"Sept. 11th Families" whining again about the memorial...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper

He should just bite the bullet and permanently increase the size of the armed forces. That way he can have his cake (the mobile, easily deployed troops) and eat it, too (the heavy stuff needed to take, hold and pacify territory), rather than just one or the other, as it seemingly is now.

That said, I also know that not all the military chiefs have been supportive of that idea, saying the personnel they have now are sufficient for the task at hand — I won't venture a guess as to how many of these brass are there due more to their politics and connections than actual worth, since I'm an armchair "general" myself. Personally, I think Rumsfeld's grand plan is in a boatload of trouble if another state — say, Iran or North Korea — get serious about throwing a wrench in U.S. policies.

I've always felt, even during the latter part of the Cold War that our ground troop strength was too low. Sure, it's plenty for defensive operations and even plenty for offensive operations where we don't have to govern the area, but it's obviously not enough force to secure / pacify a population large enough to want to mess with us in the first place. This problem is exacerbated by the high degree of professionalism of our armed forces. It takes years to field a formation as competent as the rest of our forces. It cracks me up to hear people complain about the slow progress in building the Iraqi military, particularly when they remark that an infantryman is produced in 12 weeks of basic training. What they don't account for of course are the NCOs, officers, and the rather huge number of specialists required to run even a modestly modern army. An infantryman without leadership, supplies, intelligence or heavy weapons support has a very limited value.

For the U.S. there is resistance to increasing the force structure because it is expensive and temporary. A carrier lasts for decades and lines the pockets of numerous companies in numerous congressional districts, while a competent intelligence man is difficult to find, recruit and retain and provides a limited political payoff only where he is currently based.

Originally posted by Gatekeeper


I'm probably just an alarmist, but is it such a good idea to put all of our eggs in one basket (i.e. relying so heavily on satellite technology)? God knows, Mother Nature doesn't always cooperate, what with rain, clouds and sandstorms (among other things). And more and more states are gaining the ability to play havoc with our space-based assets. I guess my theme is, it's better to have boots on the ground when it really counts.

I agree that we need systems with overlapping capabilities in order to deal with all sorts of contingencies. That said it was precisely the inability for various other targeting systems (in particular painting targets with lasers) that led us to develop satellite guided bombs. It's also important to keep in mind that other targeting systems often also rely on satellites to function, so in many instances we've reduced our vulnerability as well as costs by simplification. As long as we retain a strong artillery capability for our ground troops I think we're better off for the development of satellite guided bombs. Just keeping the B-52 in service is almost reward enough.

Originally posted by Gatekeeper

We really should be inspecting cargo aboard planes and in ports more often, though. Although I'm not sure our just-in-time economy could handle it.

Imo it's really more important to seem as though we are doing a real intensive inspection regimen than it is to actually do it. If people think that it's hard to smuggle things into the U.S. they are likely not to bother and instead will build / acquire things here. Once people begin to try to beat the system it's only a matter of time before they find a way. I'm all for doing whatever is cheap, mysterious and seemingly foolproof. Expensive half measures are money down the drain. The drug war interdiction efforts are a good example of the latter.

Originally posted by Gatekeeper

Hmm. So what's the best way to spend the Homeland Security money states and localities are getting? I'd think educating key personnel — law enforcement, medical/firefighting — and providing them with emergency equipment, but that's the current modus operandi, and it has hit-and-miss results (just look at New Orleans). I know truck drivers have been targeted for "education" by HS, with bus drivers recently joining that trend.

I'd spend most of this effort trying to fix the K-12 education system honestly. If successful that will do far more for this country than all this other sh!t. Realistically it would be hard to stop this enormous pork barell project, and some value is gained from the perception that we're ready to rock and roll, particularly in the security of important targets like refineries, transportation junctions etc. Other than that I'd demand as much dual / multiple use stuff as possible. A Hazmat team is more useful generally than a bomb squad for instance as it can respond to a simple chemical truck accident, while in any situation a bomb squad can respond to an evacuation could also be organized and a bomb squad called in from further away. I'd like to see more federal and regional control over the money in any event, but that of course minimizes the pork potential greatly.

Originally posted by Gatekeeper

FWIW, I think we need to create a new part of the military that focuses *solely* on post-combat operations pacification and rebuilding. It should include personnel who can speak the langue and adapt, culturally, to the area that's slated to be pacified. If anyone could do it, it'd be a state, but even then it'd take years to build up a division or two (or more) of such specialized personnel.

Combine that with a "sledgehammer approach" to combat operations — i.e., better to have too much firepower than just the right amount or, worse, too little — and we might have been able to avoid most of the crap that's exploding in Iraq right now.

I've wanted to devote a division (at current force levels at least) or more just to peace keeping and stabilization operations for a long time now. Most of the time it could do all of these operations for us while hopefully developing a high degree of skill. When necessary (such as in Iraq) it could serve as the cadre for the development of a larger force of peace keepers / stabilization forces. Guard and Reserve component forces would be best utilized to fill the gaps here rather than in heavy combat forces because age tends to an advantage in these operations, and much less so in heavy combat operations.

Additional heavy combat forces wouldn't have helped in Iraq nearly as much as huge numbers of MPs in the early days of chaos. The tempo of the attack made getting them into position and supplying them (assuming that they existed in the first place, which they didn't) problematic at best however. Of course it is quite possible that if such a unit did exist the attack would have been conducted differently. They certainly would have come into their own by the time we took Baghdad.

Originally posted by Gatekeeper

And this is where we run into the nebulous thing known as public opinion. Personally, I'm not sure the U.S. populace can conceive of sustaining a decades-long military effort against shaowy terrorists. It's not the same as facing down the Soviet Union and her allies. The one way I could see it working is if, from time to time, terrorists actually got through our defenses and blew up some soft, stateside targets. That might strengthen the resolve of enough Americans to put up with a 20- or 30-year burden, but, boy, talk about a helluva price to pay.

We need to make clear that terrorism is simply a war crime no matter who does it while we also make clear that we oppose the sort of "Islamofascism" personified by the Taliban and AQ. To the extent their ideology keeps going we need to be on its ass. The double edged sword of long term conflict is that both sides tend to become more alike as the conflict drags on, which is good for the Arabs and Pakistanis etc. and bad for us. At this point I don't see how we can't at least fight the war of ideas (such as it is) as vigorously as possible.

Got to go, thanks for the chat....

[MosesPresley]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Many seem to forget this will be a national monument.

You would think that $1.8 million payoff to each would have been enough.

[Gatekeeper]

You're a good chap to chat with, Sikander.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Congrats. You are officially in the runoffs for Most Heartless Bastard.

He's a liberal, what do you expect?

[DRoseDARs]

They don't call us "bleeding heart" liberals for nothing, we've gotta bleed ourselves dry sometime...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


I see that you are one of those who can't make the difference between allowing others to voice their opinions and agreeing with them.

Deriding what the families of 9/11 victims believe to be their legitimate concerns as mere "whining" seems to imply that they ought to keep their mouths shut.

But that's just my impression from the OP.

[DRoseDARs]

As I already pointed out, their "security concerns" are all horse-pucky meant, once again, to short-circuit the design process. They can all be easily counted or better-prepared for, or might even be less of a concern or at least better controlled with an underground project than an open-air. And as Sloww succinctly pointed out, this is supposed to be a national monument, not the "Sept. 11th Families"(tm) own personal, private memorial/soapbox. This is a public project and they are certainly welcome to give their input as such, but as a group they've done nothing but incessantly deride the whole process (it being a rush job notwithstanding; I've already pointed out my problem with that aspect). Hell, I suspect many didn't want ANYTHING rebuilt on the entire site, but gave up that quixotic fight in favor of trying to undermine the project at every turn. Quite frankly, I find the simplicity of the footprints being left open, undergrade, and bearing the names of the dead to be very appropriate much like the Vietnam Memorial. I don't see what is so damned insulting to the victims about the proposal (or the existing Vietnam monument). A flashy memorial would strike me as both tacky and celebrating their deaths. If the "Sept. 11th Families"(tm) want to reorganize to be the voices of the public to provide our collective input on this matter, that's one thing, but that isn't what they're doing. They're acting like only THEY are allowed to have any input.

[MrFun]

Ok, Drose, that's more reasonable -- if the families are merely talking about what they think should be done, rather than take more direct action to participate in the decision-making process, I see your point.

But are the families even allowed to be part of the decision-making process? That's what I would like to know.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MrFun
I think the families of 9/11 victims are very much entitled to their own opinion -- no matter if one agrees or disagrees with them.

You certainly don't have denigrate their loss by calling them "whining fanatics" or what have you. I think the families of the victims have every right to voice how they wish the public to remember the tragic losses that day.

QFT

[Sava]

and we are just as entitled to our opinions


and speaking for myself, I wasn't denigrating their loss, I was denigrating their whining

[lord of the mark]

rereading the original quote i notice two things

1. Its not only the families, its also the police and firefighters unions. NY Police and firefighters lost something as entities that day, and were heroic that day. And police and firefighters have (sadly) long experience with memorials. I think their contribution could be valuable

2. I dont see them insisting on the only voice, or whining. I see them asking for something different.
Which seems quite reasonable to me.


I frankly dont understand the intensity of the reaction here.

[Sava]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I frankly dont understand the intensity of the reaction here.

well, for me, it's because it seems like every time there is a memorial proposal, these people come out of the woodwork and whine about it

and frankly, I'm sick of it

There is no pleasing these people. They are completely ungrateful. And IMO, it seems like they don't care about the victims of 9-11, but rather, they only seek media attention for themselves.

[DRoseDARs]

Let me try putting it another way: If I'm not mistaken, the WTC site is not owned by the government, and therefore not owned by "the people" of our republic; it is privately owned. The owners are WELL within their rights to not do jack for "we the people" in terms of building or even providing space for any sort of memorial. Obviously, this kind of stance wouldn't go over well with anyone and would quickly be shut down. I haven't followed the process for a few years (got fed up with it since it became obvious early on that it would be a rushjob instead of well thought out), but it seems like the owners are still within their rights to bring in their own artists and architects to design a memorial. That anyone on the outside, nevermind the "Sept. 11th Families"(tm), gets to provide any kind of input is on the whims of the owners. As I already mentioned, this should have been delayed for a few years, but a public design process should have been started and actually listened to and considered (there was one, but it was neither listened to nor considered ... entirely for touchy-feely show, no substance). Failing that, letting a group of artists and architects design a memorial themselves with NO outside input is perhaps the fairest approach. I don't like it, but it does seem a more sensible approach.

[GePap]

The families are certainly able to voice their opinions, but their opinion should have no greater weight in the discussion than the opinions of any of the other "stakeholders" to use modern parlance, in the development of that site.

Ground Zero is a vast space of land in the middle of the governmental and financial core of the largest city in the US. Its development has been slowed down too much already. Its been four years plus, and gorund zero remains a huge gapping hole in the ground. It is depressing to walk by, even now that the crowds are gone.

A Memorial is important, but its more important to think about the future, what will be, and how coming egenrations will juse that site than making it a vast site commemorating death. Most things built on that site will probably still be standing 200 years from now, when the memories of those who died, no matter how fancy the memorial, will have faded.

Also on a style issue- none of the meorial designs were particulalrly evocative, but something bellow ground level can certainly be more effective than above ground. I think the Vietnam Memorial is far more evocative of sacrifice than the WW2 memorial.

[DRoseDARs]

For the most part I agree.