Would you want these people to reform another Middle Eurasian Nation?


Revisions in Need of Revising: What Went Wrong in the Iraq War (.pdf reader required) by Dr. David C. Hendrickson & Dr. Robert W. Tucker.

:arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Would you want these people to reform another Middle Eurasian Nation?

Interesting read. The short answer, of course, is no.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

.... with the Army and Marines tied up in Iraq, and the Navy needed to keep the Persian Gulf open, the only remaining option is precision strategic bombing (which this is, under another name).

Only one carrier group necessary to maintain Persian Gulf; three additional carrier groups combined with AF assets would rip Iran apart in a matter of weeks. Spec. Ops are readily available; one might guess that they are already in-country and quasi-operational.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

What. The. Hell. Is. This???

After all, balkanization of Iraq and Afghanistan have worked out so well, so why don't we try it in a third country?

The Persians, who are currently inclined to be our friends, will damn us for all eternity if we deliberately start an Iranian civil war and turn Iran into a third Iraq and Afghanistan. It doesn't take Iran out of the equation -- it just makes Iran yet another failed country... and one we don't have the resources to attempt nation-building in. Anything -- anything -- could come out of the disaster this would generate.

Balkanization of Iran is likely inevitable; we may only accelerate the process in our own national interest. As a failed state, Iran is taken out of the equation in terms of never again being capable, as a nation-state, of supporting sophisticated development of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Yes, our accelerating their balkanization will likely foster some incremental, perhaps substantial, increase in terrorists desiring to do harm to us. They will, however, have the same difficulties in accessing modes to harm us as the current set of terrorists are experiencing, and they will be up to their necks in alligators in their own homeland for some time after their country collapses. As with Robb, I am concerned about current domestic cells capable of waging open-source 4th Gen. Warfare in our homeland; it would test our collective wills against our own balkanization --- perhaps our 4T?

Originally Posted by catfishncod

The goal here isn't to eliminate Iran! It's to flip them. Iran is just inches away from being a real showcase for Islamic democracy. They have all the institutions and know perfectly well how to vote -- they just need to get rid of these oppressive mullahs.

Yes, there is a little Wilsonian in most Americans, and we have made it clear that we will wait this Fall's outcome of the Iranian election of the Assembly of Experts (who will then elect the next Supreme Leader). Let's keep our fingers crossed for the moderating/pragmatic leaders (right now, it doesn't look too promising http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...icle360863.ece). However, when push comes to shove, Wilson takes a back seat to our Jacksonian behavior - we don't pussyfoot around with real threats against us.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

If we do this, America will be known as "the country that tears other countries apart". We'll never be able to get support to intervene anywhere ever again. The nations of the world will gang up on us anytime we even open our mouth -- for their own survival. We'll have negative credibility abroad. We'll be too dangerous to anyone to be let out of a cage. If we do this, we might as well cut the military budget in half and bring all the troops home.

What will become recognized in the next several years is that globalization is creating balkanizing pressures on nation-states particular those of dubious origins. It will also be recognized that the USA has the sole capablity of greatly accelerating that process and can do so without any support from any one else. A nation-state or any combination of nation-states would have to greatly expand their military and intell capabilites far beyond what they have now (including Russian and China) to counter the US capacity. The dilemia for them, of course, is that taking such action may trigger considerable interest in the US to help along the balkanization dynamic within their country before an effective counter can evolve. In effect, extending the balkanizing 'success' into Iran would continue the trend toward a global rule-set of no armed conflicts between nation-states. The trade-off, however, would be more internal civil wars, the further rise of 'super-terrorists', warlords and international crime syndicates and gangs.

In addition to tracking the Iranian elections this year, stay tuned for stories like this one to become more frequent and given greater visibility -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4960478.stm

Also, you might consider that by this time next year, the House of Saud will be bringing an additional 2 million barrels on line --- about what the Iranians produce now (and what they currently consider as they're trump card).

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Yah. The question would be whether folks are interested in defeating Iran, or improving the situation in the Middle East. It is tempting to switch roles, to play on the insurgent side of the next conflict, rather than to be trying to play defense in a guerilla war. I suspect Iran and Syria are feeding money arms and men to the Iraq insurgency. Under the turnabout is fair play theory, it is tempting to place the shoe on the other foot, to confront Iran with a similar insurgency on their home ground.

But while it might be tempting at a military level, I would tend to agree it would be a very bad idea at the political level. My view of the international crisis is that the First World might encourage and help the Third World develop post autocratic governments and build economic viability. In the process, they have to discourage anarchy, discourage warlord government, which is the worst case form of autocratic rule. Encouraging warlord government seems like a really bad idea. Sure, we encouraged Bin Ladin's resistance to the Soviet Union, and helped Saddam when we was invading Iran shortly after the Shah was overthrown. Short term, helping warlords who dislike our enemies is tempting. Long term, I'm dubious. I'd rather not teach warlords that war is neat.

You and I grew up under the dark cloud that, with a touch of a few buttons, the entire world could cease to exist in a matter of minutes. Today, that possibility is extremely remote. Perhaps our children, when they reach our age, will think of armed conflict between nation-states as being just as remote.

Perhaps then it will be up to them to figure out how to make (the resulting?) warlords, super-terrorists and crime lords as extinct?

Originally Posted by salsabob

Originally Posted by catfishncod

If we do this, America will be known as "the country that tears other countries apart". We'll never be able to get support to intervene anywhere ever again. The nations of the world will gang up on us anytime we even open our mouth -- for their own survival. We'll have negative credibility abroad. We'll be too dangerous to anyone to be let out of a cage. If we do this, we might as well cut the military budget in half and bring all the troops home.

What will become recognized in the next several years is that globalization is creating balkanizing pressures on nation-states particular those of dubious origins. It will also be recognized that the USA has the sole capability of greatly accelerating that process and can do so without any support from any one else. A nation-state or any combination of nation-states would have to greatly expand their military and intell capabilities far beyond what they have now (including Russian and China) to counter the US capacity. The dilemma for them, of course, is that taking such action may trigger considerable interest in the US to help along the balkanization dynamic within their country before an effective counter can evolve. In effect, extending the balkanizing 'success' into Iran would continue the trend toward a global rule-set of no armed conflicts between nation-states. The trade-off, however, would be more internal civil wars, the further rise of 'super-terrorists', warlords and international crime syndicates and gangs..

I tend to concur. Fitting the above into a three model set...

There are "nation-states of dubious origins" along civilization boundaries as designed by Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations perspective. Strong civilizations tend to expand beyond their borders, and have been for as long has there have been civilizations. Africa and the Middle east are uglier than most places, as borders often have nothing to do with linguistic, religious or cultural divides, but as to where it was convenient for imperialistic powers to define arbitrary borders.

When this happens, the invading civilization sets up a "market dominant minority" as defined by Amy Chua in World on Fire. There are any number of ways a foreign culture might attempt to dominate a majority. Saddam's Sunni dictatorship and Israel's handling of the Palestinians are just two variations of the theme. It should be noted that in many places, democracy would empower the native majority, while capitalism would favor the ruling foreign elites. While democracy and capitalism both have their place, exporting them without being aware of ethnic / class / religious conflicts is problematic. They are not magic wands.

Globalization is the third theme. Thomas Barnett with The Pentagon's New Map divides the world into industrial democracies and warlord terrorist states. Alternately, the map might divide those well along the path to the Industrial Age capitalistic democratic pattern, and those still stuck in the Agricultural Age autocratic agricultural pattern. If you believe Barnett, the Industrialists are the good guys, while the terrorists are the bad guys.

Anyway, there is some merit in all three perspectives, but none of them alone are apt to be sufficient.

Iran... They have the beginnings of a democratic government, with a theocratic autocratic remnant crippling it. They have ethnic minorities within their border, though the tensions seem not to be critical at the moment. The autocratic religious aspect of Iran's government is definitely on the wrong side of the Pentagon's New Map, but the democratic side is as advanced as most any other government in the Middle East.

And while they don't have the high grade fissionables to create a fully functional a-bomb, they have enough waste materials to do dirty bombs. I just don't see them watching the US destabilize their country without striking back.

There are market dominant minorities (Chua) along many civilization boundaries (Huntington). These areas are potentially unstable. We want to bring them safely into our side of the Pentagon's New Map (Barnett). Deliberately destabilizing them...

Bad idea... Just... Bad idea... Bait the starving bear...

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I tend to concur. Fitting the above into a three model set...

There are "nation-states of dubious origins" along civilization boundaries as designed by Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations perspective. Strong civilizations tend to expand beyond their borders, and have been for as long has there have been civilizations. Africa and the Middle east are uglier than most places, as borders often have nothing to do with linguistic, religious or cultural divides, but as to where it was convenient for imperialistic powers to define arbitrary borders.

When this happens, the invading civilization sets up a "market dominant minority" as defined by Amy Chua in World on Fire. There are any number of ways a foreign culture might attempt to dominate a majority. Saddam's Sunni dictatorship and Israel's handling of the Palestinians are just two variations of the theme. It should be noted that in many places, democracy would empower the native majority, while capitalism would favor the ruling foreign elites. While democracy and capitalism both have their place, exporting them without being aware of ethnic / class / religious conflicts is problematic. They are not magic wands.

Globalization is the third theme. Thomas Barnett with The Pentagon's New Map divides the world into industrial democracies and warlord terrorist states. Alternately, the map might divide those well along the path to the Industrial Age capitalistic democratic pattern, and those still stuck in the Agricultural Age autocratic agricultural pattern. If you believe Barnett, the Industrialists are the good guys, while the terrorists are the bad guys.

Anyway, there is some merit in all three perspectives, but none of them alone are apt to be sufficient.

Iran... They have the beginnings of a democratic government, with a theocratic autocratic remnant crippling it. They have ethnic minorities within their border, though the tensions seem not to be critical at the moment. The autocratic religious aspect of Iran's government is definitely on the wrong side of the Pentagon's New Map, but the democratic side is as advanced as most any other government in the Middle East.

And while they don't have the high grade fissionables to create a fully functional a-bomb, they have enough waste materials to do dirty bombs. I just don't see them watching the US destabilize their country without striking back.

There are market dominant minorities (Chua) along many civilization boundaries (Huntington). These areas are potentially unstable. We want to bring them safely into our side of the Pentagon's New Map (Barnett).

Excellent compositing of some important contemporary thoughts, and good application to Iran specifically; much here to agree with.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Deliberately destabilizing them...

Bad idea... Just... Bad idea... Bait the starving bear...

I would agree, but only if we are dealing with the Iran we have come to know with its myriad of power-players, a 'polyarchy' that stumbles along in a self-correcting process that results in pragmatic policies aimed primarily at maintaining their mafia-like power. However, our concern (shared by a number of Iranian polyarchy power-players) is that the country will fall in complete control of really wacked-out (no Shia pun intended) religious fundamentalists in the form of Ahmadinejad, and perhaps more importantly, Mesbah Yazdi, leader of the Hojjatieh Society.

Here is a good summary of why we are concerned - http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/gue...elfthimam.html

Shi’ites expect the Twelfth Imam, which Jews and Christians would recognize as a messianic figure, to return to save the world when it had descended into chaos. Shi’ite orthodoxy has it that humans are powerless to encourage the Twelfth Imam to return. However, in Iran a group called the Hojjatieh believe that humans can stir up chaos to encourage him to return. Ayatollah Khomeini banned the group in the early 1980s because they rejected one of the primary commitments of the Iranian revolution: the concept of Vilayat-i Faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist). In other words, they opposed the notion of an Islamic republic because it would hinder the Twelfth Imam’s return on account of it being too just and peaceful.

The Hojjatieh’s belief in humans’ power to effect his return, which, to repeat, are unorthodox for Shi’ites, should be of grave concern for everyone. This belief should remind Westerners of a long tradition in the West of millenarians dating back to medieval times, and including even Marxian notions of "immiseration of the proletariat," who believed their religious and ideological activism would inaugurate a new age for humanity. Medieval millenarians, famously documented by Norman Cohn in his The Pursuit of the Millennium: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages, stirred up political chaos in the apocalyptic hope that it would effect the return of Christ.

According to Shi’ite teaching, the Twelfth Imam will not require an introduction upon his return. His identity will be self-evident to all, or at least to those capable of recognizing him. One view states that he will rule through a deputy, or perhaps the deputy will precede the Imam’s return. Perhaps the deputy’s identity should also be evident to all who can see.

While Ahmadinejad has not drawn an explicit connection between his desire to see Israel wiped off the map and an activist belief in the Twelfth Imam’s return, the dots are there to be connected once one understands the tyrannical "logic" behind someone who, perhaps viewing himself as a self-proclaimed deputy for the Twelfth Imam, might wish to effect Mahdi’s return. The deputy would promote Iran’s nuclear capabilities for they are key to effecting chaos in the world. The deputy would also purge diplomats, dozens of deputy ministers and heads of government banks and businesses, and challenge the Iranian ruling clerical establishment. All these moves push the regime toward a "coup d’état" (according to one Iranian source) or at least a constitutional crisis. But a constitutional crisis would be a mere stepping stone for a president for whom the Twelfth Imam does not require an Islamic republic to return.

Maximally, there are times when one should take bombastic statements not as double-talk, but for what they are.

Again, I would agree that destabilization may be a bad idea. However, if we are dealing with those seeking to initiate their version of Armageddon, do you want them to have the power of a nation-state with sophisticated nuclear weaponry and delivery systems? Or, would it not be preferable to have them hiding in caves from their own blood-thirsty former countrymen and leaving to their restless sleep, dreams of how they might be able to get a dirty bomb to our shores?

Originally Posted by salsabob

Again, I would agree that destabilization may be a bad idea. However, if we are dealing with those seeking to initiate their version of Armageddon, do you want them to have the power of a nation-state with sophisticated nuclear weaponry and delivery systems? Or, would it not be preferable to have them hiding in caves from their own blood-thirsty former countrymen and leaving to their restless sleep, dreams of how they might be able to get a dirty bomb to our shores?

We weren't able to seal our borders during prohibition. We weren't able to seal our borders during the War on Drugs. We aren't able to stop illegal immigration today. I don't see that our opponents in the War on Terror are apt to be less competent than the many who have found ways to cross our borders in the past. I take terrorist delivery of weapons of mass destruction very seriously.

I also note Saddam was able to 'pacify' the Shiites and Kurds with his minority Sunni. All it takes is more ruthlessness than Bush 43 as a western leader can get away with. If various minorities in Iran start accepting aid from the Great Satan, I do not doubt ruthlessness will be applied. Bush 41 encouraged the Shiites of southern Iraq to rebel against Saddam in 1991. They rebelled, and got slaughtered, while the Great Satan's army sat on the Kuwait side border and did nothing. Thus, the south Iraq Shiite were less than eager to work with Bush 43 in 2003. In general, we have taught the locals many of the wrong lessons about the Great Satan.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by salsabob

Again, I would agree that destabilization may be a bad idea. However, if we are dealing with those seeking to initiate their version of Armageddon, do you want them to have the power of a nation-state with sophisticated nuclear weaponry and delivery systems? Or, would it not be preferable to have them hiding in caves from their own blood-thirsty former countrymen and leaving to their restless sleep, dreams of how they might be able to get a dirty bomb to our shores?

We weren't able to seal our borders during prohibition. We weren't able to seal our borders during the War on Drugs. We aren't able to stop illegal immigration today. I don't see that our opponents in the War on Terror are apt to be less competent than the many who have found ways to cross our borders in the past. I take terrorist delivery of weapons of mass destruction very seriously.

I also note Saddam was able to 'pacify' the Shiites and Kurds with his minority Sunni. All it takes is more ruthlessness than Bush 43 as a western leader can get away with. If various minorities in Iran start accepting aid from the Great Satan, I do not doubt ruthlessness will be applied. Bush 41 encouraged the Shiites of southern Iraq to rebel against Saddam in 1991. They rebelled, and got slaughtered, while the Great Satan's army sat on the Kuwait side border and did nothing. Thus, the south Iraq Shiite were less than eager to work with Bush 43 in 2003. In general, we have taught the locals many of the wrong lessons about the Great Satan.

I'm not arguing that the blowback from destabilizing Iran would be insignificant; I have said that it could threaten us with our own balkanization -- when that last occurred in the 1860s it was a pretty bloody 4T. I think we would survive it but its not something that I would like for my kids to go through.

What I am saying is that we may be facing the need to choose between the lessor of two evils. Who are our actual opponets and what their true motivations are will be the primary factor in determining if we are faced with making that choice. The jury is still out; and like I said before, much depends on the Iranian election in the Fall.

Some secondary considerations --

The type of super-terrorism that you spoke of is greatly diminished without nation-state support (e.g., Afghan harboring al Qaeda). If the wingnuts take over in Iran, the super terrorists would have a much greater support system that if, through destabilization, they loss such state support. From a bottom line standpoint of avoiding a catastrophic attack on US homeland, that reduced state support from a no-longer cohesive Iran, combined with the distraction of civil war at home, may offset the incremental increased motivation to harm us. I think lack of Iranian state support would also further reduce the already-low probability of the terrorist being able to deploy a true WMD; at best, dirty bombs or other CBRs could be attempted but the probabilities of tangible successful outcomes of these agents may be too uncertain to entice a calculating super-terrorist. They could, however, be employed as psychops or against critical infrastructure nodes in an array of attacks that Robb describes as open-source, continuos, low-grade (relatively) 4th Gen. Warfare aimed at undermining our confidence in the US government and our basic world belief systems. [note - On another thread, Michael Alexander and I had a good exchange on 4GW in the US homeland.]

We too have learned a great deal in the last 15 years. Things in Iraq may have looked a whole lot different today if only we had choose to turn the 'no-fly zones' into 'no-go zones,' effectively carving up Iraq and leaving Saddam and his army to stew in Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle with A130 gunships tracking his every movement until he was overthrown by some more pragmatic Bathists ready to make a deal. A similar arrangement could be in the offering for the ultra-conservative Iranian mullahs.

November 17

We now have the date of the most important 2006 election

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publ...le_15425.shtml

Originally Posted by MSM with the POTUS' tennis ball firmly in it's jaws

Arf!

Atta boy! Now go fetch again, it's amid the Medes!

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

We weren't able to seal our borders during prohibition. We weren't able to seal our borders during the War on Drugs. We aren't able to stop illegal immigration today. I don't see that our opponents in the War on Terror are apt to be less competent than the many who have found ways to cross our borders in the past.

In Prohibition they were serious, but did not have the technology. In the later ventures, they were not serious. Today, technology plus seriousness of purpose can probably put a huge dent in the illegal inflow. It's a matter of priority.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

In Prohibition they were serious, but did not have the technology. In the later ventures, they were not serious. Today, technology plus seriousness of purpose can probably put a huge dent in the illegal inflow. It's a matter of priority.

Technology can work both for and against those aims. Most likely, it will end up being a wash.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

In Prohibition they were serious, but did not have the technology. In the later ventures, they were not serious. Today, technology plus seriousness of purpose can probably put a huge dent in the illegal inflow. It's a matter of priority.

Technology can work both for and against those aims. Most likely, it will end up being a wash.

I doubt coyotes would be able to make it a wash unless they had the financial support of the Mexican government. That opens a whole other can of worms. If you think Lou Dobbs is excited now . . .

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

In Prohibition they were serious, but did not have the technology. In the later ventures, they were not serious. Today, technology plus seriousness of purpose can probably put a huge dent in the illegal inflow. It's a matter of priority.

Technology can work both for and against those aims. Most likely, it will end up being a wash.

I doubt coyotes would be able to make it a wash unless they had the financial support of the Mexican government. That opens a whole other can of worms. If you think Lou Dobbs is excited now . . .

Coyotes are pretty dear even now -- you hear of prices upwards of $2000 per person, and I remember (please don't ask how, I was working in construction) back ten or so years ago it had already hit the $500-$800 range.

And the price of technology keeps coming down,and the availability going up. Never underestimate the power of human creativity.

Royalty and romantics attempt to arm:

Roderique Hortalez et Cie, circa 2006

Originally Posted by Le Président les États-Unis d'Amérique

C'est difficile!

Shining city on (seven) hills?

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

We weren't able to seal our borders during prohibition. We weren't able to seal our borders during the War on Drugs. We aren't able to stop illegal immigration today. I don't see that our opponents in the War on Terror are apt to be less competent than the many who have found ways to cross our borders in the past.

In Prohibition they were serious, but did not have the technology. In the later ventures, they were not serious. Today, technology plus seriousness of purpose can probably put a huge dent in the illegal inflow. It's a matter of priority.

Indeed, it is a matter of priorities more than technology. Americans are a little over-enamoured with technical fixes. Immigration in the SW desert is a very low-tech environment. You might ramp up surveillance but you have to have the boots on the ground to head off the immigrants and the support services - dare I say, Industry - to hold, process and deport those you capture. Very little opportunity to leverage our much vaunted technological advantage. Have we learned nothing from Iraq?

It is also very dangerous to under-estimate the intelligence and resourcefulness of your adversary. See Iraq, above.

Originally Posted by scott 63

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

We weren't able to seal our borders during prohibition. We weren't able to seal our borders during the War on Drugs. We aren't able to stop illegal immigration today. I don't see that our opponents in the War on Terror are apt to be less competent than the many who have found ways to cross our borders in the past.

In Prohibition they were serious, but did not have the technology. In the later ventures, they were not serious. Today, technology plus seriousness of purpose can probably put a huge dent in the illegal inflow. It's a matter of priority.

Indeed, it is a matter of priorities more than technology. Americans are a little over-enamoured with technical fixes. Immigration in the SW desert is a very low-tech environment. You might ramp up surveillance but you have to have the boots on the ground to head off the immigrants and the support services - dare I say, Industry - to hold, process and deport those you capture. Very little opportunity to leverage our much vaunted technological advantage. Have we learned nothing from Iraq?

It is also very dangerous to under-estimate the intelligence and resourcefulness of your adversary. See Iraq, above.

I don't see why a combination of technology and boots-on-the-ground can't solve the problem, at least to a large degree. A series of fences with detectors in between, helicopter patrols, thousands of border patrol personnel, non-lethal boobytraps. The fences and boobytraps would at least slow intruders down, and the detectors would light boards at command centers that will tell patrols where to go.

It wouldn't be cheap, but it ain't goin' to cost $300 billion like Dubya's Iraqi boondoggle. And national guard troops are not necessary. That's Dubya being an idiot again. No "militarization" of the border needs to be done. Just give the Border Patrol what they need to get the job done!

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Originally Posted by scott 63

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

We weren't able to seal our borders during prohibition. We weren't able to seal our borders during the War on Drugs. We aren't able to stop illegal immigration today. I don't see that our opponents in the War on Terror are apt to be less competent than the many who have found ways to cross our borders in the past.

In Prohibition they were serious, but did not have the technology. In the later ventures, they were not serious. Today, technology plus seriousness of purpose can probably put a huge dent in the illegal inflow. It's a matter of priority.

Indeed, it is a matter of priorities more than technology. Americans are a little over-enamoured with technical fixes. Immigration in the SW desert is a very low-tech environment. You might ramp up surveillance but you have to have the boots on the ground to head off the immigrants and the support services - dare I say, Industry - to hold, process and deport those you capture. Very little opportunity to leverage our much vaunted technological advantage. Have we learned nothing from Iraq?

It is also very dangerous to under-estimate the intelligence and resourcefulness of your adversary. See Iraq, above.

I don't see why a combination of technology and boots-on-the-ground can't solve the problem, at least to a large degree. A series of fences with detectors in between, helicopter patrols, thousands of border patrol personnel, non-lethal boobytraps. The fences and boobytraps would at least slow intruders down, and the detectors would light boards at command centers that will tell patrols where to go.

It wouldn't be cheap, but it ain't goin' to cost $300 billion like Dubya's Iraqi boondoggle. And national guard troops are not necessary. That's Dubya being an idiot again. No "militarization" of the border needs to be done. Just give the Border Patrol what they need to get the job done!

I say that the technology component of the solution is insignificant.

Fences and booby-traps are hardly high-tech. They had those in the 1930s. Not as shiny as the ones we have today but a wall is a wall.

You and I agree that we could monitor the border much more effectively than past generations thanks to technology (your helicopters and detecters) but, as you stated, you still need "thousands of border patrol personnel" which is another low-tech component.

Lastly, "it won't be cheap." It has always been a matter of priorities: how much blood and treasure are you willing to divert to the cause. FDR could have built a massive wall and posted federal officers every 20 feet along the border. That he didn't probably speaks to a level of political support that wasn't there. Is it there now? We shall see ...

Originally Posted by scott 63

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Originally Posted by scott 63

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

We weren't able to seal our borders during prohibition. We weren't able to seal our borders during the War on Drugs. We aren't able to stop illegal immigration today. I don't see that our opponents in the War on Terror are apt to be less competent than the many who have found ways to cross our borders in the past.

In Prohibition they were serious, but did not have the technology. In the later ventures, they were not serious. Today, technology plus seriousness of purpose can probably put a huge dent in the illegal inflow. It's a matter of priority.

Indeed, it is a matter of priorities more than technology. Americans are a little over-enamoured with technical fixes. Immigration in the SW desert is a very low-tech environment. You might ramp up surveillance but you have to have the boots on the ground to head off the immigrants and the support services - dare I say, Industry - to hold, process and deport those you capture. Very little opportunity to leverage our much vaunted technological advantage. Have we learned nothing from Iraq?

It is also very dangerous to under-estimate the intelligence and resourcefulness of your adversary. See Iraq, above.

I don't see why a combination of technology and boots-on-the-ground can't solve the problem, at least to a large degree. A series of fences with detectors in between, helicopter patrols, thousands of border patrol personnel, non-lethal boobytraps. The fences and boobytraps would at least slow intruders down, and the detectors would light boards at command centers that will tell patrols where to go.

It wouldn't be cheap, but it ain't goin' to cost $300 billion like Dubya's Iraqi boondoggle. And national guard troops are not necessary. That's Dubya being an idiot again. No "militarization" of the border needs to be done. Just give the Border Patrol what they need to get the job done!

I say that the technology component of the solution is insignificant.

Fences and booby-traps are hardly high-tech. They had those in the 1930s. Not as shiny as the ones we have today but a wall is a wall.

You and I agree that we could monitor the border much more effectively than past generations thanks to technology (your helicopters and detecters) but, as you stated, you still need "thousands of border patrol personnel" which is another low-tech component.

Lastly, "it won't be cheap." It has always been a matter of priorities: how much blood and treasure are you willing to divert to the cause. FDR could have built a massive wall and posted federal officers every 20 feet along the border. That he didn't probably speaks to a level of political support that wasn't there. Is it there now? We shall see ...

To me it beats the alternatives: Relying on criminalizing illegals, doing nothing, or worse (leaving the border open but creating "guest worker" programs).

If we reasonably secure the border, the argument can be made to provide amnesty to those already here and be done with it. Those who oppose amnesty are given FAR, FAR more ammunition if it's just a repeat of the 1986 "reform" (i.e., give amnesty to those who came up to a few years ago and then do nothing else to solve the problem).

I am not sure which "side" in this fatuous national debate is more ridiculous.

The Congressional GOP: Who makes noises about criminalizing illegals as the solution. Good formula for a civil war/insurrection, not to mention immoral.

The President: Who wants these insane guest worker programs and then wants to militarize the border for show. So let's institutionalize the problem with the former and enrage Mexico with the latter. What a f*cking idiot.

The Democrats: Who want to do nothing to change the status quo, effectively. Thumb up their @sses.

The Far Right: Who are starting to make noises about "White Racial Awareness" and how Hispanics will take over demographically in "2050". White Power!

The Far Left: Who state we stole the Southwest from Mexico and the Indians anyway and think white male dominated America deserves what's coming to it. Che lives!

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

I am not sure which "side" in this fatuous national debate is more ridiculous.

The Congressional GOP: Who makes noises about criminalizing illegals as the solution. Good formula for a civil war/insurrection, not to mention immoral.

The President: Who wants these insane guest worker programs and then wants to militarize the border for show. So let's institutionalize the problem with the former and enrage Mexico with the latter. What a f*cking idiot.

The Democrats: Who want to do nothing to change the status quo, effectively. Thumb up their @sses.

The Far Right: Who are starting to make noises about "White Racial Awareness" and how Hispanics will take over demographically in "2050". White Power!

The Far Left: Who state we stole the Southwest from Mexico and the Indians anyway and think white male dominated America deserves what's coming to it. Che lives!

Pissed at everyone, aren't you? :twisted:

In any event, the "Right" gets three idiot points from you, while the "Left," such as it is, gets two. Looks like reality to me.

Originally Posted by The Pervert

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

I am not sure which "side" in this fatuous national debate is more ridiculous.

The Congressional GOP: Who makes noises about criminalizing illegals as the solution. Good formula for a civil war/insurrection, not to mention immoral.

The President: Who wants these insane guest worker programs and then wants to militarize the border for show. So let's institutionalize the problem with the former and enrage Mexico with the latter. What a f*cking idiot.

The Democrats: Who want to do nothing to change the status quo, effectively. Thumbs up their @sses.

The Far Right: Who are starting to make noises about "White Racial Awareness" and how Hispanics will take over demographically in "2050". White Power!

The Far Left: Who state we stole the Southwest from Mexico and the Indians anyway and think white male dominated America deserves what's coming to it. Che lives!

Pissed at everyone, aren't you? :twisted:

I guess. But Vince, it's just that to me this isn't rocket science. Lou Dobbs states it clearly when he says, "All talk about this issue is worthless, until you fix the border." Uh . . . . yeah, duh!

All of the above groups either don't understand that -- or do understand it but want to change the subject because they want either cheap labor and/or are anti-nationalist or anti-American (to some degree or another) -- or do understand but act like utter morons anyway (White Power!).

Originally Posted by The Pervert

In any event, the "Right" gets three idiot points from you, while the "Left," such as it is, gets two. Looks like reality to me.

I am an equal opportunity idiot pointer.

I don't belong in any of these camps, really. If there were a Lindian "Liberal Nationalist" party or a Etzionian "Communitarian Party", I'd be much more at home there. I don't even belong with these blossoming "Crunchy Conservatives" (my kids' day care provider is one, BTW). I'm more a semi-crunchy, mildly authoritarian centrist. "You vill eat your fiber, and you vill enjoy it!" 8)

At least in this 3T, the Nationalist Communitarian center is a lonely place. Perhaps the 4T will be different. I think it will be. And I suspect, however silly this may sound right now, that the Democratic Party will become more to my liking in the next several years. It is becuase of Dubya's absolute insanity, and the aforementioned suspicion, that I jumped ship last year and joined the Donkey as a Default Democrat.

I also suspect (and have been saying for a couple of years now) that Al Gore may surprise us all. Did you see SNL on Saturday? This dude is a different fellow, and I LIKE the change.

I have posted quotes in the past regarding a (presently obscurred) broad center. I expect this center to gel when the USA enters a full blown Crisis mood.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

I have posted quotes in the past regarding a (presently obscurred) broad center. I expect this center to gel when the USA enters a full blown Crisis mood.

I hope you're right.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Originally Posted by The Pervert

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

I am not sure which "side" in this fatuous national debate is more ridiculous.

The Congressional GOP: Who makes noises about criminalizing illegals as the solution. Good formula for a civil war/insurrection, not to mention immoral.

The President: Who wants these insane guest worker programs and then wants to militarize the border for show. So let's institutionalize the problem with the former and enrage Mexico with the latter. What a f*cking idiot.

The Democrats: Who want to do nothing to change the status quo, effectively. Thumbs up their @sses.

The Far Right: Who are starting to make noises about "White Racial Awareness" and how Hispanics will take over demographically in "2050". White Power!

The Far Left: Who state we stole the Southwest from Mexico and the Indians anyway and think white male dominated America deserves what's coming to it. Che lives!

Pissed at everyone, aren't you? :twisted:

I guess. But Vince, it's just that to me this isn't rocket science. Lou Dobbs states it clearly when he says, "All talk about this issue is worthless, until you fix the border." Uh . . . . yeah, duh!

Even the minimal state liberatarians agree that national defense and maintenance of the border are legitimate functions of the state.

All of the above groups either don't understand that -- or do understand it but want to change the subject because they want either cheap labor and/or are anti-nationalist or anti-American (to some degree or another) -- or do understand but act like utter morons anyway (White Power!).

Quite true. Note that the real debate isn't between the Democrats and the Republicans. It's between the elite of the Republican Party and the party's base (pun fully intended), who are displaying severe conflicts between their self-interests. HC got that one right.

As for that last group, the White Power bozos, they are high on my list to point and laugh at on USENET. I've nominated several for the alt.usenet.kooks Busted Urinal award and the alt.fan.art-bell "Thick as a Brick" and "Stevie Winter Memorial Hypocrisy" awards (I'm the Friendly Neighborhood Pollster of alt.usenet.kooks, so I administer the art.fan.art-bell awards for the Vote Wranglers of alt.fan.art-bell) and plan on nominating more in the near future.

Originally Posted by The Pervert

In any event, the "Right" gets three idiot points from you, while the "Left," such as it is, gets two. Looks like reality to me.

I am an equal opportunity idiot pointer.

Oh, I'm quite aware of that.

I don't belong in any of these camps, really. If there were a Lindian "Liberal Nationalist" party or a Etzionian "Communitarian Party", I'd be much more at home there. I don't even belong with these blossoming "Crunchy Conservatives" (my kids' day care provider is one, BTW). I'm more a semi-crunchy, mildly authoritarian centrist. "You vill eat your fiber, and you vill enjoy it!" 8)

At least in this 3T, the Nationalist Communitarian center is a lonely place. Perhaps the 4T will be different. I think it will be. And I suspect, however silly this may sound right now, that the Democratic Party will become more to my liking in the next several years. It is becuase of Dubya's absolute insanity, and the aforementioned suspicion, that I jumped ship last year and joined the Donkey as a Default Democrat.

I could smell his idiocy back in 2000 and jumped then.

I also suspect (and have been saying for a couple of years now) that Al Gore may surprise us all. Did you see SNL on Saturday? This dude is a different fellow, and I LIKE the change.

I missed it, but I know where there is a blog that has the clip on Youtube and I'll watch it when I get to a high-speed connection.