So What SHOULD The U.S. Do Regarding The Middle East?

[Guest]

Regarding the Middle East, Isreal, Palestine, Sunnis, Shia' etc., there have been all kinds of criticisms of what the strategy of the Bush administration was, and now what the Obama strategy is, even though they are somewhat different. There are prognostications of what will work but far more often, what won't.

But we're left with the same problem, it seems. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. It's members are spreading around the globe--to Europe, Africa, the U.S., and Canada. The birth rate of Muslims is in the range of four times that of any other religion or ethnic group. In a few decades, they will be both a political and religious force to be reckoned with. They're already an increasing unsettling force thruout the western world because of their willingness to kill themselves in order to kill many others as a demonstration of their faith. That fact is undeniable.

The "problem with Islam" is worsened by the fact that a huge amount of the oil that we import comes from the Middle East, and there are no other reasonable alternatives sources to supply the U.S. with oil in that quantity. The imbalance of trade as the result leaves Saudi Arabia awash with U.S. dollars. Along with China, the Saudis have become one of the largest buyers of U.S. debt in the world.

At the same time, there is serious unrest in the Islamic homelands in the Middle East. The existence of Israel is a canker right in the middle of Islam. Muslims and Jews will likely never get along with one another. The U.S. is hated by Islam because of our steadfast support of Israel. Islamic fundamentalist hatred has exhibited itself in the numerous jihadist attacks on western and U.S. interests and people in recent years. Israel is becoming far less willing to cooperate with the U.S., while still expecting our money and security provided by our military and the weapons we sell them. The ease of travel, the information available on the internet, and very porous borders in most western countries will almost certainly result in more terrorist attacks. It's only a matter of time, it seems.

So if some disagree with the Bush strategy, and others now disagree with the Obama strategy, then what is the correct strategy to begin to minimize the threat of terrorism? What strategy should be used to assure the flow of oil and dollars back to the U.S. from the Middle East? The "problem" is not going away. In fact, as I said above, it's getting bigger as Islam grows and spreads.

So, if we don't like the approach taken by our most recent two Presidents and our last two majority political administrations...then what would YOU do to address the problem? That seems like a logical question to me.
__________________

[Guest]

Relocate the 5 Million Jews to Detroit and have them rebuild it and the auto industry.

A win win solution.

.

[Guest]

It would take me too long to articulate my feelings and strategy. Instead, please take 5 minutes and read this:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/a-conservative-view-point/2009/jun/03/obamas-visit-to-egypt/ :bowdown:

Keedy

[Guest]

try to get these people to stop killing each other (which they have doen for centuries) and in recent times Americans.

I would make getting away from mideast oil the top priority of America. The goal would be to import zero oil from any OPEC members or any other country that does not support the USA.

Then I would pull all troops out of the mideast and let them do what ever they may to each other.

The ONLY reason we currently need to suck up to them is to be sure they don't stop the flow or raise the price too high.

The above is simple and straight forward and do able in less than 10 years.

However we all know what happens to something simple and straight forward when left to politicians.....NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

btk

[Guest]

OK, we pretty well know what the problem is regarding the U.S. and Islam. So what might our objectives be? Let me list a couple...
Israel and Palestine reach whatever agreements needed for them to peacefully co-exist as neighbors, without the need for an 18-foot wall betweent them.
We begin to get advanced warnings from the "regular" citizens of Iraq as to where the terrorists are living, where their caches of weapons are, and forewarnings of when and where IED's have been planted to kill American soldiers.
The world must begin to have some influence on Iran in order for them to stop their nuclear weapons production. Having nuclear facilities for electricity generation is OK, but they'd have to agree to inspections.
Get the "regular" citizens of both Palestine and Lebanon to report where the terrorists are that are shooting rockets into Israel and where they're shooting them from. The measure of effectiveness will be a reduction of the frequency of rocket attacks on Israel.
Somehow we resolve the political strength of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Taliban is a legitimate political force in eastern Afghanistan and northern Pakistan. To simply say that the Taliban is the enemy and must be eradicated is probably not a winning strategy. Chances are they must be a peaceful part of the solution to political stability on that area. There's no point trying to force American social standards on an organization that is not only accepted, but is popular with a large part of the population of those two countries.
There are other objectives, of course. But for starts, this is enough.

So how do we accomplish those objectives? By having our President travel to the Middle East and tell them in no uncertain terms that regardless of what they might believe, Americans are really good people who have already done a lot for them? By going on to tell them to quit obsessing over the existence of Israel? To tell them to simply get over it and begin to worry more about the situation inside Islam and forget about the U.S.--we've really done a whole lot in their behalf already?

All that stuff is true, of course, and that's the message the conservative columnist from the Washington Post says should be carried to the Middle East. Does anyone think that kind of foreign policy message would be effective in achieving our objectives above? Will the Muslims actually begin to move towards the accomplishment of our objectives by us telling them to forget about Israel and get their butts in gear to resolve their own internal issues?

Nice column. But I can sure see why the columnist isn't ever going to make a living in the area of foreign relations.

[Guest]

Regarding the Middle East, Isreal, Palestine, Sunnis, Shia' etc., there have been all kinds of criticisms of what the strategy of the Bush administration was, and now what the Obama strategy is, even though they are somewhat different. There are prognostications of what will work but far more often, what won't.

But we're left with the same problem, it seems. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. It's members are spreading around the globe--to Europe, Africa, the U.S., and Canada. The birth rate of Muslims is in the range of four times that of any other religion or ethnic group. In a few decades, they will be both a political and religious force to be reckoned with. They're already an increasing unsettling force thruout the western world because of their willingness to kill themselves in order to kill many others as a demonstration of their faith. That fact is undeniable.

The "problem with Islam" is worsened by the fact that a huge amount of the oil that we import comes from the Middle East, and there are no other reasonable alternatives sources to supply the U.S. with oil in that quantity. The imbalance of trade as the result leaves Saudi Arabia awash with U.S. dollars. Along with China, the Saudis have become one of the largest buyers of U.S. debt in the world.

At the same time, there is serious unrest in the Islamic homelands in the Middle East. The existence of Israel is a canker right in the middle of Islam. Muslims and Jews will likely never get along with one another. The U.S. is hated by Islam because of our steadfast support of Israel. Islamic fundamentalist hatred has exhibited itself in the numerous jihadist attacks on western and U.S. interests and people in recent years. Israel is becoming far less willing to cooperate with the U.S., while still expecting our money and security provided by our military and the weapons we sell them. The ease of travel, the information available on the internet, and very porous borders in most western countries will almost certainly result in more terrorist attacks. It's only a matter of time, it seems.

So if some disagree with the Bush strategy, and others now disagree with the Obama strategy, then what is the correct strategy to begin to minimize the threat of terrorism? What strategy should be used to assure the flow of oil and dollars back to the U.S. from the Middle East? The "problem" is not going away. In fact, as I said above, it's getting bigger as Islam grows and spreads.

So, if we don't like the approach taken by our most recent two Presidents and our last two majority political administrations...then what would YOU do to address the problem? That seems like a logical question to me.
__________________

The reason Islam is the "fastest growing religion" is they are out-procreating the so-called Christians and Jews. Islam only agrees to abortion when the mother's life is at risk, while so-called Christians and Jews are killing off over a million a year via abortion just in the USA for nothing more than staving off inconvenience. That's why the USA's population has "grayed" so much over the last three decades, the Social Security Fund has reduced and illegal aliens fill the workforce void created by the "missing young." So, here we have another one of those "unintended consequences" of abortion. If the live-birth differential between Muslims and Christians/Jews continues with such a disparity, and it is just a few decades away from minority-to-majority, and we are letting it happen through our own "Pro-Choice" mentality, then we get what we deserve.

As as far as "serious unrest in the Islamic homelands," there always has been. It's no better now than ever before, and in truth, Israel is not helping the matter by virtually expanding its borders by building more settlements and filling them with recruited Russian and other immigrants. The Arabs are just as guilty with their failure to do much in the way of quality-of-life support to the border areas and aid to refugees there. So, both sides have unclean hands in all of this. And that is all the more reason for the US to be neutral from here on out, and stop funding this insanity at the annual tune of $2.5Billion to Israel and $2.0Billion to Egypt/WestBank/Gaza. Israel will continue to be arrogant to its Arab neighbors, as long as the US is there to defend Israel unconditionally and subsidize the arrogance, and the Arabs will continue to keep the border areas in turmoil through population incitement despite US aid as long as that tactic will work as a counter.

So, if there is ever going to be peace with honor in the MidEast, the parties need to be honorable. Neither has been nor will be as long as outsiders are in the economic and military picture.

As far as Iraq and Afghanistan are concerned, we are not in the "nation-building" business. That's the UN's job to oversee that. Let the UN send all the "peacekeepers" it wants there (and we'll even subsidize them), as we have accomplished all of the conventional military goals. As far as "anti-terrorism" is concerned, the Iraqis and Afghans just need to know that if the same problem occurs as what brought the US there continues or happens again, don't expect the UN peacekeepers to get in our way as we defend ourselves.

Eventually, we need to recognize that the US Military cannot solve every problem everywhere, and that even Sun Tzu warned that you cannot deploy troops indefinitely. The troops have already won, as the safer homeland now exists, and it's up to the international reconstructionists to make Iraq and Afghanistan become good international neighbors. We can always go back, kick butt again, and leave to let them try to get it right again. It's a vicious circle, but it does work better than siege warfare with a long supply line.

[Guest]

I really think that we cannot get too intellectual with these people. Their culture is different then ours. Talk, talk, and more talk is totally useless. I know it sounds barbaric but brutal strength is something they understand. To them, alot of talking is seen more as a weakness and when they sense it, they laugh in it's face.
Leverage is what they understand and that is what you need to negotiate with them. Look, I know what I'm saying sounds simplistic, but we have been talking to them since the Carter years.
The way to have leverage is to be more independent. They have what we want (oil) and they know that we don't have our own. The liberals say that it takes too long to drill for oil. They say it takes 6-10 years for it to get to the consumer. Well, if we had stared drilling when Bush first took office, we would be enjoying the fruits of our labor and we could go over there and talk with real strength.
I know it is not the only solution...but it is the best one I can think of.

[Guest]

OK, we pretty well know what the problem is regarding the U.S. and Islam. So what might our objectives be? Let me list a couple...
Israel and Palestine reach whatever agreements needed for them to peacefully co-exist as neighbors, without the need for an 18-foot wall betweent them.
We begin to get advanced warnings from the "regular" citizens of Iraq as to where the terrorists are living, where their caches of weapons are, and forewarnings of when and where IED's have been planted to kill American soldiers.
The world must begin to have some influence on Iran in order for them to stop their nuclear weapons production. Having nuclear facilities for electricity generation is OK, but they'd have to agree to inspections.
Get the "regular" citizens of both Palestine and Lebanon to report where the terrorists are that are shooting rockets into Israel and where they're shooting them from. The measure of effectiveness will be a reduction of the frequency of rocket attacks on Israel.
Somehow we resolve the political strength of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Taliban is a legitimate political force in eastern Afghanistan and northern Pakistan. To simply say that the Taliban is the enemy and must be eradicated is probably not a winning strategy. Chances are they must be a peaceful part of the solution to political stability on that area. There's no point trying to force American social standards on an organization that is not only accepted, but is popular with a large part of the population of those two countries.
There are other objectives, of course. But for starts, this is enough.

So how do we accomplish those objectives? By having our President travel to the Middle East and tell them in no uncertain terms that regardless of what they might believe, Americans are really good people who have already done a lot for them? By going on to tell them to quit obsessing over the existence of Israel? To tell them to simply get over it and begin to worry more about the situation inside Islam and forget about the U.S.--we've really done a whole lot in their behalf already?

All that stuff is true, of course, and that's the message the conservative columnist from the Washington Post says should be carried to the Middle East. Does anyone think that kind of foreign policy message would be effective in achieving our objectives above? Will the Muslims actually begin to move towards the accomplishment of our objectives by us telling them to forget about Israel and get their butts in gear to resolve their own internal issues?

Nice column. But I can sure see why the columnist isn't ever going to make a living in the area of foreign relations.

VK, this problem has been around for a long long time through a number of Presidencies.

According to reports I have read and anyone can read, there is a hate for the West represented by the USA which is not just in the heart of terrorists, but in most of the average citizen of Islamic lands.

All the olive branches in the world will not take this hate away; many have tried both openly and with subtle and secret envoys over years and years.

They want us to concede, and what I dont know...I imagine that Israel is one thing. I know that waging war and killing each other does not seem to work anything out, but we CANNOT and SHOULD NOT begin to give up things to people who hate us. We, as a country, seem to have this need to be loved and perhaps there is no way to get even respect from these folks.

Even those who are NOT terrorists speak ill of us...before Iraq...after Iraq...etc etc...it is not new this hate speak. I dont hear ANYONE from the middle east condemning Bin Laden, and my concern at this time is just conceding too much for any reason !

[Guest]

OK, let's consider what kind of leverage we could apply. Setting aside the legal, cultural or moral issues involved, do you think the following would work?

We pick up stakes and leave the Middle East, leaving the message that they'd better get their act in order. We tell them very specifically--if there is another terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland or on U.S. facilities or interests anywhere in the world, we will respond in kind. If they commit terrorism and kill 3,000 Americans, we will send in a couple F-16's with tactical nuclear weapons and make toast out of one of their cities or population centers. Obviously, there will be a terrorist attack. We then do what we said we'd do and turn some part of the Middle East into molten glass, metal and wailing women.

That's as direct an application of brute strength as I can think of. That's actually the way we won the WWII war with Japan. But would it work today? What would be the next step? Who would take the next step? How would such an application of brute force effect our relations with other major powers, particularly those that have nuclear weapons or significant military capability themselves?

If I've gone a bit too far with my example of "brute strength", then what lesser example might be recommended that might work to accomplish our objectives?

[Guest]

OK, let's consider what kind of leverage we could apply. Setting aside the legal, cultural or moral issues involved, do you think the following would work?

We pick up stakes and leave the Middle East, leaving the message that they'd better get their act in order. We tell them very specifically--if there is another terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland or on U.S. facilities or interests anywhere in the world, we will respond in kind. If they commit terrorism and kill 3,000 Americans, we will send in a couple F-16's with tactical nuclear weapons and make toast out of one of their cities or population centers. Obviously, there will be a terrorist attack. We then do what we said we'd do and turn some part of the Middle East into molten glass, metal and wailing women.

That's as direct an application of brute strength as I can think of. That's actually the way we won the WWII war with Japan. But would it work today? What would be the next step? Who would take the next step? How would such an application of brute force effect our relations with other major powers, particularly those that have nuclear weapons or significant military capability themselves?

If I've gone a bit too far with my example of "brute strength", then what lesser example might be recommended that might work to accomplish our objectives?

All the above.:agree:
Keedy

[Guest]

A little history of Israel if you have the time. Chuck is a Bible teacher but approaches many things from a historicol and scientific angle.

If you only listen to one, part three is particularly striking.

http://www.khouse.org/6640/BP056/

[Guest]

Why won't they shake Obam's hand:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8ca_1244063181

[Guest]

A little history of Israel if you have the time. Chuck is a Bible teacher but approaches many things from a historicol and scientific angle.

If you only listen to one, part three is particularly striking.

http://www.khouse.org/6640/BP056/
In the end, what it shows is that one person's "freedom fighter" is the other person's "terrorist," and it doesn't matter if that's person was Begin or Arafat. It depends on which side of the wire you live.

What all history does show is that so many outsiders have tried to decide the future for people of the region that everyone is hated by everyone else because of it.

Which is why all outsiders need to realize that they can do no good there by their interference, no matter how well-intentioned it may be. All that has eventually happened is that all of the people of the region have become so dependent on other's money and protection that they won't move forward on their own for fear (or arrogance) of losing the money and protection. And what makes it worse is that there is a coalition of US politicians who forget their role is what's best for the US and not what's best for other nations.

Divided loyalties by our elected/appointed officials mean failure to adhere to one's oath of office, be that congressperson, judge or federal executive. And if the oath the person took when s/he was elected/appointed is violated to the benefit of another nation, then that's treason, pure and simple. There is no justification to place the interests of the US secondary to that of another nation.

[Guest]

Most of the oil U.S. imports comes from Canada.
In 2007 U.S. imported -
1840 Barrels a day from Canada
1579 from Saudi Arabia
1116 from Mexico
1030 from Venezuela

Maybe the answer is to maintain good relations with these other Countries.

[Guest]

Relocate the 5 Million Jews to Detroit and have them rebuild it and the auto industry.

A win win solution.

.Well, we could make the offer but they'd probably say, "are you nuts?"

[Guest]

OK, let's consider what kind of leverage we could apply. Setting aside the legal, cultural or moral issues involved, do you think the following would work?

We pick up stakes and leave the Middle East, leaving the message that they'd better get their act in order. We tell them very specifically--if there is another terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland or on U.S. facilities or interests anywhere in the world, we will respond in kind. If they commit terrorism and kill 3,000 Americans, we will send in a couple F-16's with tactical nuclear weapons and make toast out of one of their cities or population centers. Obviously, there will be a terrorist attack. We then do what we said we'd do and turn some part of the Middle East into molten glass, metal and wailing women.

That's as direct an application of brute strength as I can think of. That's actually the way we won the WWII war with Japan. But would it work today? What would be the next step? Who would take the next step? How would such an application of brute force effect our relations with other major powers, particularly those that have nuclear weapons or significant military capability themselves?

If I've gone a bit too far with my example of "brute strength", then what lesser example might be recommended that might work to accomplish our objectives?Brute force... those were the good old days... they went out the window with Gunsmoke and The Ed Sullivan show.

[Guest]

Brute force... those were the good old days... they went out the window with Gunsmoke and The Ed Sullivan show.

Yea, but I have seen them in re-runs;)

A little humor:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/scottott/Obama-Cairo-speech-settles-Muslim-Jewish-feud-47043627.html

[Guest]

Brute force... those were the good old days... they went out the window with Gunsmoke and The Ed Sullivan show.

And also once we learned that the others can apply brute force also. Religion is very strong in the mid-east. That take priority over most, unlike here it dont!! The old saying you can lead a horse to the water, but you cant make it drink.
When I was over there in Desert Shield/Storm, I learned from the Kuwaiti Marines that things are done with Religion in MIND. Seeing some one get their head cut off does not have the same result to them as a whole like it does if you showed it on the tube here.
You are fighting a Holy War to Say. Many time we got thanked for being in Kuwait and helping them. But we have gone way past that. When is enough,,, ENOUGH?????????? We "The USA" can not be everyones parents and hold their hands and slap them when they are bad. Heck we have problems right here in our own soil with gangs and such that are doing the same type things, now to the exteme they are over there. When a family can make a mistake and drive down the wrong street and killed for it in LA, then something is wrong..


Now my favorite Military Person of all Time is Gen. George Patton. He once said something like this....

"War is an art and as such is not susceptible of explanation by fixed formula"
- General George Patton Jr

[Guest]

And also once we learned that the others can apply brute force also. Religion is very strong in the mid-east. That take priority over most, unlike here it dont!! The old saying you can lead a horse to the water, but you cant make it drink.
When I was over there in Desert Shield/Storm, I learned from the Kuwaiti Marines that things are done with Religion in MIND. Seeing some one get their head cut off does not have the same result to them as a whole like it does if you showed it on the tube here.
You are fighting a Holy War to Say. Many time we got thanked for being in Kuwait and helping them. But we have gone way past that. When is enough,,, ENOUGH?????????? We "The USA" can not be everyones parents and hold their hands and slap them when they are bad. Heck we have problems right here in our own soil with gangs and such that are doing the same type things, now to the exteme they are over there. When a family can make a mistake and drive down the wrong street and killed for it in LA, then something is wrong..


Now my favorite Military Person of all Time is Gen. George Patton. He once said something like this....

"War is an art and as such is not susceptible of explanation by fixed formula"
- General George Patton Jr :agree: (and so does Republican Ron Paul). However, if our Countrys' leaders declare "a war on Terror" and commit troops to the battle, then let's havegood old Gen. George Patton tactics to win.

[Guest]

the USA would own the Middle East and there would be no oil availability problems...while hypothetical and amusing one can only hope eh?

Under such a scenario some might say our reputation would suffer. And how much more would it suffer than today?

General Patton was not a politician....he was a warrior....an extinct species.

BTK

[Guest]

the USA would own the Middle East and there would be no oil availability problems...while hypothetical and amusing one can only hope eh?

Under such a scenario some might say our reputation would suffer. And how much more would it suffer than today?

General Patton was not a politician....he was a warrior....an extinct species.

BTK

I think diplomacy is overated.:boxing2:

[Guest]

I think diplomacy is overated.:boxing2:

Overrated sometimes, for sure. Diplomacy doesn't always work. But it works often enough for sovereign nations to attempt to further their national interests that it is used more often than not.

The case of North Korea might be a good case-in-point. The Bush administration, knowing that the U.S. had neither the capacity or national will to initiate a major military "solution" for the North Korea problem, encouraged multi-lateral (Japan, South Korea, China and the U.S.) diplomacy to resolve the problem. A treaty was signed by all parties after a couple of years of negotiations. It now looks like North Korea immediately (or maybe continued) actions which violated the newly-minted treaty, almost from the day it was signed. In this case, and in the short run, diplomacy seems to have failed.

But the question remaining is: what now? Clearly, there are a number of countries who desire to stop North Korea from further missile testing and development of nuclear weapons. Will more diplomacy be used? Almost certainly, it will. But now other sanctions will also likely be used. What is unlikely, at least at this point, is any military action to resolve the problem. Any kind of military approach to stopping Kim Jong Il would almost certainly result a massive conflagration involving South Korea and Japan, and if North Korea really does have the ability to launch nuclear missiles, possibly even Alaska and the western U.S. The risk of another major war at this point is a risk that no one is going to take. In fact, the U.S. has neither the money or the military capacity to undertake another major war. Yet the problem still needs to be resolved.

So I might ask, using North Korea as the example--if one believes that diplomacy won't work, then what approach will work?

[Guest]

My idea of diplomacy is rattling my sword. What are they going to go? If they launch one of their archaic missiles...do we not have the capability to intercept them? Tell me again why we spent billions on "Star Wars" type defenses.

I'm only half kidding as I have sometimes grown weary with talking. I guess it is the old soldier in me.;)

Keedy

[Guest]

people to go in and blow up every nuclear site and missle pad they have. They flaunt it....tell everybody they are going to do it....we and those with our technical capability look down and watch them make ready....watch them launch.....then we say ahh ahh ahhhhh your not playing by the rules.

Level their capability. I know the diplomats will fret over the collatoral damage. But as has been said....war is hell.

An old Chinese proverb was if you kill one monkey in front of the rest of them....they all behave better!!! (or something like that)

Diplomacy is for civilized countries as long as it is convenient. The ignorant brutes who are rattling the world today only understand response in kind....very simple.

BTK

[Guest]

I might even go along with the black ops idea, if I thought it would work. But unfortunately, black ops isn't an approach that can be relied on.

During several of the recent wars or situations we've been involved in, I often wondered why we couldn't simply use some of our special forces, SEALS or other black ops assets to eliminate the foreign leader who seemed to be behind the problem. Why couldn't we eliminate people like Slobodan Milošević or Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden and now KIim Jong Il?

I'm convinced that we didn't because we couldn't--not because we didn't want to. Remember how we screwed up Operation Eagleclaw, the attempt to rescue the hostages from Iran in 1980? Or the screwed up attempt to invade Panama and capture Manuel Noriega in 1989? That operation is known as the worst day in the history of the Navy SEALS when 24 of them were killed. Even now, we don't have a clue where Osama bin Laden is--and we certainly don't have a plan for how to capture or eliminate him.

We just may be stuck with diplomacy instead of black ops, only because it's unlikely that black ops can be relied upon to work.

[Guest]

From what I understand, Osama bin Laden was in our sights more then once but when asked for orders to reel him in during the Clinton years...they were denied. Apparently higher-ups don't want to stain their legacy. Maybe Clinton was too busy in the Oval office to take the call?

Keedy

[Guest]

Speak softly but carry a big stick! Wonder how many Carriers and F15's are within 500 miles of Korea?


.

[Guest]

if there were restrictive rules/rules of engagement based on political ramifications (real or otherwise) that precluded real success.

For example, if it was/is true Bin Laden was in our sights many times......meaning the target was identified and engagement denied....(if true)....based on a political/diplomatic/dove driven/no not now/spineless decision.

Having known some seals and the like, I just wonder?????

BTK

[Guest]

I might even go along with the black ops idea, if I thought it would work. But unfortunately, black ops isn't an approach that can be relied on.

During several of the recent wars or situations we've been involved in, I often wondered why we couldn't simply use some of our special forces, SEALS or other black ops assets to eliminate the foreign leader who seemed to be behind the problem. Why couldn't we eliminate people like Slobodan Milošević or Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden and now KIim Jong Il?

I'm convinced that we didn't because we couldn't--not because we didn't want to. Remember how we screwed up Operation Eagleclaw, the attempt to rescue the hostages from Iran in 1980? Or the screwed up attempt to invade Panama and capture Manuel Noriega in 1989? That operation is known as the worst day in the history of the Navy SEALS when 24 of them were killed. Even now, we don't have a clue where Osama bin Laden is--and we certainly don't have a plan for how to capture or eliminate him.

We just may be stuck with diplomacy instead of black ops, only because it's unlikely that black ops can be relied upon to work.

The biggest problem with Special Operations is that nobody leaves it alone. By that I mean that rarely are missions left to the devices of the Special OPS professionals. Take, for example, the hijacking attempt of the American vessel off Somalia. Special OPs trains for those kinds of mssions, but the White House had to get in the middle of it all, with the on-again, off-again, don't-do-this-do-that interference. That's the stuff that gets folk killed. And this President isn't being singled out, as they all have done the same. Being commander-in-chief doesn't give a person knowledge, experience and ability to tactically run a military mission, especially Special OPS.

Diplomacy is and always has been the preferred approach by military professionals who realize exactly what the effect is going to be - on friendly and foe - once the decision is made for a military solution to any problem. So, the hope is that diplomacy will work, but the reality of being prepared to go into harm's way to solve a problem is mandatory. But once, the decision is to "go military," then the amateurs need to get out of the military's way when it "goes to work."

[Guest]

The biggest problem with Special Operations is that nobody leaves it alone. By that I mean that rarely are missions left to the devices of the Special OPS professionals. Take, for example, the hijacking attempt of the American vessel off Somalia. Special OPs trains for those kinds of mssions, but the White House had to get in the middle of it all, with the on-again, off-again, don't-do-this-do-that interference. That's the stuff that gets folk killed. And this President isn't being singled out, as they all have done the same. Being commander-in-chief doesn't give a person knowledge, experience and ability to tactically run a military mission, especially Special OPS.

Diplomacy is and always has been the preferred approach by military professionals who realize exactly what the effect is going to be - on friendly and foe - once the decision is made for a military solution to any problem. So, the hope is that diplomacy will work, but the reality of being prepared to go into harm's way to solve a problem is mandatory. But once, the decision is to "go military," then the amateurs need to get out of the military's way when it "goes to work."

Agreed!!!!

Keedy

[Guest]

From what I understand, Osama bin Laden was in our sights more then once but when asked for orders to reel him in during the Clinton years...they were denied. Apparently higher-ups don't want to stain their legacy. Maybe Clinton was too busy in the Oval office to take the call?

Keedy

That was the same during the first Gulf War.. we had Saddam Hussein in visual contact many times, but were never given the ok to take him out. I can understand why sometimes back then. As much as he was disliked by us, and others, it would not of been wise to just execute him on the spot. Many of security and intell briefs I sat in and heard the same thing over and over.

[Guest]

That was the same during the first Gulf War.. we had Saddam Hussein in visual contact many times, but were never given the ok to take him out. I can understand why sometimes back then. As much as he was disliked by us, and others, it would not of been wise to just execute him on the spot. Many of security and intell briefs I sat in and heard the same thing over and over.
We dont just need Warriors like Patton in the field, Need them in congress also. Need someone to stand up and tell everyone what the Rock is COOKIN.

Well, I think the government thinks that assassinating Hussein and killing Bin Laden are a little like apples and oranges as one is a leader of a country and one is a leader of terrorists. To that, I guess I would have to agree,also. That goes with the same theory that we could have taken-out Castro many times.Apparently both of then were so paranoid that they had many doubles who looked and dressed exactly like them.
I do agree that we need more Hawks in congress instead of these professional politicians. I also firmly believe in term limits and very limited retirement benefits for these clowns, err, elected representatives of the people.

[Guest]

Well, I think the government thinks that assassinating Hussein and killing Bin Laden are a little like apples and oranges as one is a leader of a country and one is a leader of terrorists. To that, I guess I would have to agree,also. That goes with the same theory that we could have taken-out Castro many times.Apparently both of then were so paranoid that they had many doubles who looked and dressed exactly like them.
I do agree that we need more Hawks in congress instead of these professional politicians. I also firmly believe in term limits and very limited retirement benefits for these clowns, err, elected representatives of the people.
There have always been term limits. It's called "vote for the other person." We as an electorate have been too lazy or apathetic to use the power we have. I can't remember who it was, but one congressperson was quoted that s/he would "fight with all my power for term limits, even it it takes me 20 years to get them enacted."

No Congress is ever going to put limits of any kind on itself. After all, when was the last time they denied themselves a pay raise?

[Guest]

There have always been term limits. It's called "vote for the other person." We as an electorate have been too lazy or apathetic to use the power we have. I can't remember who it was, but one congressperson was quoted that s/he would "fight with all my power for term limits, even it it takes me 20 years to get them enacted."

No Congress is ever going to put limits of any kind on itself. After all, when was the last time they denied themselves a pay raise?

Incumbents have a huge advantage over their opponents.$$$$$$$

Keedy

[Guest]

Incumbents have a huge advantage over their opponents.$$$$$$$

Keedy
Well, if that many people or organizations or corporations are willing to give any candidate a boatload of $$$$ to get elected, that just means the candidate is indebted big-time and has a lot of post-election debts to pay.

Too bad more people just watch an incumbent's television advertisements and never bother reviewing the voting record. There's a <15% approval rating for a reason.....

[Guest]

Well, if that many people or organizations or corporations are willing to give any candidate a boatload of $$$$ to get elected, that just means the candidate is indebted big-time and has a lot of post-election debts to pay.

Too bad more people just watch an incumbent's television advertisements and never bother reviewing the voting record. There's a <15% approval rating for a reason.....

Yep, that's funny how that works...1st they have low approval ratings and then they dig into their war chest and buy a bunch of commercials and advertising to tell the voters why they should vote for them again and then their poll numbers go up and previous "ratings" are forgotten?:shrug:

[Guest]

Only in Congress!!! That should of been Don King's saying...............

:faint: