"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..

The loss in Vietnam was a harbinger.

I'm sure our military forces can take on and defeat any modern uniformed
military force waging traditional warfare, assuming no great disparity in
the order of battle or availability of troops. That is, we can take on
and defeat uniformed, traditionally organized forces that are smaller
than ours, the same size as ours or perhaps somewhat larger.

What our military cannot do is defeat a large, well-organized,
non-uniformed and non-traditional group or groups of motivated partisans
in areas outside of urban areas. Thus, we flopped in Vietnam and we're
flopping in Iraq, even though we defeated the Iraqi army, and why the
Taliban are re-emerging in Afghanistan, and why the Israelis are having
so much trouble with Hezbollah and Hamas.



So .... assuming for the moment that a well-organized, non-uniformed,
non-traditional group deserves to be defeated (Al Qaeda and Bin Laden
come immediately to mind) ... how do you win? Or do you simply give up?

All sorts of ideas:

1) If you're a competent leader, you notice that the various groups causing
the trouble have been at each other's throats since before you got it in
your head to "help". You learn from the experiences of other countries that
have had their heads handed to them. You also notice that sometimes,
stability is a good thing, even if you don't like the reason for it. This
last FACT was obvious to past presidents (from both political parties) who
dwarfed your intellectual capabilities. Need I say more about this?

2) If you're a competent leader, you listen to your best military people,
who, from the beginning, told you that we'd be facing a non-traditional
enemy which, depending on the specific city, time of day, and position of
the moon and stars, might have popular support and be impossible to dig out
of their holes.

3) If you're a competent leader, you realize that the enemy is driven by the
exact same religious zeal that drives your own decisions, and which also
makes you unfit for the office you hold.

4) If you're a competent PARENT, you realize that kids are still very
idealistic at age 19. So, you don't tell your underlings to go digging for
happy tra-la-la stories about kids who think it's delightful that they built
a school for some Iraqi kids, and hope these stories will cause your
employers (aka "voters") to enter a trance state and not notice how badly
you screwed up. You notice that when 19 year old soldiers are interviewed,
they don't sound much different than 16 year olds, in terms of their ability
to put your little war in perspective. Maybe when they're 45, they'll have
some perspective.

5) If you're a competent leader, you realize that ripping the Saudis a new
asshole right after 9/11 would've been the right thing to do. Even if out of
spite, they raised the price of oil, the instability created by your war did
the exact same thing. Even if "the rip" involved nothing but throwing their
sorry asses out of the country and cancelling their country club
memberships, it would've been the right thing to do.




Seems to me you have to keep trying ... picking away at the core and at
all the supporting elements, learning as you go, modifying tactics and
slowly diminishing the enemy's ability to conduct warfare or terrorism.

Good idea. You do it. Or, send your kids & grandkids. Do it right now. What
the hell? They're expendable, right? Anything to support the rhetoric.


Diplomacy hasn't worked at all in this environment, despite the best
efforts of world leaders including several US Presidents of both parties.

Remember the stability mentioned in #1, above? About two years after we
"enclosed" Saddam and began flying endless patrols around his borders, I
read an article in which an Air Force general said, in effect, "We couldn't
ask for a better setup for testing every manner of new weapon technology".
That wasn't diplomacy. That was stability, no different than the tense
situation we juggled with the USSR beginning right after WWII.

You'd better have one hell of a good fairy tale ready for your grandkids,
because if we ever leave Iraq, it will be no different than when we got
there, except that we will have converted people who were curious about us
into people who think we're animals.

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:58:47 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

wrote:
Don White wrote:

Why are you dissin' the French? They softened the Viet Cong up
for
you
al through the 50's and you still couldn't win.
Courtesy of the Paris "peace" talks?

I'll diss the french on that one
What's absolutely amazing is that we didn't seem to learn much from
our
war against Vietnam and its various "insurgencies." I'm hearing the
same
sorts of really stupid talk from our Prez and company about our war
against Iraq as I remember from the late 1960s and early 1970s, and
there is still a large percentage of American people who actually
believe the Chimp-in-Chief and his henchmen. When will they ever
learn?
I'm not sure you can directly analogize the Vietnam conflict with
the
Iraqi War, but I get your point.

No, the conflicts are not the same, but the callousness, stupidity,
and
b.s. coming from our national leaders is pretty much the same. I
watched
Rumsfeld testifying last week, no, telling one lie after another last
week. It was an incredible performance.

Hell, all of the talk radio Fox news types are saying we are in WW3
and
claiming that this is just like the rise of the Nazis in the late
'30s.


All you have to do is get past your hatred for the Bush administration
and
"Big Oil" and things will become clear.

You've got it backwards. Any chance that if Bush had NOT invaded Iraq, he
would have more friends, or at least more people who would patiently wait
for him to vanish from public life? Or, do you think a person's deeds are
not connected with his reputation?

Pre-war Iraqi output = more than 2.2 million barrels
In May, 2006 output = 1.1 million barrels. Even Bert should be able to
figure out that yes, BushCo DID help cause our current conditions.


I could swear I heard Bush say that increased output would help pay for
rebuilding Iraq. Did I dream that?

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 15:50:27 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:


Nobody believes that it wasn't a good thing to rid of the world of Saddam
- what ever the excuse used.

True, but at what cost? You can't overlook the cost. We have shed more
American blood ridding Iraq of Saddam, than we spent ridding this
country of the British. IMO, Iraq, nor Saddam, is worth the 2600 young
American lives.


However, I don't believe it's time to cut and run. If we can change the
paradigm, we will make progress. It's changing the paradigm that will be
the problem.

Every time I think about the current situation, I am reminded of the first
Lebanonese civil war in which kidnapping became a sport in which civilians
of all sort of Western nations were kidnapped and held for various
reasons. Two Russian diplomats were kidnapped and the KGB merely walked
up to the leader of that particular unit, explained that they knew who
they were married to, where their kids were, the names and locations of
the kidnappers extended families and that they had exactly 12 hours to
return the Russians back to the embassy.

They were back less than 3.

And I have an absolutely unimpeachable source on that.

The point of that is unless we are willing to do the same, we will be
there forever.

Apples and oranges. The Russians only wanted the return of their
diplomats. We want a stable and democratic Iraq. We have to win the
"hearts and minds". Brutality won't accomplish that, and we have a good
example as we speak. Look at Lebanon. The Israelis have been quite
accomplished in their bombings, but the situation isn't any better for
them, and they are not trying to stabilize Lebanon, only to pacify it.



What the answer is, I don't know.

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 13:19:08 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:58:47 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

wrote:
Don White wrote:

Why are you dissin' the French? They softened the Viet Cong up for
you
al through the 50's and you still couldn't win.

Courtesy of the Paris "peace" talks?

I'll diss the french on that one

What's absolutely amazing is that we didn't seem to learn much from our
war against Vietnam and its various "insurgencies." I'm hearing the same
sorts of really stupid talk from our Prez and company about our war
against Iraq as I remember from the late 1960s and early 1970s, and
there is still a large percentage of American people who actually
believe the Chimp-in-Chief and his henchmen. When will they ever learn?

I'm not sure you can directly analogize the Vietnam conflict with the
Iraqi War, but I get your point.

If you made a product comparison chart for the two wars, you'd find enough
shared characteristics to be alarming, at least to anyone who doesn't NEED
to kill something in order to be happy.

Here is what bothers me about the whole Iraq "thing".

Nobody believes that it wasn't a good thing to rid of the world of
Saddam - what ever the excuse used.

Actually, there are people in our own military who thought that keeping him
roped in was a better option for various reasons. But, that didn't fit the
Bush/Cheney religion & oil picture.


You can't fight a civilized war with two
different constructs for how you wage it.

Bingo!



However, I don't believe it's time to cut and run. If we can change
the paradigm, we will make progress. It's changing the paradigm that
will be the problem.

If we were doing that in Saudi Arabia, I would be all for the idea.
Unfortunately, we're in the wrong country. If the police did things this
way, they'd shoot a rapist's mother because she gave him money for the taxi
which brought him to the neighborhood where he committed his crime.



Every time I think about the current situation, I am reminded of the
first Lebanonese civil war in which kidnapping became a sport in which
civilians of all sort of Western nations were kidnapped and held for
various reasons. Two Russian diplomats were kidnapped and the KGB
merely walked up to the leader of that particular unit, explained that
they knew who they were married to, where their kids were, the names
and locations of the kidnappers extended families and that they had
exactly 12 hours to return the Russians back to the embassy.

They were back less than 3.

And I have an absolutely unimpeachable source on that.

The point of that is unless we are willing to do the same, we will be
there forever.

I believe this KGB thing was described in a book I read: "Veil: Secret Wars
of the CIA". These things work, but there are two problems, one absolute,
and one which can be solved. Absolute: Although tactics like the KGB's (or
the CIA's) have lots of positives to recommend them (and are much more
fascinating to read about 20 years later), it is sometimes difficult or
impossible for politicians to use these successes to any political
advantage. "Lebanese release 3 hostages because they were bored with them"?

What can be solved (but I don't know how): That book I mentioned said that
by Reagan's time in office, many of the CIA's most experienced and creative
risk-takers were retired. These were people who started with the OSS, and
pretty much invented tactics that we think are only appropriate in movies.
One of William Casey's frustrations was finding more people like this.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
The loss in Vietnam was a harbinger.

I'm sure our military forces can take on and defeat any modern uniformed
military force waging traditional warfare, assuming no great disparity
in the order of battle or availability of troops. That is, we can take
on and defeat uniformed, traditionally organized forces that are smaller
than ours, the same size as ours or perhaps somewhat larger.

What our military cannot do is defeat a large, well-organized,
non-uniformed and non-traditional group or groups of motivated partisans
in areas outside of urban areas. Thus, we flopped in Vietnam and we're
flopping in Iraq, even though we defeated the Iraqi army, and why the
Taliban are re-emerging in Afghanistan, and why the Israelis are having
so much trouble with Hezbollah and Hamas.



So .... assuming for the moment that a well-organized, non-uniformed,
non-traditional group deserves to be defeated (Al Qaeda and Bin Laden
come immediately to mind) ... how do you win? Or do you simply give up?

Seems to me you have to keep trying ... picking away at the core and at
all the supporting elements, learning as you go, modifying tactics and
slowly diminishing the enemy's ability to conduct warfare or terrorism.
Diplomacy hasn't worked at all in this environment, despite the best
efforts of world leaders including several US Presidents of both parties.

I agree with you that our military has been traditionally equipped and
trained for massive retaliation, designed to win as quickly as possible.
The new warfare requires new tactics, particularly commitment, patience
and tenacity. We aren't going to see major battles won.

Eisboch






Ahh, but al Qaeda and bin Laden are only a tiny part of the forces we're
facing in Iraq. Most of the "trouble" in Iraq is over whether the Shi'a or
the Sunnis will control Iraq, and some of it is Shi'a payback for the
years of Sunni horrors.

How do "we" stop that sort of warfare? We don't. It's something the Iraqi
people will have to decide how and when to stop.

The Iraqi security forces were supposed to be handling it "in a few months",
according to what we were told about 30 months ago. Last week, the news said
Iraqis have reached the point where they don't trust anyone in a uniform,
period.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 11:12:53 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

I'm not sure you can directly analogize the Vietnam conflict with the
Iraqi War, but I get your point.
The thing that is common between them is we die a death by 1000 cuts
and eventually leave ... far too late.
The Iraq war is over 15 years old, Damn near old enough do drive.
Maybe next year it will get it's license and drive the hell out of
there. Lets see what the electroate says in November.

So far, it seems the electorate cannot separate its brains from its
hormones. This hasn't changed since at least 1898, when Vietnam was called
"Cuba and the Phillippines".

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 13:09:52 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

You've got it backwards. Any chance that if Bush had NOT invaded Iraq, he
would have more friends,

People seem to forget we were bombing Iraq virtually every day for 10
years. We didn't have many friends from that either. Three presidents
did that. Why didn't Bush 1 and Clinton get us out of there ?

We bombed them when we felt our patrols were being targeted, remember? Once
Saddam's forces were sent home with their tails between their legs, we
didn't continue with major forays into the country.

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 09:27:09 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:58:47 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

wrote:
Don White wrote:

Why are you dissin' the French? They softened the Viet Cong up for
you
al through the 50's and you still couldn't win.
Courtesy of the Paris "peace" talks?

I'll diss the french on that one
What's absolutely amazing is that we didn't seem to learn much from
our
war against Vietnam and its various "insurgencies." I'm hearing the
same
sorts of really stupid talk from our Prez and company about our war
against Iraq as I remember from the late 1960s and early 1970s, and
there is still a large percentage of American people who actually
believe the Chimp-in-Chief and his henchmen. When will they ever
learn?
I'm not sure you can directly analogize the Vietnam conflict with the
Iraqi War, but I get your point.
No, the conflicts are not the same, but the callousness, stupidity, and
b.s. coming from our national leaders is pretty much the same. I watched
Rumsfeld testifying last week, no, telling one lie after another last
week. It was an incredible performance.
Hell, all of the talk radio Fox news types are saying we are in WW3 and
claiming that this is just like the rise of the Nazis in the late '30s.

All you have to do is get past your hatred for the Bush administration and
"Big Oil" and things will become clear.
You've got it backwards. Any chance that if Bush had NOT invaded Iraq, he
would have more friends, or at least more people who would patiently wait
for him to vanish from public life? Or, do you think a person's deeds are
not connected with his reputation?

I thought it was the intent rather than the action that determines the
effectiveness of a person or a project?

And, if Pres. Bush had stayed out of Iraq the BP pipeline wouldn't have
rusted and corroded?




If Bush hadn't lied us into Iraq and remained there, there likely would
be more oil on the market, with disruptions of supply, at lower prices,
and Iran wouldn't be so aggressively pursuing our demise, North Korea
might be behaving, and Hezbollah wouldn't have invaded Israel.

Many of the serious problems the world is facing right now can be
attributed to the ignorance, hubris, stupidity, laziness and utter
incompetence of Bush and his administration.

Glad you asked.

And Hurricane Katrina wouldn't have happened and all those charter boats
would be operating and the shrimp boats would be catching shrimp and
Safeway wouldn't be making a fortune on imported shrimp and we'd all be
happy ever after, Amen.
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

What can be solved (but I don't know how): That book I mentioned said that
by Reagan's time in office, many of the CIA's most experienced and creative
risk-takers were retired. These were people who started with the OSS, and
pretty much invented tactics that we think are only appropriate in movies.
One of William Casey's frustrations was finding more people like this.


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
That's one point and a good one.

They don't make good spies like they used to. Now they all seem to be
Valerie Palme.

The only thing Valerie Plame did wrong was to disprove some
of Vice President Cheney's pet theories about how to justify
starting a war for profit.

I guess when you put ideology above reality, you are
obligated to hate the guys (and women) who keep pointing out
that water really does run downhill.

DSK

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 17:37:12 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

People seem to forget we were bombing Iraq virtually every day for 10
years. We didn't have many friends from that either. Three presidents
did that. Why didn't Bush 1 and Clinton get us out of there ?

We bombed them when we felt our patrols were being targeted, remember?
Once
Saddam's forces were sent home with their tails between their legs, we
didn't continue with major forays into the country.

We did bomb the **** out of them foir the next 10 years with impunity
in the name of "no fly zones".
That stopped with 9-11 when Islam proved we were "touchable" too.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I recall our limiting our bombing to points containing
radar & antiaircraft weaponry, not missions into their cities. Never mind.
The point was that our goal at that stage was, as you said, the no-fly zone,
or containment.

Here's what really concerns me: I keep hearing news reports about how
there's a growing number of Iranians who are disgusted with the lunatics who
run their country. Some of them give up and leave for other countries.
Various agencies of ours try and reach the ones who stay, with varying
measures of success. There is no reason to believe that we missed an
opportunity to do the same in Iraq, and will never again have a chance.
Instead, Bush chose to invade that country for reasons which are not worth
debating here.

The best way to collapse a regime is from within. But, it does not produce
the erection that the current administration desperately needs in order to
be personally happy.