to get each and every last one of them. In the meantime, the US has gone into a distracting "police action" in Iraq, somehow magically linked to the "war on terror"... it's only link that I can see is that it has created a nice training ground for new terrorists and taught a whole new group of muslims to enter into a Jihag against the US. The actions in Iraq have almost certain created more terrorists than it removed.

It's not a war - war is between countries, nations, peoples. There is no nation, no specific people on the other side. No one place to take out, no government to overthrough, no captial to take, no fort to take possession of, no command center to remove, nothing. This does not compute inside the US was machine. The results? Iraq - Nothing to do with Bin Ladin, nothing to do with the terrorists that committed 9/11...

Mike, if you were going to "drop the big bomb" to get rid of terrorism, where would you drop it?

Alex

[Mike AI]

There is no places to drop the big bomb. But there are plenty of places to drop smaller bombs.

Islamacists must drive the US out of Iraq. It is the central battlefield for this war now. Bush created it. it is basicly a big flame that keeps attacting terrorists. It has gone under reported but they are dying by the dozens.

[JR]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Sep 25 2004, 07:44 AM
i don't think the UN should pay for Iraq... but i do think Iraq is a problem that was largely created by the UN.



JR, at this point, if you follow the UN's course of action ( or inaction) then Sadddam would be in power, 1000 americans would be sleeping at home, and the price of oil would probably be lower.

More importantly, there wouldn't be a huge new training and indoctrination lab for terrorists called "Iraq".

I am NOT a big fan of the UN in it's current form, an impotent forum for whiners and tinpot despots to make like they are really leaders, but I am a fan of having a place where all the world gets together to discuss and look for solutions. Alas, those solutions are often blocked by those who need the most solving, but there ya go.

The UN didn't create the current situation in Iraq, only Bush as his "coalition of the willing (stupid way to say only a few countries provided meaningful amounts of troops) created the mess, and they are now stuck with it. Sucking up to the UN after deed is done is, well, sucky.

i cannot argue with that.

but i believe other statements are also true...

100's of thousands of Iraqi children would not be dying before the age of 5 because their leader is building new palaces with their medicine.

some of the worlds most notorious terrorists are no longer safely living in bagdad.

al queda supported terrorists no longer have a base in Iraq

Iraq is no longer hiding weapons of mass destruction or failing to account for them at the demand of the UN.

i believe that would be ditctators are now on notice and know that there is a "too far" while they are telling the world to fuck off.

i believe that Iran and Syria at a minimum, know that they do have to keep their behavior and support of terrorism in check and know that someone might strike them if they cross the line

i can go on and on with as many similar statements as you can with your own. my point is always the same.. its not a matter of right or wrong. those are subjective issues that change a couple dozen times in each time zone on the planet.

I agree with you ... asking the UN to pay for problems in Iraq being that it was so clear that most in the UN were against the war... and the UN Security Council did not support the war is pretty shitty. But thats politics. Politics is always shitty. Politics is always the same... doing what is in your own best interest while trying to convince everyone it is in their best interests. Bush would be more of an idiot for not trying in my opinion.

[Mike AI]

Libya gave up its WMD program.

The WMD underground based in Pakistan, that stetched from N. Korea to Iran was exposued and broken up as well.

There have BEEN some short term successes.

The 1,000 brave men who died in over a year of combat are heros. They fought and sacrificed so we don't lose 3,000 civilians in a matter of HOURS!

[PornoDoggy]

I think the 1,000+ who died in Iraq (850 +/- of whom have died after the "Mission
Accomplished" delcaration) did their duty - the term hero is so overused as to be meaningless. And IF - a very big IF, indeed - a democracy can begin in Iraq then their sacrifice will not have been in vain. The failures of their leadership cannot and should not be used to tarnish the service they provided.

Anyone who thinks that their sacrifice has done a single goddamn thing to enusre "we don't lose 3,000 civilians in a matter of HOURS" needs to back away from the crack pipe and switch to non-electric koolaid. Iraq was not a base for, a source of funding for, nor a source of personnel for alQaida operations. Far from making sure that "al queda supported terrorists no longer have a base in Iraq", we have opened at least a large section of the country to them, and provided them with a new front in the war. The idea that Iraq will act like some sort of candle to attract all the al Qaida moths to the light is extremely niave. Some of those who will BECOME the next generation of "the worlds most notorious terrorists" are not living in retirement in Baghdad, but in fact gaining valuable operational experience against American forces.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Sep 25 2004, 05:07 PM
I think the 1,000+ who died in Iraq (850 +/- of whom have died after the "Mission
Accomplished" delcaration) did their duty - the term hero is so overused as to be meaningless. And IF - a very big IF, indeed - a democracy can begin in Iraq then their sacrifice will not have been in vain. The failures of their leadership cannot and should not be used to tarnish the service they provided.

Anyone who thinks that their sacrifice has done a single goddamn thing to enusre "we don't lose 3,000 civilians in a matter of HOURS" needs to back away from the crack pipe and switch to non-electric koolaid. Iraq was not a base for, a source of funding for, nor a source of personnel for alQaida operations. Far from making sure that "al queda supported terrorists no longer have a base in Iraq", we have opened at least a large section of the country to them, and provided them with a new front in the war. The idea that Iraq will act like some sort of candle to attract all the al Qaida moths to the light is extremely niave. Some of those who will BECOME the next generation of "the worlds most notorious terrorists" are not living in retirement in Baghdad, but in fact gaining valuable operational experience against American forces.


PD for the sake of arguement, I wll give you those points.

Iraq is not the battleground - and its attracting islamcists from around the region. They are being killed by the dozen. I would rather then be fighting our military in Iraq, then seizing our schools and killing out children.

[PornoDoggy]

First of all, Mike, I don't know what the fuck "islamcists" are ... I assume you are referring to the terrorists who use Islam as their justification. I don't think linking them with all of Islam is any more accurate than labeling all Christians as supporters of the so-called Christian Identity movement.

Second, I doubt very seriously that any of the folks allegedly pouring into Iraq from the region truly represented a threat to our children, our schools, yada-yada-yada. I'm convinced that claims of foreign participation in the conflict in Iraq continue to be overstated. My reason for saying this is very simple - if substantial numbers of foreign fighters were being killed or captured in Iraq, we'd be seeing perp walks and bodies stacked up, and both Fox News and Scott McClellan wouldn't stop talking about it. This is not to say that there are not foreign fighters in Iraq; I have no doubt there are.

I repeat what I've said before - the attempts to tie the war in Iraq in with the war on terror are, on the whole, pretty inaccurate. Talk of Iraqis, Arabs in general, or other mud people "seizing our schools and killing out children" makes good rhetoric, but is based more on fearmongering than fact.

[RawAlex]

PD, actually Bush is doing a good job tying Iraq to the war on terror because they have created whole new chances for Terrorists to grow in Iraq - a country that had effectively none before.

JR, while many of the points you bring are valid, I think that some of them are creations of spin doctors and media flacks rather than reality.

"100's of thousands of Iraqi children would not be dying before the age of 5 because their leader is building new palaces with their medicine. " - true on it's face, but with the little footnote that the "oil for food" program from the UN severely limited a country that should have been prospering with it's overwhelming oil reserves. Saddam was an asshole in this regard, but no different from literally hundreds of dictators past and present. North Korea has a much larger problem at this level, yet the US does nothing on that front.

"some of the worlds most notorious terrorists are no longer safely living in bagdad." I didn't know any were living there. Now I know for a fact that they live just outside of the city and toss bombs in regularly.

"al queda supported terrorists no longer have a base in Iraq" and "Iraq is no longer hiding weapons of mass destruction or failing to account for them at the demand of the UN." - I didn't know they have a base... and nobody found an WMD (and the UN had not found any in the previous 10 years either!).

Most important: "i believe that would be ditctators are now on notice and know that there is a "too far" while they are telling the world to fuck off." - none of these dictator types have ever told the world for fuck off in any meaningful way. The closest you might get is the apparent (but never proven) state sanctioning of terror in Lybia. Beyond that, it is all huff, no puff. On this basis, North Korea is a way more significant threat than anyone - and the US sure isn't running in to take their WMD away.

I can say that Iraq has more terrorists today than they had before the US came in.

I can say that the middle east is LESS stable as a result of the US actions.

I can say that even with the US right next door, Iran feels they can do whatever they want.

I can say that the war in Iraq has NOTHING to do with the war on terror, except as mentioned above.

Other than that, I dunno!

Alex