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

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
I was under the impression that it was Rumsfeld, et al., who were the driving forces behind turning our military into a lightweight terrorist-centered fighting force only, Sikander.

WRT the topic at hand, I empathize with the families. If any of us in this thread had lost a loved one on Sept. 11, 2001, I think we'd be able to identify more closely with where the families are coming from.

Gatekeeper

It was Rumsfield but the good news is this is only his latest buzz word and there is virtually no meaningful things he wishes to change. Has the Army cancelled the purchase of a single tank? Has the Navy cancelled the purchase of a single submarine? I'm sure Rummy has a excuse as to why those are needed more to fight terrorism then say... oh... an additional 100,000 troops in Iraq & Afghanistan.

As is typical this buzz word talk is all about appearing to do something while actually doing nothing new.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Jaguar
I'm with DRose here.

[Fake Boris]

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.

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.

[SlowwHand]

You mean like the thread's author and the families?

[Adagio]

So what was the final memorial going to be? Just some wholes in the ground with their names in?

[SlowwHand]

Below ground. So yeah. A hole in the ground.

[Adagio]

Sounds like a bad memorial

They should build some tall (and beautiful) buildings there again, otherwise it's just a win for the terrorists

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Sikander


Sorry for the long and rambling post!

Don't apologize -- I thought your post was very informative, yet concise.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
That's probably one of the worst things I've read on this board, and that's saying something.

I'm presuming I must be on your ignore list then?

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Sikander
Rumsfeld has toppled two states and killed relatively few terrorists. His idea was to substitute firepower and staying power on the ground for fast troops who can be deployed more easily and would be hard to pin down into linear combat.

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.

The vast improvement in the efficacy of air power since the development of the satelite guided bomb was meant to replace some of the lost ground based firepower. If he was interested in only fighting terrorists there would be no need at all for combat forces organized to fight as brigades.

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.

The 911 commission had its biggest impact on the intelligence and law enforcement agencies in terms of organization and the defense in terms of general anti-terrorist strategy. I think in general their suggested policies are losers.

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.

The focus on terrorism alone has undoubtedly reduced the ability of the constituent agencies in Homeland Security to do their "real" jobs (except perhaps for the border patrol).

One acronymn: FEMA.

Defending against terrorism by hardening every possible target is another losing proposition. It's financially ruinous even to defend every important target from established means of terrorist attack. Even if we could afford it we would learn to our horror that terrorists by their very nature are much more agile than states and will find new ways to skin the cat.

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.

The advantages of the state are primarily size, which means that a state can withstand a long war of attrition much more easily than an extremist group and can take advantage of economies of scale in the battle of ideas. While some of this was acknowledged in the hearings no really useful ideas, models or commitments to information warfare were put forward by the commission.

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.

Terrorists biggest weakness is their inability to defend themselves even from relatively weak military forces. They must be able to conceal themselves at all times in order to avoid being wiped out, and the more time they spend trying to remain concealed, the less they have to do everything else.

Agreed.

Bush is a fvck up in so many ways, but this strategy of attack is really the only realistic military strategy to combat terrorism. It can't win the war in all likelihood, but combined with a good and sustained information warfare campaign it can succeed in the long run.

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.

Hopefully the next president maintains the offensive strategy militarily. S/he almost can't help but improve the opinion of people overseas toward the U.S., but a critical part of that is to retain the respect of the many people who only respect power or force.

It's a balancing act that's currently out of whack.

The reorganization of the intelligence agencies is a work in progress, but imo there seems to be a focus on terrorism almost to the exclusion of anything else in regards to the changes. I find this particularly worrisome in the face of the abject failure of the intelligence agencies in Iraq prior to the war (and subsequently to a lessor extent).

Does politicication of these said agencies worry you? It worries me big time. Perhaps it's easy for me to say, not being the president and all, but I'd want genuine information coming from my underlings, untinged by politics. (I'm thinking of some charges made after the start of the Iraq war that Bush, et al., wanted justification for the invasion, even if the facts didn't support their reasoning.)

Given the potential for more or less immediate trouble from states like North Korea and Iran and the long term threat from a broad swath of states who have adopted reflexive anti-americanism as their primary foreign and domestic policy it seems that monitoring states more effectively has to be a priority in order to make up for the much larger number of states who could make real rather than rhetorical trouble for the U.S. should they decide to do so.

Especially so if terrorist groups can find havens w/i these nations.

Again better managing our image abroad is the key to minimizing the payoff for governments like Chavez's in Venezuela to play the U.S. card.

True. Then again, assuming true democracy survives in those nations (Cuba not included), perhaps folks will vote Chavez, et al., out of power in the years ahead if he doesn't deliver the goods, so to speak.

Sorry for the long and rambling post!

We all do it from time to time. On a more serious note, check out the writings by Joseph Galloway, a military correspondent with Knight Ridder Newspapers. He writes columns that are quite thought-provoking from time to time.

Gatekeeper

[Gatekeeper]

Oerdin:

Heh. Well, Rumsfeld *did* manage to cancel the next-gen Crusader howitzer platform. And I think they're trying to pare down the models of next-gen fighter aircraft as well.

Gatekeeper

P.S. Oh, and I hear the Pentagon finally gave the green light to the $19 billion Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft program. First squadron is supposed to be upa and running in the field by the end of the year, I think.

[DRoseDARs]

Are "up" and "running" the proper words to be using?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MrFun

Don't apologize -- I thought your post was very informative, yet concise.

My god, you are the editor I've been looking for my whole life!

[SlowwHand]

Many seem to forget this will be a national monument.

[Spec]

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

hum hum....That would be me....

Spec.