SwiftVets.com

[Paul]

Hi SL:

Thanks for the heads up about the reply. Wow, I didn't know this function existed. Sorry to hear about the hard drive. I hate it when they go.

I haven't read the reply yet, but just a note to let you know I received it and your message (no delays this time!). Thanks again! I'll get back to you again after reading this.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

"A well placed LGB Mark 82, compliments of Ronald Reagan, helped Ghadafhy (sic) see the the error of his ways, and get the bigger picture. If we don't get them, they will continue to get us, so we have to go wherever they are. Letting them alone is unacceptable." {SL}

Hi SL:

I apologize for not responding sooner. It’s not for lack of inability to respond or lack of any particulars to response with, but because of the medium it’s due more to a desire to give some thought about how to make the response.

Also, I hope that you get this and apologize for not sending you a notice as you did with me, but don't see how to do it.

I’d thought to save it for last, but will instead begin with Libya.

I apologize for the length, but there was a good bit more involved in Libya '86 then only a well placed bomb. Ronald Reagan is frequently enough presented as being a "triggy-happy cowboy" (both by detractors and now increasingly in numerous caricatures of him by others), but he was not. Libya was prudent and details were demanded to be paid careful attention to by the late President Reagan.

Tactics wise, Libya 1986 was in many ways the end of one era and the beginning of another. The April raid established some foundational US air tactics still in practice today while being among the last of the old fashioned raids requiring the aircraft to get right over the target. LGBs were in the earlier developments virtually more like improved bomb sights than what we’re familiar with today and quite susceptible to malfunction due to such as dust or smoke (hence those bombs that were off target over Tripoli and hit the French embassy and other civilian structures).

Aside from any of that, it was much more than only the dropping of a well placed bomb, laser guided or otherwise, involved.

But you are correct the targets in both March and April were quite specific. Ignoring the March operations, then in the April Raid on Tripoli and Benghazi, of the five specific targets attacked, then only one, the Benina airfield near Benghazi, was a facility that was not tied directly to Libyan support of international terrorist activities. The Benina raid carried out by navy A-6s was for the purpose of preventing LAAF Fighters from pursuing the strike aircraft that assaulted the terrorist-support facilities.

In fact, Prime Minister Thatcher at the time provided permission for the use of RAF Lackenheath for the raid only on the condition that the USAAF F-111s were being used against terrorist related targets only. Otherwise the US would not have been allowed to use the facility for that raid.

Mommar Qaddafi (no “sic” since there’s end to the number of various spellings of his name, “Qadhadhafi” purportedly the most accurate transliteration, but one that like others, I find way too cumbersome) and Libya were shown the “error of their ways” primarily due to being isolated and literally without any substantial allies while being besought by an unstable situation and threatening coups within the nation in 1986.

The internal turmoil and threatening coups, by the way, is the reason that Qaddafi’s adopted daughter was killed and why he himself was almost killed in the April raid – he was not personally targeted by the US. US intelligence wasn’t even aware that he had an adopted daughter until learning about her death from the public news media (apparently he’s a very private guy when it comes to his family). Apparently the situation was so bad that the common soldiers in the regular Libyan armed forces were not issued their pieces but all weapons were kept in armories under lock and key. . . Like Saddam in Iraq, Mommar depended upon specific para-military and military units that oversaw the regulars. Hence he and his family sleeping in the Terrorist-support related HQ compound that he was in that night.

Being anti-communist, the Soviet connection to Libya was primarily one of mutual business relations with the Soviets selling the large numbers of munitions that Libya was spending a fortune on acquiring.

With the US policy of strategic alliances in the middle east conducted throughout the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, with both Arab nations and Israel (even to the chagrin of Israel in 1982 when it protested such as the US sales of AWACS to Saudi Arabia, only to be reminded by President Reagan that it is not the position of the United States to have its foreign policy dictated to it by other nations), Libya was isolated diplomatically from the majority of Arab nations.

For numerous reasons, not the least of which the post-69 coup Libyan Green Book ideology, relations with Shia Islamic governed Iran and Ba’athist governed Syria, while cordial, were strained.

Libyan interference in the affairs of neighboring African nations, including border clashes with Egypt due to Libyan support of insurgencies in the Sudan, had left it without a substantial ally in north Africa.

The US and French backed insurgency in Chad resisting the Libyan occupation, along with the military operations in February when the French conducted air strikes in and then occupied northern Chad with over 1,400 Foreign Legion troops placed pressure on Libya from its south while the US naval Task Forces (Saratoga & Coral Sea) operating in the Attain Document operations of January and then the Freedom of Navigation exercises in March placed pressure on Libya from the north.

The three CVBG Task Force in March further operated under the revised Rules of Engagement (REA) that had been made publicly clear to Libya. Waiting until having been directly being fired upon first was no longer a condition for US naval forces to defend themselves. Assaults against US forces would be responded to in clear degrees of escalation. When Libyan forces fired their SAMs on US aircraft in the Gulf of Sidra, in response to the new REA, Libyan forces operating outside the nation immediately became hostile forces open to attack by US forces. Hence the sinking and disabling of the missile corvettes that attempted their ill fated assaults on the US Task Force. Had Libyan forces waged a full scale assault against the US Task Force, such as a full scale air or naval assault, then under the revised REA all of Libya would have been designated as hostile and all Libyan military facilities and the all of the nation’s infrastructure would have been neutralized.

The March Task Force of over 40 warships, including Three Carriers (Saratoga, Coral Sea and America), over 220 aircraft, about 27,000 sailors and Marines, had immediately upon taking up station established a SAR (employing LAMPS helo detachments and other helo & aircraft detachments as the foundation), a 24/7 Fighter CAP over the Task Force in addition to CAPs established over the Gulf of Sidra, and Srtike CAPs over the Gulf of Sidra, in addition to establishing a surface action group of surface warships in the Gulf of Sidra, and establishing air and surface ASW operations. Among the details paid attention to was attention to approaches of small civilian aircraft from Malta to the north (due to the ’83 suicide attack in Lebanon). Libya had substantial naval and military forces, including the latest Soviet and French armaments, but the US had sufficient capability of carrying out what was publicly stated and the Libyan naval and military forces would have been defeated and the nation’s infrastructure (utilities, communications, economic) dismantled completely had it come to it.

The April Task Force formed by Two Carrier Battle Groups (America and Coral Sea) and over 20,000 Sailors and Marines with the addition of the F-111s out of Lackenheath was also sufficient to the task has the Libyans been foolish enough to attempt a counter strike.

All of that combined: The April Raid on facilities existing for the support of Terrorist activities and not related to the Libyan armed forces, the virtually complete international isolation of the nation and the internal instability and threatening coups, the French and US military pressure to its south and the US naval pressure to its north, is all in combination what served to show Mommar Qaddafi and Libya the error of their ways.

The US actions also served to motivate the western European nations to finally participate in meaningful economic and diplomatic isolation of Libya following ’86, which they’d been reluctant to engage in prior to it due to economic ties with Libya. Sanctions only now being lifted as via Qaddaffi’s admissions to the Libyan role in the later Pan Am bombing and the current negations with the US.

If it only required a bomb, then Bill Clinton would be viewed as a military genius and Al Qaida would have been defeated in the ‘90s, rather than the US only having wasted some missiles in Afghanistan and destroyed an aspirin factory (or whatever drugs it manufactured) in the Sudan.

The late President Reagan had his faults and US policies weren’t all perfect during his administration, but he was not the “trigger-happy cowboy” many so wrongly and stupidly present him as having been.

Like many things, Libya ’86 was far more sophisticated and far more complex and competent than many tend to realize.

As mentioned, a number of tactics were introduced that have formed the basis of US air tactics since. It was the first application of the Goldwater-Nichols Act, which hadn't even been ratified yet, but knowing that it was coming was the reason for the Air Force participation in April '86. That resulted in a policy that impacted naval aviation, and therefore our national defense, I believe quite negatively throughout the '90s, formally until about '98 and really, effectively speaking, only about this year. Namely the excessive reliance upon the Air Force for medium range bombers. . . but that's another topic. . . .

PS. The Soviet-Libyan symbiotic arms-money relationship is the reason that in ’86 Libya had one of the most sophisticated and formidable air defenses in the world. In ’86 US air forces encountered the highest concentration of SAMs ever directed against US air forces, before or since. When asked about the Tripoli air defenses and how it compared to Hanoi 1972, one of the F-111 pilots in the April Raid, a veteran of both, replied that the AAA was about the same while the SAMs on a scale of 1 to 10 were a 15. Only one US strike aircraft being lost between both the March air strikes and the April raids, I suspect is possibly one reason that so few are aware of how impressive the performance of the naval aviators and air forces personnel truly was in ‘86.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

“I too share your concerns but for a different reason. . . . . I thought we should have had Osama's head on a pike before going after Saddam, so to speak. My instructions to those searching Osama out in those caves would've been, ‘The only way he comes out of those caves is feet first at room temperature.’ I later got to discuss the situation with a reservist who was in intelligence in Kuwait. We work together, when he isn't off playing army. Whenever he got back from Kuwait, before any of the recent "Osama Tapes", he was convinced Osama was buried underneath Bora Bora, or whatever that mountain was called. It wasn't until months later we found out he probably wasn't. So I'm supposing that's why we turned our attention to Iraq, before we had concrete evidence Osama was dead. A mistake one could reasonably expect from a ‘Boot’ president. I thought for sure Saddam was involved with the trade towers somehow, that was the first thing I thought as I was watching the second tower go down. Actually I thought, good job! Excellent plan, great execution. airplanes full of fuel, I never would've thought of that, except I would've tried to crash them in lower. Now it's our turn MF. Then I thought about Saddam. I was thinking most likely he supplied the money, Osama the boots on the ground. That way, he'd be out of harms way, plausible deniability. But in any case, I agree with the administrations strategy. This is not a war against a country, but against a bunch of shadowy individuals. We don't yet know how to do this effectively yet.” {SL}

Hi SL:

The 9-11 Assaults and your mention of different reasons for concern is where I'd originally intended to start.

Actually, we probably share a similar fundamental concern for similar reasons. However, it doesn’t look like our reasons are quite precisely the same. I disagree with some that you’ve stated here, at least, as it’s been stated.

I understand your statement about “good job” regarding the 9-11 assaults. I’ve made similar observations to friends since 12 Sept ’01, although never phrased in quite as complimentary a manner as yours is here.

I’ve pointed out the obvious danger of the enemies that we face due to the extreme competence and extraordinary effectiveness of the assaults on 9-11. The terrorist assault used ordinary (to the extreme of mundanely so) means readily available as ‘tools’ to achieve extraordinary results. The use of airplanes as bombs, skilled operators as pilots, and the result of knocking down two skyscrapers such as the twin towers and the subsequent economic destabilization and damage that impacted our national economy and thereby the world economy was brilliantly conceived, planned, and executed. Since we now have a death toll of about 3,000 from the 9-11 assaults, itself an extraordinary result of the attack, I don’t hesitate to point out that the goal, very nearly accomplished, was to inflict a death toll of tens of thousands.

Further, since the issue of terrorist assaults upon Americans it’s not something entirely new to me or un-thought about prior to 9-11, and fairly familiar since my own days as a young man, through the first generation of mideast terrorist attacks through the '70s & '80s, and now with this second generation of them since the '90s.

I’ve pointed out that as a general trend, and with only one lone, but significant exception (the suicide attack against American Peace Keepers in Lebanon in ’83), that since the late ‘70s, terrorist assaults upon Americans have effectively increased an order of magnitude per decade where the numbers of casualties inflicted by them are concerned. Had the 9-11 results generated the desired tens of thousands killed, then it would have been a jump of two orders of magnitude at the beginning of this new decade. The impact of an economic destabilization of national and world economies is both extraordinary and a new result.

Therefore we are facing quite intelligent and quite capable adversaries who have made themselves our enemy, openly declared war against us and engaged in quite successful acts of war against us since about 1993 who employ complex assaults utilizing simple readily available means with radically effective results.

Even though my statements aren’t quite so complimentary sounding as your own “good job”, they still tend to enrage many of my friends when I first make them since they’re often received as excessively complimentary of our enemies who have murdered thousands of Americans.

While I understand the reaction and share the hatred for those who have attacked us, I only point out that it is foolish to underestimate an enemy or to believe that derogatory rhetoric alone is of any value whatsoever where the manner of defeating them is concerned. For my friends who, I believe foolishly, engage in denigration of our enemy’s capabilities or intelligence, and further confound them with the whole of the “Islamic world” or even the vague "radical Islam", and follow up with derogatory statements, I point out the old admonition that, “you’re worst curse, won’t kill a fly,” never mind a terrorist.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

“I thought we should have had Osama's head on a pike before going after Saddam, so to speak.” {SL}

Hi SL:

I don’t share your emphasis upon the single figure of Osama Bin Laden. Nor do I share nor even understand your belief that somehow Saddam Hussein was the next natural and obvious target.

I agree that it would be a good thing if Osama Bin Laden were killed or captured, but from what I’m seeing, then I don’t believe that would bring an end to Al Qaida assaults against us at this point.

The effort will be difficult enough, so what shouldn’t be complicated shouldn’t be made complicated. I’ve believed from the beginning that we should have been focusing upon those Para-military organizations who have openly declared war against us and acted upon those declarations via their terrorist assaults upon us (since the first World Trade Center assault in 1993 that resulted in over one thousands casualties) directly with the purpose of annihilating them.

My interest is from an American perspective of those who have declared war against us and attacked us directly in response to those declarations. In particular, among my biggest concerns since 9-11 due what was observed has been with the aspect listed above of “skilled operators as pilots.”

The talented and highest trained individuals are probably among the single most precious resources of such as Al Qaida where assaults against such as the United States is concerned.

Unfortunately I believe that this has been obscured by what I believe is not only the unsound blurring of tactics and making a tactic the focus, but also the unsound blurring of the attacks upon the United States and such as the US embassies in Africa with such as the terrorist attacks in the middle east and elsewhere.

The pool of individuals available who are capable of planning and conducting the kind of sophisticated operations against the United States and US military and overseas properties around the world is no doubt in my mind orders of magnitude smaller than is the pool of individuals available for such simple operations as the strapping on of explosives and walking into an Israeli café.

All the more reason for focus upon, and aggressive action directly against, those Para-military organizations which have attacked us with the purpose of annihilating them from the very beginning and not, as we have been, being distracted with side issues and side targets.

And this is where the real “learning curve” and “OJT” that you mention begins.

Like insurgent (guerilla) warfare, the problems and goals in asymmetric (including terrorist and propaganda tactics) warfare tend to be easily stated, but effective tactics to deal with it and defeat it not as easily developed. “Cookie cutter” solutions and tactics don’t exist. Few to no true successful examples from past conflicts, in spite of the polemic and rhetoric of no few “experts” these days. . .
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

“Then I thought about Saddam. I was thinking most likely he supplied the money” {SL}

Hi SL:

Not only don’t I share your emphasis upon the single figure of Osama Bin Laden, but I don’t even understand why you believed that somehow Saddam Hussein was the next natural and obvious target.

Even at the time that we invaded Iraq, our own state Department listed Shia governed Iran as the number one state sponser of terrorism throughout the world. Which is nothing new. The majority of terrorist assaults by middle eastern terrorist organizations of the late ‘70s through to about ’91 when the first generation halted its assaults upon Americans, were mostly financed or supported via Iran, Syria or Libya.

Iran, unsurprisingly, heavily supported organizations that were largely Shia Muslem manned and directed while Libya under Mommar Quadaffi with its own unique Green Book philosophy provided support to insurgencies that employed terrorist tactics world-wide, including nihilist insurgents in Europe such as the red brigades, Marxist insurgents in central America (including those still operating today in Colombia) and nationalist insurgents such as the IRA in northern Ireland and the Basques in Spain, and some Shia anti-Israel insurgents also backed by Shia Iran and Ba’athist Syria, among others.

As to Al Qaida, then some of the means of their financing came out early on and Iraq wasn't listed then or since.

Another aspect of their successful assaults, particularly 9-11, is how very inexpensive Al Qaida operations are. One of their means of financing is via the drug trade in both Europe and the Americas. Another revelation that brought out worthless curses and whines about “hypocrisy” and such. . . Frankly, such a means of funding demonstrates that Al Qaida holds Americans in contempt. That it is an effective means of funding demonstrates the contempt is justified. Numerous of our own citizens help to fund the very assaults our enemies wage against us.

At any rate, funding by Hussein was not demonstrated nor even given as one of the primary reasons for the US invasion of Iraq. Historically Iraq has not been a major funder of world-wide terrorist organizations, of whatever variety, so I don’t understand why you believed this unless you assumed it was only a retaliation for the ’91 liberation of Kuwait. Either way, it’s obviously irrelevant and one would expect US intelligence to possess something far more substantial than the SWAGs of individual peons like ourselves.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

"But as far as I am concerned, invading countries that harbor these cowardly creeps and won't give them up, is now on the table." {SL}

Three nations were, I believe foolishly, were listed publicly by President Bush in his 2002 State of the Union address as constituting a so-called “axis of evil:” Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Iraq having the least history of supporting world-wide terrorits movements and being the most questionable regarding possession of WMD. It was also the weakest of the three.

When I was a kid, my older brothers taught me to always go for the biggest in the groups when being confronted or bullied. . . I picked myself up off of the ground a couples times due to the advice which taught me the importance of giving it all that you've got once you're in a fight and fighting to win. Their advice was sound. Beating a whimp or a weakling won't frighten anyone but other wimps and weaklings.

Since the President's speech North Korea has openly defied the United States, including twice having launched ballistic missile tests of missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads against the United States itself. In 2002 North Korea openly admitted to having an ongoing nuclear program. In June this year in the 3rd round of negotiations with North Korea, it openly admitted that the program has a military component. North Korea is also a supplier of munitions to various terrorist organizations world wide. It remains if not a military ally, a state with friendly economic and political ties to both the new Republic of Russia and the People’s Republic of China. The assistance of both of the latter, the US has sought in our to date unsuccessful attempts to convince North Korea to cease its development of nuclear weapons.

In this context, it’s worthwhile to keep in mind that the UN coalition of which the US formed the single largest component that fought in Korea 1950 to 1953 (in the war initiated by North Korea and later joined by the People’s Republic of China) is still in a state of war with North Korea, only under the cease fire agreement of 1953.

Iran continues its development of a nuclear program, declaring no intention to stop, which it denies has a military component.

It doesn’t surprise me in the least that both of these countries have expedited their nuclear programs following the President’s 2002 public statement. Once they have nuclear weapons, they’ll be safe from the fate of such as the invasion of Iraq.

Given that both North Korea and Iran are developing nuclear capabilities, with the aid of both the new Republic of Russia and the People's Republic of China, among other reasons, then I strongly agree with President Bush’s policies of continuing development and deployment of a ballistic missile defense system and the upgrading of our nuclear arsenal, including tactical nuclear weapons. Programs that no doubt in mind would be hindered if John Kerry was elected President.

After that however, then frankly, I don’t believe that all that much is now “on the table” as you say. In fact, other than weakling and still mostly isolated Libya, then not any more than what preceded the invasion of Iraq. In fact, having so much of our armed forces now committed to Iraq, then I believe it actually probably leaves us somewhat weaker. By the unsound, and for the US also unprecedented "for us or against us" standard, then with Korea and Iran, the US appears to be against itself. If one made "no negotiation" an absolute, then Libya would be a problem. It's not for me. As for North Korea, then I don't believe we even have an option.

Some of those other reasons I agree with the President on the defense issues of anti-Ballistic missile defense and upgrading our nuclear arsenal is that much of the technology for the Libyan program came from the PRC, as is true of Iran and Pakistan (not surprising given the PRC's substantial dimplomatic and economic activities throughout the Islamic world, in both Asian and African nations, since the 1960s), and the PRC's building up its own conventional and nuclear forces with the aid of Russian and other technologies, and the new Republic of Russia doing the same.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

“I don't think the prez and company anticipated the level of resistance that they have encountered” {SL}

This is obvious. The plans from the very begging have been grossly simplistic and exceedingly overly-optimistic; Critical details were routinely either ignored altogether or trivialized and seemingly expected to just take care of themselves. Previous to the invasion I’d hoped that the details simply weren’t being gone into but were being paid attention to. It became obvious rather quickly that in fact they were not paid attention to.

I don’t condemn an effort for not being perfect. But there is little to nothing being observed in Iraq that should not have been predicted, expected and plans and contingencies at least attempted to be provided for prior to the invasion.

With the exception of the tactical skills of such as the Marine Regiments and the Army combat brigades, the ineptitude of the re-construction period really has been extraordinary and inexcusable. Right back to the very beginning when a Clinton political appointee retained by the current administration with no history whatsoever of competence in such complex efforts but only state department diplomatic experience (Yemen where her primary concern toward the FBI investigation of the Cole Bombing was they not offend the locals) was placed in charge. Mind boggling.

As to a “The Mouse that Roared” analogy of reducing Iraq to rubble and then rebuilding, then I believe that at this point in time it’s obviously not going to happen. Both Fallujah in the April insurgency offensive and Najif in the latest insurgency offensive probably more than adequately demonstrate that.

Comparisons to either post-WWII Japan or Germany and Iraq are culturally and otherwise applies and oranges comparisons and therefore irrelevant.

Japan was a homogenous and disciplined society with an ancient shared culture. The Emperor was not deposed but allowed to remain in place, hence his descendents today. When ordered to resist, the Japanese resisted, civilians and military (the cliffs of Saipan in ’44 being a profound example, among numerous others). When ordered to surrender, then virtually to a man the entire population of the nation ceased to resist and be our enemies and immediately became friends and allies.

Germany, also possessed a mostly homogenous population, was reduced to rubble, divided by the opposing occupiers and immediately became a central ‘battleground’ in the Cold War. Further, Germany had been under the guidance of National Socialism for less than a full 13 years.

Iraq has been under the Ba’athist regime for decades, is a heterogenous collection of numerous ethnic and religious groups, many with little to nothing in common with each others, and with much at variance with each other and each with their own agendas and goals. Hence the collection being held together by a strong man like Saddam and the reason that he was the despot that he was.

More pertinent to Iraq is probably the example of British troops entering Baghdad in 1918 hailed as liberators followed shortly thereafter by their being viewed as occupiers and the subsequent violence that followed.

By the way, and not a minor detail in this, the “resistance” was not only obviously not anticipated by the President and the advisors he’s followed, but neither was it organized and in place at the time of the military defeat of the Iraqi armed forces in the spring of last year. Rather, the various insurgent movements have organized, grown and increasingly developed during the post-invasion re-construction phase, following the declaration of the cessation of hostilities. The first major offensive wasn’t until almost one full year after the declaration of the cessation of hostilities.

As to arguments about such as an implementation of a neo “Marshall Plan” of some kind for the imposition of a new form of government in Iraq or anywhere else as a “reason” for invading another country or as a “tactic”, then it’s only to point out the obvious that the United States did not go to war in the second world war for the purpose of implementing the Marshall Plan in Europe or the McArthur regency in Japan. Not only is the comparison of Iraq with 1940s German and Japan, culture and circumstances wise an unsound overly optimistic apples and oranges comparison, but such being given as a “reason” for the invasion of a sovereign nation wholly unprecedented in US history.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

Here in Detroit, we had a significant population of displaced Iraqi's, I say had because many of them have gone back to Iraq, to try and rebuild the place. They know how well they can live if they have freedom to do it. Hopefully they will win out over the power hungry mullahs, the power hungry ones, not the mullahs just trying to live their religion.” {SL}

I thought that you were in Toronto?

To be honest, the example of Iraqis in exile going back to Iraq last year I don't find all that impressive and believe has been overplayed.

Prior to the Invasion many of the Christians in Iraq looked forward to it due to being fed up with the day to day situation in Iraq. Now, it’s the Christians in Iraq who are streaming out in the largest numbers at the moment, prudently, I believe.

The situation for them was bad before the US invasion (like it was for many other ethnic and religious groups). Now it’s literally lethally dangerous for them if they remain.

As to power-hungry versus peaceful mullahs, then even among the Moslem sects the actual situation is far more complex.

The Christians are leaving due to the dominance being taken over in every day life by the Shia Moslem population and the increased threats and demands resulting from it. Given that Shia Moslems are the majority, then it won’t surprise me in the least if one of the bad consequences of the US invasion's having turned all of what was an explosive mix being contained loose is to have facilitated Iranian influence throughought the south especially previously held in check by the secular Ba’athists. The Kurds will keep it in check in the north, but it won't bode well their for the non-Kurdish Arabs. . .

These are only some of the major groups. There's numerous other religious sects and ethnic groups that have and want to have nothing in common with each other. . . More likely, the blood will continue to flow. . . especially the blood of the individuals in the smaller groups, like the Christians. . .

The kind of instability now unleashed and power plays between different groups and the fear among most people that accompanies it tends to favor the formation of depotism rather than democracy where frightened individuals often tend to favor their desire for security over a desire for liberty. Despots definitely tend to be good at providing security for the majority.

It's another reason that I was astonished at seeing how badly planned the reconstruction effort was and has been. Even the difficulty of getting the electrical grid and water treatment back online was stunning. It's simple common sense to quickly get the basic utilities functioning that even Saddam was able to provide. That effort alone and the disorganization, which there's no excuse of "OJT" for re-learning lessons learned in the past and well known, was quite surprising. Thank God that the war damage wasn't as severe as one might have expected it to be with the kind of 'planners' this operation has had.

Anyway, possibly the sharpest contrast to the minority you mention here are those Iraqis who already miss Saddam due to the chaos and bloodshed in the nation, just as many Russians look back on Stalin's bloody reign as the "good ole days" for much less substantial reasons.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

“If the only way to get smarter at it is OJT, oh well. . . Like I hinted at above, we don't know how to do this yet, at least in a way that mistakes are minimised. I don't think the prez and company anticipated the level of resistance that they have encountered, which in the end drives how much can be done. I don't think we really know how much is getting done, because the main stream media is pre-occupied with getting rid of Dubya, instead of reporting the news. In the end, Iraq may be grateful to us, when like Germany and Japan, after we reduce the place to rubble, they rebuild with the latest and greatest stuff, with our money, and they are kicking our butts into last week in the marketplace. In the meantime if the only way we can get this job done is by OJT so be it. Again, not doing anything at all is unacceptable. I think when the dust settles and they have had time to experience real freedom (my unspoken assumption is that they choose freedom too) instead of the instability this transition causes, they will be ok. Here in Detroit, we had a significant population of displaced Iraqi's, I say had because many of them have gone back to Iraq, to try and rebuild the place. They know how well they can live if they have freedom to do it. Hopefully they will win out over the power hungry mullahs, the power hungry ones, not the mullahs just trying to live their religion.” {SL}

Again, I don’t criticize something only because mistakes are made and it isn’t perfect. There’s no question that in fighting those who have attacked us that we’ll need to learn a great deal as we go along. However, there are mistakes and then there are mistakes. Proportionally speaking, Iraq is a huge one.

The bottom line that I can see with Iraq is that we indeed attacked the wrong target. None of the justifications for having done so have held up, and aren’t even defended by the President any longer.

Unlike the first Gulf War we’re not only supplying the bulk of the troops but we’re also footing the bill for all of this. Another reason I don’t see the sense in the increase of the national debt through increased federal social spending, current monetary policies decreasing the value of the US dollar, the weakening of US sovereignty in trade and the failure to address the loss of manufacturing and the decline of the American service industry. With the kind of economic ramifications that 9-11 had, then even from an immediate national defense position, none of this makes sense to me.

Given the situation of Marxist national leaders in Venezuela and Brazil with strong ties to Cuba, and the numerous insurgencies still operating in Latin America and the thriving drug trade and rise of government corruption in Mexico, then the failure to address illegal immigration so as to stop it and secure our borders makes no sense either.

A lions share of US forces are tied down by the effort in Iraq. Sustaining manning in our armed forces and rotation of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention all of the on-going UN obligations (which should probably not be US obligations to begin with) already appears no more substantial than band-aid measures: extended rotation tours of those servicemen in Iraq after they arrived, the so-called “stop loss” program that tampers with inactive reserve obligations and such as the “blue to green” program in the attempt to deal with the declining Army recruiting and retention.

Conscription is an option being avoided the administration. I suspect one aspect is due to it’s already being something that has been prepared by some as an anti-war effort and no doubt in mind that with three years to prepare and plenty of lessons learned from the past to draw on that the anti-war movement is ready to capitalize on it immediately if announced.

At the present, the indications that we are gaining “OJT” in this effort remain virtually non-existent. Not only are we not demonstrating that we’re learning but we’re also demonstrating that we’ve failed to retain and apply past lessons learned that applied here even before invading, particularly in the extraordinary ineptitude in the re-construction phase in Iraq in even routine management, construction and engineering and organizational efforts that is mind boggling. Numerous insurgencies, foreign and domestic, have been organizing and growing.

Mention of OJT and the official statements we’ve heard about a ‘different kind of war’ that will require years to fight is too reminiscent of such as President Kennedy’s public statements about a “new type of war” in Vietnam that learning how to fight he believed would be a preoccupation throughout the decade of the 1960s.

The excess optimism is also reminiscent of the excess optimism of the Kennedy years regarding the tactics employed in Vietnam 1961 through early ’65, which was the least effective period of US involvement.

Personally, I give more allowance to President Kennedy due to Vietnam being only one of many conflicts he was forced to deal with throughout the world in 1962 following the Soviet doctrine of supporting “wars of national liberation” announced in 1961.

I make some allowance for President Bush given that the US effectively ignored the warfare being openly waged and openly declared against us 1993 through 2001 and this President being in office for only nine months at the time of the 9-11 attacks.

However, I do believe that the effort that followed Afghanistan has been unsound and the stated principles as reason worse.

There’s “OJT” and there’s “OJT.” Iraq as a lesson learned in the context of counter-terrorist operations is increasingly indicating that it will probably be more akin to the British Dardanelle campaign of the first World War as that campaign relates the study of amphibious operations; only not as valuable as that campaign was to the Marines Corps when they first began intense study of it in the 1930s. Most lessons being experienced in Iraq at the moment (whether anything is being learned by or not) have already been learned before anyway.

At any rate, as mentioned, and for numerous other reasons from what's been seen in recent months, I won’t be surprised in the least if an agreement is reached with the Russians and we being to see Russian troops joining the occupation effort in Iraq.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

“The PRC has not suffered this kind of attack, so I don't think that really applies.” {SL}

Hi SL:

I point out that while the specific application in Iraq is very different from those of the PRC, the principle of the doctrine of pre-emption as employed in the case of Iraq is identical to the principle of the People’s Republic of China’s doctrine of Active Defense.

If 9-11 is being referred to, then that’s precisely why it does apply and why it is identical in principle and application. It was not Iraq that attacked us on 9-11 or that was even responsible for the attack. We suffered no attack from Iraq and no danger of imminent attack by Iraq. We invaded on the presupposition and rationalization that Iraq would attack us sometime in the future. Which is ultimately what makes it identical.

The principle of Pre-emptive war as stated and now acted upon is identical to that of the PRC’s doctrine of Active Defense which is simply put to fight all military and naval actions outside the geographical borders and territorial waters of the nation. Or, as General Franks states, “we’ll fight them over there.” Which is only a restatement of the President’s statements about Iraq, even though at this point in time there’s little to nothing to demonstrate that the invasion of Iraq or present situation is justifiable as an offense initiated by those who attacked us.

We attacked Iraq on precisely the same basis that the PRC employed in the offensive it launched against US forces in Korea in November 1950 and employed to justify sustaining the war until the 1953 cease fire agreement. The Chinese rationalization was that the US posed a direct threat to the PRC in the future. So they fought us in Korea. There was no indication whatsoever that UN Forces driving to the Yalu River were doing so in order to mass for an assault against the PRC. The PRC and North Korea had no formal mutual defense agreement to justify the PRC invasion and overrunning of US forces or the subsequent two years of hostilities that followed.

The application of the doctrine of Active Defense in the Sino-Vietnamese War of 1979 is an even more blatant example since it was an act of pure aggression on the part of the PRC with extraordinary casualties and destruction in the month or so long war.

The Sino-RVN and Sino-Vietnamese naval clashes in the 1970s and 1980s were also pure acts of aggression on the part of the PRC when its naval forces defeated Vietnamese forces (national or communist) and occupied the contested islands in the South China Sea

The PRC support of the north Vietnamese offensive in Indochina, itself a continuation of PRC support of the Viet Minh during the French Indo-China war, including its material and other support against US forces are further examples.

The Sino-Indian Border War of 1962 is perhaps the most debateable regarding whether or not a viable argument could be made for its actually having been a defensive action; from both sides, which is still being debated and the dispute that precipitated it is still an open question with the periodic flareups, such as that in the past couple years. An open question because of the mobilization of the thousands of Indian troops on the disputed border that the PRC’s People’s Liberation Army forces subsequently had previously massed on themselves. All of the Indian units were annihilated in the surprise, and brief, offensive. Mobilization of troops by one nation on the border of another is a recognized hostile action, reasonably taken as an act of war and defended against. The fact that the border itself was (and remains) contested and the question of who massed whose troops first, along with a number of other particulars, mainly logistic and positional and consideration of the limited Indian mobilization (particular the numbers and types of troops), and the threatening, but mostly ambiguous public rhetoric of the Indian politicians, is what makes it all debateable whether or not the PRC’s offensive constituted a viable act of national defense. In these others, there’s no question.

The invasion of Iraq is a completely new precedent for the United Sates. An unsound precedent that contradicts traditional American principles and all previous precedents where American wars are concerned. It's one that I believe that the day will likely come that we'll regret having established it.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

"If you liked my conversation with the oldest son, you're gonna love this one. . . " {SL}

To be honest, I understood what you said regarding your concern, but really didn't share the concern itself.

I saw no indications from the First Gulf War that the effort under then President Bush would be a protracted one. In fact, just the opposite. It's the neo-conservatives who today complain about President GHW Bush restricting the First Gulf War to the stated goal of driving Iraq out of Kuwait and not expanding the war effort into Iraq so as to depose Hussein, not me. If former President GHW Bush had done so and essentially followed the same path as President GW Bush has followed on the advice of his advisors, then your concerns probably would have been realized and I might have actually come to share them.

My concern about Clinton in '92 that I mentioned was never that Clinton would get us into a long-term protracted war but that he'd get us involved in every other absurd international activity, non-defense related and not directly in our national interests. A concern that I believe was subsequently justified.

The internal restructuring of our armed forces was established under Bill Clinton with the heavy emphasis upon social-engineering initiatives and division of the armed forces into an essentially large job corps portion with lowered training standards and a smaller combat arms branch. It's a novel structure of the US armed forces and I'm not happy to see that it's been retained unchanged by the current administration.

The commitment of US forces to serve in numerous UN operations, non-defense related, and not directly related to our national interests was greatly expanded under Clinton where our people were so often employed as either an international police force of sorts or something of an armed peace corps, or a combination of the two. The commitments inherited, large and small, by this administration have been retained and more have continued to be added.

Anyway, the concern of the possibility of the increased use of our people in non-defense initiatives and the subsequent justification of the concern by Presdent Clinton was all I was pointing out. Along with your original statements that included the old anti-war ROTC acronym being indicative of your age and possible bad influences and bad company from the days of your youth.

Sorry about the length of all of this. . . I don't tend to make statements lightly, even ones I recognize are validly debatable, have the belief that something important is "all in the details," and it's when the details start to be gotten into that I really become verbose in this medium . . . .
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

"Like so much of our constitution, We've become accustomed to ignoring it when it suits us. It's how you get to a place where, You have to give your name to a policeman, and if you don't he can arrest you, and only then you get told you have a right to remain silent. It's how you have a right to remain silent, only not when you're in front of the IRS. It's how the state can send in federales in the middle of the night into an American Citizen's home, and under arms, take away someone named Alien (sic) Gonzales while the issue is being worked through the courts. I don't understand how the Constitution, so very plain and simple to the reading can be so complicated in practice. Is it because we've let the schools get away with teaching our children nothing about it anymore?" {SL}

I believe that it's all of the various elements and everything and everyone involved in the post-45 Culture War within the United States, all of its various components, and most especially the intensification of it since about 1968, along with the increased use of the methods of Antonio Gramsci, or variations thereof, employed by the iondividual members of the different movements involved in their power struggles in their quest to establish an alternative hegemony and impose a "new common sense."

I don't believe that it's due to a single centralized conspiracy that I'm personally familiar with. Neither do I believe that it's explained by the latest revisions of idiosyncratic interpretations of Dispensationalist's of the Book of Revelation or the Prophecy of Daniel in the bible and who are expecting the imminent return of Jesus Christ to re-establish an earthly kingdom in Jerusalem from which He will then offer animal sacrifices (even the thought of which I personally find bizarre). So I can't reference a specific book by a particular conspiracy theorist and personally recommend against the schoefield study bible (or at least the notes in it) or Hal Lindsey, or any like him. . .

I was determined to keep the reply to your question brief but thorough, even though more than was posted in the others could easily be. . . . But I'm "catching myself" on this one. . .

PS. Just curious, why do you add "sic" in your own replies when it's not a quote of anyone or anything that it's added to?
_________________
Paul

[jalexson]

[Paul]

“It isn't unusual for a series of wars to be fought over time within a region or between two countries.” {jalexson}

I don’t disagree with this statement at all.

Further, I would add that it’s equally common, even a sensible practice and norm, to give the different conflicts fought at different points-in-time over an extended period of time, sometimes centuries, within the same region (or otherwise), even if between the same protagonists, distinct names due to their being distinct one from another for whatever reason (even when a common cause and effect of one kind or another may exist between them).

This is only to state the obvious. Even better examples than provided here, at least clarity wise, would be such as World War I and World War II. Even the Cold War is an example even though it includes many particular operations, conflicts and smaller wars, including Vietnam, Korea and others around the world and is not presented as being multiple wars rather than the single large-scale conflict that it was. . .

On a much smaller scale, then another example from the naval service, would be what are labeled First and Second Nicaragua, each intervention being distinct from the other, separated by any kind of direct American involvement by a short period of time, were undertaken for unique reasons and with distincly unique objectives and so not unsurprisingly conducted quite differently, tactics wise. And both are completely independent of the Communist insurgency of the 1970s and '80s.

And the same holds for the distinction made between the First Gulf War in which US forces and allies engaged in hostilities with the Iraqi armed forces for the purpose of driving the invaders out of Kuwait and last years US and allies invasion of Iraq.

At any rate, I don’t see the point in stating this. I’ve certainly never argued anything to the contrary.

I only point out that in the case of Vietnam, that this does not apply.

There was not three of four distinct wars in Vietnam, before or after American involvement

This synthetic sub-division is more akin to confusing individual and unique campaigns or theatres of war within a single conflict as constituting individual wars, independent of the overall conflict.

From the perspective of the winner, while there were numerous campaigns, even multiple different enemies at different points in time, there was in fact, only one Vietnam War – 1945 through 1975.

For all of their false propaganda issued for international consumption, the Communist government of Vietnam understands this well enough. As did President Clinton when in his speech to students at Vietnam National University in Hanoi on 17 Nov 2000 when he quoted from the 1945 "declaration of Independence" of Ho Chi Minh, then leader of the Soviet-backed Communist element within the Viet Minh confederation of various nationalist movements and leaders (who purposefully used phrasing similiar to the words of Thomas Jefferson from our own Declaration of Independence in an attempt to gain US support of his movement—the tactic rightly failed and of course the US rightly did not recognize his personal declaration of a new "nation" or himself as a national leader):

“In 1945, at the moment of your country's birth, the words of Thomas Jefferson were chosen to be echoed in your own Declaration of Independence: ‘All men are created equal. The Creator has given us certain inviolable rights -- the right to life, the right to be free, the right to achieve happiness.’ "

US military involvement in Indochina began formally in 1950 with the establishment of a military advisory group for Indochina, located in present-day Vietnam, which name changed from Indochina to Vietnam in 1954 following the ’54 Geneva Accords. 1954 through 1961 it was manned by fewer than 700 military personnel, primary staff advisory personnel.

US involvement inside the former Republic of Vietnam itself remained principally advisory until 1961, even while units of our armed forces were active resisting the sophisticated north Vietnamese invasion of the RVN via the Laotian phase of establishing a logistical network inside Laos in the mid to late 1950s and early 1960s through to the withdrawal of US armed forces units in accordance with the 1962 Geneva Accords (which the US honored and north Vietnam reneged on and failed to honor).

From 1954 through 1975, certain particular US policies, strategies and tactics underwent multiple, some substantial, changes, modifications and developments in southeast Asia, but the foundational US policy of resisting Communist aggression and the US obligation and involvement to RVN, Laos and Cambodia remained in place until the end of April 1975. From 1961 through to 1972, combat-capable units of US armed forces were involved inside the RVN in varying types and varying numbers. The 1973 Paris Accords did not sever the US obligation pledged to the RVN, Laos or Cambodia in any way. In 1974 US Congress imposed severe economic restrictions on US support in contrast to previously promised US support.

However, the US involvement in the RVN was formally terminated only by the new Communist Vietnamese government following the north Vietnamese conventional military defeat of the RVN armed forces in late April of 1975.

US Policies, strategies, even campaigns changed during this period, often substantially, but even from the US perspective, it was not a series of different wars.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

If nothing else, then if the false rendition of four distinct wars provided at the start of this string were true, and if the US obligation to and involvement with the RVN was formally ended in 1973 by the Paris Accords, as the claim of a "4th War" in 1975 depends upon, then the post-75 claim by the Communist government of Vietnam that the US has failed to meet and reneged on the obligations stipulated in the ’73 Paris Accords, would be a true one.

However, because the 1973 Paris Accords were not a formal peace treaty that formally ended a war between the various parties without conditions and in no way ended US committment, but rather, were a series of agreeements dependent upon the maintenance of a cease fire that was later violated by the north Vietnamese, the fact is is, that the post-75 communist government claims that the United States OWES Vietnam what was stipulated in the ’73 Paris Accords is false, as the United States maintained post-1975.

The post-75 United States position that it does not OWE the present Communist Government of Vietnam the war reparations stipulated in the '73 Paris Accords is due to the north Vietnamese VIOLATION of the cease fire that nullified the ’73 Paris Accords. It's a sound position with a firm basis in International Law and previous precedents and quite correct.

Where the honor of the United States of America is concerned, then this “4th War” nonsense in this string is a lose-lose argument.

The dishonor of the United States is not that claimed by the Communist Government of Vietnam (on the basis of its false "multiple-wars" and "civil war" propaganda issued for international consumption) that the United States failed to meet the war reparations stipulated by the ’73 Paris Accords. Again, those ceased to be binding upon the United States when the cease fire agreement was violated by the north Vietnamese.

The United States dishonor is that it failed to respond to the north Vietnamese violation of the cease fire, or even publicly protested any of the violations, and then abandoned our anti-communist allies in southeast Asia entirely. The US armed forces serving in the RVN never experienced a single major tactical defeat by north Vietnamese forces. The United States was defeated in Vietnam by the north Vietnamese.

Neither the false polemic about four distinct wars presented here, nor that of the Communist government of Vietnam about three distinct wars, nor any other synthetic division will change this reality.
_________________
Paul