US international relations debate

This is a continuation of the debate Tom and I had going in the US to supply Pakistan… thread.

We’ll start with my replies to Tom’s last post there.

>Professor,
>what’s your problem? Never had a really good discussion, or
>not knowing how to develop and lead one?

Hopefully, no longer an issue.

>Pitty only that Vortex is not with us any more.

Where are you man? Jump in anytime.

>That with you helping us in our databases would certainly be
>terrific, and I’m looking forward for it; actually,
>everything was finished up to the R-77 (yep, still no
>KS-172), but we have never put it up. If you like, I can
>send you the original file.

What format is the file in? Dumbass MSN e-mail won’t accept certain file types, I’ll look into that after I post here; perhaps there are settings I can change to fix it.

>Of course it does; at Versailles everything was decided and
>the “world” partitioned once again. In that sence, a
>”little” more engagement ont he part of the USA….

True, but nevertheless German involvement in the peace process may have prevented many of the problems that came later.

>Quite right; you have a pretty similar situation now, with
>the difference, that the father was much better in
>negotiating and cooperating with the allies. If Bush Sr.
>would have dealt with the crisis in 1991 like his son now,
>Desert Shield and Desert Storm wouldn’t be possible.

I think Bush’s plans could work, provided they are applied unilaterally across the board. Countries like Saudi Arabia can’t be given a free pass just because they are our “allies”.

>Here you have the factor “people” once again: in some cases
>some deployments actually make very much sence. But, your
>political leaders fail completely to make that clear to you
>- servicemen which have to act according to their orders.

True in some cases, false in others. Bosnia made no sense, for example. If Europe want’s to form its own military coalition along the lines of NATO, shouldn’t they be able to handle their own internal problems? Part of me is just sick that we (the US military) have to solve the problems all the time. There are a number of capable militaries in the world.

>You can’t secure the borders: there is too much space out
>there.

You may be right. What was I thinking? We can’t even secure our own borders anyway }>

>You can’t just bomb the cities: that would not assure you
>have really annihiliated them all.

Depends on if you’re measuring explosive capacity in kilotons.

>You can’t just send in an armoured group, or even two or
>three: there is again too much space and places where they
>could hide.

24/7 JSTARS or UAV coverage (which may or may not be technically possible for the length of time needed) could allow us to monitor the areas we have already cleared. It’s just an overblown sweep-and-clear after the bombings really, not exactly a very probable solution but one I think could work if the right amount of time (read: decades) were willing to be invested. Unfortunately, that will probably not be the case.

>You will, just like it is broadly expected, need support
>from within. But, you’ll not get it from anybody unless your
>tanks are deep inside Iraq.

Well, there were mass surrenders during Desert Storm; in a similar situation, might these people be willing to help us clean out Iraq?

>>>>>(as long as not jammed by Iraiqs, like USN’s JSOWs and JDAMs in >February last year).
>>>>
>>>>Ha ha…no.
>>>
>>>Oh, of course not. “Nobody” jams US GPS-ammo, especially not
>>>with $5.000 jammers which can be bought on any decent black
>>>market today… I guess we’ll meet again about this on
>>>ACIG’s thread about the GPS-ammo… Heheh, heheh…
>>
>>Compare civil and military GPS systems.
>
>I tried to do so here:
>http://www.acig.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=235&forum=5&37
>Perhaps you could help us further?

I’m not as knowledgable on the workings of the GPS systems (read: technical details) as I would like to be, but I’ll look into it and give it a shot if I can.

>Sean,
>OK, let me be more precise: considering the numbers of bombs
>dropped at Iraqi SAM-radars one would expect there are no
>functional SAM-sites in Iraq any more. 😉

That would imply that we are always targeting SAM radars.

>Hm, but the operation “Gun Smoke” was one in which you tried
>to “remove” – instead of retaliate (but again haven’t
>followed with ground troops), Sean. It’s only so, that one
>can’t find much about it in the press, so it’s not very
>likely to be in our minds while we’re discussing this.

True, it hadn’t even occured to me.

>>>>Well, we can’t exactly advertise a plan against Pakistan
>>>>with a number of troops still in-country, can we?
>>>
>>>Indeed: one must wonder what will happen once you start to
>>>pull them away from there (there is no oil in Pakistan, so I
>>>don’t expect you to remain there all too long once the hunt
>>>in Afghanistan is over – which, of course, is another
>>>long-therm story).
>>
>>Personally I think as we pull out we should take down the
>>terrorist cells in-country, but this probably won’t happen
>>as they’re on the “friends” list now. Just like we won’t
>>bomb the Saudi’s who support terrorism. Unfortunately.
>
>Obviously this is a problem.

And it will be a large one.

>>However, what I think Arafat should do is declare a
>>Palestinian state and ask Muslim nations for support in
>>defending it.
>
>OK, we’re in a full agreement until now.
>What would be important in the context of the last you said,
>however, would be the USA not to interrupt the Arabs moving
>to support and defend the Palestinians. This, however, I’m
>sure you’ll agree would lead into a war.
>
>In such a war, however, the USA would – given their current
>politics – start to support Israel, and then you’re not
>biased any more.
>
>So, it all actually depends on the USA at least once
>remaining neutral – really, trully neutral, without any
>tricks, not background movements, no pressure behind the
>scene etc. – neutral.

I agree. My view again is that the Israeli’s are definitely not our friends and should not be getting the support that they get from us.

>That’s correct: he’s no head of state, because they are
>precluding him from this. Consequently he can’t act as one:
>he can only act as what he always was since coming to the
>political tribune.

This is even more interesting-if Arafat is not a head of state, how can he be expected to solve the internal problems of Palestine-i.e. taking care of Hamas? Israel needs to suck it up and comply with the UN resolutions. Are they the only country that can blatantly defy the UN and not get dealt with by the US? More two-faced politics.

>>I also find it interesting that the Israeli’s are so outspoken >against “homicide bombing” when Zionist terrorists did the same >thing in the 1930’s, blowing up British hotels.
>
>That is certainly an interesting fact. I wonder what the
>Israelis think about this, or do they just don’t remember?

I think they have selective remembering. A few months ago there was also a large group of reservists in Israel that refused to be called up to “fight” the Palestinians as they regarded it as the systematic elimination of a people. Heard that one before?

>>Another thing-if the US includes Palestinian terrorists in
>>the anit-terror war, do we include the IRA as well?
>
>This is a good one: you just cracked me up….!! :p
>This is something I’m talking about all the time; the
>semantic of your President. If he says he’ll pursue and
>punish (i.e. “bomb”) everybody who supported or harboured
>terrorists, then he must start with your own imigration
>authorities, which have left the 9/11 idiots to enter the
>USA, and then continue with quite a few other US
>authorities.

What we apparently need from the US government is a Bush definition of terrorist.

>Furthermore, where is the logic in hypocratically allying
>with somebody who created, organized, and supported anti-US
>terrorist, while simultaneously threatening to attack
>somebody who is not supporting the anti-US, but anti-Israeli
>terrorism?

Can you clarify that a little?

>If that is done, namely, then one also has to fight all the
>other sorts of terrorism, and here we end with the USA
>again, as they are activelly supporting quite a few militant
>movements, which conduct acts of terrorism in different
>countries – so in Iran, just for example (the MEK), or in
>Yugoslavia.

Again, where is the definition of terrorist Dubya?

SOC

“Peace through kinetic solutions”