This post is just to let people know that tonight at 6pm Queensland time (Tue 23 January), Catallaxy will publish an exclusive article on defence policy from Dr Dennis Jensen, MP (left). Dr Jensen is one of the leading participants in what has become a major national debate, and as a former defence analyst himself, he’s well worth a listen.
He has also kindly agreed to join in the discussion in the ensuing comments thread and field your questions, concerns and views.
189 Comments
More Catallaxy goodies, folks.
[DELETED BY ADMIN]
Ahh, wrong thread John Z
…it was a post from a feathered friend from the future…
Glanced at his link. Didn’t say which party. Presume ALP?
No, he’s a liberal backbencher, JC.
Will be good to hear the latest on the importance of getting some lovely Raptors.
Oh yes, CL, it’s a kicking piece, too. I’m doing the coding now.
Good stuff skeptic.
This is what I was waiting for.
Here is a post about the worrying reduction in absolute advantage of our most important allies air power.
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1042.shtml
We would be doing them and us a big favour if we, by our own purchases, kept the Raptor in continuous production.
Responding to GMB | January 22nd, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Loren describes the experiences of LtGen David Deptula, who is one of the leading air power strategists globally and posted until last year as Vice Commander PACAF in Hawaii.
He was interviewed by Defence Today last year and I have posted the interview here:
http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-Deptula-IV-06.pdf
I strongly recommend the interview to interested visitors, he does an excellent job of explaining future US planning.
The editor of Air Power put up a couple of comments a week or two ago. Forget the thread but he is an interesting fellow.
http://www.ausairpower.net/editor.html
.
Thanks Carlo.
Great Stuff.
So I’ve got another name to track down on the net.
Responding to GMB | January 22nd, 2007 at 7:09 pm
An interesting footnote to the USAF General’s experience in his F-15 over Iraq back in 1999 is as follows.
.
The wiring that failed in LtGen Dave Deptula’s then 23 year old F-15 aircraft in 1999 had Kapton® insulation which is known to fail with age (calendar). The rot starts to set in around the 14 to 16 year mark.
.
The wiring looms in Australia’s F/A-18s have Kapton® insulation which is failing. This can be seen by the increasing level of electrical rectifications and rework needing to be carried out on the aircraft. The US Navy banned the use of Kapton® insulated wiring in the early 1990s. The Australian Department of Defence Director General of Technical Airworthiness banned the use of this form of Kapton® insulated wiring in ADF aircraft shortly after this.
.
The founders of Air Power Australia and other members of Australian Industry raised concerns about the wiring in the F/A-18s in submissions back in 2001/02 in response to requests from Defence and, because no notice was taken, these concerns are outlined, in some detail, in the first section of Submission No 20 to the JSCFADT inquiry into air superiority.
.
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/adfair/subs.htm
.
The wiring looms in the new tankers (MMRT) and Tiger Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter aircraft have Kapton® insulation.
.
The F-111 Avionics Update Program (AUP) and Block Upgrade Programs (BUPs) removed Kapton® insulated wiring from the aircraft, replacing it with wiring with far more stable insulation.
.
This is one of the myriad of reasons why the guidance in the Defence 2000 White Paper had the F/A-18s retiring first, around 2012, and the F-111s operated out to 2020 (because they could and still can be).
.
He plans to be around tomorrow night, Rafe, which will be excellent.
Great idea, great title.
Ta, ff. See you tomorrow, then? I think we’ll have a few extra visitors around then.
I hope it all goes well.
One more step in the evolution of the blog, Terje!
I’d want to emphasise just how much leverage Australia has here.
By purchasing one of these with the frequency of between one a month and one a quarter we keep this fighter in continuous production and encourage our most important ally also to buy more units at a time when they are looking like making poor decisions in this regard.
If we have more then enough cover with these things an American President can act decisively without having to worry too much about covering our act.
And of course from the other side people will look at us and decide they don’t want us entering into any rumble in more then a token down-payment sort of way.
So their very presence might tend to dissuade more Bali-like attacks.
The idea of an attack is put forward but then the Saudi backers look at our ability to put the horses-head-in -the bed…….
And they say…….
“Nope….. Too Risky”
Scroll down to page 3 of Carlos link.
Look at all the things Deptula reckons this Raptor is good for:
1. Air to Air fighting… The first requirement necessary for the age-old principle of securing the high ground.
2. Surface attacks.
3. Suppression/Destruction of enemy air defenses.
4. Airborne warning
5. Electronic Attack.
The strikes me as a sort of ETHICAL horses-head-in-the-bed capacity.
6. Cruise Missile Defense.
4 & 6 ought to be seen as just so necessary.
Think of how easy it would be for a ship or a sub to pull up off the coast and fire a nuke-tipped cruise missile into one of our big four cities.
Thats pretty much the end of this nation. Which means the capacity to do this subjects us to an unacceptable level of intimidation/manipulation.
This platform is pretty fuel efficient as far as these things go.
And while that may seem like a trivial thing if it means we’ve got some of them in the air most of the time thats an incredible level of readiness.
And readiness will make up for many other deficiencies.
GMB
The problem with Bali-like attacks is that they are NON STATE ACTORS. You can crow all you like about how they are facilitated by regimes but even assuming this is true
(i) it’s hard to prove a nexus that will stand up in the court of public opinion
(ii) they can disclaim their ability to do anything about non-state actors
(iii) therefore any threat to attack a state based on what a non-state actor may do is simply not going to be credible and will cost you a lot of PR flack.
Conclusion - if you’re concerned with terrorism, defence capability has little to do with it. This is a policing issue.
Jase
They let Bashir out after 12 months, In other words policing had no effect on the Indons to take this seriously. They let the murderous little prick out to mollify the extremists. This type of crap will happen all the time if regimes don’t know that there are serious consequences for taking it easy with these guys.
Indon is a separate case because it does have underpinnings of democracy, but the point still holds. Maybe if military action is not the way to go we could freeze their banking accounts or such like to make sure they know that the Bahsirs of this world don’t get of jail after a few months.
In other words put their balls to the fire and keep them there.
Sue them. Let the victims families put in a law suit for say a nice round figure $50 billion and go after the money after they win.
Have the Australian government place a claim for the cost of extra security to the Indons that say runs at a few billion dolls a day and seize their assets if they don’t make a payment
that would wake them up in terms of letting Bahsit go after a few months.
“Conclusion - if you’re concerned with terrorism, defence capability has little to do with it. This is a policing issue.”
Sure, I agree, but,
i) What about piracy, which receives very little media attention?
ii) Policing can only go so far as the Government of another coutnry will allow it.
iii) There is a strategic benefit in having a larger military, in that we do not get dragged into unecessary conflicts to make up for capabilities or make alliances with potential terrorist enablers.
iv) Sometimes, as with Afghanistan and Lybia*, terrorism is state sponsored.
v) A strageic capability can be used to destroy potential WMD procurement by dictators and terrorists (e.g, the 1982 Osarik airstrikes)
vi) What is wrong with targeted assassination and a very old fashioned habit of issuing letters of marque and reprisal?
*Gadaffi was very lucky by today’s standards not to be invaded, deposed, tried and ultimately executed.
Lt Gen Deptula:
“The F/A-22A is not just an F/A-22A. One of the
challenges we have as a result of historical
traditions are labels. In addition to traditional
fighter and bomber missions, the F/A-22A can
conduct the kind of activities that an Airborne
Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) system does, or the RC-135 surveillance aircraft does, or what an electronic attack aircraft does. What the F/A-22A brings to the equation is not just another aircraft to replace F-15s, but a multitude of capabilities for a joint force commander. It’s not just an F/A-22A it’s an F/A/B/EA/RC/E-22A.”
Remember folks, ‘cost effectiveness’ is the key.
No Jason that’s crap. They are not non-state actors. You’ve fallen for the Dr Moriati view of terrorism.
Which is medieval in its irrationality. Jamah Islamiah was getting money from the Sauds before and after Bali. Kevin Rudd pointed this out. That they were getting Saudi funding even after the fact. We have to be able to make them hurt if they do it again.
Thats if we don’t want them to do it again.
You’re a grown-up now. You want to be quits with these childish notions. Ending terrorism is easy so long as we hit back straight away and don’t give a shit which particular terrorist organisation or nation is involved.
And why should we?
It’s all the same Hydra.
“getting funding’ is not the same as directing is it? would you have bombed Boston to get at the IRA?
….and “getting funding” allows the funder to keep the terrorists at arms length, so they are deniable. That they do evil deeds that the funder approves of is not in doubt, but it is a stretch to say they take their orders directly, and in full, from the funder.
You could have arrested them.
But in the end Reagan took care of the problem by bringing down the Soviet Union.
And then eyeballing Gaddafi out of the picture and you have the IRA renouncing violence.
Think of most terrorists as being on three very long bungie-rope leashes.
The individual regime might not be able to restrain everything the terrorist group does in the short-term but if they really want to they can pull back hard.
The regimes create the environment for terrorism even in those cases where the individuals aren’t on the payroll.
This is why its so important to punish on results rather then get them to agree not to do stuff.
Since terrorism is an expression of regime INTENTION and it is this INTENTION that you mean to change by persuasion of the type which sends fireballs through regime -leadership head-quarters.
It is always oh so much easier to get the regime to kill its erswhile allies then for us to do it.
Should you doubt that for one second:
“The last eight paragraphs of the book set up a final startling development.
Those three Saudi princes all perished within days of one another.
On July 22, 2002, Prince Ahmed was felled by a heart attack at age 43.
One day later Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki al-Saud, 41, was killed in what was called a high-speed car accident.
The last member of the trio, Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir, officially “died of thirst” while traveling east of Riyadh one week later.
And seven months after that, Mushaf Ali Mir, by then Pakistan’s Air Marshal, perished in a plane crash in clear weather over the unruly North-West Frontier province, along with his wife and closest confidants.”
If we scare the flying fuck out of these people then they nod their head and jihadists all over the world die in myriad macarbe ways.
Given that its pretty stupid the way things are being handled right now.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030908-480226,00.html
The only survivor of that group was almost definitely the person who nodded his head and had all the others killed.
This was the former head of Saudi intelligence who stepped down from that role days before 9/11.
He was then ambassador to Britain. And is now ambassador to the US.
Fucking funny old world aint it?
But Prince Turki could kill all those cousins of his much more quickly and with less collateral damage then we could ever do it ourselves.
….and “getting funding” doesn’t imply that funder and fundee share all of the same goals or vision. I bet, for example, the US would just love to tell the Israelis what to do sometimes (or the equally funded Egyptians).
The Egyptians are no jihadists…
And the Israelis have been forced to sit on their hands through all manner of provocations.
But these are countries and not individuals that would otherwise be working at 50c an hour.
We’ve got to get real about this.
“That they do evil deeds that the funder approves of is not in doubt…”
Good enough.
The superpower just has to change its perception of things and all this will be gone like the bad dreams of childhood.
Think of how her Majesties navy would have reacted to these desert bandits 150 years ago and wonder no more at why this international jihadism is a feature of our time and not of theirs.
Engaged in your utopian dreams again, Graeme?
What are you suggesting we do? Bomb the Saudis after the next terrorist attack?
No that would be over-reach at this stage. And overeach is the ultimate sin.
But we would want to develop the CAPACITY to do this.
But the Americans have the capacity to do this sort of thing right now.
Its just the mental-space wherein lies the problem.
I’ll often talk in this way. But it must be realised that I’d never get involved in any overeach.
The key is to maneouvre to a point where its no longer overeach.
For example if you flew in with Raptors and made an electronic attack and no-one was killed………..
That would be a devastating attack on the Saudis psycologically and would open up the mental-space for a return visit of more serious aspect.
So you get to the point where you have the capacity to do these things and then its Statecraft from there.
But it can never be overeach.
Its just hard to explain these concepts without sounding like you are going for overreach.
Right, yeah it did sound like you were overreaching a bit.
Targeted assassinations I can understand …
Yes Graham, go and attack the saudis, even without killing anybody (blow up some infrastructure) and thereby cut of 70% of world’s traded oil, lead to economic meltdown, and global depression and possible WWIII. Or continue with current policy of getting the corrupt and evil royal family to keep its jihadists dead or in prison. Not a good solution, but preferable to the alternative.
Here’s a link that I hope will help destroy this “No regimes to see here” attitude.
Posner wrote a book called “Case Closed”.
This is where he determined that Oswald acted alone.
But since then and particularly in the last year I think more information has come out to overule that thesis.
I mention that to show Posners basically non-conspirational outlook.
But evidence of regime involvement is all over 9/11.
There is evidence for Saudi, Pakistani, Iranian and Iraqi involvement but not I think for Arafatian or for Syrian involvement.
This is a sort of irrational mania. This bias against thinking regimes are involved.
“This is where he determined that Oswald acted alone.
But since then and particularly in the last year I think more information has come out to overule that thesis.”
LOL!
How many errr… heterodox theories do you subscribe to, fella?
…….and Jack Ruby was Herbert Hoover and Mae West’s lovechild !
I just go where the chips fall Soon.
You choose to not follow reason.
The two of you are clearly being idiots.
When Posner and Mailers books came out I just thought it was all cut and dried.
Now its pretty clear it was Castro and Kruschev that organized it.
What else was Castro to do?
Well I’m no conspiracy theorist but I’ve always found it a stretch to conclude Oswald just dreamt up the whole thing himself. If one other person was involved in some way - as seems not improbable - the JFK assassination was, by definition, a conspiracy.
Gb
But why would the US government hide it? They were quite capable of giving Castro a good and thorough hiding.
Why would the Sovs want to get rid of Kennedy? They would have another Prez to contend with and West thoroughly pissed they did this. Recall the west in those days was very anti-commie and so they would have had a lot of players on side.
I can’t imagine the Sovs being involved or letting Castro do such a thing when there was no gain and only downside.
If only there were conspiracies - life would be so easy. Once you cracked the huge global conspiracy you could swiftly roll it up, kill all the guilty etc etc, and live in tranquility. But humanity is messy and INCAPABLE of carrying out long running conspiracies. So, you are about to mention 9/11 - yes, it was an awful, big attack on the US. But what happened then ? The US invades Afghanistan, topples the Talibs, kills a bunch of AlQaeda expels the rest to the Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan, where its existence is much more precarious. Seems like a bad deal for the perps actually. And not really successful in the longer term. Fact is there is no secret evil Mulsim genius pulling the strings - the Saudis and Iranians hate each other, for example, the Syrians and Iraqis hate each other - what you see is a series of mostly unrelated terrorist act carried out in the misguided name of jihadism, but the actors and players are myriad and mostly uncoordinated.
what jimmy said. the idea that Iran, Iraq *and* the Sauds *and Pakistan can be working together is nuts.
True enough, Spiv. But it’s all cooked in the same pot and although the governments are not the same their intel services certainly know what he hell is going on.
‘
Pakistani intel is supposed to be hiding Mullah Omah these days, which is something I find very believable. I would bet they know the whereabouts of the AQ brigade as well. They deserve serious abuse if this is true.
The trouble is that elements within the west are doing all they can to scupper the terror war the way it ought to be fought.
Say we lobbed a few bombs on the Syrian pricks homes etc. Can you imagine the press that would get. Could you imagine the horror is the guys butler was killed in the raid.
I think there will have to be another large western attack before we get serious.
But they were conspiracies.
Don’t be a moronic asshole spiv.
Every terrorist attack is a conspiracy you fucking tool.
So that when you have a terrorist attack its time to put that conspiracy hat back on.
“If only there were conspiracies - life would be so easy.”
They ARE conspiracies and it IS easy you dopey shit.
What makes it hard is that you have to be able to strike back at the hole hydra all at once.
the Syrians are worried people are throwing out the baathwater before it is finished.
That is why they are such assad people
Maybe - it is all cooked in the same pot, but there’s no easy answer or one big possibility to end it all, just constantly attacking them when it makes sense. And we don’t have large conscript armies anymore to roll over all of the places and hold them, nor do our publics agree with losing a bunch of young men to do it. Hence the US action in Somalia.
“what jimmy said. the idea that Iran, Iraq *and* the Sauds *and Pakistan can be working together is nuts.”
1. I didn’t say they were all working together.
2. Its not nuts at all. Thats just you being an idiot.
Always these people work together even when they fight eachother.
China and the Soviets work together then they almost go to war.
The Nazis and the Soviets work together then they DO go to war.
China and Vietnam work together then THEY go to war.
This is just naieve idiocy on your part contradicted by all of history.
Attempt not to be a stupid naieve idiot.
Graeme, we’re all on the same side here, no need to get abusive.
“I just go where the chips fall Soon”
That no way to lose weight, fella
“but there’s no easy answer or one big possibility to end it all”
Sure there’s an easy answer.
BOMB ON RESULTS.
Operant conditioning from the air.
It will either work or all that regime leadership will die.
So it will work.
Jase and Spiv
In reality it doesn’t matter if they are or aren’t working together. They are all about destabilizing the west: at least the terror gangs are. The most visible example of that is the Hez in Lebanon. You have both the Syrians and Iranians supporting the Hez in open conflict with a western outpost in the middle of their neck of the woods. There is nothing secret about the Syrians and Iran being complicit in that campaign which is why we know about it. I can’t recall, but I don’t think the Syrian leader is either Sunni or something else. But he’s not shi’ite, which is proof enough that when their interests align they will work together.
The point is that there is no reason to be trying to connect the dots as it is an impossible task seeing we don’t have the intel.
Another example: it has been established there is a strong connnection between North Korea and Iran.
It past time trying to figure out if the Suadis, Pakis and Iranians are getting along. We no longer have to even worry about it.
We don’t need to over-intellectualize this issue.
Bird, yes, individual attacks are small conspiracies, involving small numbers of people. My point is that each attack is not part of a single grand conspiracy. So striking the whole hydra at once is simultaneously attacking a whole bunch of nation states and non-state actors- something that the US etc does not have the resources for.
Presumeably then, the “global Zionist conspiracy” also exists in your world- are you a part of it or one of its enemies ?
No there is need to get abusive.
Because you’ve been going with this idiocy for a very long time now.
Claiming that Saddam was a socialist so he wouldn’t work with the Jihad.
But he’s the biggest single individual in Jihad since the end of the first Gulf War.
He’s all his life since he took over been bundled up with this crowd.
You continue with these moronic almost robotic assertions that people of different faiths don’t work with eachother.
There is no precedent for your idiotic belief in all of history.
So for fucksakes get your act together.
Yes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but only while our interests converge.
You are infantile..
“Bird, yes, individual attacks are small conspiracies, involving small numbers of people. My point is that each attack is not part of a single grand conspiracy.”
For our purposes IT IS THE ONE BEAST.
And therefore cutting off one head at a time is futile. Two more grow back.
And no you are wrong. Operant conditioning from the air will work.
Of course you want to pin them down via substitution towards oil tax, setting up your own insurgencies and so forth.
But if you are forcing each regime to compete with eachother for your pleasure then they will clean up the problem for you or they will die.
At the outbreak of 9/11 there was half a dozen terrorist regimes and twenty-something terrorist outfits.
All of these outfits infiltrated, influenced and financed by each of the countries intelligence services FOR THEIR OWN SURVIVAL.
So of course bombing on results affects the entire Hydra.
That ought to be obvious.
No spiv.
You’re a [REMARKABLE AND ENLIGHTENED GENIUS] and illogical.
[SOONED BY ADMIN]
“Yes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but only while our interests converge.”
Right. So if they are all jihadists when they thing about the West……..
Then their interests converge in relation to us.
So how is this not one Hydra for our purposes?
It is one Hydra for our purposes and so Operant conditioning from the air will work.
I’ve already provided an example of the despatch with which they will kill people bundled up with Jihad if they have to.
Whats stupid is the way we are doing things now.
If we project force against regime leadership in such a way as to change their intention they will either clean up all the jihadists or they will die.
Full-Fucking-Proof.
And you are being illogical not to recognise that.
“Presumeably then, the “global Zionist conspiracy†also exists in your world- are you a part of it or one of its enemies ?”
No of course not. This is just one more example of your idiocy.
You have to know when to put the conspiracy hat on and when to take it off again.
GB
The problem with that as I see it is that the regime will then begin looking for the ultimate defensive weapon - a nuke, which Iran is desperately trying to obtain by any means necessary. Pakistan already has them.
Once you end up with a nuke, the other party can’t really bomb you at will without suffering potential destruction.
Take Saddam: if he knew he was going to get taken out by the US, I would bet there would have been a 40% chance he would have used a nuke on Israel before he went down. He would have done that just out of simple spite. No logical outcome behind it at all.
This really gets to the core of the issue. Bush’s attempt to impose some sort of democracy in Iraq was a long shot chance at changing the face of the Mid East, but it failed or has been allowed to fail.
It is impossible now to go after Iran under these circumstances despite the overriding need to stop them from obtaining nukes. The reason why Iran wants nukes is so they can go about their business of terror etc around the world on the mistaken belief a nuke will protect them from attack. The US will have to think twice in attacking Iran by conventional means if they have a nuke.
The only outcome from all this is that there will be a massive nuke exchange in the mid east over the next 10-15 years. We haven’t even seen the start of this shit yet.
It will finally have to end with genocide - with maybe the Jews and 30-50 million dead mid easterners before we even begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel.
The opposition to the Iraq war played so hard by western elements has traumatized the US government so much so that they will not act in time when they should.
Even if Iraq was messed up, the Iranian situation and those around them hasn’t been solved. And it will be left to linger.
I think a lot of people will be finding God in the next 20 years before this is over.
Even if you take out the current crop of bad guys, the next guy up will be thinking that his only form of pretection is the nuke.
“So striking the whole hydra at once is simultaneously attacking a whole bunch of nation states …..”
Right. Pitifully weak non-state actors.
And America had the ability to springload and attack immediately after each terrorist attack no problem.
A single days full-paced bombing after each sizeable terrorist attack.
Too easy and much less difficult then this occupation business.
And the terrorist state which pleased them the least could be the first to fall after all its key targets had been hit in retaliation.
This terrorism isn’t a big problem if you stop this fantasy of there being non-state actors.
Praise the lord you’re not in High Office, Bird. You’re just high.
“So striking the whole hydra at once is simultaneously attacking a whole bunch of nation states ”
If your starting point is 2001 then thats not a problem with MY strategy.
Thats a very grave problem with the strategy that they have now.
In 2001 they were all scrambling for nukes.
Lets get this right JC.
Thats a problem with this cutting one head off the hydra and pretending its not the regime strategy.
Its a crazy strategy.
Under my strategy their various nuclear programs would have gone backwards two decades.
The current strategy is extremely dangerous for the very reason you are highlighting.
I started with the wrong quote for the above JC:
“The problem with that as I see it is that the regime will then begin looking for the ultimate defensive weapon - a nuke, which Iran is desperately trying to obtain by any means necessary.”
That was the quote that I responded to in my last post JC…
Soon don’t be a fuckhead.
If you aren’t willing to come after me on logical grounds then don’t pretend to know what you are talking about.
Jase
GB is trying to figure out ways to stop this shit before it really gets ugly. It’s going to get ugly because has Iran started an arms race for nukes in the mid east. There is no way of stopping this until the very last of these regimes has seen the end of their days.
If it does happen, and I think it will, the nuke attack on Japan is going to look like child’s play.
How about this for a conspiracy. How hard would it be for Putin to simply sell these guys nukes and Iranians simply play along prentending they are trying to build one when they have one all along?
Would a couple of bill change Putin’s mind if he thought it was foolproof?
Or take the Pakis. What happens when the Iranians get a nuke and the Saudis come knocking on the door looking to buy one for a few bill?
This is real serious shit we’re talking about here. And this is why gold is such an amazing bargain down here.
My new years resolution is that I must always have a long gold position for the next 10 years.
sorry should read
If it does happen, I think the nuke attack on Japan will look like child’s play.
Graeme
Spiv has said all I need to say about your utopianism
http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=2431#comment-14752
“How about this for a conspiracy. How hard would it be for Putin to simply sell these guys nukes and Iranians simply play along prentending they are trying to build one when they have one all along.”
Or China.
Very easy.
That we didn’t clean this situation up in months after 9/11 has put us all in grave danger.
See the frivlousness of Soon. This tardiness in current strategy has lead to scores of thousands of deaths.
You come at Soon with facts and reason and he envelopes himself in a comforting Plaque-bubble of cheap-ridicule and alibis for our enemies.
And its not as if he’s not made the same cognitive mistakes just countless fucking times before.
Like socialists won’t work with Jihadists?!!!???
Now I ask you. How is that for analytical failure?
“This tardiness in current strategy has lead to scores of thousands of deaths.”
No, wasting our money invading Iraq has led to scores of thousands of deaths when we could have kept our pet psychopath and let him torture jihadists for us.
That would be ANALYTICAL failure.
Somehow we have absorbed a certain irrational belief in the English-Speaking world that techniques short of full-scale war can never be used against us.
Or rather when they are used against us or when they could have been used all these dopey assholes are on hand to ridicule anyone who even attempts to suggest that a regime could be involved.
We have to recognise this deficiency in the culture and to realise it was probably just planeted there by the post-war socialists to stop people from thinking that the socialists were involved in conspiracies.
But its now a known fact of history that they were in fact constantly involving themselves in conspiracies.
Now Soon is such an unrealistic fool that it’s but a few days ago that he claimed that MCCARTHY WAS PARANOID.
I mean how’s that for terminal naivete when we now know that McCarthy was understating things.
And yet just a few days later and he is still stuck in a world of terminal stupidity.
Soon-Still-Stuck-On-Stupid.
“No, wasting our money invading Iraq has led to scores of thousands of deaths when we could have kept our pet psychopath and let him torture jihadists for us.”
The invasion was cheap. It was the occupation that was expensive.
So sorry I didn’t edit the stuff I wrote.
I am talking about how it looks now GB and it really doesn’t look good to me. Bush is caught like a deer in headlights paralyzed by the way the war has gone. Not his fault because it was the only way to go about it in the sense that it is a namby pamby leftist type war. For goodness sake, look at the press Abu Garib got when 90% of the stuff going on was a bunch of American idiots doing stupid things to the prisoners.
Meanwhile you have the Russians playing around with gas supplies into Europe and getting all friendly with the Iranians. I wouldn’t bet against the Russians helping the Iranians just a little in getting a nuke.
The point is that this is now gone past the time it could be recoverable. All because a good part of the US electorate tried to tie Bush’s hands in fighting this real war. I think he was on the right track but lost the ball for one reason or another and now we’re going to pay dearly for this.
It’s going to be real ugly before this is over. The guys who know how to do mass killing on an industrial scale are the Euros. Let’s see what happens if they really get pissed.
well duh, when you invade and destabilise a country, you have to occupy otherwise it turns into a terrorist breeding ground like Afghanistan.
Face it Soon I was right the first time:
“Or China.
Very easy.
That we didn’t clean this situation up in months after 9/11 has put us all in grave danger.
See the frivlousness of Soon. This tardiness in current strategy has lead to scores of thousands of deaths.”
That’s all perfectly true.
Now lets have the argument-from-ridicule used with more discrimination.
In aid of cognitive clarity and not against it.
Jase
But you couldn’t let him go on because his ultimate form of protection was also getting a nuke. He had to go.
“well duh, when you invade and destabilise a country, you have to occupy otherwise it turns into a terrorist breeding ground like Afghanistan.”
Logic Soon Logic.
No you don’t have to occupy. Since if you take out ALL the jihadist sponsors where is the nutrients to breed them with?
Duh?
Soon.
Logic.
Try and discipline yourself.
Look at the situation entire and don’t just run off at the fingertips with Spooktown mantras and silly dumb-left talk.
Saddam was our man. In hindsight we should have let him take Kuwait, then Saudi Arabia and Iran. Keep him feeling secure, keep him in our pockets. Let the sociopath deal with the psychotics in the region.
And what do you do when he gets nukes , Jase? What happens then?
What would he want nukes for except as insurance? If he’s secure he might want to have them anyway but he’s not going to use them for anything. He was a rational man, not into suicide.
It’s like when Russia had nukes. So we would have mini-Cold Wars but less terrorism.
Bird says:
“Soon-Still-Stuck-On-Stupid… Try and discipline yourself.”
Don’t be so hard on Soon, Birdy. The poor fella has downed copious soy products since he was a babe. Now his hormones are going all hay wire.
I think Soon may be having one of his phantom periods this week.
See World Net Daily for details.
Nuke proliferation is inevitable. I’m more concerned with dirty bombs and nukes falling into the hands of terrorists. If it’s in the right channels in rational State actors, it’s a standoff but so what?
Graeme
This thread started about a plane. Do you think that any plane, regardless of how good it is (and the F22 is a fine piece of kit) can solve these geopolitical problems, or kill a Somali jihadist disguised as a goatherd camped on the edge of a desert somewhere ?
The plane won’t take away your occupation problem either, because the moment you de-occupy, the jihadists melt back out of the societies they had melted into.
A war (or plane) won’t cure a geopolitical problem like this on its own.
Segue to Tatoo in Fantasy Island running around saying “de plane boss, de plane”.
Though I haven’t checked out these recordings yet (I found it while looking for Gerald Posner) we see this crowd have interviewed a lot of non-fringe people.
I would suspect that the following interviews are relevant to the subject.
1. Gerald Posner and Richard Miniter 9/13/2003
2. Ken Timmerman 2/1/2003
http://www.judicialwatch.org/redesign/radio.shtml
Yes let’s get back to subject matter. Leave melalueca to his Jeckyl and Hyde transformations. One word Mel - prozac.
But he was far from rational, otherwise he wouldn’t have picked a fight with the US and ended up at the end of a rope. It takes a certain kind of talent to get into a fight with the US and then have them travel 1/2 way round the world to spoil for a fight …Twice. He was an idiot who would have made a rotten poker player. Never knew when to fold them or call.
Don’t forget he was after a nuke in the 80s until the Israelis were good enough to put it out of action.
The point is that a nuked up mid east is now where we’re heading and it is not going to be pretty trying to untangle this mess.
good point on 87
JC
Didn’t he invade Kuwait only after he was assured the US wouldn’t intervene? They were the ones giving him mixed signals
Once Dr Jensen’s post goes up, Graeme may actually have something useful to get his teeth into. At the moment he’s got force structure, capability, long-term goals and geopolitics all nicely mixed up.
This post was meant to be a teaser for the real deal tonight (ie, an advert). I suspect I should have turned the comments off, but I must admit I didn’t think to.
Phooey.
Jason
Nuke proliferation in mid east hands will eventually mean 50 million lives lost. It may be inevitable but it’s going to be hugely tragic.
Soon you are being utterly ridiculous. You sound like Neville Chamberlain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain
You idiot spiv.
You haven’t been listening or thinking. You change regime intention and they clean up their former soldiers for you. Yes of fucking course it would work. You’ve just got to be quits with this naive Clinton-era Dr Moriati version of terrorism. Where a Somali jihadist works for years saving his money at a 20c per hour job and then gets all this weaponry and causes all this trouble.
Attempt not to be an idiot.
Just attempt to be rational and throw off this Dr Moriati idiocy.
What a moron you are turning out to be.
“This post was meant to be a teaser for the real deal tonight (ie, an advert). I suspect I should have turned the comments off, but I must admit I didn’t think to.”
These guys know that if they are going to go at me with this mindless naive ridicule they are going to be made to look stupid.
Why not quickly wrench most of these comments onto another thread?
There’s only one person looking like a dill on this thread (apart from Steve, and he’s only popped in once or twice), and that person’s name isn’t Jason or Jimmy. And it isn’t me, either.
I can’t do that, Graeme - the new Wordpress software is quite limited in what it will let admins do. c8to has to write some custom code, and he’s just a bit busy at the moment.
He may have got mixed signals and all that, but he was told to get out straight after the invasion and he didn’t. He played another rotten game of poker.
Come on skeptic.
Wrench all these off and think of an appropriate thread-starter for it later.
Call it the DR MORIATI VIEW OF TERRORISM.
But get them off so Dr Jensen has a clean lead-in.
Jason
The “Saddam waited for promises of US non-intervemtion line is a leftist trope. The congressional democrats raked then Ambassador April Glaspie over the coals for using the standard diplomatic language in relation to territorial disputes in which third parties do not wish to become embroiled in. Her words to Saddam were “As you know, we don’t take a stand on terriitorial disputes” referred to Iraq and Kuwait’s pre-invasion territorial disputes- what she was saying is that the US would not arbitrate that issue. Saddam repeatedly lied to her during that meeting and could not possibly claim that he got a green light or anything else. Remember that the house was Democratic in 1991 and that Bush Snr lost office in 1992s race.
“There’s only one person looking like a dill on this thread (apart from Steve, and he’s only popped in once or twice), and that person’s name isn’t Jason or Jimmy. And it isn’t me, either.”
Well that means that my work is not done here.
Since I haven’t been able to overide this silly Dr Moriati view of the situation.
O.T.I.T: Is it just my computer or is a lot more page-refeshing needed now to get the latest? Used to be you could lob back to a Cat page from somewhere else and there was the latest comment etc.
Speaking of Dill, I am going to have dill pickles for a late lunch, while I await the arrival of “de plane”.
http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=2277
This is a better lead-in thread.
This is where cheap and mindless ridicule don’t lead me off-topic.
A Saudi guy I was working with at the time totally astounded me with his views. He was one of those princiling types who over in the US for a few years before heading back to the desert and 3 wives I’d guess. Nice guy though.
This is what he said
Saddam actually fought the war against Iran to try and defeat the extremist Shi ites and had the backing of the entire gulf with promises of money and loans. He got the loans but no funding. Kuwait had promised him US 5 billion which at the ime was good cash and then walked away from their promise. They also had loans and expected iraq to pay them back.
While this was happening the Kuwaitis were drilling and extracting oil on the border area and Saddam found them drilling side on into Iraqi territory. This enraged the shit out of him and so decided he was going to take over the country.
This Saudi guy didn’t blame Saddam all that much, rather he put lots of blame on the Gulf states for reneging on the deals they had made.
Sounds quite plausible.
JC
Your friend’s theory is entirely true, up until the bit where “the Kuwaitis were drilling and extracting oil on the border area and Saddam found them drilling side on into Iraqi territory. This enraged the shit out of him and so decided he was going to take over the country.” Saddam invaded Kuwait to cancel its debt to Iraq, to get its oil revenue, and to scare the bejeezus out of the other Gulf States and the Saudis to get them to cancel their debts too. At that time (ie pre invasion eve), Saddam owed US$80billion to his Gulf creditors. The Gulf states had loaned the money because they were worried about Iran, which was still in its revolutionary phase. I reckon most Saudis are schizophrenic on this issue because they had to beg US protection from Saddam (500 000+ troops remember), which they couldn’t reconcile with their need to protect the Holy Places. Remember, that was what really got Osama going on his anti-US tirade !
Here is a character that doesn’t share this idiots, irrational, medieval, DR MORIATI view of terrorism.
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.800/article_detail.asp
The illegal drilling was just the excuse needed to trigger an invasion, it wasn’t a real cause.
sigh
jimmy and I have already taken you through this, Graeme.
Funding does not equal control and direction. So your basic premise about bombing the regimes is flawed.
Assuming we ever got the capability to bomb every terrorist-sponsoring state in the world back to the Iron Age (don’t want to go overboard, after all), just how many billions of people do you think are going to be homicidally angry? And how would you combat the resultant gargantuan rise in terrorist attacks against you?
No no.
You’re being an idiot Soon.
They don’t need to fund them.
And we don’t need to let them.
Any you are fucking completely wrong anyway.
Funding and the threat of death together do mean control.
So stop talking shit now.
And you and Jimmy come out and admit you are wrong and I am right.
Time after time after time you show that you’ve fallen for this irrational bullshit.
Terrorism of this sort really got a leg-up under Nasser who quite deliberately sort to use this low-level warfare since he figured it went under the threshold for all out war.
Now just sit down. And just try and think rationally for awhile.
And most particularly clear yourself of these many smokescreens that wrap this world of plaque around you.
The smokescreen of ridicule. The smokescreen of a mindless anti-conspiracy bias.
And the sighing, the yawning, the burping and the farting.
Or whatever else you are doing to surround yourself in this envelope of invisible horseshit.
Meetings in Prague are significant. Contacts with terrorist outfits are significant.
Training camps with Jumbos in them are significant.
Diplomats wives sending money to the culprits is significant.
Iranians helping some of these fellows to get to Afghanistan for training is significant.
Top Al Quaeda types with a string of private Saudi bigshot phone numbers is significant.
And no matter what idiocy you or jimmy or anyone else who adopts this tired ridicule says, these things remain significant beyond the ultimate stupidity of the bipartisan committee filled with tax-eater dropkicks.
Good link GB.
More or less what I have said how this will eventually turn out.
Porky trotters.
Why do you need to assume that capability. We have it now. We could turn the entire place into glass anytime we want. The problem is that’s where it is going to be heading.
And seriosuly, who would give shit if they are angry at us. I’m sure the germans were angry too on defeat.
The time to worry is when anger manifests itself into actionable violence.
You just don’t get it FF.
You need state-sponsored networks with millions of dollars behind them to put a young man with a straggly beard in a crowded bar. Don’t you understand anything about the logistics of terrorism?
“Assuming we ever got the capability to bomb every terrorist-sponsoring state in the world back to the Iron Age …..”
Start with not lying.
The rest of what you said is not relevant anyhow.
But not fucking-lying IS.
So you come back here fatfingers.
And the lying starts again.
Now why is that?
See thats another smokescreen that you people who ‘CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH’ throw around yourself.
You come out and start lying. Which is a smokescreen.
Not once have I ever implied such a thing.
You’re far more of an idiot then the other two fathead.
TRY AGAIN.
FDB
So you hinbk there is no state sponsorship of terrorism at all around the worls. IS that what you’re saying?