RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,189137,00.html

Damn. Most of us see it all snow balling. Thus another reason to "keep yer powder dry"!!!!!

The primary issues mentioned in this article cull from events of the past 8 years, which from a foreign policy perspective points the finger to the previous administration. Whereas it is obvious that the previous incumbant did not read his fathers book w/r/t why he opted to not invade Iraq, it is also clear that the administration did not understand what kind of power to use to resolve the problems we were facing.

It might've done the G W Bush Administration and thier neoconservative supporters well to read "The Ugly American" by Eugene Burdick and William J. Lederer. The most serious and continuous mistakes made in foreign policy by the US are made by those who have no understanding of the cultures and/or traditions of the countries/people we are trying to do business with. Doing business with other countries based on the assumption that they all conduct their affairs the same way that the United States does will almost always lead to disaster.

But lamantably, given thier "faith based" approach to foreign policy (military power being the ultimate tool of foreign policy when all other means fail) and unwillingness to listen to anyone with serious expertise who had any opinion that differed from their own, it became increasingly clear that there was serious trouble on the horizon.

And, those troubles have been upon us for some time.

The correct response after 9/11 was never a military one but rather was one of simple LAW ENFORCEMENT (with military support if/when necessary). Use of soft power is historically far more effective in the long run, and for the United States government to forget that sticking up for the little guy is what made us the beacon of hope, justice, etc, in the eyes of the world's population was a tragic mistake.

Man, talk about doom and gloom. Things suck, but dang.

I have to say that MY biggest fear is the rise of a Ultra-Nationalistic Government in Russia. The economic troubles could bring the right climate for this. Think early 1930's Germany anyone? If something like this happens, our 2nd Generation Warfare oriented military will be well suited to the crisis. If we retool the military to fight 4GW, what happens when a 2GW military is needed.

This is why Rumsfield said you go to war with the military you have, not the one you want. Those two carriers and the F-22 will become REAL important if somebody like Russia gets frisky.

As for the simple law enforcement strategy, it is A tool in the arsenal, but not the only tool. Law enforcement did not work well in preventing a second attack on the WTC. Al Qaeda almost got away with the 1993 attack because Clinton treated it like a criminal attack and not an attack on our nation. His LACK of military action in that case emboldened Al Qaeda to try again.

Just something to ponder.

quote:

Originally posted by sloverev:
Man, talk about doom and gloom. Things suck, but dang.

I have to say that MY biggest fear is the rise of a Ultra-Nationalistic Government in Russia. The economic troubles could bring the right climate for this. Think early 1930's Germany anyone? If something like this happens, our 2nd Generation Warfare oriented military will be well suited to the crisis. If we retool the military to fight 4GW, what happens when a 2GW military is needed.

This is why Rumsfield said you go to war with the military you have, not the one you want. Those two carriers and the F-22 will become REAL important if somebody like Russia gets frisky.

As for the simple law enforcement strategy, it is A tool in the arsenal, but not the only tool. Law enforcement did not work well in preventing a second attack on the WTC. Al Qaeda almost got away with the 1993 attack because Clinton treated it like a criminal attack and not an attack on our nation. His LACK of military action in that case emboldened Al Qaeda to try again.

Just something to ponder.

Al Queda made a number of attacks on US assets, and when Clinton did try to take action (later in his term), he was also having problems with his tailor (i.e. the Lewinski issue). The republicans at the time (when he was really trying to take action) spent a lot of time accusing him of trying to "wag the dog" - so not nearly as much got done as it should (or could) have.

W/r/t 9/11, there were many warnings that came the way of the Bush Administration, and they ultimately failed to take even remedial action (or precautions) despite alarming indications that serious trouble was afoot (to the point where CIA Director Tenet made a special trip over to the white house to see the president).

All Bush's fault - no - but the warnings were there, and that president is the one that said that he was "tired of swatting flies...". But it wasn't all Clinton's fault by any stretch of the imagination either.

There is no mention made of a *simple* law enforcement strategy: what President Bush should have done is immediately convene an international conference to create an integrated and coordinated anti-terrorism crime organization to handle these problems. Such an organization would obviously have direct priority access to military reinforcements if/when required. Handling terrorism as a crime removes the "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" problem, and prevents elevating common criminals to the level of professional (or even draftee) soldiers by calling it a "war". Plus - it has the advantage of removing any ideological problems (it makes terrorism a simple crime instead of a war of ideas).

The US had the political backing and capital, plus huge international sympathy after 9/11. That capital and sympathy was lamentably wasted. Instead of using that to our advantage, our government took rash actions that led to a number of historical foreign policy disasters.

A shame indeed...

Lind must have just gotten back from his Nostradomus Convention this week, err Martin van Creveld Convention I mean.

It's easy to take the present and fit the puzzle pieces into spaces; even by force at times, but it doesn't mean it will happen or it is actually what we are seeing.

Law enforcement? Like during Carter or Clinton times? Wow! I disagree with law enforcement use on non-US citizens who commit acts of war on us. This is a a national security issue and should be dealt with militarily and with uncompromising force.

Who gives a damn about the world opinion and the UN? They don't about us; even when we "play nice".

quote:

Originally posted by yanqui69:
Lind must have just gotten back from his Nostradomus Convention this week, err Martin van Creveld Convention I mean.

It's easy to take the present and fit the puzzle pieces into spaces; even by force at times, but it doesn't mean it will happen or it is actually what we are seeing.

Law enforcement? Like during Carter or Clinton times? Wow! I disagree with law enforcement use on non-US citizens who commit acts of war on us. This is a a national security issue and should be dealt with militarily and with uncompromising force.

Who gives a damn about the world opinion and the UN? They don't about us; even when we "play nice".

If you like having a job then you should give a damn about world opinion. Since we are now part of the "global economy" that means that the United States is now more reliant that ever on global opinion to help us sell goods and services to other countries (and/or their people). Thats the bad news that they didn't tell you about global/free trade (though it makes for good short-term profits while things are going well).

This is where Pat Buchanan was right: if we are giving away our economic atonomy then we are far less able to protect ourselves from global recessions, international boycots, and our ability to spend money where/when we want.

A lot of people disagree with the law enforcement option for combating terrorism because it simply isn't tangible enough for them (and G W Bush was no different), and then you can pretend that you're kicking butt. For you to have such an opinion isn't as much of a consequence (nor mine for that matter). Unfortunately for the United States, President Bush should've known better than to try to use a purely military option because that just unites the bad guys against you (read the 2007 NIE - maybe then you'll understand) and makes things far worse.

Lamentably, he failed to demonstrate that wisdom or leadership.

I'm glad you can insinuate my education level and knowledge of globalization. The US can both be on top of the global economy and control a majority of the outcome without "sucking up" to other countries. It's only when we let them control us. Those other countries don't give a damn about the US until it affects their bottom line, $$$.

We need to quit being "world citizens" and be strong Americans. Let them beg and feed at our trough, not the other way around.

quote:

Originally posted by yanqui69:
I'm glad you can insinuate my education level and knowledge of globalization. The US can both be on top of the global economy and control a majority of the outcome without "sucking up" to other countries. It's only when we let them control us. Those other countries don't give a damn about the US until it affects their bottom line, $$$.

We need to quit being "world citizens" and be strong Americans. Let them beg and feed at our trough, not the other way around.

No insult intended - just offering information.

It is alo important to note that the US doesn't typically give a flying damn about anyone unless it affects our bottom line either (or otherwise becomes a serious political liability).

And w/r/t being strong American's - read up on Pat Buchanan's views on American trade policy. If we were to take his approach then the US would be in FAR better position than it is today.

Cheers.

Pat Buchanan should stick to preaching at his church. Right now, everyone is waiting for the US economy to improve, because theirs can't unless ours does.

I guess we agree to disagree.

Mr. Lind relies too much on Van Creveld's analysis on 4GW. He might want to read some criticism from the Strategic Studies Institute's Dr. Antulio J. Echevarria II's " The Problem with Fourth-Generation War" at

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub674.pdf