I agree that we may have diverted much needed resources and attention to Iraq, but I disagree that the governments thought out the plan wrongfully. The situation in Afghanistan is actually not that bad, when you compere it to places like Iraq. Its not just the short term stuation that needs securitising, but its long term future as an allie of the United States (and to a lessor extent GB). The enemy in Afghanistan - wheter they be Mujahideen (foreign fighters unaffiliated with any Bin Laden or Taliban cause), Taliban, Afghans, sympathisers of OBL - are fighting Coalition troops and committing terrorist attacks, but these are insufficient for any serious drawn out campaign.
Say if western forces did leave, and then Taliban forces rose up again and increased attacks substantially - would this mean a falure of the coaltion forces?
In my view, it would be seen that way. But the motivations and intentions of the adversary must always be taken into account, and realistically the enemy is something that troops on the ground can not annihilate completely. The idea is to weaken the enemy to the point that its ambitions seem out of reach and decides to lay down its arms.
Its a bit different with those who committ terrorism however. But remember that terrorism only serves an end, and that end is not victory. Terrorism is niether sufficient or lasting enough to implement a policy. Terrorism can only create the conditions necessary for a revolution or prolonged guerrilla insurgency. The aim to to train the Afghan government to the point (it is also true for th Iraqi government) that it can defend against terrorist attacks. These governments do not have the authority, power or legitimacy to fight a prolonged defensive campaign against guerrillas - so they must extinguish or limit the threat in its terrorism phase.
That can also be applied to Iraq. There are probably tens of thousands in Iraq fighting what can only be described as legitimate - political affiliates is not important here - guerrilla war. Only a minority - a few thousand at most - are beign used in terror attacks. The goal of those attacks, in my view, is to kick off civil war and create chaos - conditions necessary for a minority and prolonged guerrilla campaign and Islamic revival in Iraq. Like in Afgahnistan, the Iraqis need to be trained to defend and fight against terrosists.
However in Iraq this is not the case. Because policy makers have fused the guerrillas and terrorists into one bloc of oponents - 'the insurgency' - much needed resources are being used to go on the offensive against an enemy that one can only realistically defend against. Iraqi soldiers and police are being used to fight the enemy of the United States and coalition forces. They need to concentrate on fighting those who comitt terrorism - the Islamic Shura council is the new name of the collective organisations I think - and to destroy thier infastructure. Anti-coalition forces are the coalitions problems. Anti-Iraqi forces are the Iraqis problems. But that is not to say that we shouldnt be fighting those who commit terror.
Iraqis or Afghanis should not be used to fight our wars. If they are used correctly, the terrorist infastructure can be shattered and the long term threat can be extinguished in its most destructive and vulnerable phase.
If not, and Iraqis and Afghans are continually used against those who pose no long term threat to the stability of Iraq - Iraqi resistance fighters and foreign Mujahideedn (for sake of argument I have seperated the guerilla Mujahideen from the foreign terrorist fighters) - then the long term stability of Iraq can not be guaranteed.
You may see differently, but in my view attacks upon coalition forces are not a sign of instability - for thier is alwasy two sides of a war and thier motivations are so complex and varied that they can not be just labelled as Islamists, Baathists, etc. Terrorist attacks are the main indicating factor of stability or not.
It may seem simplistic that I devide the enemy into two camps - those who committ terror and those who do not. While both sides may equally, from time to time, vary thier tactics and use both conventional and unconventional tactics, it is those groups centred around Abu Musab al Zarqawi - the Shura Council - that use terrorism most greatly and are therefore the greates threat to Iraqis stability.
Blatantly labelling every single group and individual in Iraq or Afghanistan who fires a gun in anger as a terrorist is not only comletely unjustified and incorrect, it is also problematic and simplistic. It adds complications to an already complex situation and adds unecessary layers to the threat. The USA has simply neglected understanding for firepower and brute force. It may be politically helpful for Geroge Bush to call his enemies evil, but the situation on the ground is a lot different and if military commanders follow Bush's rhetoric then the situation will never get better.
And Iran? Its anyones guess but apparently it will take them 4/5 years to develop a nuclear weapon. Either we sort this mess out peacefully or Iran will have to be bombed every 3 years or so, and even then they will eventually gain nuclear weapons sooner or later - if that is indeed thier intentions,
Share This Page:
Afghanistan
gkayesem
You are pretty good at developing arguments to discuss the present situation,which is dire. I respect them.
I am still of the opinion that the Afghaniston situation is the result a of bad Foriegn Affairs management due being coloured by the 9/11 atrocity.
It has created a serious problem.I agree that the Powers stuck with it and will have to make the best of it.
Unfortunately Iraq is going to be probably worse due to reasons previously referred to.
I really hope that similar situation will not be created by singling out Iran for Coalition to be dealt because of it interest in Nuclear Power.
There has only been two Nuclear attacks since the developement ot the atom bomb at that was by America and Allies for what was considered legitimate reasons at the time in 1945.
Since that time, several countries have developed much more powerful bombs and they have appeared to deter every Power from using them on the Tit for Tat theory ,especially during the 'cold war'.Why should America decide to persuade other countries that Iran will start lobbing Nuclear bombs and rockests everywhere? As I said once before Iran has never attacked anyone .
PS. Forgive diversion from Afghanistan to Iran etcetera.
You are pretty good at developing arguments to discuss the present situation,which is dire. I respect them.
I am still of the opinion that the Afghaniston situation is the result a of bad Foriegn Affairs management due being coloured by the 9/11 atrocity.
It has created a serious problem.I agree that the Powers stuck with it and will have to make the best of it.
Unfortunately Iraq is going to be probably worse due to reasons previously referred to.
I really hope that similar situation will not be created by singling out Iran for Coalition to be dealt because of it interest in Nuclear Power.
There has only been two Nuclear attacks since the developement ot the atom bomb at that was by America and Allies for what was considered legitimate reasons at the time in 1945.
Since that time, several countries have developed much more powerful bombs and they have appeared to deter every Power from using them on the Tit for Tat theory ,especially during the 'cold war'.Why should America decide to persuade other countries that Iran will start lobbing Nuclear bombs and rockests everywhere? As I said once before Iran has never attacked anyone .
PS. Forgive diversion from Afghanistan to Iran etcetera.
[img]http://deephousepage.com/smilies/bangdesk.gif[/img]
I'm working on it !
I'm working on it !
I think Afghan and Iraqs been exhauted here and elsewhere. 
I dont agree that Iran has any serious foreign policy goals, but so what if they did? Thats realpolitik for yer -every country is fundamnetaly out for themselves.
Strategically, it would be a disastor for the US or UK - or for anyone else that is not a strong ally of Iran - if Iran developed a nuclear weapon. It would be a strategic success for Iran if they did get nuclear capability, but only if that is indeed thier intentions.
Nuclear weaonry serves the purpose of defense. Only the United States has used them aggressively - during the Cold War nuclear weapons were strategically 'used' for thier deterrence value. They were never produced - nor are they produced - for the purposes of use although those powers need to make that use possible and credible for deterrence to work.
Only Little Boy and Fat Man (and a bunch of other nukes used in tests) were developed for the purpose of use. All the others were developed for the purpose of deployment and the possibility of use.
Nuclear deterrence is a defensive measure. As of yet thier is little evidence that Iran is indeed developing a nuclear weapon - its a possbility - but we should not assume that thier intentions are aggressive.
The United States is Irans main rival. Iran and the US have got poor relaitons with each other, but the United States has overwhelming military capibility. A nculear weapon would provide adequate defense.
All of americas convntional aggressive forces (politicians will claim they are defensive) are only strategically useful if they can be used successfully. A nuclear equiped Iran would prevent thier successful use. Strategy is the purpose of using force or the threat of force to achieve ones will. If Iran grows strong with the development and deployment of nuclear weaponry, the strategy of the United States - which is to serve the interests of the United States - will have failed.
Iran is not a totalitarian state. It may not be fully democractic, but its President and Islamic Ayatollahs do not have supreme power and do not direclt Iran for thier own purpose or for the purpose of any form of Islam. Islamic laws exist in Iran to protect thier islamic heritage and thier society based upon that heritage, not to force it on the outside world.
They give support to groups like Hamas and Hizbollah, but thats irrevlent as the US gives aid to Israel. Im not taking sides over that conflict, but neither can claim the moral highground.
The US is the rival of Iran, therefore beating it with a stick and hoping it will back down is paradoxical - using the threat of force to prevent them from gaining a defensive measure. It wont work.
What is needed is the carrot. The allies of Iran, Russia and China - with pressure from the US and the EU - must work with Iran to end any ambitions it may have peacefully. Attacking Iran with those allies will not only harm Iran and its allies, but its rivals and wont work.
It must be done peacefully by the international community. If the use of force is deemed as a necessity - those sponsering nations must go through the UN Security Council and get approval. If the use of force is not sanctioned by the UN - because of a veto by European countries, Russia, China or anyone else - then force can not be used.
It worked with Saddam, but Saddam did not provide the major powers with any benefit that was worth fighting over - probably the reason why the war was able to continue without SC approval.
But Iran is different. It has good and improving relations with both China and Russia, and if the US or EU uses action that could jeopordise those relations then the possibility will remain that they may intervene to secure thier relationship with Tehran. This does not necessarily mean that they would attack the US or physically defend from it, but following any airstrikes both China and Russia would be forced to boost Tehran's defenses against future attack - possibly witht he supply of a sufficient NBC deterrence or with conventional weaponry - which would not only serve to protect Iran from external threats, would may also give reason for the government to clamp down on any internal threats it may define.
Im not saying here that Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons - another nuclear equiped state is not ideal. But, my argument is that if we want to deny Iran that possibility, then it must be achieved peacefully or through the UNSC. In this situation, the US is not the worlds policeman and any actions it may take without proper jsutification would itself threaten world stability.
I have purposefully left out any mention of human rights and democratisation for two reasons.
Firstly, the situation is so important that it far outwieghs any concerns of either - peace and stability is more important and the above can only be achieved peacefully.
And secondly, mention of human rights and democratisation can not only cloud ones political and strategic judgement, but is so blatanty used that it only serves as a tool for propaganda. America has pumped millions into a new propaganda campaign against the Iranian government. The nuclear situation and and hopes for democracy or humans rights improvements are two distinct elements, and fusing them together only creates complications in an already complex situation and only serves the purpose of Americas strategy.
I could also say, as a third reason, that American claims that Iran cannot gain nuclear weapons because of its lack of demoracy and any human rights abuses is ignoring the fact that China, Russia, North Korea, Israel, the US, Pakistan, India, Great Britain and France are not 100% democratic and have all committed human rights abuses from time to time. Also a few of these nations have a worse human rights record and lack of democratic rights than Iran.
Iran is being painted as an aggressive nation with an irrational leader. But of course, the United States is a peace loving country with an extremely rational, peace loving and intelligent leader!!!!
For peace, you must prepare for war.
I dont agree that Iran has any serious foreign policy goals, but so what if they did? Thats realpolitik for yer -every country is fundamnetaly out for themselves.
Strategically, it would be a disastor for the US or UK - or for anyone else that is not a strong ally of Iran - if Iran developed a nuclear weapon. It would be a strategic success for Iran if they did get nuclear capability, but only if that is indeed thier intentions.
Nuclear weaonry serves the purpose of defense. Only the United States has used them aggressively - during the Cold War nuclear weapons were strategically 'used' for thier deterrence value. They were never produced - nor are they produced - for the purposes of use although those powers need to make that use possible and credible for deterrence to work.
Only Little Boy and Fat Man (and a bunch of other nukes used in tests) were developed for the purpose of use. All the others were developed for the purpose of deployment and the possibility of use.
Nuclear deterrence is a defensive measure. As of yet thier is little evidence that Iran is indeed developing a nuclear weapon - its a possbility - but we should not assume that thier intentions are aggressive.
The United States is Irans main rival. Iran and the US have got poor relaitons with each other, but the United States has overwhelming military capibility. A nculear weapon would provide adequate defense.
All of americas convntional aggressive forces (politicians will claim they are defensive) are only strategically useful if they can be used successfully. A nuclear equiped Iran would prevent thier successful use. Strategy is the purpose of using force or the threat of force to achieve ones will. If Iran grows strong with the development and deployment of nuclear weaponry, the strategy of the United States - which is to serve the interests of the United States - will have failed.
Iran is not a totalitarian state. It may not be fully democractic, but its President and Islamic Ayatollahs do not have supreme power and do not direclt Iran for thier own purpose or for the purpose of any form of Islam. Islamic laws exist in Iran to protect thier islamic heritage and thier society based upon that heritage, not to force it on the outside world.
They give support to groups like Hamas and Hizbollah, but thats irrevlent as the US gives aid to Israel. Im not taking sides over that conflict, but neither can claim the moral highground.
The US is the rival of Iran, therefore beating it with a stick and hoping it will back down is paradoxical - using the threat of force to prevent them from gaining a defensive measure. It wont work.
What is needed is the carrot. The allies of Iran, Russia and China - with pressure from the US and the EU - must work with Iran to end any ambitions it may have peacefully. Attacking Iran with those allies will not only harm Iran and its allies, but its rivals and wont work.
It must be done peacefully by the international community. If the use of force is deemed as a necessity - those sponsering nations must go through the UN Security Council and get approval. If the use of force is not sanctioned by the UN - because of a veto by European countries, Russia, China or anyone else - then force can not be used.
It worked with Saddam, but Saddam did not provide the major powers with any benefit that was worth fighting over - probably the reason why the war was able to continue without SC approval.
But Iran is different. It has good and improving relations with both China and Russia, and if the US or EU uses action that could jeopordise those relations then the possibility will remain that they may intervene to secure thier relationship with Tehran. This does not necessarily mean that they would attack the US or physically defend from it, but following any airstrikes both China and Russia would be forced to boost Tehran's defenses against future attack - possibly witht he supply of a sufficient NBC deterrence or with conventional weaponry - which would not only serve to protect Iran from external threats, would may also give reason for the government to clamp down on any internal threats it may define.
Im not saying here that Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons - another nuclear equiped state is not ideal. But, my argument is that if we want to deny Iran that possibility, then it must be achieved peacefully or through the UNSC. In this situation, the US is not the worlds policeman and any actions it may take without proper jsutification would itself threaten world stability.
I have purposefully left out any mention of human rights and democratisation for two reasons.
Firstly, the situation is so important that it far outwieghs any concerns of either - peace and stability is more important and the above can only be achieved peacefully.
And secondly, mention of human rights and democratisation can not only cloud ones political and strategic judgement, but is so blatanty used that it only serves as a tool for propaganda. America has pumped millions into a new propaganda campaign against the Iranian government. The nuclear situation and and hopes for democracy or humans rights improvements are two distinct elements, and fusing them together only creates complications in an already complex situation and only serves the purpose of Americas strategy.
I could also say, as a third reason, that American claims that Iran cannot gain nuclear weapons because of its lack of demoracy and any human rights abuses is ignoring the fact that China, Russia, North Korea, Israel, the US, Pakistan, India, Great Britain and France are not 100% democratic and have all committed human rights abuses from time to time. Also a few of these nations have a worse human rights record and lack of democratic rights than Iran.
Iran is being painted as an aggressive nation with an irrational leader. But of course, the United States is a peace loving country with an extremely rational, peace loving and intelligent leader!!!!
For peace, you must prepare for war.
-
Doc
- Guest
-
harry hackedoff
- Member
- Posts: 14415
- Joined: Tue 19 Feb, 2002 12:00 am
I expect you will continue to observe your own ring piece which is where you probably get your inspiration from for such crap comments .Doc wrote:My conclusion is your both a pair of planks and no doubt have intimate knowledge of each others ring pieces.
[img]http://deephousepage.com/smilies/bangdesk.gif[/img]
I'm working on it !
I'm working on it !
Its "blairtheliar" all over again... 
Last edited by SO19 on Sun 12 Mar, 2006 2:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
[i]‘We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat’ - Queen Victoria, 1899[/i]
-
Greenronnie
- Member
- Posts: 1059
- Joined: Sat 03 Dec, 2005 11:44 am
- Location: Oxfordshire/USA
You two need to get a life, and gk, you need to learn how to spell before anyone will take your smartarse comments seriously.
Never mind all the complicated political BS, if Iran is allowed to develop a nuclear programme, we are all definately f****d. And no matter how much us Brits like to criticise the Yanks, they are right in that we need to act in this matter. If we proceed in a typical PC direction, that seems so necessary these days, then these lunatics will show us how serious they are.
Never mind all the complicated political BS, if Iran is allowed to develop a nuclear programme, we are all definately f****d. And no matter how much us Brits like to criticise the Yanks, they are right in that we need to act in this matter. If we proceed in a typical PC direction, that seems so necessary these days, then these lunatics will show us how serious they are.
Your first paragraph.I refer you to Doc's 'ring piece' comments and my response.Greenronnie wrote:You two need to get a life, and gk, you need to learn how to spell before anyone will take your smartarse comments seriously.
Never mind all the complicated political BS, if Iran is allowed to develop a nuclear programme, we are all definately f****d. And no matter how much us Brits like to criticise the Yanks, they are right in that we need to act in this matter. If we proceed in a typical PC direction, that seems so necessary these days, then these lunatics will show us how serious they are.
As for your second paragraph,all the relevant views have been amicably discussed at length, as they should be.
[img]http://deephousepage.com/smilies/bangdesk.gif[/img]
I'm working on it !
I'm working on it !
-
Greenronnie
- Member
- Posts: 1059
- Joined: Sat 03 Dec, 2005 11:44 am
- Location: Oxfordshire/USA
-
harry hackedoff
- Member
- Posts: 14415
- Joined: Tue 19 Feb, 2002 12:00 am
