Whatever is wrong with #2: Calling it a War for Oil

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Sikander


I don't agree that the U.S. wants to only have Europe be a loyal vassal, though I'm certain there are people who want this in pursuit of short term interest. In the long term though we want Europe to treat with us as equals who often have similar goals in the world, and are capable of carrying their portion of the load, including and especially the ability to act militarily in their own interest independentlywhen necessary.

Who is "we"?

Both the Clinton and Bush admin have tried everything they can (which is very little, apart from slapping their poodle) to undermine a common european defense policy.

[The Mad Monk]

So, what happens if we go in there, and make the Iraqis open the oil floodgates?

This would be in regard to our economy, the world economy, and the OPEC economies.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


Who is "we"?

Both the Clinton and Bush admin have tried everything they can (which is very little, apart from slapping their poodle) to undermine a common european defense policy.

I thought by now you realized that I speak for the American people, the opinions and actions of the temporary residents of the White House (and for that matter of a few raving lunatics on this board) notwithstanding.

[HershOstropoler]

How many think this way? Or rather, how many think about this at all?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
How many think this way? Or rather, how many think about this at all?

I think a fair percentage of those who think about it at all feel this way. Many are cowed by the strident opinions of those who have a short term agenda, but if you ask the question free from the constraints of the immediate I think most will back me up.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Sikander
I don't agree that the U.S. wants to only have Europe be a loyal vassal, though I'm certain there are people who want this in pursuit of short term interest. In the long term though we want Europe to treat with us as equals who often have similar goals in the world, and are capable of carrying their portion of the load, including and especially the ability to act militarily in their own interest independentlywhen necessary. We see much of Europe as having spent decades under our protection and having developed an unrealistic view of the world, as if any other portion of the globe has the sort of security provided by the Atlantic alliance, much less the shared values and economic strength that make the rest of the growth of the European Community possible.

I speak for the American people, the opinions and actions of the temporary residents of the White House (and for that matter of a few raving lunatics on this board) notwithstanding.

I wish I could agree with you, but the display of hate against France and Germany (but now only France) I have seen on the American media, and in some lunatics of these boards who claim they're not alone, makes me feel differently.

Basically, the surge of hate happened simply because two of your allies vocally disagreed with an offensive war they didn't even have to back or agree with. Of course, there is the argument "we've done so much for them, can't they be thankful just for once ?". It led me to believe most Americans truly believe your allies should always support you. In the name of thankfulness for your protection, they have to follow you blindly. This is exactly my definiton of a vassal.

[HershOstropoler]

Sikander:

"who often have similar goals in the world, and are capable of carrying their portion of the load, including and especially the ability to act militarily in their own interest independentlywhen necessary."

That is a possible outcome of America's relative decline and the need to cut back on its strategic commitments. The other scenario is that the current alienation turns into a strategic rivalry. Unless you (american citizens) retake control of your political system, I think the second scenario is more likely.

"We see much of Europe as having spent decades under our protection and having developed an unrealistic view of the world, as if any other portion of the globe has the sort of security provided by the Atlantic alliance"

You have to admit that those who frame US "security" policy live in a fantasy world. As for security, EU-Europe is currently for the first time in its history in a situation where it is practically safe from internal war and invasion. A situation enjoyed by the US from 1800 on, which was the hightime of the classic liberal view on international relations, now replaced with this pseudorealist brain****ing.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
So are you pro-war or anti-war, DD?

DD doesn't have opinions, he plays safe by sniping from the sidelines. He used to have opinions but he had to change his name to get himself a clean slate - if you know what I mean...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
He used to have opinions but he had to change his name to get himself a clean slate

From what?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sikander
Would you deploy these as divisions, or use them as subdividable components of an ad hoc system of force creation? I would tend to think that two types of division would be preferable, Heavy and Light.

I would create and deploy these new divisions as composite divisions - we have six heavy divisions, two light and two airborne/airmobile already, and each has it's own advantages and disadvantages.

What I'm looking for is a stabilization force that can be used to occupy places like Afghanistan, where the locals are unreliable and have their own agendas and rivalries, or Iraq, where long-term occupation by a flexible force is necessary if/when we knock over Saddam and try to impose some functional government.

Heavy divisions have great firepower, but they're slow to deploy, require a lot of materiel support, and they're limited in the types of terrain where they can operate. They're capital intensive as hell to raise, and we have limited hardware available, so new production of many major equipment types would be necessary.

Airborne or airmobile divisions are too training intensive (we can't shove that many people through training in any realistic timeframe, no matter how much we expand the schools) and too transport intensive, making their operating cost high.

Light division are just a bit too light, and also air transport and artillery limited.

The idea behind the composite division is to mix and match capabilities and cost, but in the same command structure so that the light and heavy sides get used to working closely together and coordinating to best use all their capabilities.

MOBIUS - DD has opinions, and they're not too hard to figure out. They're just different from yours.

[DinoDoc]

/me goes back to deciphering MtG's unexpected response to his last question

Can I have the 10 cent version of that? Ideally, what would you like to have seen Bush II do wrt Iraq? We can save the armed forces reorganization for later. I'll be likely forced to agree with you on that point.

[SlowwHand]

Why, oh why do some people keep insisting this is a "war for oil" ?
I can only surmise that their fat heads are too big to withdraw from their anal orifice.

[HershOstropoler]

It would be more interesting to hear MtG's suggestion of what us Euros should do with the 150-200 billion $ we spend on defense for the forces mostly sitting around.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I agree with Sikander that Bush I should have handled it, or Clinton. 12 years of sanctions hasn't slowed Saddam's reorganization of his forces much, and it hasn't cost him control of the country, so sanctions should have been lifted in most areas years ago. Right now, he's a hero in much of the "arab on the street" world (not the world of arab governments and elites) for his giving the west the finger. Seriously, you've got to admire the man's panache and resilience, despite his legion of faults - Hollywood couldn't create a better villain.

Although I'd get rid of economic sanctions, I'd keep the bit about reparations to Kuwait, and protection of the Kurds and Shiites. Reparations could have been handled by a form of lien against oil sales - even tell Saddam, "OK, we'll lift the sanctions, but we're going to take X percent of your oil revenue to fund the reparations to Kuwait until it's paid off." Saddam doesn't have to be cooperative with that, since the claims would have the force of international law, and be enforced at the purchaser side of the transaction, where the money is.


Dealing with NBC weapons development is fairly straightforward - like anyone else, including the Al Qaeda County Animal Shelter, developing bio and chemical weapons is damned hard to stop - but if someone verifiably deploys them, anywhere, you can send him to hell, with a much clearer and less ambiguous casus belli.

The crap that George II spewed about Iraqi ship-launched UAV's flying with spray rigs hundreds of miles into the US without being detected is just too absurd.

Nuclear weapons are a different story - the Israelis already showed how to deal with that when they took care of the O'Chirac reactor. Nukes are big factory intensive things, despite Clancy novels and movies, and their production facilities are pretty identifiable.

Despite the propaganda about Saddam being a rogue dictator who attacks his neighbors, he's only a rogue in terms of being the US's boy. His casus belli for attacking Iran was a good one, and he tried to avoid that fight for a while, but there was no avoiding it without becoming Khomeini's *****. Nobody liked the Kuwaitis, and Saddam had good reason to be pissed, it was just a bit heavy handed to invade them. He got punished for it, so that was a pretty clear example of effective deterance. Despite the indignity of O'Chirac, Saddam didn't do much to Israel, and his Scud games in Gulf War I were pretty token - he sure as hell didn't use chemical warheads he was known to possess.

In my view, Saddam was always deterable after the ass-whooping handed to him, but the whole drawn out sanctions bit has given him (and the US/UN) way too much an ego stake in the confrontation over sanctions, so it's a no-win situation for us to walk away from sanctions now. IMO, we basically painted ourselves into a corner by maintaining open-ended sanctions this long.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
It would be more interesting to hear MtG's suggestion of what us Euros should do with the 150-200 billion $ we spend on defense for the forces mostly sitting around.

Why, turn them over to our command, like good colonials, of course.