Originally Posted by salsabob

Whether we "go big, go long or go home"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...462713,00.html


does anyone doubt it will be measured in Friedman Units?

I bet we'll "go long" and give it just one more FU to see if it works. And of course, this next FU "is a critical time."

I like the concept of "Friedman Units," a unit of time specifically designed to measure quagmires. Do we need, however, a larger unit to measure the entire quagmire? How many base FUs should there be in a Royal FU or a Grand FU?

Shiastan is an effective reality.

Talk about chutzpah, not only did the Iraqi leaders, whom we are funding and protecting, bury the hatchet with Damascus, with the tacit approval of Teheran, but they also called on the United States to stay in Iraq for the time being. Why should they fight the Sunni insurgents when America can do the dirty work?

haven't read all the posts so hope you haven't already discussed this... Richard Haass has written an article on the" New Middle East" in Foreign Affairs at: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200611...ddle-east.html

I was wondering what your thoughts are on his ideas.

excerpts: From Foreign Affairs, November/December 2006

THE END OF AN ERA

Just over two centuries since Napoleon's arrival in Egypt heralded the advent of the modern Middle East -- some 80 years after the demise of the Ottoman Empire, 50 years after the end of colonialism, and less than 20 years after the end of the Cold War -- the American era in the Middle East, the fourth in the region's modern history, has ended. Visions of a new, Europe-like region -- peaceful, prosperous, democratic -- will not be realized. Much more likely is the emergence of a new Middle East that will cause great harm to itself, the United States, and the world......

AMERICAN PASTORAL

The end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union brought about a fourth era in the region's history, during which the United States enjoyed unprecedented influence and freedom to act. Dominant features of this American era were the U.S.-led liberation of Kuwait, the long-term stationing of U.S. ground and air forces on the Arabian Peninsula, and an active diplomatic interest in trying to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict once and for all (which culminated in the Clinton administration's intense but ultimately unsuccessful effort at Camp David). More than any other, this period exemplified what is now thought of as the "old Middle East." The region was defined by an aggressive but frustrated Iraq, a radical but divided and relatively weak Iran, Israel as the region's most powerful state and sole nuclear power, fluctuating oil prices, top-heavy Arab regimes that repressed their peoples, uneasy coexistence between Israel and both the Palestinians and the Arabs, and, more generally, American primacy.

What has brought this era to an end after less than two decades is a number of factors, some structural, some self-created. The most significant has been the Bush administration's decision to attack Iraq in 2003 and its conduct of the operation and resulting occupation. One casualty of the war has been a Sunni-dominated Iraq, which was strong enough and motivated enough to balance Shiite Iran. .... And by tying down a huge portion of the U.S. military, the war has reduced U.S. leverage worldwide. It is one of history's ironies that the first war in Iraq, a war of necessity, marked the beginning of the American era in the Middle East and the second Iraq war, a war of choice, has precipitated its end.

Other factors have also been relevant. One is the demise of the Middle East peace process. ...
Another factor that has helped bring about the end of the American era has been the failure of traditional Arab regimes to counter the appeal of radical Islamism. ....
Finally, globalization has changed the region. It is now less difficult for radicals to acquire funding, arms, ideas, and recruits. .....

WHAT LIES AHEAD
.....
First, the United States will continue to enjoy more influence in the region than any other outside power, but its influence will be reduced from what it once was. This reflects the growing impact of an array of internal and external forces, the inherent limits of U.S. power, and the results of U.S. policy choices.

Second, the United States will increasingly be challenged by the foreign policies of other outsiders. The European Union ...China .... Russia will distance themselves from U.S. efforts to promote political reform in nondemocratic states in the Middle East.

Third, Iran... enjoys great wealth, is the most powerful external influence in Iraq, and holds considerable sway over both Hamas and Hezbollah. It is a classic imperial power, with ambitions to remake the region in its image and the potential to translate its objectives into reality.

Fourth, Israel ...is in a weaker position today than it was before this summer's crisis in Lebanon. And its situation will further deteriorate -- as will that of the United States -- if Iran develops nuclear weapons.

Fifth, ... a viable peace process is unlikely for the foreseeable future...

Sixth, Iraq...a failed state wracked by an all-out civil war that will draw in its neighbors.

Seventh, the price of oil will stay high, the result of strong demand from China and India, limited success at curbing consumption in the United States, ...

Eighth, "militiazation" , both a product and a cause of weak states, will emerge wherever there is a perceived or an actual deficit of state authority and capacity.

Ninth, terrorism, defined as the intentional use of force against civilians in the pursuit of political aims, ... will grow in sophistication and remain a tool used against Israel and the presence of the United States and other powers.

Tenth, Islam will increasingly fill the political and intellectual vacuum in the Arab world .... Meanwhile, tensions between Sunnis and Shiites will grow throughout the Middle East, causing problems in countries with divided societies, such as Bahrain, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia.

Eleventh, Arab regimes are likely to remain authoritarian and become more religiously intolerant and anti-American. Two bellwethers will be Egypt and Saudi Arabia. ....

Finally, regional institutions will remain weak....

MISTAKES AND OPPORTUNITIES

Although the basic features of this fifth era of the modern Middle East are largely unattractive, this should not be a cause for fatalism. ... Eras in the Middle East can last for as long as a century or as little as a decade and a half. It is clearly in the interest of the United States and Europe that the emerging era be as brief as possible -- and that it be followed by a more benign one.

To ensure this, U.S. policymakers need to avoid two mistakes...an overreliance on military force. As the United States has learned to its great cost in Iraq -- and Israel has in Lebanon -- military force is no panacea. It is not terribly useful against loosely organized militias and terrorists who are well armed, accepted by the local population, and prepared to die for their cause. ... Military action against Iran would also drive the price of oil to new heights, increasing the chances of an international economic crisis and a global recession. For all these reasons, military force should be considered only as a last resort.

The second mistake would be to count on the emergence of democracy to pacify the region...., creating mature democracies is no easy task, ....

As for the opportunities to be seized, the first is to intervene more in the Middle East's affairs with nonmilitary tools. Regarding Iraq, redeployment of U.S. troops and training of local military and police, establish a regional forum for Iraq's neighbors (Turkey and Saudi Arabia in particular) and other interested parties akin to that used to help manage events in Afghanistan following the intervention there in 2001. Doing so would necessarily require bringing in both Iran and Syria. ...

Iran is a more difficult case. But since regime change in Tehran is not a near-term prospect, military strikes against nuclear sites in Iran would be dangerous, and deterrence is uncertain, diplomacy is the best option available to Washington. The U.S. government should open, without preconditions, comprehensive talks that address Iran's nuclear program and its support of terrorism and foreign militias. Iran should be offered an array of economic, political, and security incentives. It could be allowed a highly limited uranium-enrichment pilot program so long as it accepted highly intrusive inspections. Such an offer would win broad international support, a prerequisite if the United States wants backing for imposing sanctions or escalating to other options should diplomacy fail. Making the terms of such an offer public would increase diplomacy's chances of success. The Iranian people should know the price they stand to pay for their government's radical foreign policy. With the government in Tehran concerned about an adverse public reaction, it would be more likely to accept the U.S. offer.

Diplomacy also needs to be revived in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ...

The second opportunity involves the United States' insulating itself as much as possible from the region's instability. This would mean curbing U.S. oil consumption and U.S. dependence on the Middle East's energy resources, goals that could best be achieved by reducing demand (by, say, increasing taxes at the pump -- offset by tax reductions elsewhere -- and promoting policies that would accelerate the introduction of alternative sources of energy). Washington should also take additional steps to reduce its exposure to terrorism. Like vulnerability to disease, vulnerability to terrorism cannot be entirely eliminated. But more can and should be done to better protect the U.S. homeland and to better prepare for those inevitable occasions when terrorists will succeed.

...no quick or easy solutions to the problems the new era poses. The Middle East will remain a troubled and troubling part of the world for decades to come. It is all enough to make one nostalgic for the old Middle East.

For discussion purposes, the story of an Iraqi translator who worked for the US Army. He shows a respect for American values and courage, and for what they are trying to do. On the other hand, he outlines why it just isn't working.

But even as we cleaned the city of garbage, we forgot another kind of garbage that was accumulating. The way the Army reacted to the insurgency was not perfect. The Americans did many foolish things. When I saw the pictures from Abu Ghraib, I thought, we are teaching Iraqi policemen not to do that — do the Americans really do that?

I grew sad, and I didn’t know what to believe, because the people I worked with were great. I’d told the officers at our camp’s detention center, “You are treating those prisoners better than their own mothers.” It’s not normal in our culture for a policeman to come and feed a sick prisoner who is so dangerous that you have to keep him chained.

But I did it myself. I was very kind to Iraqi people, to my own people, and I think Americans taught me that — the American Army that I was working with, not the American Army that was in Abu Ghraib.

In the second year, when we were processing the release of prisoners from Abu Ghraib, I read out a list of names of prisoners who needed to collect their documents. One of them said to me, “You are all going to be killed.” I thought he was referring to the Americans, until he said, “No, I mean you.”

I didn’t translate this for the soldiers who were with me. I was thinking, “This person just got out of prison, and I don’t want to be the reason that he goes back to prison.”

About a month later, a message was fixed to my door, full of verses from the Koran and threats and curses. They gave me about one week to quit what I was doing.

A week later, a CD was fixed on my door, picturing one of my best friends, Nabi Abul-Ahad. It was a video of them beheading him, with the message that I would be next.

I was kicked out of the house. My family didn’t want me there any more. They said, “You’re going to get us all killed.” I had to leave my wife, who was pregnant. Baghdad was a real hell, so I hid in Najjaf.

After my wife gave birth to our son, her father told her, “If your husband doesn’t come to Mosul now, even if he’s going to get killed, then you are not his wife anymore.” This can happen in our society. I didn’t want to lose my wife or my son, so I went back to Mosul.

In Mosul, I had to stay hidden. I walked for about three hours in the dark, after curfew, when anybody can shoot at you, including the Americans, just to see my wife and my newborn son. Then I went back to my family’s house and hid for three months.

This is a style of terror not too far removed from what Saddam could do when he controlled the full mechanisms of government. The insurgents might not be able to kill everyone who sympathizes with what the Americans wish to do, but they can effectively prevent them from doing their jobs and isolate them from their families. The target is specific professions... translator, police officer, whatever jobs might be necessary to keep the new Americanized culture functional. When one reads in other stories how much turnover there is with newly trained Iraqi police, or how the Iraqi police are reluctant or will refuse to perform their jobs, the above story might reflect why.

In American culture, it is a big deal that the bad guys are not allowed to go after a cop, and are very much not allowed to go after a cop's family. Taboo. It really ticks the cops off. Not a good career move for the bad guy who tries it. This central American value is missing in Iraq. I'm not sure how one gets there from here. The practical Iraqi answer is that if the other guys are going after your family, you go after their family. The answer to terror is terror. Under Saddam, the central controlling principle was that only Saddam could make people disappear. When that is the core of the culture, and when Saddam is made to disappear, the conflict is over who can most effectively make people disappear.

It doesn't much matter how well armored one's hummer is, how well it is armed, how precisely its GPS can isolate its position, if the cops can't protect the cops' families. And should the cops manage to fort up their families, can they also protect the translators' families, the driver's families who supply them, the politicians' families, the professors' families, the food service people's families, the garbage truck drivers' families...

Moving from 150,000 troops to 170,000 for a few months isn't going to do it. I strongly dislike the idea of ethnic cleansing, but I don't see a political and cultural solution coming before a short term military and security solution. I suspect the short term military solution is going to involve walls and distance. How does one stop family directed terror with intermingled families?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I like the concept of "Friedman Units," a unit of time specifically designed to measure quagmires. Do we need, however, a larger unit to measure the entire quagmire? How many base FUs should there be in a Royal FU or a Grand FU?

Would dividing France's war in Algeria into ten discrete units create metric FU's?

I think a more ancient Anglo-Saxon approach would be to take the period between Dien Bien Phu and the Fall of Saigon (one bog= 21 years) and divide by 12 (fen= 21 months). And this approach would require the addition of a unit for 2 fens, which would be a quagmire.

On an overlapping scale there would be the 37 month-long "PA" (Police Action - the length of open hostilities in the Korean War). Therefore, there are 6.81 PA's in a Bog.

So far the Iraq War to date equals:

0.17 Bogs
1.05 Quagmires
1.19 PA's
2.10 Fens
4.68 Metric FU's

Yep, it's official. We're in a quagmire.

Originally Posted by jadams

haven't read all the posts so hope you haven't already discussed this... Richard Haass has written an article on the" New Middle East" in Foreign Affairs at: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200611...ddle-east.html

I was wondering what your thoughts are on his ideas . . .

Highly reasonable analysis.

Originally Posted by jadams

haven't read all the posts so hope you haven't already discussed this... Richard Haass has written an article on the" New Middle East" in Foreign Affairs at: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200611...ddle-east.html

I was wondering what your thoughts are on his ideas.

Good article. He talks of eras, of major events that reshuffle the situation for a decade or three, makes me want to find a way to end this era. Not sure how to break the situation he describes.

Mainly, I don't see much economic reform coming without political reform. With no movement towards modernization, the general tension in the region is between religious reform and stagnated dictatorships, with the Arab-Jew and Shiite-Sunni tensions providing adequate excuse for flowing political tensions away from any democratic option. As the US wants to keep oil prices low, it can't provoke any real change in the oil producing states. Haass is also correct in that any true democratic and economic reform is not going to be a quick fix. Thus, nothing is happening or is likely to happen in the current era, not even a beginning towards the sort of reforms it would take to reduce tensions in the area.

So, other than getting rid of the Neocons, with their fondness for military solutions and allergies to diplomacy, what could shake things out of the current lockup?

Originally Posted by salsabob

Measuring Iraq in whole or partial "Friedman Units" (FU = 6 months) -

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2884

I measure flame-war cycles on USENET in six-month cycles. I had no idea they'b be useful in meatspace.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

For discussion purposes, the story of an Iraqi translator who worked for the US Army. He shows a respect for American values and courage, and for what they are trying to do. On the other hand, he outlines why it just isn't working.



This is a style of terror not too far removed from what Saddam could do when he controlled the full mechanisms of government. The insurgents might not be able to kill everyone who sympathizes with what the Americans wish to do, but they can effectively prevent them from doing their jobs and isolate them from their families. The target is specific professions... translator, police officer, whatever jobs might be necessary to keep the new Americanized culture functional. When one reads in other stories how much turnover there is with newly trained Iraqi police, or how the Iraqi police are reluctant or will refuse to perform their jobs, the above story might reflect why.

In American culture, it is a big deal that the bad guys are not allowed to go after a cop, and are very much not allowed to go after a cop's family. Taboo. It really ticks the cops off. Not a good career move for the bad guy who tries it. This central American value is missing in Iraq. I'm not sure how one gets there from here. The practical Iraqi answer is that if the other guys are going after your family, you go after their family. The answer to terror is terror. Under Saddam, the central controlling principle was that only Saddam could make people disappear. When that is the core of the culture, and when Saddam is made to disappear, the conflict is over who can most effectively make people disappear.

It doesn't much matter how well armored one's hummer is, how well it is armed, how precisely its GPS can isolate its position, if the cops can't protect the cops' families. And should the cops manage to fort up their families, can they also protect the translators' families, the driver's families who supply them, the politicians' families, the professors' families, the food service people's families, the garbage truck drivers' families...

Moving from 150,000 troops to 170,000 for a few months isn't going to do it. I strongly dislike the idea of ethnic cleansing, but I don't see a political and cultural solution coming before a short term military and security solution. I suspect the short term military solution is going to involve walls and distance. How does one stop family directed terror with intermingled families?

This is one reason why I believe we should have launched a full scale invasion of the mideast after 9/11. An invasion in which the troops would be ordered to live off the land and destroy everything in their path, mongol-style. Remember we're dealing with people who consider defeat to be stalemate and stalemate as victory. Only inflicting total destruction on all muslim regions would the meme of genocidal anti-western hatred die. Thus to this end after the conquest and occupation of the islamic world is completed generalcommisarriats should be established with the goal of reducing the population of the occupied muslim territories by at least 70%. Those in charge of this task must be ruthless enough to actually carry it out; as brutal as it is. Only then will the muslim respect America and refrain from attacking our nation. Had we done this after 9/11, we would not be worrying about terrorism; the war would have been already over by now and we would be returning to the peaceful optimism of the 90's.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

This is one reason why I believe we should have launched a full scale invasion of the mideast after 9/11. An invasion in which the troops would be ordered to live off the land and destroy everything in their path, mongol-style. Remember we're dealing with people who consider defeat to be stalemate and stalemate as victory. Only inflicting total destruction on all muslim regions would the meme of genocidal anti-western hatred die. Thus to this end after the conquest and occupation of the islamic world is completed generalcommisarriats should be established with the goal of reducing the population of the occupied muslim territories by at least 70%. Those in charge of this task must be ruthless enough to actually carry it out; as brutal as it is. Only then will the muslim respect America and refrain from attacking our nation. Had we done this after 9/11, we would not be worrying about terrorism; the war would have been already over by now and we would be returning to the peaceful optimism of the 90's.

If you really believe this, you are insane.

First, where are you going to get the troops for this unmited Asian land war from? Also, how are you going to pay for such a large force. Perhaps a tax on oil company profets, that's who we're in Iraq for after all.
There are moslems in almost every country on earth, including millions within the USA. What you propose is more than an unlimited Asian land war-which in military history has never proven to be a good idea-it is an unlimited global war . And I guess that we need internal concentration camps for anyone suspected of being a moslem. There are so many flaws in your argument that I could go on but I'll stop for now.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

If you really believe this, you are insane.

First, where are you going to get the troops for this unmited Asian land war from? Also, how are you going to pay for such a large force. Perhaps a tax on oil company profets, that's who we're in Iraq for after all.
There are moslems in almost every country on earth, including millions within the USA. What you propose is more than an unlimited Asian land war-which in military history has never proven to be a good idea-it is an unlimited global war . And I guess that we need internal concentration camps for anyone suspected of being a moslem. There are so many flaws in your argument that I could go on but I'll stop for now.

Total war mobilization could in theory create an army of 40 million troops. As for Monetary revenues, the nationalization of oil trusts and other large corporations would provide more then enough revenue. I know that such a genocidal solution is insanely radical; however we may have no choice on the matter if terrorist WMD's are detonated in the US. We should have responded in a way to ensure that such an event can never happen. As for an oil war, my proposal includes the destruction of the oil wells by invasion and later by scorched-earth.

As for the Oil Barons and the Multinats, they're contemptible traitors who would happily sacrifice this country for profit. Therefore, they should be eliminated. We are a proud people and the oil Barons create the image of bumbling american hubris and arrogance. This combined by our restraint is aiding to create the growing image in Asia that westerners are contempible money grubbing pacifists. The false lure of oil should be replaced by the steel of the state, and the iron will of the people.

From a simple strategic viewpoint, a war on the Arab lands would have bee disastrous for America. Full commitment of troops, to any threatre, which this type of operation would entail, is never a good idea, and would leave us vunerable to other attacks (Remember the Billion strong country Northeast of the Arab lands?). Besides, Pakistan has nukes, and would've used them either against us or an allie.

Look, I understand where you're coming from on this theory, but it is really just silly.

Plus, under pressure from their populations who would see us as wanting a world wide empire, a lot of Europe would probably declare war on us.

Likely if a total war broke out between the west and the muslim world with america in the thick of it, the US would sacrifice taiwan, korea and southeast mainland asia to the chinese in order to keep them neutral.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Likely if a total war broke out between the west and the muslim world with america in the thick of it, the US would sacrifice taiwan, korea and southeast mainland asia to the chinese in order to keep them neutral.

China would not remain neutral. At the very least it would join the war on
Pakistan's behalf, and possibly also Bangladesh's.

John

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Total war mobilization could in theory create an army of 40 million troops. As for Monetary revenues, the nationalization of oil trusts and other large corporations would provide more then enough revenue. I know that such a genocidal solution is insanely radical; however we may have no choice on the matter if terrorist WMD's are detonated in the US. We should have responded in a way to ensure that such an event can never happen. As for an oil war, my proposal includes the destruction of the oil wells by invasion and later by scorched-earth.

In theory, this is quite doable. Mass deployment of neutron bombs would accomplish this task. Here's the rub though, I don't think China and Russia would be too pleased with that option. How would you take that into account? OTOH, are you seeking a strateic strike based on if we could ascertain for sure where the attack originated? IMHO, the all out scorched earth policy would drag China/Russia and other nation-states in, while a strategic strike with a neutron bomb perhaps would not. These weapons don't make much fallout which would tee off too may folks if some sort of diplomatic horse trading happened. Ie. We get to use the bomb, and we'll hand the oil wells over to say, China/Russia as a trade. They can have the damn things as far I'm concerned. A quick mention on the "insanely radical",
part. You may want to do a bit of research on first wave X'ers
(1961-1964). I'm more of the mild type in that cohort group. I can certainly see others, of a nihilistic mindset, having the Iranian Revolution as a coming of age experience, going off and doing exactly what you state above. 25 years ago there were lots of chants of bomb-bomb Iran and burning the Ayatollah in effigy. This is just not so good, this Iranian/Mideast thing is a hot button issue from this side of the cohort spectrum.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero in a subsequent post

s for the Oil Barons and the Multinats, they're contemptible traitors who would happily sacrifice this country for profit. Therefore, they should be eliminated. We are a proud people and the oil Barons create the image of bumbling american hubris and arrogance. This combined by our restraint is aiding to create the growing image in Asia that westerners are contempible money grubbing pacifists. The false lure of oil should be replaced by the steel of the state, and the iron will of the people.

We are a proud people? I think the assorted bubbles mentioned in other threads would indicate the US is comprised of self indulgent people. We don't make anything of use anymore, but instead go to "China-Mart" and fondle assorted goods made in China. We also spend as if there is no tommorow and have mortgaged our furture pretty deep in the hole. I'd suggest the US look in the mirror and correct our own faults as a start. As for the Multinationals, yup, we've let them run amok. Obviously, the first thing to do is to overhaul the tax regime and business climate. The price to pay will be a huge crash, but that will occur anyhow The crash would just get accelerated, IOW. An example is oil, as I mentioned before, set a floating tax on each barrell to make the price equal to $100.00 to start and adjust upwards by the inflation rate or 4%, whichever is higher. I'd use the proceeds to swtich the US economy away from oil and towards a policy of energy autarky. So? Do we have what it takes to purposefully crash our economy as the price to pay to switch to domestic sources? And of course, will we have tough leaders to guide the US through the transition? Remember, the policy you seem to be proposing will most likely result in a crash that will make the 1930's look like a walk in the park. Of course I'd like the US to kick the oil habit, but I'm thinking there is a less traumatic way of doing this. That is, keep the oil tax, and start moving away from oil first and don't wait for an attack BEFORE revamping the energy policy. We'd still get to import oil, but the price would be high enough to get the alternatives going, without such a big economic shock of going cold turkey.

Originally Posted by BigStar

Remember the Billion strong country Northeast of the Arab lands?

India?

Why not better remember the billion-strong muslim country sort of in-between our friends the Aussies and the ROTW. If we're going to go declaring race-wars and all, that is...

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

China would not remain neutral. At the very least it would join the war on
Pakistan's behalf, and possibly also Bangladesh's.

John

I'm with X here. Or maybe China would just see it in their interest to be on the 'other' side from a genocidal maniac? The argument sure worked for the US as regards Germany the last time around... And think of the stories the Chinese would get to tell forty years hence about their 'Greatest Generation' that put their personal differences aside and united to stop the forces of tyranny and slaughter!

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

This is one reason why I believe we should have launched a full scale invasion of the mideast after 9/11. An invasion in which the troops would be ordered to live off the land and destroy everything in their path, mongol-style. Remember we're dealing with people who consider defeat to be stalemate and stalemate as victory. Only inflicting total destruction on all muslim regions would the meme of genocidal anti-western hatred die. Thus to this end after the conquest and occupation of the islamic world is completed generalcommisarriats should be established with the goal of reducing the population of the occupied muslim territories by at least 70%. Those in charge of this task must be ruthless enough to actually carry it out; as brutal as it is. Only then will the muslim respect America and refrain from attacking our nation. Had we done this after 9/11, we would not be worrying about terrorism; the war would have been already over by now and we would be returning to the peaceful optimism of the 90's.

The US committing genocide will not kill genocidal hatred of the US. There is the potential for a perfect storm here. If the US starts committing genocide, this gives a moral imperative for other powers to mobilize their populations to stop the genocide. If the US is destroying energy sources at the same time it is committing genocide, the ruling elites of the other powers would see an opportunity to acquire control of the energy sources. This combination of moral and economic motivation is common in a Fourth Turning, quite often driving the victorious faction.

I am also dubious on mobilizing a 40 million man army. That would take years. Given the deficit hole we're currently in and our credit debt to China, getting there would be problematic. Also, formations that massive with a genocidal objective would invite a nuclear response.

On the other hand, it takes a lot fewer troops to commit genocide than to impose democracy by force. If the US were to study modern genocidal tactics as used in Darfur and Somalia, you don't need a massive ultra modern force to kill women and children. You just need troops totally lacking in morals. I don't know that the US has enough cynical heroes to get the job done.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

This is one reason why I believe we should have launched a full scale invasion of the mideast after 9/11. An invasion in which the troops would be ordered to live off the land and destroy everything in their path, mongol-style. Remember we're dealing with people who consider defeat to be stalemate and stalemate as victory. Only inflicting total destruction on all muslim regions would the meme of genocidal anti-western hatred die. Thus to this end after the conquest and occupation of the islamic world is completed generalcommisarriats should be established with the goal of reducing the population of the occupied muslim territories by at least 70%. Those in charge of this task must be ruthless enough to actually carry it out; as brutal as it is. Only then will the muslim respect America and refrain from attacking our nation. Had we done this after 9/11, we would not be worrying about terrorism; the war would have been already over by now and we would be returning to the peaceful optimism of the 90's.

You need a shrink, NOW.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

The US committing genocide will not kill genocidal hatred of the US. There is the potential for a perfect storm here. If the US starts committing genocide, this gives a moral imperative for other powers to mobilize their populations to stop the genocide. If the US is destroying energy sources at the same time it is committing genocide, the ruling elites of the other powers would see an opportunity to acquire control of the energy sources. This combination of moral and economic motivation is common in a Fourth Turning, quite often driving the victorious faction.

I am also dubious on mobilizing a 40 million man army. That would take years. Given the deficit hole we're currently in and our credit debt to China, getting there would be problematic. Also, formations that massive with a genocidal objective would invite a nuclear response.

On the other hand, it takes a lot fewer troops to commit genocide than to impose democracy by force. If the US were to study modern genocidal tactics as used in Darfur and Somalia, you don't need a massive ultra modern force to kill women and children. You just need troops totally lacking in morals. I don't know that the US has enough cynical heroes to get the job done.

Yes but you would need a 40 million man army to overwhelm opposition. As for a genocide, most of the troops don't even have to participate in such activities, you could assemble seperately about 2 million such fanatics for those actions. Also this course of action is to be used only as a last resort, only in case all efforts to contain the islamic extremist or establish a lasting peace between the west and the muslim world fails.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Yes but you would need a 40 million man army to overwhelm opposition. As for a genocide, most of the troops don't even have to participate in such activities, you could assemble seperately about 2 million such fanatics for those actions. Also this course of action is to be used only as a last resort, only in case all efforts to contain the islamic extremist or establish a lasting peace between the west and the muslim world fails.

When I wrote earlier, I could smell the thanksgiving turkey coooking and quit writing quickly to attend to pressing details. I didn't get to the root of the argument about why 911 happened and how should we have responded.
You seem eagar to use the term "Islamic extremists" as a blanket term for a number of different groups. If you look at how fast things are deteriorating in the area currently called Iraq, it is plain that moslems are extremly diverse in their beliefs and resulting motivations. The assumption that shittes and sunnis thought of themselves primarily as Iraqis was one of the first failures of this administration in planning for the invasion. You propose to take this same error and apply it on a global scale.
Most experts on the Islamic worldview will point out that the main problem between America and the moslem world isn't what we are, but what we do. It's clear if you notice the facisination commom people in moslem lands have for anything America. Our music, our TV shows, our clothing ect. are of great interest to most people in that part of the world. What they don't like is our once apparent and scince the Iraq invasion of 2003, clear willingness to use military power to forcibly extract resources from their lands while claiming that we have come to 'help democratize' them.
Putting together a force of 2 million killers to strike their lands like a plague of locusts is not going to win frinds. Even if this were possible without creating an international alliance worldwide to stop us, it would not pacify the region, it would simply turn those who do not see us as an emeny against us.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Yes but you would need a 40 million man army to overwhelm opposition.

Define "opposition".

As for a genocide, most of the troops don't even have to participate in such activities, you could assemble seperately about 2 million such fanatics for those actions.

Genocide as a proscribed policy, I think would still unnerve China and Russia. A little history is in order here. China had this tactic done to them in the 1930's, and Russia had a similar experience, one self inflicted and then one by the Germans in WW II. A thing to consider is a phenomenon
known as "blowback". Please do a Google search with this word and I think you'll come to find out that things just aren't that simple. I think we also need to separate 9/11 from Iraq. Iraq played no part whatsoever in 9/11.
Honestly, I have no clue why Bush pulled off the blunder of the century here. He either did it for the oil or he was missing from realityland and did it. I just don't know. Iraq is like Humpty Dumpty now, I don't know how to put it back together again. Perhaps others here have an idea...

Also this course of action is to be used only as a last resort, only in case all efforts to contain the islamic extremist or establish a lasting peace between the west and the muslim world fails.

No. Again, this mess is a symptom of a larger problem. At least you're backtracking a bit, which is good. As I said before, getting the US economy off these stupid 19th century fuels should be a major focus of a problem to fix in a 4th turning. I think that one act would go far in that for the Mideast at least, we'd no longer have a reason to exploit their oil. Wouldn't you agree ?

Irak as Non-Performance Art

Originally Posted by Mr. Mark Danner

Anyone wanting to answer the question of "how we began" in Iraq has to confront the monumental fact that the United States, the most powerful country in the world, invaded Iraq with no particular and specific idea of what it was going to do there, and then must try to explain how this could have happened.

in the New York Review of Books: Iraq: The War of Imagination