McKiernan OUT ... McChrystal IN

[eddie]

The impression I am forming is that "kids" in America may be misinformed, but youth in many other countries are much more insular and parroting some bizarre "party-line, this is how it is, etc." much moreso than we ever do. Cultural homogeneity and identity, I suspect, is at the root of this.

But I don't know.

 

[exhelodrvr]

Same difference. How do you propose we go about this - politics aside, that is?
Brett

Unfortunately, you can't approach it from a "politics aside" perspective. I think that trying to maneuver through the political obstructions will be the biggest determinant in how this is handled. At some point there will be at least one more "significant" negative event (i.e. 9/11 level or worse, not necessarily in the United States), which will force the issue.

 

[Uncle Fester]

...At some point there will be at least one more "significant" negative event (i.e. 9/11 level or worse, not necessarily in the United States), which will force the issue.

My money in the "Something Bad Will Happen" pool is on a WMD event in Pakistan. Or, if the jihadis are clever, set one off in India and let the nukes fly, a la The Sum of All Fears. If the government there falls (I mean the capital-G Government, not just the cabinet), that'll be how it happens, not fanatic hordes pouring into Islamabad.

 

[Brett327]

Unfortunately, you can't approach it from a "politics aside" perspective.

Wait a minute. I thought that's exactly what you were suggesting we do - you know, dispense with the PC and get on with the real warfighting. Anyhow, you never told us how you plan on separating the Islamic extremists from the garden variety Muslim. How are we going to wage out and out war on these people without that little trick, or do we just raze the whole place and call it good. That approach sounds rather Stalinesque.

At some point there will be at least one more "significant" negative event (i.e. 9/11 level or worse, not necessarily in the United States), which will force the issue.

Why do you assume that this is so? There have been lots of attacks around the world post 9/11 that have done nothing to change the grand scheme of things. Exactly what issue is it going to force - total warfare vs. the extremists? Even if we suffered another attack here, I think the general reaction of the country and the world at large would probably surprise you. The world just doesn't have a stomach for the kind of warfare you're suggesting - especially in this country. It's politically impossible, and wishing it weren't so is a poor substitute for an argument.

I'm going to make a bold statement for the group: In the current geo-political configuration, and for the forseeable future, the era of total warfare (I.E. WWII style) is effectively over. Too much is at stake for the big powers, so we'll collectively suffer through the occasional inconvenient police action and opposed nation-building type conflicts in favor of relative stability. Discuss.


Brett

 

[A4sForever]

.....I'm going to make a bold statement for the group: In the current geo-political configuration, and for the forseeable future, the era of total warfare (I.E. WWII style) is effectively over. Too much is at stake for the big powers, so we'll collectively suffer through the occasional inconvenient police action and opposed nation-building type conflicts in favor of relative stability. Discuss.


Brett

Have you briefed the ChiComs on this ... ???

 

[exhelodrvr]

Wait a minute. I thought that's exactly what you were suggesting we do - you know, dispense with the PC and get on with the real warfighting. Anyhow, you never told us how you plan on separating the Islamic extremists from the garden variety Muslim. How are we going to wage out and out war on these people without that little trick, or do we just raze the whole place and call it good. That approach sounds rather Stalinesque.

Why do you assume that this is so? There have been lots of attacks around the world post 9/11 that have done nothing to change the grand scheme of things. Exactly what issue is it going to force - total warfare vs. the extremists? Even if we suffered another attack here, I think the general reaction of the country and the world at large would probably surprise you. The world just doesn't have a stomach for the kind of warfare you're suggesting - especially in this country. It's politically impossible, and wishing it weren't so is a poor substitute for an argument.

I'm going to make a bold statement for the group: In the current geo-political configuration, and for the forseeable future, the era of total warfare (I.E. WWII style) is effectively over. Too much is at stake for the big powers, so we'll collectively suffer through the occasional inconvenient police action and opposed nation-building type conflicts in favor of relative stability. Discuss.
Brett

"I thought that's exactly what you were suggesting we do - you know, dispense with the PC and get on with the real warfighting ... The world just doesn't have a stomach for the kind of warfare you're suggesting"

What "kind of warfare" did I suggest? You seem to be confusing PC with the amount of military force that is used.

"you never told us how you plan on separating the Islamic extremists from the garden variety Muslim"

Decrease our vulnerability to them. Reduce dependence on foreign oil, improve border security.

Increase the DOD budget.

Decrease funding to the United Nations.

Take stronger action against nations that support terrorist groups.

Cut off funds to the Palestinians until they act reasonably.

Determine what the beliefs are of the "garden variety Muslim"? Do they really support the goal of the extremists, and the difference is that they would differ in the methods used? Or are they actually opposed to the idea of the Caliphate, the Great Satan, etc.

Provide support to the nations that take effective steps against the extremist groups.

 

[exhelodrvr]

"There have been lots of attacks around the world post 9/11 that have done nothing to change the grand scheme of things. Exactly what issue is it going to force - total warfare vs. the extremists?"

I specified a "9/11 level or worse" attack. Nothing since then has come close to that level. I think it would bring significant military action against countries that were seen as supporters of extremist groups.

 

[Brett327]

"I thought that's exactly what you were suggesting we do - you know, dispense with the PC and get on with the real warfighting ... The world just doesn't have a stomach for the kind of warfare you're suggesting"

What "kind of warfare" did I suggest? You seem to be confusing PC with the amount of military force that is used.

"you never told us how you plan on separating the Islamic extremists from the garden variety Muslim"

Decrease our vulnerability to them. Reduce dependence on foreign oil, improve border security.

Increase the DOD budget.

Decrease funding to the United Nations.

Take stronger action against nations that support terrorist groups.

Cut off funds to the Palestinians until they act reasonably.

Determine what the beliefs are of the "garden variety Muslim"? Do they really support the goal of the extremists, and the difference is that they would differ in the methods used? Or are they actually opposed to the idea of the Caliphate, the Great Satan, etc.

Provide support to the nations that take effective steps against the extremist groups.

Well, that all sounds great on paper or in a campaign speech, but most of that stuff is completely unrealistic. What are you going to do? Poll each Muslim on his/her beliefs, take them at their word, then kill them or let them live based on their answer? Great plan. Oh, and let me know when you get that cold fusion thing working.

Brett

 

[exhelodrvr]

Well, that all sounds great on paper or in a campaign speech, but most of that stuff is completely unrealistic. What are you going to do? Poll each Muslim on his/her beliefs, take them at their word, then kill them or let them live based on their answer? Great plan. Oh, and let me know when you get that cold fusion thing working.

Brett

You're right - it does just sound good on paper, because a significant portion of this nation, and a greater portion of the rest of the world, is more interested in "political correctness" than in reality. That was the initial point I was making. It will take something significantly bad to change that. Hopefully, only ONE significantly bad something.

"Poll each Muslim on his/her beliefs, take them at their word, then kill them or let them live based on their answer? Great plan. Oh, and let me know when you get that cold fusion thing working."

Now, when did I say anything even remotely close to either of those points? Boy, you work really hard at putting words into my posts!

How do you tell what their real beliefs are? Their actions, or lack of actions, is the best way. That seems to point towards a general support of the goals of the extremists, if not the methods, because the outcry from "non-extremists" has been relatively muted. How much of that is due to fear? Don't know. Rewarding groups/nations based on results which point the other way would help, with the carrots/sticks being immigration allotments, foreign aid, trade agreements, etc.

 

[exhelodrvr]

My money in the "Something Bad Will Happen" pool is on a WMD event in Pakistan. Or, if the jihadis are clever, set one off in India and let the nukes fly, a la The Sum of All Fears. If the government there falls (I mean the capital-G Government, not just the cabinet), that'll be how it happens, not fanatic hordes pouring into Islamabad.

I've had that same thought.

 

[Brett327]

You're right - it does just sound good on paper, because a significant portion of this nation, and a greater portion of the rest of the world, is more interested in "political correctness" than in reality. That was the initial point I was making. It will take something significantly bad to change that. Hopefully, only ONE significantly bad something.

"Poll each Muslim on his/her beliefs, take them at their word, then kill them or let them live based on their answer? Great plan. Oh, and let me know when you get that cold fusion thing working."

Now, when did I say anything even remotely close to either of those points? Boy, you work really hard at putting words into my posts!

How do you tell what their real beliefs are? Their actions, or lack of actions, is the best way. That seems to point towards a general support of the goals of the extremists, if not the methods, because the outcry from "non-extremists" has been relatively muted. How much of that is due to fear? Don't know. Rewarding groups/nations based on results which point the other way would help, with the carrots/sticks being immigration allotments, foreign aid, trade agreements, etc.

I give up - herding cats. You win.

Brett

 

[exhelodrvr]

My money in the "Something Bad Will Happen" pool is on a WMD event in Pakistan. Or, if the jihadis are clever, set one off in India and let the nukes fly, a la The Sum of All Fears. If the government there falls (I mean the capital-G Government, not just the cabinet), that'll be how it happens, not fanatic hordes pouring into Islamabad.

Then this should give you a warm fuzzy.

http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/05/13/pakistanis-and-indians/#more-3829

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

I'm going to make a bold statement for the group: In the current geo-political configuration, and for the forseeable future, the era of total warfare (I.E. WWII style) is effectively over. Too much is at stake for the big powers, so we'll collectively suffer through the occasional inconvenient police action and opposed nation-building type conflicts in favor of relative stability. Discuss.


Brett

I agree with your statements to a point. I concur that the era of WWII wars are over.

The days of sending hundreds and hundreds of bombers is over. The days of sending thousands upon thousands of men onto a beach are over.

Where I differ from you (I think) is that with there being so much at stake does not mean that big powers will not make a gamble in the future.

A better way to phrase that I suppose would be....

Someday in the future great powers with separate national interests will have so much at stake that they cannot simply ignore the interests of the other power. This could feasibly happen if the world would ever return to bipolarity or even a multipolar world. As it stands now it is my belief we are still living in the relatively new unipolar era with us as the global hegemon.

There are several regional hegemons that are growing fast and could certainly push us into a multipolar era within 20 years(an estimation). Those countries that I view as hegemons are India, China, and Brazil.

I also think our success as a fighting force hinges on our ability to adapt to the fight and not our ability to adapt the fight to us.

I was talking with an Army Major recently who had returned from Afghanistan and from his experience I posed the following idea... "It seems to me that we're trying to force conventionality onto an unconventional war."
He seemed to mostly agree with me on that point.

Overall Brett I agree with you, but I think there is a breaking point. There are a lot of things changing rapidly in the world that could twist and turn in several ways to push us further towards the breaking point wherever that may be. I also feel that the people and in many cases the politicians will decide when we break or when another nation or supra-national entity such as the EU does.

Personally I hope we never have to go back to the WW2 era style of fighting. I'm still young and I've got a lot to experience still before I gather any salt but I feel at times we need to try to stay on target and move forward before we get too complacent with our techniques. Also I feel that we do not need to ignore old techniques as relearning is time and effort wasted.

I think we've got some great leadership in the military that realize that e.g. General Petraeus. I think I'm starting to ramble though so I'm going to cut myself off.

 

[Spekkio]

Hmmm - I wonder if Tojo, Hirohito, Hitler, Mussolini et al would agree with that statement?

Don't kid yourself. We didn't go to war with the ideas of fascism and monarchy. We went to war with the German, Italian, and Japanese countries after they directly attacked us.

 

[exhelodrvr]

Don't kid yourself. We didn't go to war with the ideas of fascism and monarchy. We went to war with the German, Italian, and Japanese countries after they directly attacked us.

WE didn't go to war "with the idea" but we "defeated the idea"