If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
"War on Terror" now "The Long War"
Teh_Gerbil
Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4897786.stm
Well - thoughts? I see this as a good idea in some ways but a bad one in others - it seems to be someone has FINALLY realised traditional war cannot be fought against a geurilla enemy (far to late to realise this!) but it seems we will now be stuck in an ongoing war against Terrorists forever, like the cold war. Fuck.
As a result Gen Kimmitt predicts a much lower profile for traditional US forces.
He believes that will help win hearts and minds, by ending the impression that the US is occupying the Middle East.
"Our future posture is still being worked out," he says.
"But I would like to see to the number of troops in the Middle East cut to a fraction of the current 300,000, by at least a half."
The US military is planning a big increase in the role of special forces, the smaller, specially-trained teams able to speak local languages - including Arabic - to deploy rapidly and to work with the other nations' military.
Well - thoughts? I see this as a good idea in some ways but a bad one in others - it seems to be someone has FINALLY realised traditional war cannot be fought against a geurilla enemy (far to late to realise this!) but it seems we will now be stuck in an ongoing war against Terrorists forever, like the cold war. Fuck.
0
Comments
"why are you complaining about the fact that the war has taken so long? It's all right there in the title you sob hearted, liberal, pussy"
unfortuanly it'll probablly work.
It's all fucking bollocks.
ETA 1968 -2006
Tamil Tigers 1978 - 2006 (if it holds)
If the US can defeat AL-Q in the next twenty years they'll be doing bloody well. Half a century at best.
Still agree war against terror is a stupid name, though it gave the provos a nasty fright so I'm not complaining
All of which would have been lost without it though. But then that's the basis of the new US strategy - military action where that works best (often through small highly trained forces) diplomacy and 'hearts and minds' where that's the best solution. Basically that's every succesful counter-insurgency in a nutshell
Seeing as the most fundamental and important issue in the near-universal loathing of the US in the Arab world is America's shameful bias and protectionism of the Israeli government, I can't see them winning many hearts and minds in the region unless they change their ways. And I can't really see them changing their ways.
For as long as the historical injustice and Crimes Against Humanity suffered by the Palestinians are allowed to go on, no hearts and minds will ever be won in the region- and more crucially, new recruits for the insurgency and the so called "Al Qaida network" will continue to pop up.
You can only slowly withdraw your military if the people either become resigned to your presence and even start to see it as beneficial AND it looks like you ar going to leave or at least give them an element of self determination.
No one who has spent more than three seconds looking at US behaviour is going to believe they are going to stop meddling for their own benefit.
That's assuming that there really are a bunch of terrorists we have to be mindful of, which is nonsense compared to say, car deaths it's nothing and rationally ignorable.
Oh yeah, and it depends upon negotiation, which the US just doesn't do.
Yes, but why are they hated. Part of the reason has to be that they 'carpet bomb'. If you move away from that people will start to feel more positively towards them (especially when you see the amount they donate in foreign aid).
Israel and Palestine's pretty much irrelevant - Al-Q hardly mention it and its whilst its a big deal to European liberals Al-Q has bigger issues such as the US support to Saudi, Pakistan etc.
However the main point of hearts and minds is not to convince Bin Laden the US is not the great satan. He's a dead man walking. The aim is to convince your average Iraqi or Pakistani or Saudi that the US isn't at war with them and actually sympathises with their problems, but that Al-Q and its cohorts are the problem, ie if you're a Moslem side with the US and its allies and you'll get schools, hospitals etc, side with Bin_laden and all he'll bring is death and torture.
Once you've seperated Al-Q from its support it has a choice of being destroyed or playing politics within your rules.
Hearts and minds is not about surrendering or giving up your core values - such as support for democratic states in the Middle East. Its about persuading neutrals and mild hostiles that your way is the best way.
This might be a partial explanation of why it takes so long to beat people who don't accept it. You have to indoctrinate their kids, bribe them and make them helpless with welfare programs etc.
It's a long jump from a free human being to someone who loves government as much as Al does, for ex.
Israel/Palestine is not the most fundamental and important issue.
Even if the far-left fantasy of Israel being wiped off the map materialised it would have little, if any impact on the likes of al qaeda and other extremist Muslims. The target of al qaeda and of fundamentalist Islam is ‘infidels’ – whether they be Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist. Fundamentalist Islam is backwards and simply incompatible with civilised values – mollifying extreme Islam by hurting the Jewish state that extremist Muslims despise is appeasement. The precedent it then sets is dangerous – are secular Arab states overthrown to appease religious extremists? Is Dubai as we know it dismantled to appease the extremists? Is the eventual result any different to the Islamists winning? It would seem not.
As much as I’d like to see a Palestinian state I’m not naive enough to think it will magically decrease support for al qaeda and other Muslim extremists. It won’t.
The US is seen as the main reason why Israel is still getting away with what is getting away with, and for 'Palestine' to remain a series of broken, hopeless and ever shrinking ghettoes. I should know, I've spoken to many of them.
So for as long as the US continues to veto UN resolutions, to give Israel billions in aid and military support and to refuse to condemn even the most outrageous atrocities, it will never win a single mind and heart in the Middle East.
For the most part Aladdin the Arab world doesn’t care remotely about the Palestinians. If Arab members of OPEC started making noises about cutting supply to the West the Palestinians could have a state tomorrow. The Arab world gives very little in aid to the Palestinians and Palestinians resident in Arab states for the most part enjoy no rights and are treated as second class citizens. Only Jordan does not specifically bar Palestinians from becoming citizens.
While Israel did struggle it worked hard to absorb 750,000 Arab Jewish refugees from Arab states (interestingly, this is similar to the number of Palestinian refugees following the 1948 war when the Palestinians and Arabs waged upon Israel but subsequently lost). While Israel did all it could for Jewish refugees, the Arab states did very little for Palestinian refugees – instead using them as a political pawn for decades against Israel.
As NQA was saying the Palestinians are of far more concern to the European left than most in the Arab world. Anyway President Bush supports the creation of a viable and independent Palestinian state in accordance with the Roadmap to Peace.
No least because it is the single most important reason why the entire region is in a permanent state of alert (some would say turmoil), and why the region hasn't prospered like it should have, what with perpetual perception of terrorism and conflict, massive amounts of refugees etc.
So even if you were to say that the rest of the Arabs don't care about the Palestinians (which I don't belive) they certainly care about the permanent shambles the region is in as a direct result of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the full and direct responsibility the USA bears on that.
Thee is an excellent book on this called 'Terror and Liberalism' by Paul Berman. I suggest you read it, then re-evaluate your attitude towards totaliarianism in the Middle East.
If the US can succesfully engage with people on that level and make a better life the Israeli's could blast the Palestinians right, left and centre and the average person in the Middle East would say on an abstract level 'thats bad', but on a concrete level 'look at the spanking new George Washington memorial hospital next door and that new Starbucks doesn't half do some tasty coffee'.
Abstract feelings of hatred aren't enough to sustain a war...
I doubt the citizens of Lebanon, Saudi, Syria or Egypt are going to be much different to those of Jordan.
How is Israel/Palestine the ‘single most important reason why the entire region is in a permanent state of alert’? Or turmoil? Single most important? I don’t think so. To the UAE, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is a far bigger worry than anything connected to Israel. It’s already believed the Saudis will buy nuclear weapons off Pakistan should Iran get a nuke. And I’d say Iraq being on the brink of civil war is far more important reason why the region is on a permanent state of alert – although I don’t actually think the ‘entire region’ is in turmoil or on any kind of state of alert.
There really isn’t any kind of ‘turmoil’ between Israel and the rest of the region, Israel has actually signed peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt. Further, the likelihood of a future Arab-Israeli war is extremely unlikely at the moment; the only real foreseeable area of tension is with regard to Iran acquiring a nuke – which is something other states in the region fearing Iran emerge as a regional superpower with no united Iraq to counterbalance it are equally concerned about.
And you’re blaming the Arab-Israeli conflict for the Middle East not prospering ‘like it should have’?
Compared to Europe and the USA the Arabs give miniscule amounts of aid to the Palestinians – and it’s not as if the oil rich Arab states can’t afford to get their cheque books out. Further, apart from in Jordan Palestinians are legally and in practice treated as second class citizens in the Arab world.
Have a look at events in the region during the last 60 years or so.
A playground it hasn't been.
I reckon they are far more worried by the clandestine arsenal of 200 thermonuclear weapons and undisclosed amounts of chemical and biologilocal agents Israel have possessed for the last 40 years, and about the indiference of the international community and in particular of the USA about it.
^ That being another reason why the US will never win any hearts and minds unless it changes policy.
Perhaps from the fenced off, well watered, Western-style green gardens of Israeli cities it does not feel like the entire region is in turmoil. But it is- it has been for more than half a century now.
There are many different situations to which the term turmoil could be applied to. I wasn't referring to war or direct conflict between Israel and any Arab nation.
I shall remind you of these words next time the subject of why should Israel be allowed to keep thermonuclear weapons comes up.
The Middle East should be a far, far more prosperous, placid and popular region than it is. It should receive tourists in their tens of millions every year. It doesn't.
And it doesn't because of the permanent state of war between Israel and the Palestinians as well as the illegal bombardment of neighbouring Arab states, the threats, the disputes, the animosity and the never-ending misery and headlines.
No difference from anywhere else then
The difference between the Palestinians and any other people in the world is that any other people in the world has at least one country to call home where they are first class citizens. The Palestinians don't even have that.
Yes, but whilst they may talk a good talk, they obviously don't hate the US or Israel enough to be lining up en masse to kill or be killed, so its pretty abstract. And they are queueing up to get Western consumerables.
lets say Bush and Bin Laden set up to stalls, Bush is selling aid on hospitals, education, chance for cheap DVDs and Israel stays in place. Bin Laden in turn says Israel we'll destroy, but don't expect that new school the US is promising and we'll need to spend your taxes on some new tansk to take the Jihad into Tel Aviv instead of the clean water we previously promised.
What would happen is the majority of Jordanians would quite happily be there at the the Bush stall, perhaps with the odd chant of death to Israel, just to make everyone feel better.
Israel has nuclear weapons and it’s not going to get rid of them. Israel isn’t in some kind of union with the USA, no President could get Israel to give up its nuclear weapons. And from an Israeli perspective – while it’s unlikely that the surrounding Arab states would wage war upon Israel again nobody can predict the future. Likewise Britain and France don’t ‘need’ nuclear weapons – nobody does but we don’t know where we’ll be in twenty years time and the nuclear deterrent is to an extent a successful tool.
Anyway, why is it that it’s been numerously rumoured that Saudi Arabia would buy a nuclear weapon off Pakistan if Iran acquired one? Yet Saudi Arabia while hardly delighted at Israel having nuclear weapons hasn’t made moves to acquire one before…But when Iran wants one the Saudis want one. While through your hatred of America you quite like the idea of Iran asserting itself in the world – as well as Israel many of Iran’s Arab neighbours are concerned about Iran. With Iraq divided there is no counterbalance to Iranian power and with Iran as a regional superpower there are genuine worries it’ll tip the balance of power in the Middle East and bully smaller weaker countries in the region.
:rolleyes:
Um the Kurds? There are some people in the former Soviet bloc who are stateless. There are a few hundred thousand Pakistanis I believe in Bangladesh who are stateless. And there are stateless people in Nepal, Burma and Sri Lanka too I think. Although as klintock will shortly tell us everybody is stateless since states don’t exist.
But Bush ISN'T selling that, sadly. If he was more folk would be buying it, I can assure you. We cansee exactally what he IS selling in Iraq and Afghanistan, now.
:yes: All Bush needs to do is start selling it.
True, but there does seem to be a policy change that the US is moving more towards the British model of economics and politics being propped up by the military rather than the French model of 'pure military'
I may be biased but the British model, whilst slow worked in Malaya, Oman and Northern Ireland, whilst the French model failed in Algeria and Vietnam (twice) and is making limited headway in Iraq.
Of course there still remains the Soviet model (God forbid) of 'creating a desert and calling it peace' which flopped in Afghanistan, has mixed results in Chechyna, but worked well in the Ukraine and in the murder of 1m plus German Czechs after the war.
It's all of them, or nobody.
Because the CIA has started alreday softening up the idiots it needs to soften up to get approval for the next illegal war?
Just a thought...
Now why does that scenario sound terribly familiar?
The likes of Jordan and Lebanon certainly don't, and to a lesser extent, sure, the others don't either. Constant depictions of the Arabs as a race of Jewish-hating fundamentalists who hate Westerners and want to "drive Israel into the sea", promoted by certain pro-Israel quarters don't help one's tourist industry and image abroad much.
True enough, though the fact that they are not alone in their plight doesn't make their situation much more tolerable, I'm sure you'll agree.
America does need to change tact quick, such as building school and hospitals and providing healthy food and clean water and so forth. Getting the masses of Iraq educated, and by educated i do not mean brainwahsed, i mean educated in schools and so forth, help the Iraqis become self-sufficient and help them to help themselves rather then allowing them to become the new Africa which seems to be stalled in a case of oppression by the world but dependent on it too.
The War on Terror is a pointless media spin. If America cared about fighting terror then they would have stayed in Afghanistan and hunted down every last member of the Taliban and Al-Q and began their eradication with extreme prejudice. Instead they didnt and ran head first into Iraq. Which if they were a business savy as they make themselves out to be in yanky land, they could have just asked Saddam to open relations again and sell his oil in the Dollar to them. Most likely for the benifits of it he would have agreed and remaine din power and the Saudi's would be sick over oil prices dropping and reducing their profits.
Also...When did America actually last carpet bomb anywhere? Was it Vietnam some 30 years ago?
Give it a new name, repackage it but the sell the same shit to people.
Tbh I think Israel’s tourist industry has been hurt far worse than anywhere else in the Middle East. (Unsurprising of course since suicide bombs going off in restaurants and shopping malls obviously did make Israel far more dangerous than Dubai – although Israel’s tourist industry is now recovering I think).
:yes: We can but hope. I am sure there are BETTER ways... but if it makes any move, then it must be better.
Afghanistan flopped because there ISNT anything there anyway to destroy. :chin: I guess that is why we can't find anything there either. Maybe Bush thought there were huge underground cities because it doesn't have much above ground? Or he just reads to many sci-fi comics.
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/18/berman-p.html
Is this the basic gist of the book?