Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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.

Originally Posted by rshoffer

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/op...-47043627.html

Originally Posted by rshoffer

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

Originally Posted by GMONEY

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

(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.

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

Originally Posted by billethkid

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.

Originally Posted by Keedy

I think diplomacy is overated.

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?

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

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

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.

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

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


.

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

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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."

Originally Posted by SteveZ

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