Pakistan is to India what Ukraine is to Russia. In the 1950s the west co-opted Pakistan through a series of pacts such as SEATO and CENTO. In exchange, the US, France and Britain poured military aid into the country, knowing that the weapons would be used against India. Deja vu.
That's an interesting take…a version of the oft quoted, best defense is a good offense. So how do we apply it it this damned if we do, damned if we don't situation?
I'm not 'mart enough to figure that part out, but I'm hearing very little from the "kill 'em all" and "bomb 'em all crowd".
Last edited:
We need to get out and stay out. We are occupiers and we must stop it. We damned sure wouldn't like it if china or someone else came over to occupy us. We wouldnt stand for it, yet we're doing it all over the world.
That's a good question. It seems to me the strategy Lind focuses on relies on the initial situation being less...kinetic, as it were. I am still firmly in the camp that a significant portion of them need to be wiped off the face of the planet. Who does it is less important to me than it just gets done. Like you, I recognize that I am not well suited to figuring this out and I know that the, "we should just get out crowd", is even less so. However, this forum seems to have a huge brain trust that knows exactly what needs to be done.
After reading what you've posted the past few days, I'm not even sure what your position on this is? If you applied what you said about killing innocents to WWII, those of us left would be speaking German right now. That's disconcerting.
Susan Rice said the other say that what we're facing is not an existential threat the way WWII was. She's a complete idiot. She's dumber than a box of rocks when it comes to the threat we face. Yet she's the person Obama picked to National Security Adviser. While the methods employed during the takeover of the Iberian Peninsula in the 8th century were different, the threat today is EXACTLY the same. Don't think so? Take a look at this IS map for the future:
Once they have a solid base in the Middle East for a dominant Sunni nation, their goals are to expand back into areas occupied during the Caliphate. This time they'll have a lot more help from other non-assimilated Sunnis who've established footholds in Western areas. Due to the realities of globalization, do you think the United States will be safe if this happens?
It's really a matter of whether you'd prefer to fight 60,000 now, or millions later? Think of how different the world might be if we'd re-entered Germany while Hitler was still solidifying his political power, rather than after Blitzkrieg?
I'm not slinging answers here, just food for thought. We can't rationalize away the potential seriousness of this threat.
Ah yes, the old go back in time and kill Hitler argument for intervention.
If I remember correctly that was one of the arguments used to justify toppling Saddam Hussein from power.
How did that work out?
The war in Iraq begat Al Qaeda in Iraq which begat ISIS.
That's how it worked out.
Even a blind neocon must be able to see that every military intervention we have embarked on in the middle east the last 2 decades has made things worse.
That dumbass Donald Rumsfeld finally had a clue about that.
You think I'm advocating something I'm not. The Bush Admin strategy on Iraq was terribly short sighted. It never cured the disease, it just treated the symptoms. Scratch that, it toppled a relatively stable and peaceful nationalist regime and left a power vacuum for radical Shi'as to to exploit, supported by Iran. Once we left, it left the fragile nation open to reconquest by the radical Sunni's in IS. Their goal is not just to dominate the region. Thinking that is short sighted.
Our power players either never understood the long game, or never cared. It doesn't matter if it's Bush or Obama or the next idiot in the Oval Office, they all show a distinct lack of historical perspective. This is primarily a result of presidential elections being an overgrown High School popularity contest, rather than a criteria based selection of critical national importance.
My position is simple. I don't know what the answer is, but I'm pretty confident it doesn't, right now, require the death of thousands more Americans nor should it require the death of thousands of innocent inhabitants of the cities and towns ISIL has captured. Comparisons to war against the country of Germany are mostly useless here.
I'm not really clear what your position is either, or more precisely, what your idea of a workable, sustainable and long term solution is.
I'm not really clear what your position is either, or more precisely, what your idea of a workable, sustainable and long term solution is.
How do I make that my sig line? Seriously, I don't how to do that, but that one there is just what I've been looking for.
My position is what we have done in the last three major conflicts have been abject failures. All have followed the same scenario.
The example of WWII against Japan and Germany is an example of success for them and us. We gained valuable allies with the methods we used to WIN those wars, and what we did afterward to steer those countrys into where they are today. Yes we are still occupying those country's after all these years, but we demilitarized them by force, defended them against outside aggression and kept them that way before slowly letting them become autonomous in their new style of government.
We didn't bail out on them in the middle of a conflict for political expediency after rudimentary training of their troops that couldn't hold a candle against the forces looking to destroy them.
Graft and corruption in the last three wars that we fought with the governments in charge and that we left in charge when we bailed, are way different that actually taking over that government after WWII, putting in a new style of government and instituting a democratic style of government.
We went into those conflicts for political reasons which is not the right reason to go to war, but we did and its our government and politicians that have to make sure we have the way to win these wars at all costs, and have the country's we go into have the same outcome as Germany and Japan when we leave.
We had an opportunity to do that when we took out Sadam, but sadly we let them go right back to their corrupt government, and left with the government in total disarray, no chance to make it right for the citizens because of a political promise during an election campaign.
Anybody that thinks the last three conflicts we fought ended the way it should, have their head in the sand/jungle.
Similar threads
