Fighting Terror by Attacking ... South America?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Got dumped last night.

That sucks, man.




flakes

[Imran Siddiqui]

I can just see the surprise of... well, just about everyone, as 9/11 leads to an attack on Venezuala .

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The administration wasn't really concerned with were the Muslim terrorists were and half of the dumb asses in the administration were so ignorant they wouldn't know a Muslim from a Hindu. The only concern of these sick stupid ****s was how they could some how twist this to their advantage. Thus we got the invasion of Iraq and the constient claims that Iraq was some how in league with Al Qaeda which was utterly bull**** as anyone who knew anything about Saddam's secular nationalists Ba'ath movement could tell. Unfortunately, Americans are an ignorant bunch most of whom couldn't tell a Ba'ath from a bath tub.

Oerdin, having a bad day, speaks the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I can just see the surprise of... well, just about everyone, as 9/11 leads to an attack on Venezuala .

What surprise? They've got oil, right? And they're much closer than Iraq.

[Arrian]

Nobody expects the American invasion of Paraguay!

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Defense contractors surprised by overwhelming requests for giant wooden badgers.

[Velociryx]

Freedom Wall!

-=Vel=-

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Defense contractors surprised by overwhelming requests for giant wooden badgers.

What's Spanish for fetchez la vache?

[Flubber]

I am no fan of the BUsh administration but I thought that they had contingency plans and scenarios for everything. If some guy addressed some of the less sensible options and they were rightly rejected, I don't see where that is news.

I bet somewhere on the books, The US has plans for the invasion of the UK. I don't see why that would be big news

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
3. It was, I presume, Feiths job to circulate some alternatives, which could then be analyzed and struck down.

According to a just retired general, Rumsfeld threatened with firing anyone who brought up making plans for occupation.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I can just see the surprise of... well, just about everyone, as 9/11 leads to an attack on Venezuala .

Think Cuba, which for some reason, is still on the list of terrorism sponsoring states, despite the fact that it doesn't, and is, in fact, on the reciving of terrorism based out of Miami.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


According to a just retired general, Rumsfeld threatened with firing anyone who brought up making plans for occupation.

That is shocking news. Do you have an article because I would like to make a thread about this on another website.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Flubber
I am no fan of the BUsh administration but I thought that they had contingency plans and scenarios for everything. If some guy addressed some of the less sensible options and they were rightly rejected, I don't see where that is news.

I bet somewhere on the books, The US has plans for the invasion of the UK. I don't see why that would be big news

Gentleman, you have just received your sealed warplans for Code Chartrouse. Please open your envelopes now. Hmmm, it seems that these plans haven't been updated since 1864. Where the hell are we going to get all these wooden sailing ships? Never mind.....

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. Al Qaeeda murdered Shah Ahmed Massoud, longtime leader of the Afghan resistance to the USSR, and then leader of the Northern Alliance, on Sept 9th, 2001, two days before the WTC attack. Obviously they WERE expecting us to hit back in Afghanistan, and were hoping to defeat us there (perhaps with the model of the USSR in mind)

Or another interpretation is that the Taleban, aware of the pending 9/11 attacks, wanted to finish the NA forces and be prepared for other actions to consolidate their control of Afghanistan and/or coordinate with other actions in Chechnya, etc.

2. Given the above, it made sense to THINK about alternatives - its part of sound military thought to strike where the other guy does NOT expect it.

Striking where the other guy does not expect it does not extend to striking thousands of miles from where the other guy is or ever has been.

3. It was, I presume, Feiths job to circulate some alternatives, which could then be analyzed and struck down.

A pie-eating contest in Duluth would have had as much relevance to the operational issues and strategic situation. The key is alternatives that are even vaguely worthy of consideration.

4. These alternatives were struck down, appropriately. While the region of South America in question was an area of concern, it was obviously preferable to work with the local friendly govts to handle it.

5. Doug Feith seems to have been responsible for many of the mistakes that have made the Iraq situation as bad as it is, from underestimating troop needs to mishandling Abu Ghraib. He was fired over a year ago. But piling on is always fair game, right?

Piling it on? How many dead US troops, not to mention other cost and operational impacts has this incompetent ass caused? Being fired or occasionally targeted by articles pointing out his gross incompetence is extremely mild in relation to the damage he has caused to US personnel and policy. He should be assigned to drive a truck back and forth between Falluja and ar Ramadi. Feith is lucky there's no mechanism for him to be put in front of a wall, and anything less is treating him with more consideration than he deserves.

I do agree that there are more pressing questions: Why was he retained so long, who supported his retention, and who at higher levels needs to be held accountable for the series of FUBARs that has got us where we are today?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Flubber
I am no fan of the BUsh administration but I thought that they had contingency plans and scenarios for everything. If some guy addressed some of the less sensible options and they were rightly rejected, I don't see where that is news.

You develop plans for everything. You allocate resources to those plans based on their relative urgency at the time, so the plans for invading the UK, or bombing it, or anything else, probably haven't been updated since the Berlin wall era of the cold war.

At any rate, that sort of exercise in low probability what-ifs is the realm of O3 to O5 officers on staff assignments, with limited review at the O6-O8 level. Even if the plans are never to be carried out, and that's a given with the vast majority, it is a useful part of the professional development of those mid-level officers involved in the process. That's operational planning. Suggesting operational possibilities to carry out policy is entirely separate from the process of planning.

Undersecretaries in the OSD don't (or shouldn't) waste time with the promotion of flaky policy options - it's a waste of executive time and resources. It's like a CFO of a Fortune 1000 company writing memos and reports to the CEO and board addressing the issue of employee pilferage from self-serve candy boxes in break rooms. It's a total misdirection of executive resources.