Even the realpolitik types have had enough

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
And we need to limit our commitment of forces until we have that force level.

[Sigh] And I thought you were arguing against the idea of One World Empire.

Now it seems, you are arguing for 'We-need-a-bit-more-time-and-less-mistakes-so-when-we-finally-take-over-we-don´t-fail'. Reminds me of the more intelligent generals of the Third Reich.

Your only difference to the Hurrah! crowd may actually be that you are more dangerous.

But I still prefer your posts a lot to the posts of the [censored], the [censored], and the seriously [censored].

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
BTW, CT, you need to do some good thinking of your own. If the US got pushed to the wall, and was limited in ground forces, we have other tools in the toolbox. The body counts could get real nasty.

I know; but there is a grey zone where you couldn´t use ground troops, and wouldn´t use WMDs, so there may be a window of opportunity for anybody/state clever enough to use it.

North Korea is already proving my point, sort of.

[DinoDoc]

The title is starting to irritate me.

[chequita guevara]

CT, MtG is one of those, we shouldn't do it but if we're gonna do it we should do it right folks.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The title is starting to irritate me.

You mean the reference to realism? Read the letter again. He's not saying that the war is bad, or that saddam should be left in power, or that he's secretly french. He's saying that the fundamental goal of foreign policy should be to pursue US interests, even at th expense of ideology. That's a classic realist position. His argument with the Administratioin is that their method of dealing with Iraq (and our allies) is putting ideology ahead of national interests; that they are willing to do long-term damage to US power and prestige, to say nothing of destabilizing a key world region, all for purposes that are largely partisan and political. Even his reference to wilson is not a reference to Wilsonian idealism, but instead to Wilson's internationalism -- a point-of-view now so mainstream that it seems strange that it was "new" within living memory, and to which realists subscribe. (Isolationists, by contrast, tend to be ideologues.)

[CICSMaster]

About damn time too!

If the USA acted more out of idealism than 'interests', then perhaps some of the critism could not be justified.

It seems there are many more people on this board that like idealism over the money grubbing of interests.

[The Mad Monk]

MtG is the most dangerous man on the forum.

[chequita guevara]

Why is Bush ignoring the crisis on the Korean peninsula?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Now it seems, you are arguing for 'We-need-a-bit-more-time-and-less-mistakes-so-when-we-finally-take-over-we-don´t-fail'. Reminds me of the more intelligent generals of the Third Reich.

Danke.

Your only difference to the Hurrah! crowd may actually be that you are more dangerous.

I focus a lot more on long-term goals, which are mostly non-military; the military being simply a tool for removal of er, um, roadblocks on the way to achieving those goals.

Seriously, for example, right now I'd have a much larger military and financial commitment in Afghanistan, with a real emphasis on nation-building and trust building with as broad a segment as possible of the population. Some *******s like Hekmatyar you just can't deal with, so they'd need to be hunted down, but I'd rather contain him with US force, and accelerate training of Afghan forces so they reach a point of being able to secure their own country. We need to do that to find an exit point in Afghanistan, and we need the combination of nation-building and physical departure to gain credibility in the Islamic world.

With Iraq, for the time being, I'm willing to rely on a combination of military deterrence and the current inspection regime. For the time being.

I know; but there is a grey zone where you couldn´t use ground troops, and wouldn´t use WMDs, so there may be a window of opportunity for anybody/state clever enough to use it.

I wasn't thinking WMDs (yet) - we have enough airpower, where we could really pound any major threat to hell, if we used it to it's maximum capability. The big difference is that the higher the sense of a threat to our security, the more Americans will tolerate more aggressive and heavy-handed responses to those threats.

North Korea is already proving my point, sort of.

Yeah, Dear ******* Kim is the biggest reason I don't want to see a decisive commitment of US forces in Iraq right now. The whole "win-hold-win" strategy based around 12 Army divisions (we now have only ten) was based on an Iraq-Korea scenario, and was abandoned as unworkable. We can't commit enough to win in one area (especially with the requirement of occupation and administration), and have enough to hold in the other. The RoKs could certainly hold their own with the US forces in place, but it would be bloody, and Seoul would likely be trashed, with a horrifying level of civilian casualties.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
MtG is the most dangerous man on the forum.

Why thank you. I do try.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Some *******s like Hekmatyar you just can't deal with,...
***
I wasn't thinking WMDs (yet) - we have enough airpower, where we could really pound any major threat to hell, if we used it to it's maximum capability.
***
The whole "win-hold-win" strategy based around 12 Army divisions (we now have only ten) was based on an Iraq-Korea scenario, and was abandoned as unworkable. We can't commit enough to win in one area (especially with the requirement of occupation and administration), and have enough to hold in the other.

When I told you that Hekmatyar is back (about half a year ago), people said they don´t believe me, and that I am trolling.

About the air power: Dunno. You need a staging ground for a major air campaign, and, against an entrenched enemy, efficiency is in doubt. You killed many Serb civilians, but only 13 Serb tanks...

About the only ten divisions: I didn´t know your plight is that bad. My condolences!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why is Bush ignoring the crisis on the Korean peninsula?

For the exact reason we are trying to get Iraq. They got nukes. If Iraq got nukes, there wouldn't be a chance in Hell we'd be thinking about war. Nukes makes a country almost untouchable.

[KrazyHorse]

Imran, you do know that while this may be a good idea in the short term it's suicide in the long term, right?

Every other country that may at some point be on the US' hit parade can see this implication. And they won't wait till you're knocking down their door.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well duh, but EVERY country knows that nukes make them untouchable. Why do you think Pakistan and India did it? For kicks? It pushes them into another stratosphere.

The implication is already well known.

[KrazyHorse]

BS. Most countries used to think that in general it was better to stay away from getting nukes. India and Pakistan pushed each other over the edge. They would probably have gone regardless of US foreign policy, unless tensions between them could have been kept low.

But now a country like Iran knows damn well that a) nobody bothered to keep the sanctions against India and Pakistan for any significant amount of time, dropping them without getting them to come back into compliance...and b) that the negative consequences of not having nukes are a hell of a lot closer than they're comfortable with.

So say goodbye to NPT.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What's the I.R.R.?

The Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR) they are people who have recently left the serves but to whom the Governmnet reserves the right to recall to military service should there be a war. Everyone who leaves the military is enrolled (even if they don't want to) into the IRR and can legally be forced back into the service if the president signs the correct paper work.

Normally your in the IRR for 2 years after seporation from the service but this number can also be changed when ever it suits the President. That's why Eisenhower could force a recall of WW2 vets to fight in Korea even though most of them had been out for 4 or more years. Sucks, huh?