Analyzing Operation: Restore Hope

[sparta]

like alot of missions conducted for and by the UN they are political, so all your ROE are up the creek and there is always a shortage of men on the ground. truefully need 3-4 times the troops and heavy wep support to do any good there. I am a old war horse, i don't care if your 5 or a woman you pick up a gun your a target and will be treated like a target....there is only black and white in conflict otherwise innocent people will die or we can be tree huggers and ask them nicely in english to drop the weapon. I already know there response....war happens because politics and diplomancy fail, so we go to war. remember this quote "War is Business and business is great"

 

[KGB]

Regardless of the intent; any war which drains money and sends men home in body bags has a political cost. Now there has to be a payoff or else the politicians get fired. In the old days, slaves and territories were acceptable. BUt how will you explain a protracted counterinsurgency war in terms of "humanitarian purposes?" Look at the trouble Bush and Blair have to deal with now, and Iraq is more than a "humanitarian" mission. There has to be a more tangible and more pressing political gain. Now the Somalian chaos is a big headache for the Ethiopians, now they're sheding the blood to clean up Somalia.

Off topic, maybe the US should give back Iraq to the Turks, so it becomes their problem.

like alot of missions conducted for and by the UN they are political, so all your ROE are up the creek and there is always a shortage of men on the ground. truefully need 3-4 times the troops and heavy wep support to do any good there. I am a old war horse, i don't care if your 5 or a woman you pick up a gun your a target and will be treated like a target....there is only black and white in conflict otherwise innocent people will die or we can be tree huggers and ask them nicely in english to drop the weapon. I already know there response....war happens because politics and diplomancy fail, so we go to war. remember this quote "War is Business and business is great"

 

[Sgt.Banes]

Regardless of the intent; any war which drains money and sends men home in body bags has a political cost. Now there has to be a payoff or else the politicians get fired. In the old days, slaves and territories were acceptable. BUt how will you explain a protracted counterinsurgency war in terms of "humanitarian purposes?" Look at the trouble Bush and Blair have to deal with now, and Iraq is more than a "humanitarian" mission. There has to be a more tangible and more pressing political gain. Now the Somalian chaos is a big headache for the Ethiopians, now they're sheding the blood to clean up Somalia.

Off topic, maybe the US should give back Iraq to the Turks, so it becomes their problem.

Perhaps we could even divide the country up, give the Kurds the North, Give the Sunnis the Central regions, and Shittes the south. But then again its just thinking out loud, I know its not practical.

 

[Sgt.Banes]

like alot of missions conducted for and by the UN they are political, so all your ROE are up the creek and there is always a shortage of men on the ground. truefully need 3-4 times the troops and heavy wep support to do any good there. I am a old war horse, i don't care if your 5 or a woman you pick up a gun your a target and will be treated like a target....there is only black and white in conflict otherwise innocent people will die or we can be tree huggers and ask them nicely in english to drop the weapon. I already know there response....war happens because politics and diplomancy fail, so we go to war. remember this quote "War is Business and business is great"

Sparta you'd make Patton proud.

 

[KGB]

Perhaps we could even divide the country up, give the Kurds the North, Give the Sunnis the Central regions, and Shittes the south. But then again its just thinking out loud, I know its not practical.

I think that that's eventually what's going to happen. No other way out.But the current adminstration's not going to do that. Better to let their sucessors deal with the fallout.

My question: how ISN'T Iraq like Vietnam? Take away the climate and geography, and you have the same thing; a war that serves no vital national interest, fought in an area with porous borders with hostile neighbors that can't be touched. The cost of winning this is more than what the US public will accept; the political cost of quitting is more than what the administration will accept. So the war goes on, while they pretend to win, and send other peoples children off to get killed.

 

[Rich]

My question: how ISN'T Iraq like Vietnam? Take away the climate and geography, and you have the same thing; a war that serves no vital national interest, fought in an area with porous borders with hostile neighbors that can't be touched. The cost of winning this is more than what the US public will accept; the political cost of quitting is more than what the administration will accept. So the war goes on, while they pretend to win, and send other peoples children off to get killed.

Iraq IS in a region absolutley vital to US interests. Thats the whole problem isnt it? Without oil we all crumble.

I guess i have fucked up and now you will never enlighten me, hu? Bummer.

Another fool on my ignore list. "TrangleC"

 

[Sgt.Banes]

I think that that's eventually what's going to happen. No other way out.But the current adminstration's not going to do that. Better to let their sucessors deal with the fallout.

My question: how ISN'T Iraq like Vietnam? Take away the climate and geography, and you have the same thing; a war that serves no vital national interest, fought in an area with porous borders with hostile neighbors that can't be touched. The cost of winning this is more than what the US public will accept; the political cost of quitting is more than what the administration will accept. So the war goes on, while they pretend to win, and send other peoples children off to get killed.

As pragmatic as I am, when dealing with third world conflicts its generally in our (U.S.) best interest to simply stay out of them, or have a more limited role in them. This police action romp and stomp is only successful if you have full military support from at home and from allies.

 

[Sgt.Banes]

Iraq IS in a region absolutley vital to US interests. Thats the whole problem isnt it? Without oil we all crumble.



Another fool on my ignore list. "TrangleC"

Not to make this entirely political, but the U.S. could be independent of Arab oil. If we were to simply drill oil not only off the coast of Florida and in the Northern Alaska regions, not to mention the huge oil reserves Mexico has. America would not have to tango with these 7th century throwbacks in the middle east.

 

[Manfred]

If we were to simply drill oil not only off the coast of Florida and in the Northern Alaska regions, not to mention the huge oil reserves Mexico has. America would not have to tango with these 7th century throwbacks in the middle east.

That is the heart of the matter. However, since the US Government does not seem to have the strength to stand up to the power of the Environmentalists Lobby, we have to fight wars all over the world. Makes a lot of sense, eh? :nono

 

[Whiskyjack]

Not to make this entirely political, but the U.S. could be independent of Arab oil. If we were to simply drill oil not only off the coast of Florida and in the Northern Alaska regions, not to mention the huge oil reserves Mexico has. America would not have to tango with these 7th century throwbacks in the middle east.

It goes a bit further than that though. Sure the US can be independant, but what is the effect on the US economy and security if the rest of the world can't get the oil it needs?

China, Japan, Europe, India etc I know it seems weird but for US to prosper it still needs other countries to be secure and trade.

 

[Mouse]

If we were to simply drill oil not only off the coast of Florida and in the Northern Alaska regions, not to mention the huge oil reserves Mexico has. America would not have to tango with these 7th century throwbacks in the middle east.

Strongly disagree. Those are reserves in case in whole world is out of oil. US is heavyly dependent on oil whether in military or civilian uses. those remain in the backyard could buy US sometime to prepare for the worst. either oil is dry or US would not be able to lay its hand on foreign oil, those in the backyards are life savers. Anyway, take from others while you can:nutkick

PS: backyard reserves are not enough for US citizen's luxury life style. If US fail to control the world in its grasp, it will lost its super power status. If it lose its super power status, Americans lost their grasp on resources. If Americans lost their grasp on resources, they lost their peaceful happy life style. You want to drive a car to work everyday? that's the price got pay. No insult, but I fail to see why so may people want the US government to pull out man from Iraq. Anyway, they are stuck there, you pull out, you get nothing and it will greatly hurt the US international status as a super power and will win US more disrespect.:shudder People will see US as a coward which means" forget the US threat, we do what we what, after all, all they do is leave a pile of corpse and flee"

That's not good for the US and the rest of the world.

But China(my country ) and Iran and Russia will be more than willing to see US stuck in the Mud. That's why we do not favor bush' s decision in the first place.

Now only one option left, US have to win in the Iraq and mideast.

 

[radiosilence]

Not to make this entirely political, but the U.S. could be independent of Arab oil. If we were to simply drill oil not only off the coast of Florida and in the Northern Alaska regions, not to mention the huge oil reserves Mexico has. America would not have to tango with these 7th century throwbacks in the middle east.

Highly doubtful, The middle east has the largest proven reserves . Our reserves is minuscule compare to some middle eastern countries.

Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2006

1. Saudi Arabia ___________ 264.3 billion barrels
2. Canada ___________ 178.8 "
3. Iran ___________ 132.5 "
4. Iraq _____________ 115.0 "
5. Kuwait ______________ 101.5 "
.
11. United States ___________ 21.4
.
14. Mexico ____________ 12.9


link

 

[Manfred]

What about the 60 BBL. that was supposed to have been discovered under the Falklands?

I only heard about that because the Argies were making some noise about taking the Islands back... again. Seems like an awful lot of oil to just leave lying around.

 

[Whiskyjack]

What about the 60 BBL. that was supposed to have been discovered under the Falklands?

I only heard about that because the Argies were making some noise about taking the Islands back... again. Seems like an awful lot of oil to just leave lying around.

There has been talk of that for going on 20 years. As far as I know it has never been confirmed. I am sure there is nothing that the UK would like more though!!

 

[Mouse]

Correct if I am wrong, as my knowledge are limited.

I thought oil in the US backyard are supposed to be reserves. Since US are heavily dependent on oil, it always need to keep some in case any things happens, right?

I can't believe US are going to pull their troops back as it will severely damage the powerful image of the US as it will make hostile nations as Iran or DPRK consider the US to be weak in a certain aspect. It will hurt US presence in the mid-east. For the worst part, it could lose it's control to the majority of the oil resource on the world.
But on the other hand, PRC, Russia and DPRK will more than happy to see US still in the mud.

It seems to me that US only have one option - stable the Iraq situation. Which now seems unlikely. :shudder

 

[Sgt.Banes]

Correct if I am wrong, as my knowledge are limited.

I thought oil in the US backyard are supposed to be reserves. Since US are heavily dependent on oil, it always need to keep some in case any things happens, right?

I can't believe US are going to pull their troops back as it will severely damage the powerful image of the US as it will make hostile nations as Iran or DPRK consider the US to be weak in a certain aspect. It will hurt US presence in the mid-east. For the worst part, it could lose it's control to the majority of the oil resource on the world.
But on the other hand, PRC, Russia and DPRK will more than happy to see US still in the mud.

It seems to me that US only have one option - stable the Iraq situation. Which now seems unlikely. :shudder

Tell that to the U.S. congress. They want to pull out, with our tail in between are legs.

 

[KGB]

Not to make this entirely political, but the U.S. could be independent of Arab oil. If we were to simply drill oil not only off the coast of Florida and in the Northern Alaska regions, not to mention the huge oil reserves Mexico has. America would not have to tango with these 7th century throwbacks in the middle east.

Point of order. Iran wouldn't have been a "7th century throwback" if not for intervention. Khomeni got into power because the people hated the Shah (reputedly quite a brutal dictator). The US supported the Shah.

In fact, Iran had a democratic state until the Shah took over, sponsored by the usual oil money.

All this information is open source. The middle east oil is a tar baby that you get stuck in the more you hit at it.

 

[Sgt.Banes]

Point of order. Iran wouldn't have been a "7th century throwback" if not for intervention. Khomeni got into power because the people hated the Shah (reputedly quite a brutal dictator). The US supported the Shah.

In fact, Iran had a democratic state until the Shah took over, sponsored by the usual oil money.

All this information is open source. The middle east oil is a tar baby that you get stuck in the more you hit at it.

Regardless of the Shah, The Islamic Republic has a Islamic Theocracy moderate in most cases, but similar to that of the former Persian Empire.

 

[KGB]

If it's just about the oil, partition wouldn't be so bad. The kurds have oil and are pro US. The Shiite south might be dicey, but couldn't the US just secure the oilfields? The Sunnis will be shut out, and will need dole outs, but that's cheaper than war.

No surge can remove some of the fundamental sticking points of iraq, the militants can just choose to go underground and wait out the US if they decide to. But the resources, the money funding the conflict comes from the outside. Mind you, al Sadr seems to be going for a Hezbollah style army/police/shadow government organization. It's quite a successfull model. That's why he wants the US out - so he can take over.

But how many troops will it need to seal the borders and take out the militias?

 

[harryriedl]

What about the 60 BBL. that was supposed to have been discovered under the Falklands?

I only heard about that because the Argies were making some noise about taking the Islands back... again. Seems like an awful lot of oil to just leave lying around.

wouldn't the biggest problem with the falklands oil be that were would it transported too as the argies wouldn't want a BP pipeline going their contrey sending oil from a island they feel they should own.

the losgistic would be tricky althoug it could be done