gpatmac

iTrader: (3)

Then Syria...then Pakistan?

Ok, invade is a term that everyone is familiar with, but in the true nature of declaring a war NOT on a sovereign territory, but a group of people tied not to a country but an ideal (read: terrorists) we need to somehow re-address how we're 'selling' this war to our allies and potential allies, and the rest of the world.

Sure there would still be many, no matter how we packaged it who would dig in their heels and say that 'you can't enter that country because they haven't done anything not in accordance with the United States edict of harboring terrorists.

Bottom line, whether this is doable or not, my belief is that THIS is the only way that we're going to win the war on terrorism.

Also, you could argue that Al Zarqawi is directly tied to the terrorists. He's obviously advocating and using 'terrorististic' methods against us. I say, that while their methods are definitely that, it could be argued that they are just using the 'by any means necessary'. David couldn't use his fists against Goliath, could he? We could always come after that ******* later...and we will get him.:anger: Grudgingly, I would also argue that trying to defeat him has distracted us from our real goal.

We are allowing diplomacy and borders to define our strategy and tactics, ala Laos, Thailand, Cambodia...

Conventional wisdom holds that when you go to war, that it's both people and land focused. We need to change that. We need to help the rest of the world overcome that.

I once had a real smart mentor instruct me how to really understand my tactical mission given to me by my higher hq. He stated that in order to really understand, I had to decide if their intent for my company of steely-eyed, cold blooded, 18yr old killers to gain ground or to kill people. You will obviously accomplish a great deal of both during most any combat mission, but if you focus too much on gaining and maintaining ground when your true mission is to kill people, it's easy to see how you could get mired down and actually start to lose your own people if you continue on with your ill-focus on ground...and vice versa.

Your vote and thoughts could make this topic more luminous. I think that most everyone would agree, no matter what perspective you have, that the terrorism must stop. I'm giving my opinion on how we (the US gov't and military) could influence that. If you have different thoughts towards what will make the terrorism stop, please share, no matter how far out the shared conscious of this board may think.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Agreed.

There's just too many factors to consider and I believe we need to take what we can get. There's no way we have enough resources to invade these additional countries because of an ideal. Although I believe this is one of the only ways to effectively counter terrorism, the American public doesn't have the patience or understanding to follow through. All they care about at the end of the day is that they're a sovereign entity. They have no tolerance or understanding for human beings in distant countries being ruled under extreme-Islamic ideals.

This lack of consensus on American soil is going to make the war of terrorism a rocky, continuous battle till the very end. Although I don't believe the war on terrorism could ever be won, I do believe that such a consensus (battling the ideal) would allow Americans to gain considerable ground in comparison to what we're faced with now.

It's just too damn hard right now, Pat. Two of my old units are back in Iraq as we speak for Iraqi election security (BTW nice avatar ). This will be their 3rd rotation since 2003 and 2nd missed Christmas! Imagine the chaos, controversy and massive resources of another draft, complete reactivation of IRR and invasion of additional countries would bring us? Then consider the fact that we're trying to justify everything on an ideal that's potentially dangerous to non-Islamic nations. There's just no possible way we can sell this package to anyone else at this point in time. Especially when the idea of "free speech", "free love" and "free religion" is instilled in our very fabric.

That said, we're going to have to tuck our tails between our legs and pick our battles with terrorists groups that have cast the first stone upon us. God forbid we infringe on the rights of individuals that want nothing more than to see us dead. It's a double edged sword that we'll never get past.

I'll wait to see what others have to say before writing a novel....

Edit: I don't see why we couldn't tackle Pakistan now? ****'em... we have terrorists to kill in the North-West and will police our area when we're done. kthxbye!

BlingBlingBlue

Where's the option of "We had no business creating anarchy in Iraq, but now that we have, we are obligated to stay."?

deyes

I voted. "We SHOULD just pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and everywhere else, secure our borders, build bunkers and reserves on our own shores, and put our heads in the sand."
On the condition that we pull out of the UN, and foreign aid is sent only in the form of manpower and goods, not cash. Or we nuke all of the above countries.

deyes

What about the DPRK?

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Does Hussein's Legacy of Terror involving 400,000+ deaths ring a bell? Sometimes we need to take a step down (war) in order to take that step forward.

And here's your option

BlingBlingBlue

I don't recall that being the primary reason given to the UN and the American people for going to war.

gpatmac

iTrader: (3)

But we do. It's just like a normal economics question; what are we willing to sacrifice in order to increase assets?

As an officer who's spent countless hours coming up for military coarses of action for my battalion and brigade commanders, we spend so much time breaking down the problem to it's most basic elements. We clearly define and organize our assets. We 'wargame' our possible coarses of action against a well thought out enemy course of action in order to pick our best tact.

To me, our approach (doctrine) is very structured and effective. My point is that when you try to get the 'old-timers' (read: PTB) to apply this method towards anything but deliberate attack or raid, there lies a delta.

Why can't we apply that sort of problem solving towards our 'campaign'. The campaign encompasses figuring out how to convince the American public that what we are doing is righteous, that what we are doing deserves the most support that can be mustered, that the 'ugliness' of war is towards a greater good of a better standard of living for those without a vote who happen to live in that region. There's nothing saying that when we are finished accomplishing our intent over there, that the Muslim and non-Muslim people can't continue to practice their religion as they see fit. They just now have a vote as to how they're governed.

Did I start to ramble?

See above. We're not doing a good enough of a job justifying that what we're doing is correct.

I don't want to delve into it too much, as to whether I believe it; that's irrelevant. Whether we're right or wrong, ANYTHING can be sold/spun. I mean, look at how well our government sold us on how much of a threat Communism was. For 50 YEARS! they were able to do that.

Now, whether it's right and ethical to 'sell' something as grave as this, for my purpse, is also irrelavent. This, to me, isn't an argument about whether we're being just or unjust, although I understand to many, that's the ONLY argument.

You may be right, unless we redirect our efforts.

To me, we're not talking about the insectoids vis a vis Starship Troopers. I'm convinced, at least on the micro level, that anyone whom I want to at least be able to stomach me, I can convince that I'm not all that bad. It's not going to take 24 hours, but much like KKK bigots, I feel that many of the folks, while very hard to convince, are just ignorant. Same can be said about the terrorists. They've most likely been brainwashed that we're the devil. Why they've been convinced of that is that someone (OBL or whomever) is trying to further an agenda. OBL may even believe that stuff himself, but it's obviously false....right?

Believe me, cat (and you know you can trust me.) That makes certain folks that I know drool. Whenever the Paki brass was around, there were a whole lot of fake smiles on both sides.

gpatmac

iTrader: (3)

That sounds like option 4 to me.

Best analogy I have is when someone has a knife stuck in their carotid artery which is actually stemming the flow of blood, the person will die, not as quickly as a fully open, spewing artery; but he will die.

You have to pull it out, but now you've created a worse condition. If you're good, you can now plug and sew the wound properly but time is on you.

Bottom line, the knife has to go.

gpatmac

iTrader: (3)

Deyes, have you seen a professional?


Well, I guess I didn't add an option for the most radical to vote.


DPRK is China's problem now. HA HA HA HA.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

It doesn't matter!

Finding WMDs in Iraq was on the agenda but was never at the top of the list even though it would have been nice to find them. If you think otherwise then you're a complete moron. War has always been fought on interests... they have been since the Roman Empire. If we can erridicate a fearful dictator, regime and gain economic interest then so be it! We win in both aspects; helping people in Iraq and gaining economic ground.

It's people, such as yourself, that cling to the idea of WMD and say "See I told you, see I told you, see I told you so!.... hahaha Bush is a liar! HA!" *sigh*

Like I said, finding WMDs would have been (and still can be) a bonus but it wasn't part of the bigger picture. This is exactly my point in the first post of this thread. How else was the United States supposed to "package the idea" to people like you when you're too damned concerned about your own free-interests?

Salty

iTrader: (14)

I agree with you, Pat but don't believe "sacrifice" is the vocabulary of most Americans. That's part of the problem and my point.

deyes

I'm sorry lol! I'm just getting sick of all of it. Seriously we need to stay in Iraq until the job is done. But looking towards other countries to be at war with does not sit well with me right now no matter how deserving they are of being killed. As for the DPRK I've been playing a lot of Ghost Recon 2 lately

gpatmac

iTrader: (3)

Well, that was my point. I'm not saying go to war with any other countries. We are and have been at war with terrorists. They are hiding in those countries I mentioned. All I'm posing is to 'enter' those countries iso the hiding terrorists.

EricDaRed81

iTrader: (10)

Where's the option for we should stay in Iraq until the job is done without stating that the PTB know what their doing becuase it sure as hell looks like they don't.