Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

Grypd · 2005-05-24 17:46:20

Well the last Topic has gone well over 300 posts and will likely self destruct soon so I have started this one.

Grypd · 2005-05-24 18:17:26

Quote Cobra Commander May 24 2005, 12:12

Any of our European participants care to chime in, are we Americans seen as a bunch of bible-thumping arrogant burger-slurping third-world country invading, socialist ridiculing imperialists?

Interesting point is that in Europe there is a degree of seperation of Church and state and though there is organisations like operation christian vote or even its muslim counterpart that played a part in the recent British election it did not have a major effect overall. I think it is the history of religous wars and of the intolerance that has been found that has created this way. The usual effect of electioning in the USA brings a degree of wonder at the simple overdoing of it at the like of the staged rallies etc. The belief that people vote as to there religous beliefs rather than a rational thought out process is again guite strange to most Europeans. I come from a region in Europe where religous roots are very strong and the church has a lot of power in society and provides a lot of the social services. But the churches still are even less likely to want involvement in the political process even to the point that church buildings are not used for polling stations just to ensure the visible seperation of church and state.

But as for being an imperialistic state that depends. Certainly for the better part of the last 50 years of the last century the USA and the USSR where fighting a war, a cold war over hearts and minds. This lead to the occasional need for military adventures into countries where one or the other side where winning or under threat. The USA was more likely to actually use military force compared to the USSR which acted by proxy. Now the 21st century is here and the USA is simply acting like it did before even though it has become the defacto superpower. The fight now is terrorism and it can be said what the USA is doing is simply cleaning up the mess that both the USA and USSR created. Who do you think except these two allowed Saddam to stay in power or backed Syria with weapons or even to the point of having trained the Taliban and the begining of of Al-Qaeda.

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-25 05:51:01

Beginning with the last link Bill posted in the previous thread:

While the point about relative troop-to-population ratios between the British presence in Iraq of the 1920's and the current US effort is valid, it misses a crucial point. The missions are very different.The British weren't interested in creating a sovereign democratic Iraq but in subduing an uprising in their territory. If we decide tomorrow "screw this democracy crap, we're turning this place into an oil-pumping vassal state" then "more troops" may well be the answer. Send more, kill all the bad guys and if a little collateral damage happens on the way so be it. We've got the troops to deal with any aftermath.

However as it stands, I maintain that what we need are not "more troops" but a complete nation building occupation agency. Police, civil administrators, plumbers, electricians, everything you need to maintain order and get the place running. Then gradually phase out those personnel and replace them with Iraqis until the entire occupation presence is gone.

Again, soldiers kill people and blow stuff up. If you want anything else done, don't use soldiers.

And pre-emptive apologies to Grypd for responding by sentence rather than paragraph.

The usual effect of electioning in the USA brings a degree of wonder at the simple overdoing of it at the like of the staged rallies etc.

We super-size everything here. But yes, American political rallies tend to be . . . "tacky faux fascist" for lack of a better descriptive. The flags, the slogans, appeals to patriotism. But all so kitschy.

The belief that people vote as to there religous beliefs rather than a rational thought out process is again guite strange to most Europeans.

I'm of the opinion that very few people, American or European, vote based on a "rational thought out process". The bulk of any electorate seems to vote based on certain articles of faith that are either unsubstantiated or in some cases contrary to observed reality, only in American it's more likely to be traditional religious faith. Throw in an unhealthy dose of emotionalism and that's democracy in action.

Interesting to think of the current situation as cleaning up the mess left by the Cold War, itself a mess left over from WWII. If we treat it as one big chain of events, with WWII as the anchor point, we'll likely have a century of warfare as a direct result before it's all over. It would also mean that the UN is just another miserable product of that chain. Friggin' Hitler, f**kin' it all up. :laugh:

BWhite · 2005-05-25 05:51:33

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp … 30917]Bush press secretary RETRACTS allegations that Newsweek cost people their lives.

Heh!

Double standard? :;):

Can we RETRACT the war?

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-25 05:53:44

We've already RETRACTED the Constitution, so go for it.

clark · 2005-05-25 05:57:28

However as it stands, I maintain that what we need are not "more troops" but a complete nation building occupation agency.

So we don't need more troops, we need more troops of a different sort.

A man in Detroit sees what a chimp in the whitehouse cannot. :laugh:

If we wanted to send in more troops (as in kill, destroy, torture), where would we get them? We can barely meet rotation schedules as is, and that is after extending tours, raiding Korean forces, over taxing Reserves, and brow beating allies for whatever mess cook they can spare.

As for the nation building army- it dosen't exsist (unless you want to send in peace corps).

Oh yeah, if this is all a series of events- then you have to go back further to the start of WW1 (why not side track this thread with a petty squabble on historical facts)

Palomar · 2005-05-25 05:57:40

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/missiles-05zh.html]U.S. -- Australia

*Pentagon might sell three Aegis weapons systems to Australia. Hoping for increased partnership with the RAN.

-*-

Just read the most recent posts here. See? Politicians are full of crap. All of them.

Why bother?

One day it's yes, next day it's no...they count on people having short memory/attention spans.

It's all Maya -- as politics go.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-25 06:05:53

As for the nation building army- it dosen't exsist

Therein lies the problem. We need to create it, otherwise nation-building isn't going to work very well. We'd do well to begin, Iraq won't be the last time we need it.

Oh yeah, if this is all a series of events- then you have to go back further to the start of WW1 (why not side track this thread with a petty squabble on historical facts)

Quite true. Forget Hitler, the real blame is on Archduke Ferdinand's driver who couldn't read a map.

clark · 2005-05-25 06:12:34

Novel suggestion, rebuild our own country first.

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-25 06:20:19

Novel suggestion, rebuild our own country first.

Perfect training for the nation-builders. Divert some of that welfare funding to it, give people jobs instead of handouts, volunteer to work out of the country and get a bonus, everybody wins.

But I'm ahead of myself here, we're still in the "we're screwed, woe is us" phase aren't we? :hm:

clark · 2005-05-25 06:26:24

Use welfare funds to pay for American labor to rebuild countries over seas?

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-25 06:33:44

Use welfare funds to pay for American labor to rebuild countries over seas?

And at home. Building roads is largely the same anywhere, for example. Either way, it's a government job and surely better than the dole, right?

clark · 2005-05-25 06:39:15

So you would have government contracted labor competing with private enterprise for rebuilding contracts? How is that any different than a chain gang (aside from the punishment isses, think more economical similarities).

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-25 06:51:51

So you would have government contracted labor competing with private enterprise for rebuilding contracts?

Depending on the circumstances. In the case of domestic reconstruction it bypasses the corruption often found between local politicians and local construction companies, kickbacks are almost standard procedure in many cases as I understand it from people in the field. For basic infrastructure perhaps government is the better choice.

In the case of foreign reconstruction having such a system in place could bypass the problems we're seeing now. In Afghanistan we go with open bidding and a year leter roads still haven't been built, critics whine to the heavens. So in Iraq they skip the full open bid, roads get built, but that's unacceptable cronyism. Fine, establish a procedure, create a government agency to do it that works alongside DoD when required. Use personnel from private industry whenever required but not always in the sense of outright contracts.

But focusing on infrastructure building misses the point, building roads isn't really what I'm talking about. What is needed is after the army sweeps away organized resistance we can bring in a different force with different training to police and people that can quickly set up a working administration to deal with local affairs. Let them hire workers to build roads from the locasl, if none are available then bring in someone else. As the country is rebuilt and the population adapts begin phasing out the temporary occupation personnel in favor of locals.

clark · 2005-05-25 06:59:43

So you seem to advocate the creation of more bureaucracy to manage these various systems. Is the answer yet another government agency?

As I understand it, one of the issues with reconstruction delays is the major security issues resulting from too few troops.

Since your plan calls for adding additional non-combat troops to help rebuild, wouldn’t we also have to increase our total combat force in order to protect our bigger footprint? Wouldn’t that cost more? Where would the extra combat troops come from? How would we pay for it?

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-25 07:30:04

So you seem to advocate the creation of more bureaucracy to manage these various systems. Is the answer yet another government agency?

While normally opposed to new government agencies, this case might be one of those when it's warranted. It's a new task that doesn't fit clearly under anyone else's umbrella. Maybe as a separate department under DoD but it doesn't fully integrate well.

Since your plan calls for adding additional non-combat troops to help rebuild, wouldn’t we also have to increase our total combat force in order to protect our bigger footprint?

My "plan" (or rather vague proposal) calls primarily for more security forces. Not soldiers, but occupation police. The core of the plan is police and competent administrators.

The occupational police, aside from needing a better name, would be trained as such and becasue they are not meant to be combat troops on the same level as the regular army they can be equipped with older vehicles and equipment, large quantities of which are available and need minimal work to be operational. These forces operate in highly localized areas and only when the real heavy resistance is gone. These people should be trained more like cops than soldiers, protect the populace as much as American assets, walk a beat, get to know the locals but have the firepower to deal with Kalashnikov and RPG toting insurgents. Slowly bring in locals to replace them as conditions allow.

Sure it will cost money which will have to be diverted from somewhere, but it will be cheaper than "more troops" of the traditional variety and likely more effective. Where will the money come from? Can't say exactly, I don't have a complete federal expenditures and revenue table in front of me nor a properly prepared cost estimate. But having looked over such data in the past, the money is there and can probably be utilized with some fraud and waste cutting measures we should enact anyway for their own sake.

Where would the people come from? Some may well come from the Guard. The use of such forces reduces the need for extended Guard tours. We can then offer those willing a set tour with increased pay and benefits up front. No extending the tour a month before it ends, just a straight-up offer to stay for a set time in exchange for such and such benefits. Some will take up the offer.

Some could also come from the general population of people unwilling or unable to join the regular armed forces. Standards can be different, they'll operate out of set bases, they don't need to be as "deployable" as regular troops. Therefore minor medical issues that keep some out of the regular armed forces don't apply. Further, the tours can be shorter. Training is different as there are fewer comabt skills and weapons one needs to be proficient in. More like a police academy than Basic. Further, if some sort of "national service" requirement were ever enacted (not saying I favor it, merely that it's possible in the foreseeable future) this would surely count toward it.

Beyond that, who can say? Maybe no one would volunteer. Maybe thousands would think "they're finally getting it right" and rush out with renewed faith in the effort. No way to tell. But I'd rather try something with a chance than lament every setback. Maybe it won't work. Maybe it will. Worth a shot.

clark · 2005-05-25 07:46:56

The core of the plan is police and competant administrators, yet the plan as proposed by you would utilize sub-standard recruits to fill its ranks (substandard in comparison to current military requirements). These ranks would ostenibly be filled by Americans, who would then be shipped off to a foriegn country, and then police foreigners and their neighborhoods. They wouldn't need as much training as military, but yet they would need to be armed for fights against fully automatic weapons and RPG's. You suggest giving them older equipment and older vehicles, yet I fail to see how they would be any better prepared to deal with insurgency than what we currently see.

Sure, they could operate after heavy resistence is gone, but as Iraq demonstrates, resistence moves to the area of least resistence. So military troops crack down in one area, and the insurgents reappear in another, and another, and another.

How quickly can these police forces be trained in the customs and languages of the poulation that they will police? When there are several distinct dialects?

Of course filling the ranks will be an issue, and you suggest Guard might fill the role. I ask how? Theya re currently being utilized now. They still have commitments at home (as in real weekday jobs) and these people tend to be older.

You suggest recruitment incentives, yet all branches of active and reserve are now struggiling to meet quota, with several branches failing- and this is after a reduction in standards requirements and an increase in incentive's to join.

You in effect are advocating the creation of a substandard military that will be trained less, equipped poorly, and put in harms way. Instead of a bunch of dead Iraqi police recruits, you would make them American's.

Your idea, while a nice attempt, will not solve anything.

Rxke · 2005-05-25 08:08:32

Any of our European participants care to chime in, are we Americans seen as a bunch of bible-thumping arrogant burger-slurping third-world country invading, socialist ridiculing imperialists?

Everyone from centre to extreme left, yes... But I guess that's no different as in USA itself?
Though a good part of the people here walk around in t-shirts and pull-overs with the American Stars and Stripes. For them the 'idea' America is kinda cool, I guess. I personally think walking around with a flag from another country on your chest is a bit weird... Not to say proof of being a 'good' consumer, if you get my drift.

BWhite · 2005-05-25 08:13:52

Cobra, for George Bush to launch a nation-building war KNOWING that the US does not possess a nation-building force structure and then to continue that war without taking steps to acquire a nation-building force structure tells me that nation-building is very very low on the "real" agenda.

Form follows function and the means employed is a better guide to real intentions than a gadzillion policy statements.

I was a very lousy basketball player but my 6th grade coach gave me one piece of advice I never forgot. Always watch a player's stomach - - then head fakes and hand feints can be more easily ignored.

No nation-building force structure? That means Dubya don't give a cr@p about nation-building no matter what Scott McClellan's spin of the day may be.

Palomar · 2005-05-25 09:04:31

*America is in grave danger of becoming like that which it hates.

The rise of militant Islam (the rise of militant Christianity).

::shakes head::

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-05-25 09:07:15

Right now, Iraqi policemen are getting chewed up because they are poorly trained (part of the speed up process) and poorly equipped (compared to their adversaries).
They're getting chewed up becasue they're poorly trained and unmotivated. They know they're being utilized to take a beating in place of US troops. Fighting alongside them would go a long way to improving perceptions.

Yet what is the end-game?

The Bush "snub" to Karzai was perhaps appropriate (IMHO) from a US perspective yet that snub will resonate amongst local Iraqis that this war is really about "us" and not about "them"

Where will the motivation come from if the US intends to retain operational control for the indefinite future? Playing junior partner to Big Brother is always less than motivating.

BWhite · 2005-05-25 09:08:38

*America is in grave danger of becoming like that which it hates.
The rise of militant Islam (the rise of militant Christianity).
::shakes head::
--Cindy

And that is why I voted for John Kerry, even if he is a doofus. :;):

Bush panders to the Dobsons and Falwells of this nation.

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-25 09:10:29

*America is in grave danger of becoming like that which it hates.

It's already happened. On numerous occasions.

Slavery, income tax, pre-emptive war, socialism, standing armies. . . the idea of America has always been different from the reality. A little internal crusade by self-righteous nuts; wouldn't be the first time.

I'll make sure the fire's going and the goat's marinated before the Inquisitors arrive.

Palomar · 2005-05-25 09:15:59

*America is in grave danger of becoming like that which it hates.
It's already happened. On numerous occasions.
Slavery, income tax, pre-emptive war, socialism, standing armies. . . the idea of America has always been different from the reality. A little internal crusade by self-righteous nuts; wouldn't be the first time.

*Hi Bill. Thanks for posting that bit about Bob Jones. I can't wait for 4 years from now, when the pendulum swings the other way...

Cobra: Yeah, you're right. :-\

I'll make sure the fire's going and the goat's marinated before the Inquisitors arrive.

Great. And I'll bring a big bowl of my delicious homemade potato salad.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-05-25 09:19:25

Bob Jones - - better stop buying his breakfast sausage. Or is that another Jones? :;):

= = =

D'oh! Its Bob EVANS!

Sorry Bob!

Edited By BWhite on 1117034532

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-05-24 17:46:20

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#2 2005-05-24 18:17:26

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#3 2005-05-25 05:51:01

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#4 2005-05-25 05:51:33

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#5 2005-05-25 05:53:44

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#6 2005-05-25 05:57:28

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#7 2005-05-25 05:57:40

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#8 2005-05-25 06:05:53

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#9 2005-05-25 06:12:34

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#10 2005-05-25 06:20:19

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#11 2005-05-25 06:26:24

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#12 2005-05-25 06:33:44

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#13 2005-05-25 06:39:15

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#14 2005-05-25 06:51:51

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#15 2005-05-25 06:59:43

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#16 2005-05-25 07:30:04

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#17 2005-05-25 07:46:56

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#18 2005-05-25 08:08:32

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#19 2005-05-25 08:13:52

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#20 2005-05-25 09:04:31

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#21 2005-05-25 09:07:15

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#22 2005-05-25 09:08:38

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#23 2005-05-25 09:10:29

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#24 2005-05-25 09:15:59

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#25 2005-05-25 09:19:25

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

Board footer