Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:
Frazz... what if the Dalsh sets off a massive bomb (or god forgive, a WMD) in mecca? Or, Jerusalem?

Unless those areas are part of the USA at the time I don't give a rat's ass.

I'm curious if your viewpoints are like those in the US pre-Pearl Harbor?

I'm curious if your viewpoints are like those pre-WWI?

EDIT: I think someone's worried about Rubio's chances...

NYT is worried about Rubio.

Obama taking shots at SCOTUS for taking up the Healthcare law

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Frazz... what if the Dalsh sets off a massive bomb (or god forgive, a WMD) in mecca? Or, Jerusalem?

Unless those areas are part of the USA at the time I don't give a rat's ass.

I'm curious if your viewpoints are like those in the US pre-Pearl Harbor?

I'm curious if your viewpoints are like those pre-WWI?

^touché
I'm not exactly advocating that the US giddy-up, go Rambo on them (yet)... but, there's a disturbing lack of leadership from Obama (and the rest of the world) on what's going on now.

I think it's interesting, that my military friends/family opined to me that they wouldn't mind going back and destroy the Dalsh (even some military Dakkaroos expressed as much).

I hate to say it, but man Edmund Burke quote is compelling:
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

EDIT: I think someone's worried about Rubio's chances...

NYT is worried about Rubio.

I guess it's a bit of truism that your ideological opponent would be the ones to tell you which one they fear... eh?

Regarding the whole Middle Eastern issue, can I remind American dakka members of the following from history:

Once upon a time, there was this Island, and the people of this island spoke English, just like the USA.

Just like the USA, these islanders had Middle Eastern interests.

If anybody threatened these interests, the islanders would deploy poison gas against their opponents, hang them from lamp-posts, blow up their villages, and generally do other nasty things, which I won't mention here.

Despite their willingness to be ruthless, the islanders never did protect their interests, and eventually, had to give them up, deciding it cost too much money, and too many lives...

You know what country I'm referring too.

Being involved in the Middle East costs the USA, time, money, and precious blood.

It is making the USA weak...and all the time, China is getting stronger...

 Jihadin wrote:
Obama taking shots at SCOTUS for taking up the Healthcare law

Well... it's his legacy at stake here.

<crystal ball>
I think the SC will rule in favor of the government.

:shrug:

 CptJake wrote:
You'll have a very difficult time finding where I advocate a 'boots on the ground' strategy against DaIsh.

I don't see the Saudis burning captured pilots alive, nor governing their country quite the way DaIsh governs their territories. You may not see a difference, but that would be because you choose not to.

My bottom line is the Obama administrations version of strategy is pathetic. There is no coordinated strategy at the national level and the resources being expended are a massive waste since they are not being expended towards any goal. And we are putting pilots and flight crews into danger flying sorties where they may or may not even be allowed to engage, and when they do they are generally not engaging targets worth the cost and risks. Eventually a plane or chopper goes down due to enemy fire, a maintenance issue, or crew error, and a US trooper gets the flaming cage treatment. When the public asks 'Why? Was it worth it? What was achieved?" the answer is not going to be a good one.

Add in the growing likelihood of Iraqi troops turning on US trainers in a green on blue incident (could end up being a DaIsh loyalist/infiltrator, DaIsh in captured uniforms, a shia troop still loyal to the Mahdi Army, or just some poor fether more scared of fighting DaIsh than pulling a trigger on an American).

And then there will be folks who push to 'boots on the ground' and they won't have much opposition.

I agree with you that Obama deserves heavy criticism for his 'strategy' or lack of, regarding ISIL, but let's not pretend that this is a failing of this administration.

American strategy in the Middle East has been a shambles since the end of the Cold War. Post second Iraq invasion, the Bush administration strategy after the fall of Saddam, was bordering on treason! It was a disaster from top to bottom.

The problem with ignoring rules of engagement is that hitting the wrong target is orders of magnitude worse than the benefit of hitting the right target.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
You'll have a very difficult time finding where I advocate a 'boots on the ground' strategy against DaIsh.

I don't see the Saudis burning captured pilots alive, nor governing their country quite the way DaIsh governs their territories. You may not see a difference, but that would be because you choose not to.

My bottom line is the Obama administrations version of strategy is pathetic. There is no coordinated strategy at the national level and the resources being expended are a massive waste since they are not being expended towards any goal. And we are putting pilots and flight crews into danger flying sorties where they may or may not even be allowed to engage, and when they do they are generally not engaging targets worth the cost and risks. Eventually a plane or chopper goes down due to enemy fire, a maintenance issue, or crew error, and a US trooper gets the flaming cage treatment. When the public asks 'Why? Was it worth it? What was achieved?" the answer is not going to be a good one.

Add in the growing likelihood of Iraqi troops turning on US trainers in a green on blue incident (could end up being a DaIsh loyalist/infiltrator, DaIsh in captured uniforms, a shia troop still loyal to the Mahdi Army, or just some poor fether more scared of fighting DaIsh than pulling a trigger on an American).

And then there will be folks who push to 'boots on the ground' and they won't have much opposition.

I agree with you that Obama deserves heavy criticism for his 'strategy' or lack of, regarding ISIL, but let's not pretend that this is a failing of this administration.

American strategy in the Middle East has been a shambles since the end of the Cold War. Post second Iraq invasion, the Bush administration strategy after the fall of Saddam, was bordering on treason! It was a disaster from top to bottom.

It absolutely IS a failing of his administration. He is the POTUS, and has been for years. His appointees are in charge of the DoD, DoS, and the National Security Council. He may have inherited a bad situation, but he knew that going in and thought as the Smartest Guy In The Room his solutions would fix it all. They haven't. They've exacerbated the situation. Pointing out Bush's failures, and failures of previous administrations does not move the ball forward. Bush's failures don't provide forgiveness for the current administrations failures.

I have an idea for ISIL strategy.

*Send $500mm of stuff to Kurdestan.
*Leave

 skyth wrote:
The problem with ignoring rules of engagement is that hitting the wrong target is orders of magnitude worse than the benefit of hitting the right target.

Has anyone advocated ignoring ROE? I missed it if they did. Changing/adjusting the ROE? Yes.

And your statement about 'orders of magnitude worse' is pretty broad and unprovable. It depends on way too many variables for it to be considered true. The nature of the 'right target' and the nature of the 'wrong target' come into play as do many other factors. For example, the 'right target' could be an IED factory with the head bomb maker present. A guy who is making the VBIEDs that take out 10s to 100s of civilians in market places and other public gatherings. Taking him out saves a lot of lives. A 'wrong target', his innocent neighbor's house for example, kills a hand full of poor folks at the wrong place and wrong time. It very much sucks, but in the grand scheme of things, it isn't even a blip on the radar. Now you'll want to lecture me on how that poor dead innocent family will be used to recruit zillions of disenfranchised youth to DaIsh, but the actual fact is DaIsh and their ilk use their brutality and successful acts as recruiting material (like videos of that VBIED destroying the lives of dozens of folks). So in that example, though hitting the wrong target is bad, it is not 'orders of magnitude worse'.

And further, our guys with a more expansive/permissive ROE could gather better intel towards targeting/striking the 'right target'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
I have an idea for ISIL strategy.

*Send $500mm of stuff to Kurdestan.
*Leave

Kurds are good at defending Kurdistan. They are not that great at offensive ops. See the very long fight for Kobani as an example. Even with US CAS the Kurds had a very hard time.

I don't want them fighting offensive ops. I want them defending their own turf on equal footing, as the only "good guys" in the region.

There is nothing to take back. Iraq is gone.

Violating ROE has some serious repercussions.

 Jihadin wrote:
Violating ROE has some serious repercussions.

I know. If you don't make your Return on Equity, its your ass!

 Frazzled wrote:
I have an idea for ISIL strategy.

*Send $500mm of stuff to Kurdestan.
*Leave

I'd be alright with that...

But, I'd go further... build/maintain an airbase in Kurdestan. (Turkey/Iran won't like that. )

I have a simpler solution: Stop making these bogeyman groups to justify Military Industrial Complex spending and existence! Eisenhower warned of this beast as he left office, how the costs for bombers, and destroyers could have back then provided schools, hospitals, miles of roads. He warned that it would grow out of control(It has), and that it would need to justify it's existence (Creation of "Al Queda" and ISIS come to mind), and as we no longer have the old Cold War, and that Terrorist groups are losing their edge, we see Russia and China being worked into the next excuse to out spend the world in war-machinery, which we then sell our older toys off to lower tech countries all too happy to get the stuff for their own wars, or gets captured and used in civil wars.

I am ex-military myself, but I was in with Nuclear weapons, so the perspective for me and the guys and gals I served with was different than the warmongers we have now.

Stop making bad guys who did not exist before just to make it easier to spend way over what is needed to defend ourselves, and stop the Military Adventurism. Iraq was more for Oil access than spreading Freedom, and Afghanistan was for the Mining companies who wanted to get access to the mineral treasure trove that nation sits over.

All I truly see this thread as is more a circling around the mud flinging that people think is politics.

Iraq I: yes for oil
Iraq II: domino theory.
Afghanistan: no. That was for Al Qaeda.

Killing innocents will turn more people against us. The war on terror et al is very much a hearts and minds thing not smash everything.

 Frazzled wrote:
Iraq I: yes for oil
Iraq II: domino theory.
Afghanistan: no. That was for Al Qaeda.

And it took over 11yrs to get Bin Laden? Al Queda was the excuse, but there are over a dozen mining companies that placed bids on the rights to be first in there as soon as they can.

Big list of reasons to go into that country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Afghanistan

Between 1989(Soviet Pullout) till 2001 we did not give a damn about how Afghanistan was sitting until a geological survey and of course 9/11

 shasolenzabi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Iraq I: yes for oil
Iraq II: domino theory.
Afghanistan: no. That was for Al Qaeda.

And it took over 11yrs to get Bin Laden? Al Queda was the excuse, but there are over a dozen mining companies that placed bids on the rights to be first in there as soon as they can.

Big list of reasons to go into that country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Afghanistan

Between 1989(Soviet Pullout) till 2001 we did not give a damn about how Afghanistan was sitting until a geological survey and of course 9/11

We didn't give a damn about Afghanistan until we were attacked. Then someone got the bright idea of nation building.

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
You'll have a very difficult time finding where I advocate a 'boots on the ground' strategy against DaIsh.

I don't see the Saudis burning captured pilots alive, nor governing their country quite the way DaIsh governs their territories. You may not see a difference, but that would be because you choose not to.

My bottom line is the Obama administrations version of strategy is pathetic. There is no coordinated strategy at the national level and the resources being expended are a massive waste since they are not being expended towards any goal. And we are putting pilots and flight crews into danger flying sorties where they may or may not even be allowed to engage, and when they do they are generally not engaging targets worth the cost and risks. Eventually a plane or chopper goes down due to enemy fire, a maintenance issue, or crew error, and a US trooper gets the flaming cage treatment. When the public asks 'Why? Was it worth it? What was achieved?" the answer is not going to be a good one.

Add in the growing likelihood of Iraqi troops turning on US trainers in a green on blue incident (could end up being a DaIsh loyalist/infiltrator, DaIsh in captured uniforms, a shia troop still loyal to the Mahdi Army, or just some poor fether more scared of fighting DaIsh than pulling a trigger on an American).

And then there will be folks who push to 'boots on the ground' and they won't have much opposition.

I agree with you that Obama deserves heavy criticism for his 'strategy' or lack of, regarding ISIL, but let's not pretend that this is a failing of this administration.

American strategy in the Middle East has been a shambles since the end of the Cold War. Post second Iraq invasion, the Bush administration strategy after the fall of Saddam, was bordering on treason! It was a disaster from top to bottom.

It absolutely IS a failing of his administration. He is the POTUS, and has been for years. His appointees are in charge of the DoD, DoS, and the National Security Council. He may have inherited a bad situation, but he knew that going in and thought as the Smartest Guy In The Room his solutions would fix it all. They haven't. They've exacerbated the situation. Pointing out Bush's failures, and failures of previous administrations does not move the ball forward. Bush's failures don't provide forgiveness for the current administrations failures.

You're forgetting that the corrupt and incompetent administration in Baghdad, is as equally as bad as the corrupt administration in Saigon, during the Vietnam war days. There's only so much Obama can do when having to deal with such inefficiency. Add a hostile congress to the mix, a Pentagon culture that's still fighting the Col War, and it's a miracle that Obama is getting anything done.

Bush should be taking more of the blame. He started with a clean slate in Iraq, and Obama inherited a mess. For me, a good analogy is Nixon inheriting Vietnam after Johnson. Obama is Nixon in this instance, and Bush was obviously Johnson.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 shasolenzabi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Iraq I: yes for oil
Iraq II: domino theory.
Afghanistan: no. That was for Al Qaeda.

And it took over 11yrs to get Bin Laden? Al Queda was the excuse, but there are over a dozen mining companies that placed bids on the rights to be first in there as soon as they can.

Big list of reasons to go into that country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Afghanistan

Between 1989(Soviet Pullout) till 2001 we did not give a damn about how Afghanistan was sitting until a geological survey and of course 9/11

We didn't give a damn about Afghanistan until we were attacked. Then someone got the bright idea of nation building.

I do believe that that someone was one of your fellow Texans...

Yep.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
You'll have a very difficult time finding where I advocate a 'boots on the ground' strategy against DaIsh.

I don't see the Saudis burning captured pilots alive, nor governing their country quite the way DaIsh governs their territories. You may not see a difference, but that would be because you choose not to.

My bottom line is the Obama administrations version of strategy is pathetic. There is no coordinated strategy at the national level and the resources being expended are a massive waste since they are not being expended towards any goal. And we are putting pilots and flight crews into danger flying sorties where they may or may not even be allowed to engage, and when they do they are generally not engaging targets worth the cost and risks. Eventually a plane or chopper goes down due to enemy fire, a maintenance issue, or crew error, and a US trooper gets the flaming cage treatment. When the public asks 'Why? Was it worth it? What was achieved?" the answer is not going to be a good one.

Add in the growing likelihood of Iraqi troops turning on US trainers in a green on blue incident (could end up being a DaIsh loyalist/infiltrator, DaIsh in captured uniforms, a shia troop still loyal to the Mahdi Army, or just some poor fether more scared of fighting DaIsh than pulling a trigger on an American).

And then there will be folks who push to 'boots on the ground' and they won't have much opposition.

I agree with you that Obama deserves heavy criticism for his 'strategy' or lack of, regarding ISIL, but let's not pretend that this is a failing of this administration.

American strategy in the Middle East has been a shambles since the end of the Cold War. Post second Iraq invasion, the Bush administration strategy after the fall of Saddam, was bordering on treason! It was a disaster from top to bottom.

It absolutely IS a failing of his administration. He is the POTUS, and has been for years. His appointees are in charge of the DoD, DoS, and the National Security Council. He may have inherited a bad situation, but he knew that going in and thought as the Smartest Guy In The Room his solutions would fix it all. They haven't. They've exacerbated the situation. Pointing out Bush's failures, and failures of previous administrations does not move the ball forward. Bush's failures don't provide forgiveness for the current administrations failures.

You're forgetting that the corrupt and incompetent administration in Baghdad, is as equally as bad as the corrupt administration in Saigon, during the Vietnam war days. There's only so much Obama can do when having to deal with such inefficiency. Add a hostile congress to the mix, a Pentagon culture that's still fighting the Col War, and it's a miracle that Obama is getting anything done.

Full stop.

Obama knew what he was getting. It's his responsibility to be a leader, regardless what cards were dealt to him. The bucks stops at his desk.

Bush should be taking more of the blame. He started with a clean slate in Iraq, and Obama inherited a mess.

So what? Are you saying he should say 'feth it, my predessor fethed up, so I ain't touching it'???

For me, a good analogy is Nixon inheriting Vietnam after Johnson. Obama is Nixon in this instance, and Bush was obviously Johnson.

Oh... you went there!
*cough*watergate*cough*
*cough*irs scandal*cough*
*cough*'ghazi*cough*
*cough*fast 'n furious*cough*
*cough*numerous other gate-gate*cough*
*cough*I'm not a crook or I'm not a dictator*cough*

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 shasolenzabi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Iraq I: yes for oil
Iraq II: domino theory.
Afghanistan: no. That was for Al Qaeda.

And it took over 11yrs to get Bin Laden? Al Queda was the excuse, but there are over a dozen mining companies that placed bids on the rights to be first in there as soon as they can.

Big list of reasons to go into that country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Afghanistan

Between 1989(Soviet Pullout) till 2001 we did not give a damn about how Afghanistan was sitting until a geological survey and of course 9/11

We didn't give a damn about Afghanistan until we were attacked. Then someone got the bright idea of nation building.

I do believe that that someone was one of your fellow Texans...

Painting a very broad stereotype brush there bro.

Whembley, I'm saying that if somebody burns down a house, and you're charged with fixing the mess, there's not a lot you can do.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Whembley, I'm saying that if somebody burns down a house, and you're charged with fixing the mess, there's not a lot you can do.

It's not like we haven't tried dude.

We're good a blowing gak up. But the "you break it, you own it" mentality is something that no one is good at.

I just wished that the objectives, any objectives, is clear and concise going forward.

EDIT: you've also left out the rebuild of Japan and Germany. Why?

 shasolenzabi wrote:
I have a simpler solution: Stop making these bogeyman groups to justify Military Industrial Complex spending and existence! Eisenhower warned of this beast as he left office, how the costs for bombers, and destroyers could have back then provided schools, hospitals, miles of roads. He warned that it would grow out of control(It has), and that it would need to justify it's existence (Creation of "Al Queda" and ISIS come to mind), and as we no longer have the old Cold War, and that Terrorist groups are losing their edge, we see Russia and China being worked into the next excuse to out spend the world in war-machinery, which we then sell our older toys off to lower tech countries all too happy to get the stuff for their own wars, or gets captured and used in civil wars.

I am ex-military myself, but I was in with Nuclear weapons, so the perspective for me and the guys and gals I served with was different than the warmongers we have now.

Stop making bad guys who did not exist before just to make it easier to spend way over what is needed to defend ourselves, and stop the Military Adventurism. Iraq was more for Oil access than spreading Freedom, and Afghanistan was for the Mining companies who wanted to get access to the mineral treasure trove that nation sits over.

All I truly see this thread as is more a circling around the mud flinging that people think is politics.

You are lost in the sauce. First off.
What year did we go in Afghanistan? What year was all the mineral resource that was valued in Afghanistan?

 skyth wrote:
Killing innocents will turn more people against us. The war on terror et al is very much a hearts and minds thing not smash everything.

And yet DaIsh purposely targets innocents and does not get the flack we do when innocents are hurt by accident.

DaIsh video tapes their targeting of innocents and uses it as a recruiting tool.

When you equate DaIsh targeting with our ROE and TTPs which are designed to minimize innocents getting capped you are playing their game for them. The target (from a MISMO perspective) of things like GITMO and Collateral Damage are western media and populations, NOT the folks in theater.

You can't win 'hearts and minds' while those hearts and minds are being targeted in their homes, businesses and places of worship by the bad guys. Even when 'hearts and minds' was implemented as a successful tactic at small levels (the USMC CAP program in Vietnam being a good example) it started by killing the threat to those hearts and minds, then teaching those hearts and minds to secure themselves. But first stuff must be smashed and destroyed and killed.

There is clearly a lot more involved when you want to implement 'hearts and minds' at an operational or strategic level, but it again very much involves killing scads of bad guys and degrading and hopefully destroying their capabilities to threaten the 'hearts and minds'.

That the other group uses 'join or die' tactics doesn't legitize us killing innocents. Sinking down to using the same tactics just makes us as bad as them.

 skyth wrote:
That the other group uses 'join or die' tactics doesn't legitize us killing innocents. Sinking down to using the same tactics just makes us as bad as them.

And provides more recruiting propaganda for the very people you're trying to defeat.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 skyth wrote:
That the other group uses 'join or die' tactics doesn't legitize us killing innocents. Sinking down to using the same tactics just makes us as bad as them.

And provides more recruiting propaganda for the very people you're trying to defeat.

Nice...

So we behead or burn our captives? We're sinking to that level?

When did we start deliberately targeting civilians?