Dr. Buzz0's 7 steps to Iraq Victory

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm too late to this conversation to really add much to it, though I'll comment that I agree with the "more killing and slogans" aren't viable options for a solution in Iraq, but I did have to ask you a question about #7 in the OP.

#7. Close the borders – The borders are big, but it isn’t *that* hard with the proper technology. Put up a lot of signs written in English, Turkish, Arabic and in pictographs which communicate a clear message “If you want to come in go a few miles that way to the checkpoint. If you pass into this area, you will be blown up by a landmine or shot by one of our drones or robotic guns”

I noticed that Farsi was not included in your signage. Is there a reason for this oversight?

 

[DRBUZZ0]

Dr. B., I think you have a one-dimensional (read, military) solution that cannot achieve "victory" because, as davefoc says, that is a long-gone goal.

It's absolutely true that military force alone cannot be expected to achieve a lasting solution. But in order to have a lasting solution you need to have a stable society which can be put back together.

If your house is on fire, I suggest you call the fire department. I realize that they do not provide a long term solution, however I still think that you should probably call them rather than calling contractors to take bids on repairing the damage to your house. You can do that after the fire is put out. It's a bit hard to rebuild the home when it's still a blaze.

If nothing else, I'd like to see a plan that actually focuses on victory and does so with a realistic aproach which doesn't just say "We're screwed. How can we get out of this"

 

[Dave1001]

Poison gas, mass killings, torture, and large statues and paintings of a strongman may also be effective ways to keep the population in line.

 

[SezMe]

If nothing else, I'd like to see a plan that actually focuses on victory and does so with a realistic aproach which doesn't just say "We're screwed. How can we get out of this"

Bush emphasizes this need to achieve "victory". I just don't get it. Dr. B., can you define what you mean? In fact, I'd be interested in your taking two shots at it. First, what do you personally mean - because I do not take you to be a shill for the current administration? Second, since Bush has been saying this for years, what do you think he means? And how does his definition map onto the original stated aims for invading in the first place?

TIA.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

Bush emphasizes this need to achieve "victory". I just don't get it. Dr. B., can you define what you mean? In fact, I'd be interested in your taking two shots at it. First, what do you personally mean - because I do not take you to be a shill for the current administration? Second, since Bush has been saying this for years, what do you think he means? And how does his definition map onto the original stated aims for invading in the first place?

TIA.

You have a point there. In this case "victory" is not something like getting a forign power to sign a treaty of surrender.

I would define victory as a situation where Iraq is stable enough that people can go about their business and the government is not constantly just trying to survive. Basically a situation where you have reasonably good security and stability and where order is maintained.


Okay...again that's not a good black and white line. The current insurgency situation is really one where there is some degree of "critical mass." If you have a few wackos running around and you have someone die in an attack a few times a year, that's not going to collapse a nation.

The issue is that once the situation degenerates to the point where the insurgents (be they organized or separate) have caused a certain degree of fear, disorder and danger, then the government's credibility and the trust of the people are lost.

People see the chaos around them, and they feel that the Americans and Iraqi government is not keeping them safe or making progress. This encourages more insurgency and people eventually see the need to defend themselves. If you have a wildfire, the hard part is putting most of it out. Once you have the main blaze out, you need to keep watch for flareups. Stamp them out fast, and you're fine. But let it reach a critical point and it will grow out of control.



Once security is not a constant day to day issue for everyone, you can start the actual rebuilding process. it's critical to achieve good economic self-sufficiency. You can give handouts to feed people, but it does not give them anything to do and it hurts dignity and pride.

Only with security can business thrive. The next step is to encourage economic development. This may initially take a "works progress" approach, but in general private enterprise is one of the best ways to encourage growth. It's important to work with what you have. The government should, for example, look to a "contract" system to get locals working, on a grass roots level.

"We need this area improved. Who in this village has building experience?" "The Al Ohmar family worked before the war on construction"
"Ask Mr. Al Ohmar if he would be interested in leading the project. If he can arange to get some people working for him, we have some projects that need to be done"


The step after this is "marketing" the country for what it has, to outside established enterprises who can provide the resources to get people working. This is best done not with direct payments, but with enterprise encouragement.

"Iraq has millions of people without phone service and the Iraqi government will give a two year tax defermant to any telecom company to come and provide this highly profitable service, as long as they agree to certain guidelines and will hire at least 2/3rds of their work force locally"

"The Iraqi government would be happy to provide low-cost fuel oil to anyone who might care to build a powerplant for our un-electrified areas"

"The iraqi government would like to remind UPS, Fed Ex and DHL that our location would be very well suited to a Meditaranian and Middle Eastern and South Asian shipping hub. We have former military airfields which are free for the taking and low cost jet fuel"

Of course...this all comes later... nobody is going to want your airfield if they think their planes are going to get shot down...

 

[a_unique_person]

I realize it sounds oversimplistic when one says "The objective is always victory."

War is not a pleasant thing. It should be avoided if possible. However, once you are in it, your options are limited.

I do not want to take you on about Vietnam. I very much appreciate your service and I don't care to have an accidemic debate about the war.

My contention is this: We are in Iraq. We have a bad situation in Iraq. Perhaps we should have never gone there... well, too late. We really need to win this one. I mean...REALLY. IMHO, the implications of loss in Iraq are much worse for national security than Vietnam.

What you have experienced in Vietnam is beyond my realm of experience, and beyond that of anyone who was not there. I don't want to come off in any way as disrespectful of those who are in the field. They have a unique perspective and doubtless their opinions should be listened to closely.

However, my general contentions are that radical thinking is needed and that this is really a matter of practice rather than theory




I am very concerned about the general additude that we should do whatever possible to leave and cut our losses and reduce the investment in lives and dollars. It's too late to avoid it. This has got to be licked.. Yes, it will be expensive and yes it won't be easy, but it's got to happen.

There is also the minor consideration of what is best for the country the US has invaded.

 

[SezMe]

I would define victory as a situation where Iraq is stable enough that people can go about their business and the government is not constantly just trying to survive. Basically a situation where you have reasonably good security and stability and where order is maintained.

Okay...again that's not a good black and white line.

I accept that definition and have no problem with it being somewhat grey. We're not dealing with Zener cards here. I notice you said nothing about democracy, freedom, etc. Which is OK in the short run.

But consider this: That victory would pretty much match what Iraq had before we went it. No, no, I'm not saying Saddam was good or that the population was not controlled by fear. That said, your definition of victory is not much more (if anything) than leaving it as we found it.

In that case, then Bush's justifications for the war (WMDs, transform the middle east, beacon of hope, blah, blah, blah) are irrelevant. So I'd guess HIS definition of victory would not match yours. Your definition may be achieveable - I doubt it but maybe. Bush's is not.

That is why, when Bush presents his "new way forward" (or whatever the stupid phrase is) he will relate it to his view of victory. It will be very important for us to make sure he 1) defines victory and 2) makes a direct connection between his new strategy and his idea of victroy. It should be very interesting.... ....and depressing, I fear.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

I accept that definition and have no problem with it being somewhat grey. We're not dealing with Zener cards here. I notice you said nothing about democracy, freedom, etc. Which is OK in the short run.

But consider this: That victory would pretty much match what Iraq had before we went it. No, no, I'm not saying Saddam was good or that the population was not controlled by fear. That said, your definition of victory is not much more (if anything) than leaving it as we found it.

In that case, then Bush's justifications for the war (WMDs, transform the middle east, beacon of hope, blah, blah, blah) are irrelevant. So I'd guess HIS definition of victory would not match yours. Your definition may be achieveable - I doubt it but maybe. Bush's is not.

That is why, when Bush presents his "new way forward" (or whatever the stupid phrase is) he will relate it to his view of victory. It will be very important for us to make sure he 1) defines victory and 2) makes a direct connection between his new strategy and his idea of victroy. It should be very interesting.... ....and depressing, I fear.

Well....I really would hope that there would be long term hope, if stablitiy is achieved, for a free and stable nation which can be a safe place for it's citizens and a productive and prosperous member of the international community.

I certainly would not want any policy which were as narrow and self-serving as that of a dictator who has no concern for justice at all and gasses villages because somebody from the area tried to kill him or makes war with his neighbors.

That having been said: Yes, the fact that we are in a situation where we are trying to fix that which was less broken in the begining is....not very good. No...it's not.

Just the same. I don't know how arguing about what was justified or what we woulda coulda shoulda done is getting anywhere. This has to be successful. Failure is not an option. Don't ask if it can be fixed, as how it can be fixed and then do it!

 

[TheBrainStem]

Haven't Posted Here Before but...

Hi. I haven't posted on this web board before, but read a few times. I have to say that I'm surprised nobody really supports what Dr B seems to be saying. I'm wondering if maybe it's a loss of American resolve.

I know that some of his solutions are a bit general and yes, they would need to be worked out in more details. Some of the proposals are not necessarly possible, but many of them are very possible.

But what is important is the mindset he is putting forward here. I agree that it's more of an engineering type of additude, but everything he says is based on logic and history. -Even if you disagree-

Basically what he's saying is "Okay. Lets figure out what we have to do" and not even address whether we belong there. We are there. And I don't think I've heard anyone else take an outside the box, fresh, stratagic aproach to the issue. It's actually a very good idea.

And I am also going to have to say something about the whole "we're as bad as them" mindset or the whole idea that we're the US so we cannot fight a war in a way that might be less than 100% honest or ideal.

Look: The situation there is BAD. I mean, it is a war, right? Yes, you do stuff you're not necessarly proud of in a war or a situation where it's the best option. Yes, I think if you need to do a few nonideal things in order to secure the safety and future of a country, you do them! And I don't see any of these things as being equivelant to poison gas, although maybe the deadly force on the border would need some toning down. Yes, the goal of war is VICTORY. Seriously, don't call me shallow or shrewd or a wet dreamer. Okay, it's not the politically-correct thing to say and it might sound ignorant, but you FIGHT A WAR TO WIN. And if you're not doing it to win, you will always have a stalmate mess. You do what you gotta do to win the goddamnthing and it sucks so deal with it

 

[davefoc]

Welcome to the board TBS (may I call you that?)

I don't think it is a matter of nobody supporting Dr. B.

I, for one, enjoyed his approach. I think that is exactly the kind of thinking that needs to be going on by the people that are leading this war effort.

Somebody needs to make an accurate appraisal of the situation, figure out what can be done to make the situation better and begin to implement those ideas.

Rumsfeld's memo, for me, was a damning indictment of the thought process within the white house. Here is a guy that is the second or third most powerful individual going with respect to running the Iraq war effort and he leaves office with a laundry list of ideas that he thinks might be tried and an admission that stuff isn't going all that well. Why wasn't he trying them? After nearly four years of running this war he was just coming up with the notion that stuff wasn't going well and maybe we should be doing something else?

The main problem that some of us saw with Dr. B's ideas was that they seemed to be more oriented to a situation where the enemy was clear cut and all we had to do was achieve victory over this enemy. I don't think that is valid. Iraq is strongly factionalized. Iran has tremendous influence. Saudi arabia has influence. Syria has influence. Turkey is a factor. A lot of the people we are supporting seem determined to brutalize the Sunni's. Some of the people we are supporting probably have no interest in anything resembling a secular state and are itching to impose a fundamentalist style government that at the least will strip women of human rights. So what the hell is winning?

Right now, the first task of somebody trying to bring this thing to an end is to figure that out. After that is done, the total number of possible enemies might be whittled down a bit through skillful diplomacy. And then we might be successful at threatening some of the remaining factions into some kind of acceptance of a peace plan.

Here was some more out of the box type thinking about Iraq by an American officer. The story is sad. The officer spoke several languages, including an Arabic and seemed like he must have been quite a guy. He was killed in Iraq.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/how_to_win_in_anbar_v4.pdf

 

[SezMe]

Hi. I haven't posted on this web board before, but read a few times.

Welcome.

But what is important is the mindset he is putting forward here. I agree that it's more of an engineering type of additude ...

Not from my perspective. It is a military mindset. Guns. Bombs. Killer fence. Etc., etc. Victory as Dr. B. defined it will not arise out of a military solution.

... but everything he says is based on logic and history. -Even if you disagree-

As you know, this is a skeptics forum. So I am a bit skeptical of this statement, especially the "history" part. Please provide an example of an invading army successfully sealing off a country the size of Iraq.

Look: The situation there is BAD. I mean, it is a war, right?

No. Who is the enemy? The Sunnis? The Shites? Which faction? Who, as Dr. B. himself notes, will we sign a cessation agreement with?

Seriously, don't call me shallow or shrewd or a wet dreamer. Okay, it's not the politically-correct thing to say and it might sound ignorant, but you FIGHT A WAR TO WIN.

Whoa, cool your jets there. This is your first post and the first direct response you've gotten and you're already defending against name calling?

On to your main point, please respond to my question regarding the definition of "win".

 

[DRBUZZ0]

Welcome.


Not from my perspective. It is a military mindset. Guns. Bombs. Killer fence. Etc., etc. Victory as Dr. B. defined it will not arise out of a military solution.

Nope. Not even close. Not entirely a military solution. Actually the "killer fense" would be the least important of the steps. See steps one and two. Primarily intentended to address the most important aspect: gaining support and reducing the apeal of insurgency movements.

Furthermore, having more iraqi troops in command positions is not a tactical advantage from a military standpoint, but is entirely given to create the effect of making the government appear more in control and the situation seem less like a forign power saying what to do.


And the insurgents, I agree are not a single organized movement. Some may be "professional" al-queda operatives. Others may be mercenaries, trying to kidnap people or take out hits for money. Others may be frustrated locals who only make trouble part-time. Others are private militia. Others are not really interested in any given side but are taking revenge for things. Others may want power in their local area.

That's not the point. Again...sealing borders would only be a small part, the less important part. The more important part is to make the country more confident in their own security and to make it appear less important to take up arms against those around you, especially from other sects.



People need to think: 1. The government is in control of the situation. 2. They are capable of maintaining my safety. 3. Taking up arms and vigilant justice is counter-productive. 4. The insurgency movements are not effective 5. My fellow countrymen are in control 6. Things are improving 7. I am best off working with the US/Iraq government. 8. My Sunni/*****/Kurd neighbor is not planning on taking over the nation and I don;t need to kill him.

 

[SezMe]

Nope. Not even close. Not entirely a military solution. Actually the "killer fense" would be the least important of the steps. See steps one and two. Primarily intentended to address the most important aspect: gaining support and reducing the apeal of insurgency movements.

Doc, I think you've presented some interesting ideas in this thread so far and it's been fun discussing them. In fact, I don't necessarily completely disagree with you. But we part company with the above paragraph.

Your first two points are:
#1. Propaganda, Propaganda, Propaganda
#2. Provide Entertainment
and you think these will reduce the appeal of the insurgency. Entertainment?

The tribal/ethnic groups now in Iraq have been fighting each other for a long time, long before Iraq even existed. I think their fundamental allegiance is not to Iraq but to the local warlord or whatever the local strongman is called. This is even true in the Kurdish region where two local tribes are killing each other. You really think the Kurds identify, first and foremost, as Iraqi. I don't. And no amount of propaganda and Xboxs is going to change that.

People need to think: 1. The government is in control of the situation. 2. They are capable of maintaining my safety. 3. Taking up arms and vigilant justice is counter-productive. 4. The insurgency movements are not effective 5. My fellow countrymen are in control 6. Things are improving 7. I am best off working with the US/Iraq government. 8. My Sunni/*****/Kurd neighbor is not planning on taking over the nation and I don;t need to kill him.

1 and 2. I disagree. I think the vast majority of Iraqis will never look to the central government for safety. They will look to the local warlord or Imam or whatever. In fact the Iraqi Constitution, which creates a very weak federal government, prevents the creation of a strong central government.

3 - 8. Goes against decades, if not centuries, of history. I just can't see it happening for at least decades more.

Dr. B., this is not a country with a long history of civilized government that just needs to restore the rule of law and everything will then fall into place. It is also a place where other nations - especially Saudi Arabia's interest in protecting the Sunnis - will not simply stand aside and let the US totally isolate Iraq from outsiders and determine the course of the nation.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

No. You're not going to get the different groups to all be friends. However, you need to get them to be in more of a truce. That's not impossible and very much necessary. The idea of dividing up the country and having that solve everything neglects the fact that they are not perfectly distributed geographically.


And as far as faith in the government, it's not necessarily an issue of faith in the central government, but rather that the system is stable and that the federal government as well as providential and local bodies are legitimate. Again...we need to avoid the proliferation of private groups fighting eachother for control.

I am the first to realize that there are hundreds of years of unrest, however it's surprising how effective a well-managed campaign of information, propiganda, consistant messages and inticements can be in targeting the fickle manner of a population. Won't be easy or happen overnight though.

And things like entertainment and convient/consumer products are a good way of pacifying the population by giving them something tangable to demonstrate progress. It's an issue of making the average joe feel like his life is improved, more comfortable, safer or otherwise better because of the forces at work and to make him feel that fighting the coalition government will only serve to make things worse..


No...the ideas, though relatively simple in their basics would have to translate to some large and more detailed tactics and I'm not saying (at all) that it would be easy.

 

[SezMe]

At this point, I don't have much to add. But I didn't want to abandon the thread without a tip of the hat to Dr. B. for an interesting dialog.

 

[davefoc]

Happy New Year,

We attended a New Years party where many of the people were from Jordan.

A few only slightly relevant things from the party:

1. I talked to one of the men at party about how the Iraq war was affecting Jordan. He said that there had not been any significant spillover of violence but that land prices had soared in Jordan because so many Iraqis were moving in. He said there were about a million immigrants most of whom were Sunni. Many of them have quite a bit of money and had bid of the price of Jordanian land significantly. It was his impression that most of them had little intention of returning to Iraq.

2. There seemed to be only a little talk of the war in the background. It was hard to tell because I don't speak any Arabic. But I noticed one guy who was mentioning Saddam periodically. I asked what he was saying and the translated gist that was reported to me was that he was happy to see Hussein hanged but that he was even less happy with Bush. The evening was entirely peaceful and there was not the slightest hint of the kind of violence that was going on near their homeland until the man I had noticed mentioning Saddam became extremely agitated and angry and had to go outside for a bit to cool off. I don't think this was particularly significant to this discussion but it put a real face on the terrible human tragedy that the US has played such a significant role in.

I wonder if Bushco would have been so keen to goad the Israelis on in the bombing of Lebanon and to try to push them into a Syrian invasion if these guys could identify a little bit more with the people whose lives are being destroyed by their actions.

What I think is particularly sad at this point is that even if there was an underlying rational strategy to their ideas at the beginning of this mess the goals of that strategy are now unreachable.

1. There will be no grand secular democracy in Iraq to serve as a launching platform to spread Democracy throughout the middle east.

2. Iran will be the most influential power in the middle east.

3. The threat of terrorism originating near or in Iraq will be increased as a result of this invasion.

4. The area will be less stable for generations to come as a result of this invasion.

5. The likely existence of WMD in the non-Israeli middle east has now been moved to near certainty of WMD in the middle east in the hands of the Iranians as a result of this war.

6. The lot of the average Iraqi is likely to be worse as a result of this invasion for generations as various fundamentalist wackos vie for control of Iraq until one of them succeeds.

But instead of recognizing the reality of the situation and attempting to deal with it in the best way possible (which I think was the underlying point of Dr. B's ideas) I think Bushco fully intends a stick your head in the ground keep doing the same old thing strategy because that is the strategy that delays for the longest time the need to recognize reality. I have never hoped I was wrong about something more than this, but I am not optimistic. I just hope major chaos can be avoided for the next two years until adults recapture control of the white house.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

I tend to agree with that. I would say the belief that "We can still stabalize iraq and make it a decently safe place to live. And that it can be secured to the point where people don't have to fear for their lives and to the point where business becomes possible. And hopefully have a decently progressing and free nation in a couple decades." I would call that an *optimistic* look at things.


The idea that "This will be an example to the middleeast of freedom and democracy" is more fantasy than optomism.

The practical point right now is that the country is very dangerous and very unstable and many of the citizens are not capable of living any kind of a normal life. This is by far the most pressing issue and something that cannot be ignored.

As I have said, it's the dangers that people feel which make them take up arms and feel as if the US is not helping the situation. The cycle needs to be stopped before it feeds itself anymore. Only then can the values of democracy and government really become a concern.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I do not know the entirety of the terain and would have to study a topographic map. that is an estimate. There are roughly 2000 miles of border, therefore the maximum distance to secure is 2000 miles.

The human terrain is far more critical, once you have done the map study. You have to rely on Iraqi's to do a lot of the screen/guard mission on the border. Therein lies a significant part of the leaking problem.

Perhaps not. In which case the tactics would have to be sold to politicians and citizens. Again, I have not said that it would be done and I think it probably won't be done

On what basis do you make this sale? Again, the current problem isn't the border, nor the much ballyhooed foreign fighters. The problem is predominantly internal. (That would be what the military call the Main Effort.)

No. But do you realize the situation? Extreme problems demand extreme solutions. The famous example is "

"Q: You have a suspect who you know for a fact has a child hidden somewhere in a chamber with limited air supply and who will die in a matter of hours. What do you do to make him talk

A: Anything you have to."

That classroom exercise in mental masturbation is a few orders of magnitude less complex than the political/military situation in Iraq, and is useless as an analogue.

Wow... well obviously you know everything because I can only give you estimates and you know the number. Let me check for you. Okay. The united states has at least 600 C-130's in current service, but that does not include the reserve or ones which are not directly involved in military operations. Plus there are quite a few mothballed in Scottsdale. I'm not sure how long a conversion process to AC-130 takes, but I know it has been done in under a month, although it would require some retooling. So if we are to estimate that there are roughly 1000 C-130s and if half could be used..

The C-130's primary mission is in theater logistics. Your conversion gambit is risisble, thanks for the laugh. The logistic mission is critical to shaping the mission you would try to achieve on the ground. Not all US forces are committed to Iraq, US Military has a global mission, still, no matter that the currently weighted effort is Iraq.

B-52's as CAS? Perhaps, with PGM loads. Other platforms are probably more cost effective, depending on how you structure the mission. Again, the air does you no good without a permissive RoE. I cannot emphasize that enough, that the RoE is politics driven, and without it your air cover can't be used to interdict the border, and, again, the border isn't the center of gravity. Not now, in January of 2007.

No... I do not know the number. However I am quite confident a large enough number of aircraft can be put together.

Uh, huh, and I agree, if you can convince anyone beyond a Hollywood script writer that the border is the Main Effort. I'd like to see you make the case for that to General Casey, Abizaid, or anyone else who has spent any time in Iraq, in the CENTCOM AOR, or in Afghanistan. (where similar but different border problems crop up with Pakistan. )

And don't quote for me the current production rate. When you are in an extreme situation you make it happen, even if it requires using Treasury silver to make wire windings or to use old tank barrels to make bomb casings...

The US industrial base isn't capable of the surge you envision in the short term. Please check General Shoemaker's comments in the past four months about reconstitution of the Army's hardware. USAF and USN air assets are subject to similar resource and industrial capacity constraints.

If firebombing and using nukes were necessary to secure critical objectives and secure national security, then do you doubt we would do so?

If pigs had wings, would they want to fly in bad weather?

Again, the political conditions rule out that option. I will not say that makes me happy, but that is reality. I'd like to have all of CENTCOM's air assets for about a day and Sadr City as an unconstrained target, a free fire zone, but that is as likely as a pig growing wings. OK, slightly more likely, for extremely small values of likely.

Need I remind you that there are over 4,000 nuclear weapons in the active stockpile and many more in the "enduring stockpile." They are there incase they are needed. We don't want to use them, but if it came down to it, we would.

In Iraq? To achieve what political end?

Once again you have shown that one of the solutions I propose to border security, all by itself would not get the job done. I have not proposed this. But rather have proposed it could be part of a much larger system, using aircraft, drones (yes I know we don't currently have enough), fences, manned and unmanned stations, indirect fire, electric fences, sensors, remote weapons.

You mentioned in your first come back to me the matter of expense. Do you understand how expensive that is, if your aim is to secure the border?

I do not know the force levels or the exact rules of engagement other than there is posted warning and possibly audio warnings. Short term or long term would depend primarily on how things progressed.

RoE mean, in this context, conditions under which you will or will not apply fires to a target, and what constitutes a valid and legal target.

This is the initial proposal.

It's a wet dream.


So lets finish here.... of the 7 steps I have proposed, you have managed to find that one of the 7, which has several possible proposed methods of working, cannot work with one of those methods.
I didn't waste my time on the other six, as, I don't have the emotional energy to address them. I didn't find them any better than your border proposal.

Furthermore, you have demonstrated that the proposal is not perfect and could probably not eliminate 100% of the problem.

We agree. *Dons party had, tosses confetti*

Also, since this is not good politics, it clearly is not worth proposing or attempting to sell to politicians or even writing about in a forum online as a brainstorm of what needs to be done...

The brainstorms you seem to presume are not being done are done every effin day in the J8, and the J3, of the Pentagon, and in CENTCOM, and elsewhere.

DR

 

[DRBUZZ0]

#1. I did not propose using nukes or firebombs in Iraq. You seem to think I did, obviously you have the attention span of a flea. It was in response to the idea that there "We don't firebomb/use nukes" as an example of what is not done. I however counter that such stratagies could and would be done if all other options failed.

#2. I have not proposed that the border could be defended by any of the given methods, but by some combination thereof. Nor have I said that it could be 100% sealed. Again, the issue of "critical mass" comes into play. (or are you too stupid to understand, as well, that disorder is self-feeding. Don't make me explain... You're hopeless)

#3. "Do I know how expensive that would be?" Do you know how much money has been spent? Will be spent with the current situation? Expensive as hell is how expensive it would be. Your proposal to do it more cheaply? I'm all ears. Do you really think that there is ANY chance of getting out of


this without spending BILLIONS possibly TRILLIONS of dollars

#4. The ROE? I have addressed the fact that I am not gona write the goddamned blueprints for the whole damn thing before even proposing the initial response.

Let me tell you a story. There once was a man named Joe. Joe was a brilliant statistician. Joe loved RoE's. He obsessed over RoE's. Joe would write out complicated RoE's before the basic stratagy was even formulated. Joe was not a very good secertary of defense.

Now what's the moral of this story: The RoE's are best made based on the situation and by military officials, with feedback from the troops engaged.

Incase you did not understand that.

Joe should have not made the RoE's right off the bat, but rather said to his experienced pilots "What is happening there and what sort of RoE's are needed"

Or to put it another way...

The beancounters are not the best ones to set such things.


Or even...

Give the commanders the flexibility to control the situation.

God...I hope you can understand that. If not, get an adult to help you read it.


No...I do not know what the RoE's would break down to. I do not know what the service life of the bearings in an AC-130 are. I do not know what voltage the map-reading light on a B-52 operates on. I do not know what the terain is for all 2000 miles. Sorry....I guess this means I can't propose anything. I will get back to you when I find out.


#5. Do I think that the pentagon brainstorms this sort of thing? I have yet to hear a consistant stratagy that is signifficantly different than what is being done now or to pull the troops out.

#5. You have NOT demonstrated that one proposal (one of the less important ones) could not be done by one of the methods. You have proven that one of the proposals could not be achieved 100% by one of the methods alone. If you are proposing that a combination of all methods proposed, as well as others would be completely incapable of providing comprehensive, but not complete security to the borders, then I will have to disagree.

In hindsight, I am sorry that I made proposal 7 as it seems to be disproportionately read. No I do not propose getting all the avaliable large aircraft converted to border patrol. I propose that ac-130s, combined with manned, unmanned, sensor and other defenses can tighten the border. I am glad you have laughed.... Do you also smile and clap your hands when you see something shiny?

The RoE's? (again...the border not being the main focus...but the 7th of 7 proposals). Basically would allow for shooting of large vehicles or suspicious acitivities after a warning by audio and/or signs flares.

No I cannot define suspicious and how the warnining would be made. Again I do not know all the details. I do not know the operating voltage of the lamps in a C-130.

Yes...I've said the same thing a few times. Maybe you've caught it once?

Again...
NO I DO NOT PROPOSE THAT BORDER SECURITY CAN BE ACHIEVED BY ONE METHOD ALONE OR THAT BORDER SECURITY CAN BE ACHIEVED TO 100%

Also...

NO I DO NOT PROPOSE THAT BORDER SECURITY CAN BE ACHIEVED BY ONE METHOD ALONE OR THAT BORDER SECURITY CAN BE ACHIEVED TO 100%

And incase you missed that one

NO I DO NOT PROPOSE THAT BORDER SECURITY CAN BE ACHIEVED BY ONE METHOD ALONE OR THAT BORDER SECURITY CAN BE ACHIEVED TO 100%




Sir, you have no need to resort to the "Wet dream" philosophy, as I am well aware that these strategies and tactics have little, if any chance of getting through politically.

I have proposed that they would be the effective way of solving the problem. Similarly, one could propose an effective way of getting to mars. It will not be done, because it would be too expensive and risky to get by politically, but that does not mean you cannot say "here's the way you would get to mars."

Clearly, however, you are so stuck on the idea that it is a "wet dream" eventhough the term actually refers to an involentary nocternal emission, often caused by hormonal changes (and having nothing to do with tactics).


Now, another example of a proposal which would not have any political chance would be Eugenics. Primarly because the Nazis gave it a very bad name with their whole Master Race thing.

While I would not necessarily support Eugenics, you should certainly be glad that it is not politically feisable. Obviously, if such policies were in act, then those who are less desirable (stupid) like you would, at the very least, be quarenetted.



Now let us review: You have decided that I am entirely wrong, because I do not have the entire RoE's written for all situations for one of the sub-points of a given proposal and therefore all proposals are wrong.

 

[Darth Rotor]

#1. I did not propose using nukes or firebombs in Iraq. You seem to think I did, obviously you have the attention span of a flea.

Your throw away was the "desperate times need desperate measures" line, not mine. What was I supposed to infer from that, Dr B? With your comment on the need to sell a more bloody set of RoE to the politicians to politically enable the methods you were suggesting, what was I supposed to infer?

As I saw your remarks, you wanted to up the butcher's bill, and part of the reason why you wanted that was because measures in place did not, and do not, seem to be effective. I tend to agree with you on that, if the long term aim is increasing stability (which is the aim of SASO) and acting as an enabling effort to the increased suport for "democracy" in Iraq. That's in the mission statement, by the way, or was a couple of years ago. I don't see a good reason for removing that, since the political aim has not, in that regard, changed.

While I appreciate that you sincerely want to find a way to polish this turd in Iraq, there are literally hundreds of professionals, both in uniform and out, who work at this problem day in and day out. They are not amateurs, like yourself, nor has beens, like me. (I never went too far beyond Theater Level strat anyway, very scarce national level stuff in my CV.)

So, even though you are not on the distro for "the memo" that shows you the churning of the gears, the wargaming, the briefs that get shot down in Congress, CENTCOM, White House, Pentagon, J Staff, or the ones that get accepted, it goes on every day. And guys like me, or like I once was, go gray and spend a lot of days not seeing their families going back to the drawing board, yet again, to give some guy in a suit what he thinks he might want. I don't care that no one emails you the perfect plan Dr B (there is no such animal), there are people I know and trust who work their balls off each day to make one. One funny old thing is that that no matter how many Senators get the brief, there are always a few who bitch and whine about it. Each year, a few more of the folks with their noses to the grindstone leave, or retire, some satisfied and some bitter. And another guy or gal fills the billet and gives it his or her best.

It's sorta funny, Dr B. Some guy in a suit wants something, and asks a guy with a gun to get it for him. That's a very simplistic way to look at the US version of the military-political interface, and sounds like a Mario Puzo novel. It is also redolent of Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket" observation.

The RoE I keep harping on are but a single problem, yet a critical one, in the uses of military suasion to achieve a political end. One tiny variable in a huge, multi-variable problem.

Let's get back to basics, Dr B.

The problem set is daily reducing the percentage of problems that are suitably addressed by ironmongery in Iraq. This is a direct result of a cascading series of decisions and events that were initiated in the Spring of 2003.

How many feet do you want in the tar baby? What do you think should be the US strategic exposure everywhere else on Earth, for the sake of a tar baby in Iraq? How many logistic missions do you want to scrap elsewhere on Earth to put three more AC-130's together?

I trust the J staff and the staffs on the services, and the combatant commanders, to come up with some decent options for all of that.

It still has to get by some mother's son in a suit. And that's been the problem since mid 2002 with Iraq, hasn't it, Dr B?

DR