Strategic Peril
Washington Babylon
Ken Silverstein
April 3, 2007
www.harpers.org
http://harpers.org/archive/2007/04/sb-q ... 3898128138
“No one with a brain in his or her head thinks that the U.S. Army isn’t now progressively starting to come apart.â€
"Strategic Peril" by Ken Silverstein
"Strategic Peril" by Ken Silverstein
[size=75]You are as bad as Alan, and even he hits the mark sometimes. -charlie
"Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill[/size]
"Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill[/size]
I rarely agree with Al Sharpton but it may well be time to reinstate the draft. Liberal and neocon mouthpieces are only worth listening to if they have any experience in which they blow their horn. Thats why I'm having a hard time with the Hillary/Monica ticket ( Freudian?) I'm mean Bush's military career was suspect but Hillary was just standing by her man/woman during all those years ago ( sorry George Harrison influence with a little Tammy) if she does become prez I hope she doesn't let Bubba carry the football since word was he often let it out of his hand (cigars anyone?) while prez himself.
Well, I am not certain why he thinks the US is strained for number of troops. Counting reserves, we've got well over 600,000 in the Army, easily enough to sustain the level of effort in Iraq. I would also disagree with his assessment of logistical support. It is more than adequate and plenty more where that came from. It's not cheap, though.
One of the most deadly strategies the insurgents have against our troops is the roadside bomb, otherwise known as an Improvised Explosive Device. At least part of the blame for this is negligence on the Army's part for neglecting electronic warfare technology after WWII. It is an ongoing race to counter this threat.
ZSpiddy
One of the most deadly strategies the insurgents have against our troops is the roadside bomb, otherwise known as an Improvised Explosive Device. At least part of the blame for this is negligence on the Army's part for neglecting electronic warfare technology after WWII. It is an ongoing race to counter this threat.
ZSpiddy
If we have so many troops why are we extending deployments and forcing reservists and other enlisted troops to return for third and fourth tours of duty? Why is "Stop Loss" necessary if we have such a wealth of cannon fodder... I mean IED fodder... I mean troops?
How about we counter the threat by not invading other countries? Are you afraid the roadside bombs are going to follow us home?
I don't even know why I'm getting back into this. The people that tow the right wing line can't and won't argue, they'll only accuse others of treason or worse. Perfect example, Gonzalez tried (unsuccessfully) to turn questions against him into attacks on his underlings just like Cheney (unfortunately with great success) turned Edwards's criticisms of they Bush/Cheney war into criticism of the Iraqi soldiers.
Hey, right wingers: THIS IS JUST LIKE FUCKING VIET NAM! Pay fucking attention. The administration has been claiming victory for four fucking years as conditions on the ground have continued to get worse by the hour. When will you admit you were wrong? When a million civilians have died? Two million? Can't you stop at 600,000? No you can't. Why? Because you people are delusional. From this war to global warming, to extinction of species, to pollution, you motherfuckers have had your collective head up your collective ass since the fucking 50's and no matter how wrong you are proven to be you just fall back and claim to have been right. Luckily for you the vast majority of Americans are drooling goddamned idiots thanks to the educational system you have starved near to death and your Fox News, et. al. Money does not equal truth. But money can sure as shit convince couch bound Americans that bullshit is fact. It's quite sad. It's even more sad when people who can actually spell decide to join the fantasy game that is neocon politics. Hitler was wrong and you people are wrong. I just hope we get rid of you people soon.
How about we counter the threat by not invading other countries? Are you afraid the roadside bombs are going to follow us home?
I don't even know why I'm getting back into this. The people that tow the right wing line can't and won't argue, they'll only accuse others of treason or worse. Perfect example, Gonzalez tried (unsuccessfully) to turn questions against him into attacks on his underlings just like Cheney (unfortunately with great success) turned Edwards's criticisms of they Bush/Cheney war into criticism of the Iraqi soldiers.
Hey, right wingers: THIS IS JUST LIKE FUCKING VIET NAM! Pay fucking attention. The administration has been claiming victory for four fucking years as conditions on the ground have continued to get worse by the hour. When will you admit you were wrong? When a million civilians have died? Two million? Can't you stop at 600,000? No you can't. Why? Because you people are delusional. From this war to global warming, to extinction of species, to pollution, you motherfuckers have had your collective head up your collective ass since the fucking 50's and no matter how wrong you are proven to be you just fall back and claim to have been right. Luckily for you the vast majority of Americans are drooling goddamned idiots thanks to the educational system you have starved near to death and your Fox News, et. al. Money does not equal truth. But money can sure as shit convince couch bound Americans that bullshit is fact. It's quite sad. It's even more sad when people who can actually spell decide to join the fantasy game that is neocon politics. Hitler was wrong and you people are wrong. I just hope we get rid of you people soon.
[size=75]You are as bad as Alan, and even he hits the mark sometimes. -charlie
"Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill[/size]
"Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill[/size]
The basic outline.
- two dangerous factions were facing off in a power equilibrium across lines that were tribal and not necessarily political.
- USA attacked the political entity Iraq and destroyed more Sunni infrastructure than Shia by wiping out Iraq as a political institution and center of Sunni power.
<http://islam.about.com/cs/divisions/f/shia_sunni.htm>
- This was done seemingly arbitrarily because Iraq did NOT fund or plan 9/11.
- Now we are dealing with the other guys, the Shia primarily in Iran. They are worse. The Sunni in Iraq were more secular. The Shia are more Islamic fundamentalists.
- The people that benefited the most from the Iraq invasion were the Iranian Shia and the Shia in general. The other folks were the Saudis who sold oil to people Iraq did commerce with. We are talking about 10 of billions of shekels worth of opportunity here.
- That is some pretty expensive oil, if we are there for oil. Of course we end up paying more for oil too, so now our dollars to run our operation are draining out of two ends.
- The USA might have been a mere pawn of the Shia in all this. We might have been just a big hammer in a tribal conflict. We should feel dirty and stupid for being used. We should feel like idiots electing a fundamentalist leader who claims to talk directly with god which gives him a certainty that blinds.
- There was likely someone malicious and masterful in terms of chess play politics in Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia or Syria that played and pimped us into this 'conflict'.
- If the USA just pulled out of Iraq the harm done is probably on the same level as our continued presence.
- two dangerous factions were facing off in a power equilibrium across lines that were tribal and not necessarily political.
- USA attacked the political entity Iraq and destroyed more Sunni infrastructure than Shia by wiping out Iraq as a political institution and center of Sunni power.
<http://islam.about.com/cs/divisions/f/shia_sunni.htm>
- This was done seemingly arbitrarily because Iraq did NOT fund or plan 9/11.
- Now we are dealing with the other guys, the Shia primarily in Iran. They are worse. The Sunni in Iraq were more secular. The Shia are more Islamic fundamentalists.
- The people that benefited the most from the Iraq invasion were the Iranian Shia and the Shia in general. The other folks were the Saudis who sold oil to people Iraq did commerce with. We are talking about 10 of billions of shekels worth of opportunity here.
- That is some pretty expensive oil, if we are there for oil. Of course we end up paying more for oil too, so now our dollars to run our operation are draining out of two ends.
- The USA might have been a mere pawn of the Shia in all this. We might have been just a big hammer in a tribal conflict. We should feel dirty and stupid for being used. We should feel like idiots electing a fundamentalist leader who claims to talk directly with god which gives him a certainty that blinds.
- There was likely someone malicious and masterful in terms of chess play politics in Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia or Syria that played and pimped us into this 'conflict'.
- If the USA just pulled out of Iraq the harm done is probably on the same level as our continued presence.
"I am downgrading this thing even though I don't send on TR." Blake while on TR
For more on the tribal nature of the conflict and how places like Jordan are intimately involved in what is going down in IRAQ see:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/wo ... ?th&emc=th
Attacking a country is neither head or heart shot to the problem of terrorism. Current policies that create terrorists are not political policies of countries, rather they are idealogical drifts of tribal peoples that cross the borders of countries in the middle east and elsewhere.
-
I am not saying that I know what the solution is, but it is pretty obvious what the solution isn't.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/wo ... ?th&emc=th
Attacking a country is neither head or heart shot to the problem of terrorism. Current policies that create terrorists are not political policies of countries, rather they are idealogical drifts of tribal peoples that cross the borders of countries in the middle east and elsewhere.
-
I am not saying that I know what the solution is, but it is pretty obvious what the solution isn't.
Alan wrote:
When will you admit you were wrong?
***********
Yeah. Maybe we were wrong. We should have just let Saddam take over Kuwait. And let's face it, the 20,000 a year that Saddam was killing in his own country were just Muslims, right? Why do a darn thing about the totalitarian regime they lived under. Muslims aren't really cut out for democracy anyway, are they?
ZSpiddy
When will you admit you were wrong?
***********
Yeah. Maybe we were wrong. We should have just let Saddam take over Kuwait. And let's face it, the 20,000 a year that Saddam was killing in his own country were just Muslims, right? Why do a darn thing about the totalitarian regime they lived under. Muslims aren't really cut out for democracy anyway, are they?
ZSpiddy