I’d not normally argue with a head of state, Rufus T, but I wonder how true this really is? Yes, we certainly need to maintain the current level of troops if we’re to maintain some semblance of civil order in Iraq, at least until we reconstruct a tame Iraqi army. But… what do we need in order just to maintain strategic military control of the country as a land base of operations? Can we make do with strongholds within the country while pursuing interventions across its eastern and/or western borders?
—Bear with me; I’m aware of the probable internal consequences to Iraq of this sort of thinking. And I’m not seriously proposing that such thinking is likely. But it would support the consolidation-of-neocon-power scenario in Tris’ OP. Insurgents alone could not possibly evict hardened US military bases; it would still take another modern army to do it, a chance which the current mob might consider worth taking even now, and which might become even more attractive with a US-installed provisional authority establishing more and more civil control within Iraq.
On Preview: London, good point re “no leaders”. It took years of sacrifice from the American middle class before opposition to Vietnam found it’s legs, and massive civil unrest before the Civil Rights movement effected real change. Things have to hurt on a visceral level before a movement happens. Moral outrage alone won’t do it.
Yeah, calling NK’s army modern made me spit Pepsi.
It would be terrible to see a war break out there. Even WWII style artillery can bombard a city. A WWII era nuke can kill a lot of people. North Korea could kill a lot of people, but they have no hope of actually winning any war.
North Korea is probably the worst place to live on the planet as well as the most dangerous hotspot on the planet. We need to step pretty carefully there, not out of fear of military defeat, but out of fear of the possibility of a million or so Koreans getting killed.
This is really all I’m referring to, xeno. Relying on my expertise from the Freedonia-Sylvania War ;), I think we’ll have to maintain close to our current strength for a minimum of another year in our role of guarantors of civil order, until Iraqis themselves can take up the slack.
Oh, definitely. Once we’re no longer helping maintain order and security in Iraq on a day-to-day basis, we can set up bases in sparsely-populated areas that would be impervious to civilian and guerrilla attack, and could be used as jumping-off points for further adventurism in the region. That would work as long as a friendly Iraqi government allowed us to run such bases.
But then it gets tricky, I think. What happens in Iraq once we pull back into such bases? Things will change. People don’t want us there, and the various and sundry factions will start fighting amongst themselves. We may not have the goodwill of the officially sanctioned government for that long, and we may have to periodically intervene militarily in Iraq to maintain order. This affects the political situation back home: people may have forgotten about Afghanistan, but it’ll be harder to miss the unfinished nature of our business in Iraq, and the unsatisfying result we’ve accomplished. Even if Bush wins re-election, Iraq as a successful example of bringing democracy to the Middle East won’t happen on his watch, if ever.
We’re already in Iraq now, and there’s no appetite in this country (thank goodness) for pulling out in a way that sets it adrift. But right now, I think there’d be extremely little support for invading a clone of Iraq - and there isn’t one in that region. Particularly, no ruler has the vile reputation Saddam does, and even the Iraq invasion probably wouldn’t have garnered sufficient support if Saddam hadn’t been as evil as he was.
Timeline is the only variable that I can see. George II probably won’t start one unless he needs to shore up his replacement’s chances of election, so five years or more seems a time frame. Fifteen years looks like the outside from our recent history.
From 1955 to 1975 we spent blood, gold, and honor in southeast asia for a net increase to the wellbeing of our citizens, . . . how?
You naive confidence that the government is uniformly reliable is the exact source of my greatest fears. The current administration has already demonstrated an absolute lack of concern for harm done to the institutions of our freedom. Due process isn’t important; CIA interrogations of “terrorists” take precedence. Whether those “terrorists” are foreign or our own citizens is of no importance. The courts are being told that they have no authority over the conduct of our government with respect to our own citizens, and judges and legislators sit idly by.
Tris
“The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness…This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.” ~ Plato ~
Yeah, gotta agree with your assessment, RTF. Still, I would be chagrined but not suprised to see the idea of military interventions in Syria or Iran discussed in a roundabout way before there’s a working and self-sustainable independent government in Iraq.
No. The most dangerous element moderate Muslims will always have to face is radical Islam. It’s one of the most dangerous forces in the entire world right now.
We’ll also need to keep control of the Iraqi oil fields, which are vulnerable to guerilla attack. That will take some more troops, but it will be necessary. Don’t forget what powers those tanks and planes.
Hmmm, in contemplating war in Korea, I don’t see an invasion happening anytime soon, but if something like this happened:
[ul][li]North Korea detonates a small test nuke.[/li][li]NK starts making more serious conventional incursions across the 39th parallel, via submarine and whatnot[/li][li]NK fires more test rockets over Japanese airspace[/li][li]A right or ultraright government is elected in Japan[/li][li]Kim Jong-Il makes a statement claiming he could destroy decadence with a wave of his hand, or by plucking a blossom, or some other inscrutably eastern metaphor[/li][li]South Korea makes similar statements in response, though they are less metaphoric about it[/li][li]Japan hints that even though they find nuclear weapons abhorrent, the threat from NK is forcing them to reconsider[/li][li]The U.S., contemplating the worldwide economic devastation that would occur if NK went all-out on SK and Japan, intercedes by covering NK with cruise missiles, destroying as much artillery and air power infrastructure as possible.[/li][li]NK still manages to get off a few hundred artillery shells at Seoul, incensing the South.[/li][li]SK launches large-scale conventional air and artillery attacks all along the 39th parallel. The entrenched defenses and mindfields, though, discourage a full-scale invasion by either side.[/li][li]American and SK Airborne troops begin landing in NK, desperately trying to find Kim and his closest advisors. The defenders are weak, and using outmoded equipment, but they don’t instantly surrender as many Iraqis did, so the going is hard.[/li][li]American carrier groups have formed a line between the Korean penisula and Japan, doing their damnedest to shoot down any plane or missile coming from NK. Numerous friendly-fire casualties result, but considering the chance that a nuke might get through, these are deemed “acceptable.”[/ul][/li]
After that, I don’t know. Do they find Kim in time? How many nukes can NK build, anyway? It’s fun, as long as it remains purely theoretical.
Actually, still over here in the desert. The town I’m in seems to have had the war simply pass it by. I wish I was home for Christmas, but alas, it is not to be. Maybe another three or four months. BTW, did you know that these folks have never heard Earth, Wind, and Fire? They love it.
I’m guessing that has to be correct. But I am guessing. I also agree it has to be sustained over an extended period. The key, though, does look to be the middle-classes not staring at the prospect of losing their sons, but actually losing them. And for that extended period. Only from there can a new alternative and influential leadership emerge.
That’s about all I’ve got to explain how 1.5 million people marched through London – more than the tip of an iceberg of opinion but not much more - and were unable to affect policy by one iota; a huge, rudderless and impotent mass.
Would someone be so kind to wanr me a bit on forehand when it is time for me to search for my rusty kalashnikov and paint my black tent in sand/rock shades because The Might Is Right US Army is on its way for the next murderous invasion?
What is so special about not ever having heard the so called “Earth, Wind and Fire” thing?
I have no clue what you talk about. I suppose I am also a “folk”… whatever you mean by that… and I should “love” it.
So in order to educate me in this important matter, can you put it on the board here or is that not possible on this website.
By the way: Are you familiar with the cultural aspects of the region you supposedly are stationed in?
Salaam. A
N koreas military is made up of outdated soviet era weaponry. They only have a trump card because they can destroy S. Korea and Japan with conventional artillery and because they have nukes, as well as chem & bio weapons they are most likely willing to let loose on Japan, S Korea or the US.
