In Iraq. What, at the present rate, there's a 99.5% chance I'm right :roll:

got a bit heated there sorry but what do i know im just a dull boring old submariner with 19 years service and a **** load of medals that really mean nothing considering what some people sufferwhen we fail to act

Whatever you say, Micky, whatever you say. Go on and deceive yourself. Until the end of your life, if you want. It's your karma, not mine.

Probably the most clever answer in this thread.

DONT YOU KNOW SKY SUBMARINERS LIVE FOREVER


heres a joke a submariner dies and goes to heaven ,and at the pearly gates st peter refuses him entry


the submariner say's " come on let me in "and saint peter say's "ok but your the first"

after a while the submariner see's dark submarine shaped cloud go bye with a white bearded old man ontop of the fin with a white jersey on and a set of dolphins tattoed on his forearm the submariner races back to saint peter and said" come on shipmate i thought i was the first " he explained what he saw and saint peter said " oh that's god he just thinks hes a submariner" :lol:

The problem with the current plan is that it isn't a good one. In terms of actual counter-terrorism its entirely counter-productive. Terrorist cells operate in small decentralized groups with a loose hierarchy. They are united by shared ideology and not by national boundaries. As they have nothing in common then with sovereign states you can't fight it by going to war with it like you would with another country. This is the Bush mentality and the results so far are not encouraging. I agree with the sentiment that it is, indeed, simply breeding more terrorism.

That doesn't mean leaders should sit back and do nothing, that kind of thinking only implies that there are only two approaches and that therefore the plan being implemented, such as it is, must be the correct one. This is false logic.

Things began on the right path: law enforcement and intelligence agencies identified the attackers, the group behind it, and its leader. With that done, it was then necessary to neutralize this group and its leader while in parallel going after other extremist groups and strengthening anti-terrorist defences at home (improved border security, transport security, etc). These types anti-terrorism operations tend to fall within the realm of security, policing, and intelligence. The military's role would largely be in shoring up security at home and reacting to possible emergency crisis should another terrorist action occur (National Guard units would be ideally suited for both). Special forces and other units of this type are also well suited for anti-terrorist actions abroad in conjunction with that country's own counteri-terrorist units. This is a broad spectrum approach that would work best with multilateral cooperation from as many countries as possible. It has, to its advantage, that it actually isolates the element you want to eliminate while minimizing the likelihood of breeding more extremists (which is counter-productive).

Bush has done very little on this front while doing much to divert considerable funds, intelligence assets, requisite national guard and special forces units, away from it. To waste such resources on secular Iraq which, while it was many things under Saddam Hussein, was not a hotbed of terrorist activity nor in any way connected to 9/11, is pure folly. And its not simply unproductive, and an incredible waste of resources, its counter-productive because it gives the enemy a new cause to rally around that it didn't possess before and a new training ground with live targets to hone their skills and tactics on.

There were other ways to fight terrorism. As skybird said, what the US and its coalition is doing is not fighting terrorism, it is simply breeding it.

Scandium, ofcourse I knew all that. It's documented history, and it's easy for everybody to analyze especially in hindsight.

That being said, back in the days b4 S&A, I have explicitly stated in fora (simhq.com that is) that I thought C. Powell's case was lousy and that entering Iraq would only open Pandora's box, etc. And that Iraqi people would have to sort their own crap out.

Now, Bush and Blair apparently hadnt read my messages and went to war with Sadman. Things looked promising for a while, you have to agree.

The West became even slightly enthusiastic when Sadman's statue fell.

Then the insurgents gained ground and things got more and more problematic.

To cut a long story short, the West and espec. the Americans are in it up to their necks. It's hard to decide whether a federal democracy still has a slight chance or not. Even Americans, the most optimistic people on this planet, lose the faith.

So what do we do NOW ? Because that's the whole point ! Not in hindsight, no: Now.

You see, that's a more useful approach than these old anti-Bush and Blair retorics. These guys will be out of office soon anyway.

Things have gone the way they went, now we have to deal with it in a way which is in our best interest. We have all the evidence we need to conclude that a vast part of the islamic ME is hostile to our culture and will not change by our example let alone by force. I think that insight is very meaningful.

Okay, so I admit I am thinking EXIT as well. Train as many locals (speed up the process) asap to do the dirty work (maintain some law and order). If it works out: Great. If it doesnt, it was to be expected. These people are different after all. Better to leave asap or only waste more time on a lost case, and that case is Iraq.

With the forces back home, we start putting the economical squeeze again, on everybody who is against us and thus isolate the hostile elements.

Tough immigration law from islamic countries based on the 'better safe than sorry' principle. Feelings get hurt in the process ? That's too bad !

Meanwhile, triple the effort on alternative energy. We mustnt be desparate for ME-oil too much longer. Quite a few painful changes are required now, but for the better in the long run.

Meanwhile, take out Iranian nuclear facilties from the air, and why not throw in tomahawks as well. Mess with us, feel our wrath. That works. It's their way which they understand. Human rights and 'give peace a chance' is weakness to them (islamic leaders and average muslim men in the streets).

This will mean we separate the world into our world and theirs. No strings attached.

Is this what you want ? Or what is ? Speak plain English :-j

To touch only briefly on the pre-war issue before fast-forwarding to now: I was firmly opposed to it from the moment it became clear to me in late 2002/early 2003 that an invasion of Iraq wasn't just rhetoric, but seemed more likely with every passing day. As with others who opposed it, I was called a pacifist and "Anti-American". Like you said, Iraq was/is Pandora's Box and I could see no good from opening it. Especially not with Bin Laden still on the run and Afghanistan still far from being a settled matter. Anyway that was then, and my opinions have only hardened over time.

Currently I see no way to win in Iraq. By winning I mean a secure and stable country with the insurgency defeated, the foreign terrorists captured or killed, and a stable, non-theocratic government in place. So to me its not a matter of when the US leaves, as sentiment at home, alone, will create a political climate where the only viable option is Exit. Time is one of things the insurgency has on its hands: it doesn't need to defeat the US military on the field, only to inflict a steady enough stream of casualties to ensure the American people lose its interests in a country very few of them knew or cared much about before Bush brought it back into the limelight. In this they appear to be succeeding.

I also don't think the timeliness of a US withdrawl will have much impact on the aftermath. Whether they leave now or two years from now I think the outcome will be the same: the radicals, through election or through civil war, will gain power and Iraq will become a militant theocratic state. I'd imagine civil war would be the most likely means, as the different factions are only loosely united right now in their greater hatred of the US. Once the US leaves the civil war that is brewing now will boil over.

Thus, since to me the US leaving (and not on its own stated terms of establishing "Iraqi democracy") is inevitable along with the radical Islamic theocracy which will assume power there when they're gone, then I see no point in spending another day there.

To those who call this "cut and run" I say it worked for Vietnam, didn't it? Granted the stakes are a little higher now as Vietnam never did turn into the hell hole Iraq likely will, but the "declare victory and get out strategy" is the only one that will work in Iraq the same as it was the only one that worked in Vietnam. The US has Hussein and its show trial to conduct, which may be a poor substitute for the oil source it'll likely be deprived of but that's the way it goes.

Once its out of Iraq maybe it can then refocus its attention on the counter-terrorist efforts it should have been doing all along. It'll certainly need to. Likewise for developing alternative energy sources and reducing its reliance on middle eastern oil. Its not like the technology isn't there. In fact its been there for years, its just never been the priority that it should be.

We think alike to a great extent.

But could you be more specific on the subject of countermeasures:

What measures and what effects do you expect ?

That oughtta give you something to really dig into :know:

PS You know that´s not the stuff historical heroes are made of, huh ? Unless you'd have Ghandi, Mandela and the Dalai Lama in mind :-j

Never (NEVER!!!) I said somewhere like that nothing should be done and that the West should play the game against Islam in a laid back attitude! You guys imply that there was/is no alternative strategy to open military action. That is wrong. It is the weakest option of all.

My strategy is not so sensational, and wit will not create exciting news in the medias, and no spectacular pictures of air raids and balking men in uniform, parading in front of assembled troops. Admitted: if you are for entertainment, my solution will not appeal to you.

Key is the information of the public about:
a.) what Islam really is
b.) information on how industry and intellectual "elites" in the West are in bed with Isalmic and Arabic factions that are aggressively pushing into the West both economically and ideologically
c.) by that realizing that our leaders with one hand lead us to the current situation, while with the other hand they pull triggers for light and sound shows in foreign countries, and with their lips send us appeasing message by message about that we are on the right course. they lead us into a totalitarian society only, whether it will be a future Islam, or a western police state.

All this means a revolution in media policy, a rebellion against the wanted and streamlined opinion-making, and the lobbyists.

The war on terror:
d.) for the main should have been understood as a war of the intel community.
e.) terrorist network you cannot effectively target with an air armada or whatever, strikes do some minor damage and cause only new cells to pop up. you need to infiltrate them, both on a wide level and deep level. Operation swarmer so far has acchieved - well, what? It is an example by the book how the regular military's attempts to strike an enemy in an asymmatreical war is doomed to be futile.

Only this will:
1.) harden the home population's will to give up support for an ideology it is flirting with, but that seeks to actively undermine and overtake our society.
2.) rally public support behind those propagating a war on terror
3.) enable us to forsee and learn in advance about planned strikes and prevent them
4.) deceive the enemy.
5.) and maybe, finally, wipe out the enemy in one big simultaneous, global , massive operation. Fopr that, the needed precondtions by far are not fulfilled. Like in chess: you need starting work on setting them first.

Right now the West is doing the two biggest mistakes possible: it acts predictable, and contradictory. It wants to fight an enemy, but fails to correctly identify the enemy. thus, the nature and essence of this enemy is not understood. By that we accept the conflict to target only minor sideplaces of the battlefield, but do not go for the enemy's heart and core. We allow ourselves to get distracted, and even shake hands with the trdition that has brought up this enemy. We waste time, and ressources. And create suffering of so far neutrals, that by their own pain then see a reason to choose a side - and it's not ours.

I agree, the way I would fight terror takes more time, is less obvious and spectacular, far more subtle and complex and does not give oyu so much warstories to be thrilled about. That's life. Educating the people, braking up the unholy alliance of western lobbyists and Eastern Islam, and understanding the war on terror to be an intel operation, with only occasional military support where needed. But as long as we beat them with one hand, and shaking hands with them with the other hand, we will acchieve nothing else than ourselves just getting tired and exhausted. This is asymmetriacl warfare. It means that the higher developed party runs out of ressources much earlier than the inferior opponent, who is far less dependant on complex supply, because he does effectively fight back, but with less cost-intensive tools and means. At no cost we should have allowed ourselves to get deathlocked in this no win-no-win-situation. It acchieves us nothing, but wastes our precious energy, time and ressources only. The worst of all options had been choosen.

and that is the real reason why we are loosing. It's not because people like me think so. It is not because other people may hope fro failure. It is not because lacking public suppoort for an idiotic folly. It is because a folly is a folly, no matter how you try to twist it. Wrong timing, wrong reasopns to fight, wrong battleground, wrong tools and weapons, wrong intel data. And you guys are wondering...?

Just to be clear I was agreeing with you that it wasn't simply a two choice scenerio where we either do it Bush's way or do nothing ;)

Essentially I think the counter-terrorist experts should be left alone to do their job and be given whatever resources they need to do it with. As skybird has said, it would be an unglamorous undertaking as it doesn't present the same opportunity for the sideshows the Bush admin is so fond of (ex: the "Mission Accomplished" photo op) nor would it provide the justification for massive spending on cold war style weaponry as much of the work would be done largely by law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and the various special forces.

Its an entirely different strategy from the one the Bush Admin is currently waging where they, on the one hand, inflame the radicals and aid their recruitment efforts by invading iraq, while on the other trying to soft peddle America's image to the Middle East by hiring PR Firms & sending Karen Hughes (of all people) on a public relations tour of the Middle East.

There are political aspects as well but those I see as being more long-term oriented. Some I mentioned already, such as reducing dependence on ME oil by developing alternative energy sources and providing incentives for people to use them. Likewise, there should be disincentives for people who purchase "gas guzzlers' such as a tax on sales of certain vehicles. The idea is not to restrict people from buying them, only to make it a little more expensive to encourage people to make more fuel efficient purchases. Mass Transit fits into this category too and could be better developed to make it accessable to more people. I'm not an environmentalist, but those are the experts to tap as things that are "green" tend to be also petroleum independent or consume far less of it.

In our foreign policy we seem to favour propping up dictators and Shieks - anyone who will keep the oil flowing while looking the other way at whatever human rights abuses their regime inflicts. There are other ways which don't involve invading a country and inflaming the ME with our presence while making targets of ourselves. Nor is it simply a "PR" problem that can be dealt with by an advertising firm. I tend to like the "carrot and stick" approach where you reward those states that encourage reform and moderation while ostracizing and sanctioning those that do not. Sanctions are a tricky business though. If they're seen to be punishing the people rather than the regime then they're not suitable. Its all pretty complex. :-?

I think we have reached understanding -remember Sixpack likes to stir the pot every now and then by starting a topic ;)

Scandium said:
Essentially I think the counter-terrorist experts should be left alone to do their job and be given whatever resources they need to do it with.

This will be a problem. At least it would require total integrity on part of that highly trusted elite. And in politics, who is trustworthy ?

On the other hand. Winning the intel war requires secrecy. The level of openness (internet/media) we have experienced in the last 5 years seriously interferes with counterterrorism activities imo.

But can we rely on Big Brother ?

We already are ;) I'm not advocating they should be granted any more powers than they already have, only that they should be given the resources they need to do the job with. By "left alone" I meant the intel experts should be allowed to do their jobs free of political interference. That was one complaint often cited during the run up to the Iraq war was that the analysts were being pressured to provide intel that fit policy, rather than the politicians shaping policy around the intel which is how it should be.