Yes, the central question: why are we there? Would be nice
by sorin69 (2024-01-29 11:59:24)

In reply to: No one has asked, what are we doing out there?  posted by BeijingIrish

Cannot Reply Return to Political

to hear a convincing explanation that recognizes, as does BeijingIrish, how unready we are to launch yet another half-baked and impulsive and reactive military venture -- that, after we declare victory, leaves us with yet another festering occupation and exposure, in a part of the world, where we have repeatedly shown that, for all our unmatched firepower, we get played by the locals, who have their own agendas that may not match ours. That "uncontested land bridge linking Iran to the eastern Mediterranean" mentioned in another reply is the direct result of our having removed Iran's biggest enemy and obstacle to greater influence in the Fertile Crescent. Did we anticipate that particular result? It seems not.

Part of Trump's popularity traces back to his candor about the Iraq invasion. That was and is a shock to the GOP establishment that forgot the party's deep roots in what I will call, knowing it is an inadequate category, isolationism.



41’s strategic judgment looks better each day. *
by domerfromkansas  (2024-01-29 20:04:16)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

42's as well.
by ndsapper  (2024-01-30 12:38:49)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

41 got the ball rolling, though, no doubt about it.

Pretty sure it has less to do with who is leading and more to do with how we don't fight wars so good.


Remember when ISIS popped up?
by AquinasDomer  (2024-01-29 15:01:15)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

We tried exteicating ourselves from the area and ISIS filled the power vacuum. We have SF assets aiding numerous governments in combating extremist groups in the Middle East and Africa. This goes back quite some time.

Additionally without our help you'd risk Iran running roughshod over the middle east and seizing oil assets from Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Despite this and Afganistan we're averaging fewer deaths in combat operations under Biden than under Trump. There's just more visibility now.

In terms of Trump/MAGA foreign policy I'm reminded of Hofstadter talking about the Paranoid style in the post war era. They (McCartheyites/isolationist republicans) wanted us out of NATO/foreign entanglements but also wanted to be maximally anti communist and go to war with the USSR/use nukes, invade China etc. The philosophy was incoherent. You can't both escalate against Iran and pull out of the area. You can't be anti Chinese and abandon our treaty allies/be friends with Russia.

It popped up in ground we cleared by removing Saddam.
by sorin69  (2024-01-30 07:23:41)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Ditto for enabling the Shiite Crescent to connect its wings.

Interesting now to watch our next Middle Eastern war germinate.

We broke it
by AquinasDomer  (2024-01-30 17:04:51)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Thr Iraq war has to be one of the bigger own goals in our history.

Had we not elected to fight it I do wonder how the Arab Spring would have played out. I imagine we'd have gotten involved in stabilizing the region.

"Iran was the only winner." (U.S. Army War College study of
by sorin69  (2024-01-31 12:21:19)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

the Iraq war, released three years ago this month.) I've linked an NPR interview by Mary Louise Kelly with Ret. Col. Frank Sobchak, a co-author of the report. The very first think Sobchak says makes you want to run screaming from the room shouting WHAT THE F DID THEY THINK WAS GOING TO HAPPEN?
This reminds me of Chicago's fight against gangs...
by Kbyrnes  (2024-01-30 18:09:36)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

...The goal for many years was to take down the top guys, e.g., Jeff Fort. So what happened once that tactical approach worked and got the top guys into prison? The mass of little guys fractured into a bunch of undisciplined, freewheeling smaller gangs without the former central coordination of the big gangs. The City had not thought strategically about how to handle that, and we are still living with the shoot-em-up consequences.
Slightly OT but saw a report on stolen guns in TN in the
by wpkirish  (2024-01-31 12:36:32)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

past 10 years. Apparently they made a change to their laws to allow them in cars and trucks 10 years ago. During that decade there have been 30,000 guns stolen from cars or trucks. I am sure no small number of those guns have made their way to Chicago.

The most appalling part of the story is this quote from the lead sponsor.

"Listen, freedom comes with some dangers. That's one of the things that made our country great is that we put the power in people's hands"

Middle Eastern Christians depended on strongmen to protect
by sorin69  (2024-01-31 12:10:52)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

them from populist Islamism: Saddam, Assad, Mubarak...an unsavory crowd to say the least. That's one reason, I'm sure, why the Vatican opposed our invasion of Iraq: they knew it would not lead to better conditions for Iraqi Christians. And it sure as hell hasn't.

You're already seeing the chickenhawks in the
by krudler  (2024-01-29 12:25:39)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

republican party talking about bombing Iran. I'm sure they've thought of all the consequences and have plans for the aftermath...no one ever learns.

All this reminded me of something I read last summer.
by BeijingIrish  (2024-01-29 14:24:26)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

In an editorial piece in the Wall Street Journal, Sorin Adam Matei, an associate professor of research at Purdue University’s Krach Institute for Tech Diplomacy, argues that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its subsequent actions demand that Russian aggression be met with sharp, consistent, and measured force (“The Ukraine War Calls for a Revival of Deterrence Theory”, August 23, 2023, pg. A17).

Matei goes on to advocate a return to tit-for-tat, i.e., actions deriving from game theory principles which are rooted in “cold math”. He points to the success had by the US during the Cold War when principles of deterrence responded to game theory—mathematical models used to predict the actions of hostile foes. He notes that early on, success derived from adherence to a simple calculus: for every major action, there must be an immediate and commensurate reaction. Matei goes on to say that, from 1989 on, the US neglected the requirement for immediate pushback, thus allowing Russia to successfully employ a “zero determinant” approach which relies upon cheating and confusing its opponents. He adds that this approach works especially well against people like us who believe in following the rules.

In this case, what is a commensurate response (forget about immediate—that horse is out of the barn)? Bombing Iran. Bomb what? Sand? What could we bomb to ensure that such an attack will not recur?

It seems to me that one way to ensure that this does not happen again is to withdraw from the region. What good does bombing Iran do? Can the mullahs prevent proxies, e.g., Hezbollah affiliates, from attacking us if they are intent on causing us harm?

Furthermore, I’d suggest that if we get to the point where we determine that we must bomb Iran, we should use strategic weapons. If I sound like Dr. Strangelove, good. Maybe it’s time to go back to Herman Kahn and think about the unthinkable. What we’re doing at present is nothing more than chingando perro. Why expend the lives of air crews, Marines, or others? Maybe we let the Israelis do it—we fly EW missions over the Gulf, they follow and deliver ordnance. Otherwise, what are the Israelis good for?

Maybe it’s because I’m old and tired. Maybe it’s because I've watched too many US Government-sponsored fiascos. Whatever it is, I’ve reached a point where my fund of patience and idealism is exhausted. I just don’t believe it is worth sacrificing American lives in quixotic ventures. Furthermore, I am not convinced there is anything we can do in the short-term to materially influence the inexorable course of the political evolution in the region. Do we belong in the middle of a sectarian struggle? Or do we stand by and watch until it burns out? Fully cognizant of the risks and the consequences, I say, let them fight it out.

Chingando perro. Alguien tiene que hacerlo *
by jt  (2024-01-30 23:59:19)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

We fought Desert Storm
by AquinasDomer  (2024-01-29 15:15:07)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

To stop Saddam from grabbing Kuwait. Without US aid, could the Sunni powers stop Iran from seizing power in majority Shia Iraq, and the oil fields in Kuwait/Saudi Arabia? How would the US deal with and Iran that controls OPEC and is friendly with China? Would we be able to stand aside when Iran uses that oil wealth to attack Israel?