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.

Seaward wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:That sounds like a rather easy fight to win over the hearts & minds.

As opposed to deposing Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, two entities beloved by their populations?

I addressed this well in advance of you even asking your question. *slow clap*


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Did someone say cake? mmmm caaaaake.

The point is whats the difference.
We went after Hussein ostensibly after WMD. Dictator, brutalizing his own people, had WMD.
-USA evillllllzzzzz!!!!!!!!!!

Syria. Dictator, brutalizing his own people, has WMDs.
-USA good now? sure we are.

Nooooooooo... you went into Iraq because you made up an excuse that was utterly false, could be seen to be false at the time, and then was proven to be false after the fact.

Had you gone in because "that guy's a douche. Seriously, F that guy", you would've had a much better reception. My impression is that it wasn't the toppling of Hussein that people opposed, it was the lying BS excuse you tried to use to do it.

Like I already said; you performed a 'right action' for the wrong reason.

And then you also fethed up the 'right action' by dissolving Iraq's army, thus making many combat-ready soldiers unemployed and upset at you, rather than utilizing them as a police force to maintain order during the transition to a democratic government.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote: I'm sure no radical islamists will ever attack us. I mean its not like they knocked down the Sears Tower or anything like that...
You want a repeat of that? Send in Canada's vaunted military.

I thought Texans considered talk like that to be cowardly.

The Canadian military has been poised to send in a joint incident response unit, if asked by NATO, for three months now.

Why do you need NATO? Can't anyone do anything without the US?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Seaward wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:That sounds like a rather easy fight to win over the hearts & minds.

As opposed to deposing Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, two entities beloved by their populations?

I addressed this well in advance of you even asking your question. *slow clap*


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Did someone say cake? mmmm caaaaake.

The point is whats the difference.
We went after Hussein ostensibly after WMD. Dictator, brutalizing his own people, had WMD.
-USA evillllllzzzzz!!!!!!!!!!

Syria. Dictator, brutalizing his own people, has WMDs.
-USA good now? sure we are.

Nooooooooo... you went into Iraq because you made up an excuse that was utterly false, could be seen to be false at the time, and then was proven to be false after the fact.

Had you gone in because "that guy's a douche. Seriously, F that guy", you would've had a much better reception. My impression is that it wasn't the toppling of Hussein that people opposed, it was the lying BS excuse you tried to use to do it.

Like I already said; you performed a 'right action' for the wrong reason.

And then you also fethed up the 'right action' by dissolving Iraq's army, thus making many combat-ready soldiers unemployed and upset at you, rather than utilizing them as a police force to maintain order during the transition to a democratic government.

I am sure all the people who were just freed thought it was bogus. Thats why they started killing us right? And why did the towers come down in the first place again? Because we had supplies in Saudi Arabia to keep out a dictator. yea the whole region is insane.

And how about that Libya thing just now. How'd that turn out for the US? cough***Benghazi***cough.
Why is the Taliban still in business in Afghanistan then?

 Frazzled wrote:
Did someone say cake? mmmm caaaaake.

The point is whats the difference.
We went after Hussein ostensibly after WMD. Dictator, brutalizing his own people, had WMD.
-USA evillllllzzzzz!!!!!!!!!!

Syria. Dictator, brutalizing his own people, has WMDs.
-USA good now? sure we are.

Good until countries committing a twentieth of our resources, if they contribute at all, decide once again they don't like the fact that counterinsurgency isn't pretty.

 Seaward wrote:
Good until countries committing a twentieth of our resources, if they contribute at all, decide once again they don't like the fact that counterinsurgency isn't pretty.

You left out the sounds of the chorus who contributed sweet eff all too

I think Argentina and the UK should go. Think of it as a team building exercise.

Frazzled wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote: I'm sure no radical islamists will ever attack us. I mean its not like they knocked down the Sears Tower or anything like that...
You want a repeat of that? Send in Canada's vaunted military.

I thought Texans considered talk like that to be cowardly.

The Canadian military has been poised to send in a joint incident response unit, if asked by NATO, for three months now.

Why do you need NATO? Can't anyone do anything without the US?

We like to think of our relationship with the USA as being kinda like Master Blaster from Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome

Frazzled wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
And then you also fethed up the 'right action' by dissolving Iraq's army, thus making many combat-ready soldiers unemployed and upset at you, rather than utilizing them as a police force to maintain order during the transition to a democratic government.

I am sure all the people who were just freed thought it was bogus. Thats why they started killing us right? And why did the towers come down in the first place again? Because we had supplies in Saudi Arabia to keep out a dictator. yea the whole region is insane.

And how about that Libya thing just now. How'd that turn out for the US? cough***Benghazi***cough.
Why is the Taliban still in business in Afghanistan then?

The 9/11 attacks had nothing to do with Iraq, Frazzled. Even Palin figured that one out, eventually. I think.
Four people died in Benghazi. Four. Insofar as military aid to support the overthrowing of a dictator, only losing four souls is probably some sort of record. And the Taliban is still in business in Afghanistan because they haven't been exterminated yet, and their influence hasn't really been crushed either. Boots and bullets only take care of the imminent threat; it'll take money and rebuilding to solve the issue.

So, this may be a tangent that will drag this conversation off-topic, but as Colin Powell once said, "You break it, you fix it."

Assuming a "red-line" (god, I hate buzz words) is crossed, what level of military involvement is warranted? Does taking out his remaining chemical weapons stockpiles suffice? That simply brings the situation back to the current status quo which I think can be summed up as bloody stalemate. Plus that means we've essentially allowed Al Assad to use WMD and get away with it. If I were Assad, I would launch as many WMDs at possible as quickly as possible because I'm betting it's a one time shot.

Do we engage in a Libyan style air assault? Providing close air support for rebel forces along with supplying real-time intelligence will no doubt tip the balance of power in favor of the rebels, but prevents us from controlling the situation on the ground. The best organized and well trained fighters in the country are the radicalized veterans of the Iraq, Libyan, and Afghan wars. We could very well end up with those guys in charge; or, worse yet, a renewed civil war as the disparate groups turn on each other in a bid to seize control.

Crushing the current regime could very well lead to an Iraq style situation where basic services, law and order, and any notion of a country ceases to exist. Failed states, as we now well know, are pretty bad for all involved.

Preventing a humanitarian catastrophe will require, at the very least, some sort of force on the ground. Even Bosnia required an international peacekeeping force and that was a region in which we were simply trying to keep multiple groups separated from each other and only kicking ass when they refused to play nice.

The way I see it, you either end up doing nothing and therefore allow Al Assad and the (what are we calling it?) opposition to do whatever they want, or you go all the way and commit a massive ground force (with international backing) to carry out full regime change and country-rebuilding. Half-measures result in either stalemate, renewed civil war as the extremist and moderate groups fight it out, or the very real risk that we end up with a hostile Syria run by Islamist radicals who export terrorism to other countries. The Syrian national council may win any sort of civil war, but judging by current reports coming out of Syria, and the history of such fights in Afghanistan and Iraq seems to indicate that the side that's willing to be more extreme usually wins.

Even if we did commit the full might of the western militaries, I think we would end up facing another Iraq. The COIN fight *may* be as long and arduous as another Iraq and The United States can no longer afford another decade long commitment in the Middle East. The public won't stand for it, and the military can't afford to do it.

The final (and most unacceptable) possibility is to bomb the gak out of them and keep and eye on the country. Continue to apply JDAMs liberally if they get uppity. This condemns the country to a bleak future and would make us really no better than Al Assad.

Hopefully, we can figure out how to get Al Assad and his cronies to accept exile in some willing country for a cushy retirement on a fat pension while simultaneously marginalizing the wackier elements of the resistance. Maybe that will allow the United States to continue its slow withdrawal from ME and retrench in Asia as our national interests shift eastward.

LOL... nice man!

So in short... we can militarily take out whomever we want... but the biggest question is: "Then what?"

Like with the shellings across the Turkish border there is an assumption that Assad is behind these alleged attacks.

Its as if everyone knows the rebels are so pure and innocent they would not stoop to such lows.

Hmmm America says they have chemical weapons... Is there a reliable source for this? I mean other than the UK...cos that got fun last time

 Formosa wrote:
Hmmm America says they have chemical weapons... Is there a reliable source for this? I mean other than the UK...cos that got fun last time

You don't trust Obama? Dude won a Nobel Prize.

What I feel should be done is targetted strikes against the the remaining chemical weapons, as well as hunting down Assad himself and a few of his cronies then handing them over the War Crimes court in the Hague. Leave the remaining Syrian government forces to fight on if they wish, and possibly provide some sort of support to the elements of the Syrian resistance that are pro western/democracy.

The real point of any action should be targetted at the higher ups in the regime who ordered the chemical attacks. They must be made an example of, otherwise all of the posturing against the use of chemical weapons is just that, a tiger without teeth.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Blaming the whole country for the acts of the government is stupid and childish I know, but I feel no great burning desire to help these people.

Yeah, that's basically where we differ. I'd say you're need to move past that, but it isn't people I know who've died, so that'd be pretty obnoxious of me.

We've been burned by interventionism ever since we put the Shah in power in Iran and definitely since we armed Hussein in Iraq and The Mujahadeen in Afghanistan.

This is definitely true. I guess we just take different lessons from it. You tend towards 'don't feth with other countries', while I lean towards 'don't arm and support donkey-caves because you're playing some byzantine geo-political game'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Why on earth are we helping these guys??? You're replacing a dictator with a worse dictatorship.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/islamic-law-comes-to-rebel-held-syria/2013/03/19/b310532e-90af-11e2-bdea-e32ad90da239_story.html

We're aiding different factions to those guys, largely so that the guys in that story don't come to power.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds in the 1980's (I think the late 80's specifically). And no. We didn't intervene then until he invaded Kuwait and Saudi Arabia wanted us to save their butts from impending doom.

And more to the point, he used a gak ton of chemical weapons on the Iranians force that war into a stalemate. But of course, he was America's man in the region then, the guy you encouraged to attack Iran in the first place, and so the no-one seemed to mind much when he used those chemical weapons.

As some have said why should we care if the Syrians kill themselves. Well, I think the honest answer is we don't. What some people do care about is the conflict spilling over into neighboring countires, like NATO member Turkey, which it has to some degree, but been largely contained. The other thing some people care about is the control (or lack there of) being exercised over Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles. To use these weapons that have to be "released" to the field units. An inevitable by product of releasing closely held and controlled munitions is they are now under less stringent control......see where this is going? Why you hear people talk about red lines is the moment chemical weapons are used it means they are no longer in a central, easily controlled (and from one perspective easily destroyed) location and can now end up being misused, stolen, given away to people you really, really, really, don't want to have them.

For Israel, right now they are probably trying to figure out how may chemical weapons have made it into the hands of Hezbollah. The Iraqis are wondering something similar with their own resident terrorists, Turkey wondering if the Kurds are getting some to. Get the picture?

Also don't forget that chemical weapons are very unpredictable. Depending on how hot or cold, how wet or dry, or how windy can really mess with even the best planning on what will happen at the point of delivery. Never mind the variables involved in the delivery method. Throw in that it effectively is a area denial weapon that complicates everything (access to wounded, humanitarian relief, and of course combat operations)

Finally, the other red line is precedence. If you allow one country to use chemical weapons without consequence, guess how many other countries are going to jump on that band wagon. Remember it is a lot easier and cheaper to build chemical munitions than a nuke.

Personally, if chemical weapons are used I don't see how either Turkey, other NATO countries, and Israel can not begin bombing suspected storage sites and any munitions dumps.

I do not see the US (or those hawks in the great white north) putting boots on the ground. This will be done with drones and B2's

 Frazzled wrote:
You mean Iraq? Saddam killed thousands with chemical weapons and was all about being a killy torturing dictator. But the world seems to hate us for having toppled him.

More to the point, most of the killing and torture was undertaken in the early 80s, when he came to power and after the Iraq Iran war - the times when his regime was unstable and he had to act against possible rivals. And all that time he was your man in the region. So picking that out as a moral and righteous reason to attack him, while considering no action against the dictators around the world who were killing and torturing their population at that very point in time... is just the most obvious bs.


And the world doesn't hate you for toppling him, they hate you throwing out basic principles of sovereignty in order to fight a war that to this day no-one really knows the motives for. For feth's sake, stability matters, and it is a really dumb idea to just go around invading random countries because 'here's a big list of reasons that are wrong, outright lies or just don't make any damn sense'.

I mean I know we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq for no reason.

Afghanistan wasn't only supported, it was undertaken as a NATO joint action. Most of us still have troops in the country, fighting alongside you. Because we differentiate between 'this country is a haven for terrorists who just undertook a horrific attack on New York' and 'here's a big list of reasons that are wrong, outright lies or just don't make any damn sense'.

Conflating Afghanistan and Iraq was one Bush's cheapest tricks.

I mean, it's ten fething years later and you're still throwing up the same old lies. It's just pathetic, really.

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You mean Iraq? Saddam killed thousands with chemical weapons and was all about being a killy torturing dictator. But the world seems to hate us for having toppled him.

More to the point, most of the killing and torture was undertaken in the early 80s, when he came to power and after the Iraq Iran war - the times when his regime was unstable and he had to act against possible rivals. And all that time he was your man in the region. So picking that out as a moral and righteous reason to attack him, while considering no action against the dictators around the world who were killing and torturing their population at that very point in time... is just the most obvious bs.

Why do you keep bring this up? Especially the part that "the dictators around the world" did it too...

And the world doesn't hate you for toppling him, they hate you throwing out basic principles of sovereignty in order to fight a war that to this day no-one really knows the motives for. For feth's sake, stability matters, and it is a really dumb idea to just go around invading random countries because 'here's a big list of reasons that are wrong, outright lies or just don't make any damn sense'.

And every other bloody country, ESPECIALLY the UK, were saying the same fething thing...

You're sprouting the same line whereas the ulterior motive was to make Bush look as bad as you possible can. At this point, the truth doesn't matter... all that matter is that Bush/America looks bad.

I mean I know we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq for no reason.

Afghanistan wasn't only supported, it was undertaken as a NATO joint action. Most of us still have troops in the country, fighting alongside you. Because we differentiate between 'this country is a haven for terrorists who just undertook a horrific attack on New York' and 'here's a big list of reasons that are wrong, outright lies or just don't make any damn sense'.

Conflating Afghanistan and Iraq was one Bush's cheapest tricks.

I mean, it's ten fething years later and you're still throwing up the same old lies. It's just pathetic, really.

I think it's really pathetic that you think it was all based on lies.

I'm mean, really... you wanna start that conversation again?

It's no different than claiming Bush Jr. wanted this war so badly because Saddam took a shot to assasinate is dad.

EDIT: Sorry seb...
Take a look at this: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/

It's a good summary of the intelligence used pre/post Iraq war with respect to the WMDs.

 whembly wrote:
Why do you keep bring this up? Especially the part that "the dictators around the world" did it too...

Keep bringing this up? It's the first time I've mentioned it in this thread...

And you don't think it rings a little false, when someone murdered and tortured and stayed your man in the region, and then decades later when he's murdered and tortured enough that he's firmly in control and therefore isn't murdering and torturing any more that then, then you suddenly decide its time to go and get rid of the guy. I mean, if you suddenly decide that you need to stop murder and torture by despots around the world, wouldn't you pick one of the guys who's doing a lot of it right then and there?

And every other bloody country, ESPECIALLY the UK, were saying the same fething thing...

You're sprouting the same line whereas the ulterior motive was to make Bush look as bad as you possible can. At this point, the truth doesn't matter... all that matter is that Bush/America looks bad.

What are you on about? If you'd cared to ask, I think Blair came out of the Iraq affair looking at least as bad as Bush.

Trying to just pigeonhole this into 'oh he's just anti-Bush and being mean' is really disappointing. There's a wealth of information out there about what happened.

I think it's really pathetic that you think it was all based on lies.

I'm mean, really... you wanna start that conversation again?

I didn't. I thought we were done, every one accepted what had actually happened. Guess not.

It makes me wonder if we need to go back and clarify all the other political issues that I thought had finally been settled. Domino theory was a load of nonsense. Churchill wasn't actually a warmonger and it really was all Hitler's fault.

It's no different than claiming Bush Jr. wanted this war so badly because Saddam took a shot to assasinate is dad.

EDIT: Sorry seb...
Take a look at this: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/

It's a good summary of the intelligence used pre/post Iraq war with respect to the WMDs.

That link doesn't make any kind of claim for your story - it just summarises the issue in brief and then recognises the documents that existed late 2004. Most of the key information about what really happened came after that, once Bush had his second term and the members of his first administration began to talk about what happened behind the scenes. Dude, we know that the Bush admin committed to the war for a whole gak ton of reasons, and WMD was only a minor one. It was elevated to the primary issue when Powell made the argument to the rest that it was the best way of convincing the American people of the need for war. And we know that once that decision was made, various members of the Bush admin started pressing intelligence groups to conclude that weapons were in existance in Iraq. And the rest of the RNC pundit machine fell into line and publically attacked those who questioned WMDs.

I just, seriously, is this for real? Are there still people who are walking around thinking that belief that Saddam had WMDs was an honest mistake?

 sebster wrote:
Domino theory was a load of nonsense.

I've heard some ideas about how the Arab Spring might be an example of domino theory actually functioning. Obviously, with communism it didn't really happen, but maybe with different circumstances, like those that led to the Arab Spring, there might some merit to the idea. I'm not an expert on domino theory though, so I could be totally wrong. It struck me as an interesting thought though.

 Hordini wrote:
I've heard some ideas about how the Arab Spring might be an example of domino theory actually functioning. Obviously, with communism it didn't really happen, but maybe with different circumstances, like those that led to the Arab Spring, there might some merit to the idea. I'm not an expert on domino theory though, so I could be totally wrong. It struck me as an interesting thought though.

Absolutely. The basics of Domino Theory are sensible enough that if you change to some other theory in some other part of the world in some other set of circumstances it makes sense. It's just that with communism and south east asia it really didn't work that way for a whole bunch of reasons, and that's something we know now.

And I don't mean to say that Domino Theory was born out of the same intelligence manipulation as Iraq having WMDs. Just intuitively you can see Russia, China, North Korea* go, and see what's happening in Vietnam and think if we don't do something its going to keep happening. It's just that all these years later, with hindsight, we know it was wrong.

And it's the same thing with Iraq, people who believed at the time the Bush administration honestly believed there were WMDs and that meant we needed to invade to stop them, well at the time I can understand that. But a decade later, with the countless books written by insiders who explained the giant steam train of bs that was the cause for war... I mean it's as ridiculous as believing today that Domino Theory was a real thing.



*And but for intervention there, South Korea would have been part of the domino. Criticism of the Vietnam has always puzzled me like that, I mean before the war was committed to, who could honestly pick out how the two wars would have ended so differently? If anything, in Vietnam you had a much closer parity in forces. Is it possible to be opposed to Vietnam and not have to follow the same arguments and conclude that South Korea should have been left to be conquered as well?