Contemporary Wars

Is this your new topic to rant in, now that the "Progress in Iraq" topic is closed?

Please be careful... you will get us locked out of all the topics where we can discuss current security issues (at least where the US is involved, which is many of them).

Not that I am saying I disagree...

I can't understand at all this "Close Topic" policy each time a moderator can't, or don't want to handle a situation. It's not the solution because it punishes everybody, moderator included and detracts from the interest of the site.

I'm used to more confrontational forums and frankly I think that respect must be earned , not given. If someone states that he admires Heinrich Himmler and I say that he's a scumbag, it will perhaps get me banned for a week and the topic will be closed.

Well we can always open a new under another name. But you're right Jeff. I must make an effort to be less direct. Very hard at times

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on February 08, 2005 07:37 pm

War on terror by means of ... terror

Human rights is a very flexible concept... It depends how hypocritical you want to be on a particular day

Mike Scheuer, former CIA agent

Low intensity, insurgent type warfare often carries more dirty business than conventional warfare. The French learned long ago in Algeria that the potential intelligence advantage that could possibly be obtained by using the devil's own methods was more than ofset by :

1. the landslide in heart & minds that it inevitably entailed on the occupied country's population.
2. the negative effect of your own troops morale
3. the negative effect on home support
4. the negative effect on world opinion

Sadly, some didn't learn anything from that painfull lesson.

Condy's trip to Europe is a positive sign. However, extanding a hand without changing anything in the policies or adressing the problems is not likely to stop the diplomatic bleeding.

Predators Protect Troops


Source: US Department of defense


"LOGISTICS SUPPORT AREA ANACONDA, BALAD, Iraq --- The loud roars of Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcons here are familiar reminders of close-air support, but unmanned Predators silently swarm the skies protecting troops by different means.

The MQ-1 Predator, a lightweight, low-horsepower, unmanned aerial vehicle capable of taking daylight and infrared video imagery traverses the atmosphere above virtually undetectable.

The 46th Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron here aids Army personnel by keeping eyes on the combat situation via the Predators.

Although the Predator's main mission is to collect intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance information, it can also be used to introduce some lethal firepower to an intense combat situation.

"Obviously if we catch the bad guys that are shooting mortars at our base, the mortars stop," said Air Force Maj. Michael Bruzzini, squadron commander. "We saw mortars launched and took out the perpetrators with Hellfire missiles."

All of this is done from a terminal on the ground, where a pilot and a sensor operator control the movements and actions of the UAV.

The Predator was used during a recent raid where Army personnel detained several high-value targets, increasing the unit's combat effectiveness by 50 percent, Bruzzini said. "As the raid was going down, a 'God's-eye' view was being passed down to the soldiers. The Predator had eyes on the whole time and was able to inform the soldiers of what was going on around them," Bruzzini said.

This type of mission is part and parcel what the Predator was meant for. "Our biggest mission is to support [the Army]. We want to be your God's-eye view," Bruzzini said.

While the Predator's two onboard Hellfire missiles and surveillance capabilities supports the mission, Bruzzini still understands what his sister service's bottom line. "You win wars by securing ground, and troops on the ground are the only way you secure ground," the former F-16 pilot said.

He noted that there are challenges that are unique to the Predator. "You feel like you're in it. You do lose some situational awareness, because you can't look around your aircraft," Bruzzini said. "You take for granted a lot of things that are very easy in other aircraft, like taxiing."

Other than challenges borne of the fact that the pilot isn't actually in the aircraft, piloting the Predator is very similar to operating other aircraft.

The sensor operators control the movement of the cameras on the Predator and undergo nine months of training for that responsibility. Six months of that training takes place at Goodfellow Air Force Base in San Angelo, Texas, and the other three months take place at a formal training unit.

"In the first couple of weeks of the FTU, you want to quit [because of difficulties controlling the equipment,]" said Airman 1st Class Tyler Farley, a squadron sensor operator.

Farley has since mastered the operation of the equipment and now acts on instinct. "You just trust what the pilots do and play your 'video game' for five hours or so," he said.

Although it can be scary controlling a $4.2 million aircraft by remote control, Bruzzini said they are more apt to take risks in this aircraft because they're not risking loss of life.

"What's going through my head (when I'm piloting the Predator) is we have troops getting shot at who are Americans, and I want to help save American lives. ... It's very rewarding to know that what you do saves lives. ... There are combat missions with people on the ground, and I'm saving their lives on a daily basis," Bruzzini said. "

Iama

I think all the things mentioned are the result not of the counter-insurgency actions themselves but of the discrepancy between the latter's brutality and the way too soft goal they are supposed to serve.
The fall in troop morale and public support appears when the politicians lie and dress up the goal in ideological tooth-fairy stuff, raising the public's expectations way into the stratosphere, where they usually lose eye-contact with the facts on the ground.
You cannot set as a goal the export of democracy and human rights when the counter-insurgent operations will seem to destroy the very goal they are supposed to achieve. This could work for a while and keep the public support floating but when it stops working the fall will be tremendous and the demoralisation greater.
In contrast telling things as they are would work better.
Things like : its us or them, its a question of survival, they hate us for what we are, axis of evil. Right on! Drop the export-democracy crap, Bushy!!!

Unless the primary goal is something else, like ressource control, or corporate interests or geostrategic basing, and your democracy export is just a PR operation targeted at your own public opinion.

However you put your finger on something. It is strange that the clamored goal of extending freedom results in a serie of actions which are actually restricting (or worse) that freedom.

Fact is that roughly half the population of the US believes in the trumpeted objective. The other half and most of the rest of the world does not.

Meanwhile there is a frenzy among multiple nations to achieve nuclear strike capability in order to prevent US ingerence. For once you have it you can sleep quietly.

The North Koreans probably have it. Iran willl have it very soon. All the countries who are being threatened by the Bush administration and succeed in getting nukes then become increased liabilities, the very opposite of the professed goal.
One day one of those countries will sell a bomb (with a vengeance) to a group ready to blow it anywhere and the first mushroom cloud will appear over a US city.
I can't tell you how bad that would be for every living thing on the planet. For if a country already goes apeshit when 3000 citizens are killed, then I fully expect Armageddon when 100.000 go belly up. Radioactivity does not know neutrality.

Maybe its just me, but I think a political regime looses the support of the smart people when it is caught trying to hoodwink them and offer them implausible explanations. I wouldn't think much about the americans believing in the export of democracy, I guess they are liable to believing anything they are told, but rather I'd worry about the ones that don't.
And part of the ones that feel hostile to Bush understand that something else is at stake, and that they are being lied. The question is, wouldn't they rethink their opposition if they are presented the facts and the presumably dire situation the US would find itself if action was not taken? I think they would. They oppose Bush because they are treated as children, or with arrogance, told lies.
Its not that they wouldnt enjoy "the hunt", but they feel bitter that "daddy" considers them too imature to take part in it consciously...

As for Iran, as I said before, I think its imperative its taken out. I wouldnt trust a bunch of mullahs playing the deterrence game with nukes... As much as they praise martyrdom you never know, they might go for it.
Somehow I think a 40 year Cold War with an Islamic nuclear power would have never worked. Some fanatic would have pushed the button.

Good points.

Why should I trust Pakistan or China more than Iran ?

Iran, unlike the US, has not invaded anyone during the last 100 years and, unless you're willing to play preemptive war as soon as you have half a doubt, I think you should be willing to avoid a self defeating strategy.

Right now however there is no possiblity of attacking Iran. When the conditions will be right, Iran will have nukes.

Puhleeeze! Baghdad 2005 is not the Battle of Algiers. And we r not the French.

Under the radar, there have been amazing ongoing military learnings, as in any war. The U.S. military (this thread is about the military, n'est ce pas?) of late is good at that, among other things. To suggest U.S. tactics/policy r equivalent to those with which the French bungled Algeria is incorrect.

fyi, I wasn't in favor of this war; wrong war, time place, all that.....but here we r. We r not gonna fold tents and leave tomorrow. We got an election done...not perfect, but now the Saudis suddenly look like cavemen, running a "males only" election......maybe just the first "positive".

I am wholly confident in the U.S. military's competence, adaptability, valor and, yes, integrity.

welcome to the forum, Imp., if no one else has said that.

"taken out"......... how would u suggest that be done? If we (U.S.) does it we r the bad guys again. Maybe the Israelis do it? then all hell breaks loose.
I know!!!! the E.U. will rescue us from the mullahs.

agree re cold war.

And so you have nothing to learn from history or the experience of other nations
(why am I not surprised)...

As far as I know, the Iranian Mullahs did not threaten anyone with agression. This is not the war of independance and they are not the British.

The US army is still very poor at counter-insurgency operations. And this is what Irak is about. It's about H&M, all the rest is secondary. Flattening cities has never won a H&M campaign.

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on February 11, 2005 09:57 am

Some have a clue how to win. Wether their voice is heard and their answers have a place on the neocon agenda is a wholly different matter. This is not a bad assessment of the situation.


The problem in Iraq is still exactly what it was before the election: there is no state. Elections alone do not create a state, as we saw not long ago in Afghanistan. An occupying American army can protect an election, but it cannot create a state.

Yes, millions voted. But the Kurds voted for an independent Kurdistan, the Shiites voted for a Shiite-controlled Islamic republic (if any outside power won the election, it was Iran, not the U.S.) and the Sunnis stayed home and cleaned their weapons, getting ready for the next round of war. The insurgents know that history is made not by majorities who vote but by minorities who fight. The prospect of a Shiite-run Iraq helps the Sunni insurgents more than it hurts them.

While the elections themselves did not re-create a state in Iraq, they may have opened a door to doing so - a narrow door, but one Iraq and the U.S. might pass through if both prove more adroit than they have in the past. The key to success - and success remains less likely than failure - is for both the new Iraqi government and Washington to understand that the critical issue is legitimacy. No Iraqi regime can retain legitimacy if it is seen as a creature of the United States.

In specific terms, what does that mean? Iraq's new government should take steps along the following lines:

Refuse to move into Baghdad's infamous Green Zone, or anywhere else where it would depend on American troops for its security. A Shiite-dominated Iraqi government can be safe enough in Sadr City.

Exclude Americans from all participation in writing Iraq's new constitution.

Separate Iraq's new army and police from the Americans. If they need advisors, get them from some country other than the U.S. or Britain. Order the new army's equipment from Europe, Russia or China. Get rid of the American-style uniforms. Appearances are immensely important to the question of legitimacy.

Order all American troops out of Fallujah so the local citizens can finally come home. Iraqis, not Americans, should rebuild the city. This would be an important message to the Sunnis.

Sit down with as many of the insurgents as possible and try to cut a deal. Make it clear that Iraq's new government will eventually order the Americans out, and be willing to negotiate the timetable with the Sunni insurgents. So long as American troops are present, the insurgency will continue.


Find as many issues as possible on which to disagree with the Americans, do so publicly and force the Americans to back down. The more often the new government stands up to the Americans, the greater its legitimacy will be.

For its part, Washington could help this process along. Quietly encourage the new Iraqi government to override us. Complain loudly about how it is disregarding our advice. Most importantly, stop saying that American policy is to "kill or capture" every Iraqi who dares resist us. Don't try to impose a military defeat on Iraq's Sunnis, forcing them to come crawling to us and beg for mercy. That is never going to happen. Our goal should be peace, not victory. In much of Sunni Iraq, that means American troops should pull out. Quietly, we should also be talking to insurgent elements, trying to make deals.

Will any of this happen? As I have said before, Ayatollah Sistani seems like that rarest of men in today's world, a wise man. The Iraqi government he controls may take steps along these lines. Will Washington? Almost certainly not. Nor will our senior military leaders; they pride themselves on not being Machiavellian. But one silver lining is that genuine American anger toward the new Iraqi government is as useful as feigned anger. And our political and military leaders are both dumb enough to get angry at any real signs of Iraqi independence.

Actions along these lines could create chance - just a chance - of rebuilding a real Iraqi state. If so, Iraq's election might have marked a turning point. If not, all that will come out of them is an intensification of the civil war that is already under way in Iraq, plus a greater likelihood that war will spread beyond Iraq as Sunnis throughout the Arab world rally against a triumphant Shiism. That remains the more likely outcome.

William S. Lind

Several well placed MOABs could do the job. It will slow the Iranian nuclear program for a couple of years. In this time the US could better prepare for a possible whole scale attack and try to clear things in Irak.
If the attack makes the Iranians fight back it would rather lure them in the open than endanger the US troops in Irak. I think the USAF could handle them pretty well. No way Iran would come out of the hole. Some sabre-rattling, and that would be all.
Their mainstay tank is the modernised T-72. Their airforce is not very tough. Iran would never come down in the Iraqi open plains with that kind of "force". They are preparing for guerilla war in Iran, and hope that the prospect would intimidate a ground assault to destroy their WMD program. The US intimidates any Iranian assault over the borders. The MOAB could be employed without weakening or endangering any of these conventional deterrents + give time to US strengthening.

Thanks for the welcome.

The Iranians threatened just about everybody they did not like. I'm not saying thats unusual or something, but you cannot say they have threatened nobody.
For example:

"Nuclear Weapons Can Solve the Israel Problem
Rafsanjani said that Muslims must surround colonialism and force them [the colonialists] to see whether Israel is beneficial to them or not. If one day, he said, the world of Islam comes to possess the weapons currently in Israel's possession [meaning nuclear weapons] - on that day this method of global arrogance would come to a dead end. This, he said, is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam. "
January 3, 2002; Former Iranian President Rafsanjani

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=cou...iran&ID=SP32502

As you can see, the Islam psyche already predisposed to martyrdom would in fact go for a nuclear strike, as they think it would only martyr a part of them, not all, while completely destroying Israel. And ofcourse, the martyred ones get to go to heaven. Its a fair deal for them...

You can browse a lot of threats from the Iranians way before the Afghan and Iraki wars.

Now, wouldnt you say allowing a nuke on their hands would be far more dangerous than disarming them now?

I agree that everyone would be better off if they don't have it.

However if you take Rafsanjani words literally then you have not observed how muslims politicians are compelled to cry loud on Israel even when they deal with them under the table. This kind of oversimplification of a complex political situation is not very responsible. Ultimately people are judged on their acts.

You have not adressed my comment that the threatening, warmongering Iranians have not attacked a single country during the last century while the US has repeatedly done so (for good or bad reasons). What does this apparent paradox tell you ?

As for preventing the Muslims from getting the bomb it's too late, they already have it. And the Islamic schools of Pakistan are churning out the most radical clerics in the world year after year. However that dictatorship is presently a US friend so no problem and no elections right now. Let's just hope they can prevent an Islamic revolution indefinitely.

By engaging a crazy race to disarm every potential or imaginary WMD seeking countries I suspect that you're just accelerating the process and pushing the world toward the cliff. After all it has been observed that when you have nukes the US no longer talks about invasion so there is increased incentive to get them fast. The resulting proliferation however is just increasing the terrorist risk.


This post has been edited by Chandernagore on February 11, 2005 01:31 pm