Wow! We had a hundred friggin’ thousand troops in Beirut!!
I never knew. Thanks, Unc.
Upon reflection, I have to apologize to you, Uncle Beer, for the snarkiness of that last comment. I should assume you have legitimate reasons for the comparison.
What I should have said in reply (what I wish I’d said) is: What similarities do you see between the Iraq situation in 2003 and the disastrous US experience in Beirut/Lebanon ca. 1983? What lessons should we have learned?
Ok, so we leave ‘half’ of the forces in place indefinitely.
That’s over 100,000 men, a few hundred aircraft, three aircraft carrier groups, and all the logistics to support it. Any guess how much it would cost to keep that force in place? 10, 20 billion a year? I assume the U.S. gets to pick up the cheque for this, since that amount is more than the entire defense budget of most countries.
And how long does this go on? Forever? How does Bin Laden feel about a huge force like this arrayed in the Gulf?
But this all misses the point anyway, which is that Saddam is not deterred by counting the number of weapons on his border - he’s deterred by the threat of war. The minute you go into any sort of status-quo arrangement and draw down the forces in the region even slightly, the games will start up again.
This is the big problem. If the U.S. backs down now, not only will it send a signal to Saddam that the United States isn’t really serious, but it will send the same signal to North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc. And the next time the U.S. makes a threat to deter aggression, it will be forced to follow through because no one will believe it otherwise.
So let’s play this little scenario out - The U.S. sends home half the troops. Now there is no longer a credible invasion force left. So now Saddam is under no pressure. What would you do if you were Saddam? Pretend to go along with inspections, reveal a few weapons you don’t mind losing, and wait for a while. The U.N. goes, “See? Saddam can be controlled without resorting to war.”
Six months or a year from now, he blocks inspectors from going to a sensitive area. He announces that U-2’s will be shot at. His argument is that he has been disarmed, and is now asserting his sovereignity. He claims to have shown good faith for the last year, and can even point to a handful of weapons he has turned over.
So the U.S. starts squawking about him again, but do you really think there would be a political will to send all the troops over again and do yet another buildup? Do you think the U.N. would be any more willing to go along?
I used to wonder how the world could sit around in the 1930’s and let Hitler build up a huge war machine. After all, everyone knew he was doing it. In hindsight, allowing the 3rd Reich to arm itself was insane.
But now I see how it happens. People who sincerely want peace and hate war become blinded by their desires. Saddam has chemical weapons? No big deal. Biological? Probably can’t deliver them. Illegal rockets? Well, they’re not THAT illegal. A nuclear program? Don’t worry - he’s years away from having the bomb.
Then one day, perhaps five or ten years ago, Saddam re-invades Kuwait. Only this time, he detonates a ‘test’ nuke to show the world he has them, and threatens to blow up Tel Aviv and Kuwait City if anyone intervenes. Or maybe he threatens that Iraqi agents in place in the U.S. will detonate a nuke in Los Angeles, or launch bio attacks. And then people will say, “How in hell did we let THIS happen?”
why the fuck doesn’t anyone care about the weapons we have? we have 6 bombs that (individually) can destroy all human existence on the planet. we have more weapons than any other country. we invade and/or negatively affect (with violence) more countries than any other country. where the fuck is the regulator of us?
it is dumb. plain stupid. we have 100x times more weapons than Iraq. we do more fucked up shit to other countries than anyone else by far. and we’re fucking quabbling about some missles. hey, i don’t want anyone to have that kind of shit. certainly not saddam. but,if we don’t play by the rules, is it fair that we can bomb their civilians for doing shit that we do without question?
Um…isn’t it against UN regulations to attack a country that hasn’t caused an immediate threat? we’re pre-emptively attacking them.
USAF. that says it all. technology has made war immoral. “Shock and Awe.” We are going to purposefully target civilians. “There won’t be a safe place in Baghdad.”
murderers.
Ok, so we would do this for 10 years for what the war would cost. (and that ignores the fact that the rest of the world is more likely to help pay if Bush will stop acting like a asshole.) Still look like a stupid idea?
Man’s gotta die sometime.
relevance? Think he can do anything about it?
Horseshit. He was deterred throught the '90s without either troops on his border or threat of war. What’s new in this situation isn’t Saddam it’s the warmonger in the White House that’s made it clear that he’s going to ‘get’ him whether or not he behaves.
Once again nonsense. If the US goes in with out UN sanction, it will tell the world that they had better develop nukes right damn quick because there’s a new bully in the world and he doesn’t feel the need to respect international agreements about invading other countries without provocation. And, unlike Saddam, this bully already has 1000’s of nukes and has stated his willingness to use them in a first strike
Sure, why not? They went along this time. Oh, they didn’t want to jump straight into the war part without resuming inspections first, but that’s just prudence.
If the US pushed for a prudent military build up to enforce inspections, there’s no reason at all to expect the UN not to go along.
Riight :rolleyes: Because Saddam is soo likely to build up an army and take over the world if we don’t stop him now…
You can’t seem to face up to it Sam, but the person more likely to turn out to by the 21st century Hitler is George W. Bush, not Saddam.
The parallels between Bush and the early Hitler are actually quite striking. (one difference being that Hitler was actually elected). Saddam is more like Mussolini figure than a Hitler figure.
You see nothing but your own paraniod fantasies. This peace movement isn’t about hating war so much as about hating unnecessary, stupid counterproductive war. That’s why it has such broad appeal.
No. he’s “years away from having the bomb” if we leave him alone. He’s never going to have a bomb so long as we keep inspecting and/or blowing up nuke facilities.
As for the rest, It’s all minor shit. There are real threats to the US. Al Queda. North Korea going into business selling Nukes. Global Warming. These are the things we should be worrying about. Not the possibility of some tin-pot contained dictator is going to get his hands on weapons he isn’t going to use on the US unless we pick a fight with him. First things first.
There is none. So why the fuck do we not rule the world if the rest of your assenine statements are even remotely true. Grow up.
:wally
It seems to be that W has been trying to do that.
The only problem is there are other countries with nuclear ICBMs.
Basic fact throughout all of human history: when there is a war, the winner makes the rules. If I recall correctly, we won (we being the UN coalition) back in 1991. That Saddam has chosen to break those rules is his choice, and because of that people will suffer. That’s too bad, but that’s the way it’s always been, and it won’t change anytime soon.
Don’t you EVER call me that again, you yellow bastard. Haul your silly ass over to Lackland and say that, instead of hiding behind a computer. :mad:
Of course, he’s doing it all himself. Congress has no part of this. That vote they had last year, that was just a big joke, right?
You people give the man way too much credit. If your representatives thought he was wrong they could vote that way, but they haven’t.
Heh, well, one could argue that you are giving politicians in general way too much credit. It could be that those representatives do think Bush is wrong, but they won’t vote against him for fear that their political opponents will paint them as pro-terrorist. Sure, it’s cynical and certainly paints those politicians in an incredibly negative light. But I’ve seen people argue that very thing here, so if they believe that’s true, I don’t think they’d buy your argument.
As for myself, I’m sure politicians have fudged their personal beliefs to get reelected. Whether our national reps would do it with thousands of lives at stake, well, that’s another thing entirely…
[Moderator Hat: ON]
Airman Doors said:
And don’t you ever call him – or anybody else – that or any other insult anywhere outside of the Pit.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
What lessons should we have learned from Beirut? Simply this. Leaving troops in harms way without sufficient resources to properly carry out their mission is A Bad Thing. Troops languishing in harms way seem to get, well, harmed. And dead.
The correct way to run a mission (and I’m obviously no military strategist, but this is simply common sense) is to use all resources necessary and get the hell outta there when the planned objective has been accomplished. Stationing forces in a dangerous location for “the duration” is only going to yield heartbreak and anguish. Hell, Reagan should have learned this from the failures of Kennedy’s “flexible response” strategy in Viet Nam. Had he, there would have been no marines in the barracks in Beirut.
Mind you, I’m saying nothing about whether the little expedition George is planning here is the right thing to do. I don’t think it is; I agree that Saddam doesn’t seem to pose a credible threat to the Unites States. There are other nations to which he does pose a very real threat, but the decision must be made whether the U.S. wishes to sacrifice troops to preempt that threat. But the U.S.? It is to laugh.
What you and Tejota propose is worse than George’s plan; yours is a plan with no exit. And this is a Very Bad Thing. As history shows. That is the meaning of my comment.
Exactly, UncleBeer. The proper use of military force is the exact opposite of the proper use of police authority. For police authority, the goal is to apprehend a person by the minimum means necesary. For military force, the proper use is the force needed to, without fail, accomplish a goal. The difference is that minimum means may fail. Force Necessary will not fail, unless calculated horribly wrong. Force Necessary will, however, tend to cause greater wear and tear on the surroundings. But the goal will be accomplished.
Stationing military troops in a hostile environment without a clear goal or mandate does not work very well. We’ve learned that. Repeatedly. And if that’s Germany’s best idea, then they have forgotten all they have learned from their centuries of military excellence.
The US administration clearly made a decision to invade Iraq many months ago, has been relentlessly exaggerating and distorting facts ever since to justify the invasion, will most likely carry it out regardless of domestic or world opinion, and thus the ‘discovery’ of the missiles that can cover four extra miles of desert is nothing more than theater.
Personally, I’ll be at the rally in Houston on Saturday, as if that’s going to make any difference. At least my conscience will feel a bit better.
I fully agree. Either your troops get shot to hell, or your mission won’t be accomplished. If you’re wearing a blue helmet the odds of getting shot are far less, but Srebrenicza taught the world what happens when a poorly equiped squadron with no back-up (despite promises from higher up) has to defend a couple of thousand Muslim civillians from Serbian troops. 
It applies here as well. Either go in full force with all escape routes open and cleared, or don’t go at all.
Well, I would point out that George doesn’t seem to have an exit plan himself. We plan, apparently, an open ended occupation lasting at least 2 years with no clear vision of a post-war Iraqi government, no idea of the degree of UN (or non-US) involvement and no plan for rebuilding of instrastructure in the country.
At least my suggestion (clarified in this post) has a clear mission (enforcement) with a goal (verifired disarmament) which, once achieved, allows disengagement. The fact is neither my nor Bush’s plans are guaranteed to succeed. But I think mine does a better job of avoiding a Beirut-like situation where our troops are garrisoned in the middle of hostile country where starving people who hate them and have access to offensive weapons live right beside their barracks.
So the other countries with ICBMS keep us in check? Do you honestly think that the UK or Russia or anyone else would risk annihilation if we decided to invade the entire western hemisphere and they threatened to nuke us? Like the kid said we have “100x” more weapons than anyone else. I am getting tired of knee-jerk half-assed assertions that require little thaught.
Yeah, I could use “shock and awe” to describe my reaction to this post. I’m not going to address any of it (there’s really too much) except this last bit about purposefully targeting civilians.
My current job has me doing Naval warfare planning. Please show me one ounce of backing to your assertion. One document. One military planner who has knowledge of such planning or who has personally targeted a civilian. One article saying we are doing this. Anything. Heck, I’ll even take rumors. Whaddya got, buddy?
Airman Doors:
That may be true, in which case raising children is a futile excercise. Being compelled to hope, I persist in hoping.
Didn’t used to be footprints on the moon, either.
Look, I’m as unimpressed with the Nintendo Warriors as anyone else (sit somewhere safe on your ship or plane, press a button, watch somewhere else go boom – gee, just like a video game, and we still have quarters).
But let me see if I can put this gently, so as not to end up in the pit. I firmly believe the following (perhaps contradictory) statements:
(1) No one in the US/UK forces is setting out to kill civilians. This explicitly includes the planners, but also includes the implementers, whether crab, fish-head or pongo (or whatever the US equivalent terms are for members of the air force, navy or army).
(2) Everyone in the US/UK forces acknowledges that there will be civilian casualties among the Iraqi populace, because of either tactical decisions (Saddam is using human shields, but we have to stop him at any cost), tactical errors (oh shit, I thought they were firing at us) or because of weapon malfunction (rounds dropping short or overshooting or just plain targetted in the wrong direction).
(3) For political reasons, no-one in the US/UK military/command/government/political machine dare stand up and say, “We’ll try to minimise civilian casualties, but a whole lot of people are going to die. Better them than us”. Especially not with CNN/Fox/National Enquirer running round reporting on every last festering corpse. But that’s what it’s going to come down to, if this whole thing goes pear-shaped.
No warrior enjoys/likes/wants to kill civilians, or indeed enemy combatants. There is no room for murderers/“mad-dog killers” in a modern army, and typically the selection procedures weed out the insane ones quite early on. But the job of a soldier is to kill people, usually people who are trying equally hard to kill you. Out on the “sharp end”, you have yourself and your team-mates and a whole bunch of enemies. Sometimes shit happens.
Today: Saddam issues decree banning WMD
:eek: This is worrying…who or what is going to be sacrificed.