|
Post by middleoftheroad on Aug 30, 2014 15:25:59 GMT -5
Taking into consideration the subject of this thread and your "Consider The Threat" thread I think the U.S. has some tough choices to make. 1. Which is the greater threat to the U.S., ISIS in America or Russia in Ukraine? The U.S. needs to make this choice because as others have pointed out we no longer have to capacity to fight a 2 front war. My choice: ISIS is the bigger threat at this time. Let Putin have his way for the time being, we can deal with him after ISIS is eliminated I think Russia remains an existential threat, but because of that becomes one that is less likely to occur. I can agree with this priority, but would like to see Europe taking more responsibility for their own defense before I could do so with confidence. Two concerns on this approach vosa... What has Assad done to make you believe he would honor any such agreement and if we were unable/unwilling to deal with the Assad problem when he used chemical weapons, I hold little confidence that we would do so after we solved what may well be an existential threat to him. I've long said it was time to impose sanctions on Mexico. They are abetting the movement of illegal immigrants into our nation and that can not be tolerated. I personally would like to see us go after the cartels with military forces, but I don't expect that to happen. Nice reference to history vosa. I remember watching that on TV as a homework assignment! How do we translate the soaring rhetoric however to persuading the American people to resource still another war in the ME? How do we fund a worn out and tired military? Good post vosa, thanks for joining the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 30, 2014 20:41:10 GMT -5
I can't really argue with any of that. Except Putin is more of an over-extended petty tyrant than Devil. I suspect he has found himself in over his head in Ukraine. I don't think it is going anything like he planned it. I mean, let's face it, if it were the US invading (at least under almost any previous President) we'd be in Kiev by now. The Russian army, and it's co-conspirators in Ukraine, look weak in contrast to our invasion of Iraq. The 'devil' part was simply a figure of speech. However, his being over his head depends on his goals. Right now, he's mainly using militants, trained and equipped by Russia, but probably not Russian army. That indicates that he's in no real hurry, and that he might be trying to create a 'crisis' that Russia would have to intervene in, to "protect" their citizens. That would give him a sort of cover for his invasion. What's happening now may be just shaping the battlefield for later.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 31, 2014 6:15:53 GMT -5
I can't really argue with any of that. Except Putin is more of an over-extended petty tyrant than Devil. I suspect he has found himself in over his head in Ukraine. I don't think it is going anything like he planned it. I mean, let's face it, if it were the US invading (at least under almost any previous President) we'd be in Kiev by now. The Russian army, and it's co-conspirators in Ukraine, look weak in contrast to our invasion of Iraq. The 'devil' part was simply a figure of speech. However, his being over his head depends on his goals. Right now, he's mainly using militants, trained and equipped by Russia, but probably not Russian army. That indicates that he's in no real hurry, and that he might be trying to create a 'crisis' that Russia would have to intervene in, to "protect" their citizens. That would give him a sort of cover for his invasion. What's happening now may be just shaping the battlefield for later. I think Putin is too much of a tyrant to have that sort of patience. And the Russian military is not the US military. To the Russians, Ukraine is simply this generation's Afghanistan. Unless Putin has enough sense to put an end to the festering sore, it's only going to be a drain on Russia.
|
|
|
Post by rentedmule on Aug 31, 2014 7:17:17 GMT -5
The 'devil' part was simply a figure of speech. However, his being over his head depends on his goals. Right now, he's mainly using militants, trained and equipped by Russia, but probably not Russian army. That indicates that he's in no real hurry, and that he might be trying to create a 'crisis' that Russia would have to intervene in, to "protect" their citizens. That would give him a sort of cover for his invasion. What's happening now may be just shaping the battlefield for later. I think Putin is too much of a tyrant to have that sort of patience. And the Russian military is not the US military. To the Russians, Ukraine is simply this generation's Afghanistan. Unless Putin has enough sense to put an end to the festering sore, it's only going to be a drain on Russia. The Ukraine is not like Afghanistan, but more comparable to the US embarrassment and humiliation in Viet Nam. Cultures have feelings! Georgia and Ukraine are more likely comparable to South Carolina and Virginia in 1861. Where would America be without the influence and contributions of Virginians? Where would Russia be without the influence and contributions of Ukrainians? Foreign boots in Ukraine would be like foreign boots in South Carolina..... It may be a drain on Russia but hell, everything is a drain on Russia!
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 31, 2014 7:22:28 GMT -5
I think Putin is too much of a tyrant to have that sort of patience. And the Russian military is not the US military. To the Russians, Ukraine is simply this generation's Afghanistan. Unless Putin has enough sense to put an end to the festering sore, it's only going to be a drain on Russia. The Ukraine is not like Afghanistan, but more comparable to the US embarrassment and humiliation in Viet Nam. Cultures have feelings! Georgia and Ukraine are more likely comparable to South Carolina and Virginia in 1861. Where would America be without the influence and contributions of Virginians? Where would Russia be without the influence and contributions of Ukrainians? Foreign boots in Ukraine would be like foreign boots in South Carolina..... It may be a drain on Russia but hell, everything is a drain on Russia! In terms if their culture, and contributions to human civilization, yes, Georgia and Ukraine are much more like Virginia and South Carolina than Afganistan. In terms of sucking in the Russian army and tying it up in a war it can't win, though, I still think the comparison to Afghanistan is apt.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 31, 2014 8:42:12 GMT -5
The 'devil' part was simply a figure of speech. However, his being over his head depends on his goals. Right now, he's mainly using militants, trained and equipped by Russia, but probably not Russian army. That indicates that he's in no real hurry, and that he might be trying to create a 'crisis' that Russia would have to intervene in, to "protect" their citizens. That would give him a sort of cover for his invasion. What's happening now may be just shaping the battlefield for later. I think Putin is too much of a tyrant to have that sort of patience. And the Russian military is not the US military. To the Russians, Ukraine is simply this generation's Afghanistan. Unless Putin has enough sense to put an end to the festering sore, it's only going to be a drain on Russia. While true, the Russians have historically used numbers to offset any deficiency in training or technology. Should they be able to create a situation that "requires" their intervention, they could simply overwhelm Ukraine, and there's not much Ukraine could do about it. I don't know if there is enough population in Ukraine that is adversarial to Russia for them to engage in a protracted guerilla warfare. And Putin being a tyrant does not negate patience, if he wants to avoid world wide approbrium.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 31, 2014 8:45:00 GMT -5
I think Putin is too much of a tyrant to have that sort of patience. And the Russian military is not the US military. To the Russians, Ukraine is simply this generation's Afghanistan. Unless Putin has enough sense to put an end to the festering sore, it's only going to be a drain on Russia. While true, the Russians have historically used numbers to offset any deficiency in training or technology. Should they be able to create a situation that "requires" their intervention, they could simply overwhelm Ukraine, and there's not much Ukraine could do about it. I don't know if there is enough population in Ukraine that is adversarial to Russia for them to engage in a protracted guerilla warfare. And Putin being a tyrant does not negate patience, if he wants to avoid world wide approbrium. I don't think they've got the numbers anymore either.
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Aug 31, 2014 11:03:32 GMT -5
Two concerns on this approach vosa... What has Assad done to make you believe he would honor any such agreement and if we were unable/unwilling to deal with the Assad problem when he used chemical weapons, I hold little confidence that we would do so after we solved what may well be an existential threat to him. Assad has done nothing to make me believe he would honor any such agreement, but right now I don't care. The idea here is to get his permission to/cooperation in striking ISIS in Syria now. We can deal with his perfidy after ISIS is eliminated.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 31, 2014 21:48:51 GMT -5
While true, the Russians have historically used numbers to offset any deficiency in training or technology. Should they be able to create a situation that "requires" their intervention, they could simply overwhelm Ukraine, and there's not much Ukraine could do about it. I don't know if there is enough population in Ukraine that is adversarial to Russia for them to engage in a protracted guerilla warfare. And Putin being a tyrant does not negate patience, if he wants to avoid world wide approbrium. I don't think they've got the numbers anymore either. Yes, I think they do. They still have compulsory service. They have a rather large reserve of manpower, if they decide to use it.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Sept 1, 2014 4:15:05 GMT -5
Two concerns on this approach vosa... What has Assad done to make you believe he would honor any such agreement and if we were unable/unwilling to deal with the Assad problem when he used chemical weapons, I hold little confidence that we would do so after we solved what may well be an existential threat to him. Assad has done nothing to make me believe he would honor any such agreement, but right now I don't care. The idea here is to get his permission to/cooperation in striking ISIS in Syria now. We can deal with his perfidy after ISIS is eliminated. Deal with his perfidy with our own? I would rather we strike at ISIS and Syria. My position is not based on any particular fondness for Assad but more practical. Western credibility is virtually nothing there now and we will need local allies when this is over. The Kurds particularly need to see us as having mended our ways; if they don't, we will be among hostiles wherever we go.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Sept 1, 2014 4:26:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Sept 1, 2014 7:20:40 GMT -5
I don't think they've got the numbers anymore either. Yes, I think they do. They still have compulsory service. They have a rather large reserve of manpower, if they decide to use it. Conscripts are usually OK for national defense, but convincing them to invade another country is much more difficult. We could expect them to be poorly trained, poorly armed, and unmotivated. Also poorly organized, and poorly led. Only time will tell, of course, but I suspect Putin is already passed his "high water mark" in Ukraine.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Sept 1, 2014 7:23:34 GMT -5
Assad has done nothing to make me believe he would honor any such agreement, but right now I don't care. The idea here is to get his permission to/cooperation in striking ISIS in Syria now. We can deal with his perfidy after ISIS is eliminated. Deal with his perfidy with our own? I would rather we strike at ISIS and Syria. My position is not based on any particular fondness for Assad but more practical. Western credibility is virtually nothing there now and we will need local allies when this is over. The Kurds particularly need to see us as having mended our ways; if they don't, we will be among hostiles wherever we go. I think you might be on to something there. If we're going into Syria, you may as well take out both our problems there.
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Sept 1, 2014 12:57:22 GMT -5
Assad has done nothing to make me believe he would honor any such agreement, but right now I don't care. The idea here is to get his permission to/cooperation in striking ISIS in Syria now. We can deal with his perfidy after ISIS is eliminated. Deal with his perfidy with our own? I would rather we strike at ISIS and Syria. My position is not based on any particular fondness for Assad but more practical. Western credibility is virtually nothing there now and we will need local allies when this is over. The Kurds particularly need to see us as having mended our ways; if they don't, we will be among hostiles wherever we go. We agree to attack ISIS, Assad agrees to mend his domestic ways. We keep our part of the agreement. He doesn't. We deal with him for not keeping his part of the agreement. So where is the perfidy on our part. If striking ISIS & Syria results in the defeat of both then we have created a vacuum in Syria. Who fills that vacuum? Can you guarantee that whoever does won't be as bad if not worse than ISIS or Assad?
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Sept 1, 2014 13:32:02 GMT -5
Deal with his perfidy with our own? I would rather we strike at ISIS and Syria. My position is not based on any particular fondness for Assad but more practical. Western credibility is virtually nothing there now and we will need local allies when this is over. The Kurds particularly need to see us as having mended our ways; if they don't, we will be among hostiles wherever we go. We agree to attack ISIS, Assad agrees to mend his domestic ways. We keep our part of the agreement. He doesn't. We deal with him for not keeping his part of the agreement. So where is the perfidy on our part. If striking ISIS & Syria results in the defeat of both then we have created a vacuum in Syria. Who fills that vacuum? Can you guarantee that whoever does won't be as bad if not worse than ISIS or Assad? Ah... That power vacuum. Yes, that's the big problem with ANY operation in the Middle East. Sort of strange, when you think about it. It only ever seems to be Islamists who have the support and ability to fill those power vacuums. People keep asserting that most Muslims are moderate, peace loving, people. Yet they don't seem to be present in large enough quantities in the Middle East to form an elected government.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Sept 2, 2014 7:49:11 GMT -5
The creation of this new "rapid response" force from NATO is interesting, but I suspect it is something that has been in the plans for years. Bringing it out now is an effort to make NATO look responsive to the emerging Russian threat. It will be interesting to see if they publicly announce the capabilities assigned, particularly after Putin is reported to have said he can take Kiev in two weeks. www.nytimes.com/2014/09/03/world/europe/ukraine-crisis.html With his reminder last week about being a nuclear power, this guy needs careful watching. The conference in Estonia this week is also interesting. The Brits have responded to a request from the Baltic countries to expand air patrols over their areas (listening to a replay of a Parliamentary session held Friday). Poland began increasing its military budgets heavily last year. www.aei.org/outlook/polish-hard-power-investing-in-the-military-as-europe-cuts-back An exercise planned for NATO-Ukraine training in July of this year was originally cancelled, but may now be re-scheduled for later this year (same Parliamentary session as above).
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Sept 2, 2014 8:52:28 GMT -5
The creation of this new "rapid response" force from NATO is interesting, but I suspect it is something that has been in the plans for years. Bringing it out now is an effort to make NATO look responsive to the emerging Russian threat. It will be interesting to see if they publicly announce the capabilities assigned, particularly after Putin is reported to have said he can take Kiev in two weeks. www.nytimes.com/2014/09/03/world/europe/ukraine-crisis.html With his reminder last week about being a nuclear power, this guy needs careful watching. The conference in Estonia this week is also interesting. The Brits have responded to a request from the Baltic countries to expand air patrols over their areas (listening to a replay of a Parliamentary session held Friday). Poland began increasing its military budgets heavily last year. www.aei.org/outlook/polish-hard-power-investing-in-the-military-as-europe-cuts-back An exercise planned for NATO-Ukraine training in July of this year was originally cancelled, but may now be re-scheduled for later this year (same Parliamentary session as above). It would be sort of ironic if Obama's greatest foreign policy achievement was projecting so much US weakness that it finally causes our NATO allies to begin picking up the slack. To his credit though, that would be one hell of an achievement.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Sept 2, 2014 20:28:36 GMT -5
The creation of this new "rapid response" force from NATO is interesting, but I suspect it is something that has been in the plans for years. Bringing it out now is an effort to make NATO look responsive to the emerging Russian threat. It will be interesting to see if they publicly announce the capabilities assigned, particularly after Putin is reported to have said he can take Kiev in two weeks. www.nytimes.com/2014/09/03/world/europe/ukraine-crisis.html With his reminder last week about being a nuclear power, this guy needs careful watching. The conference in Estonia this week is also interesting. The Brits have responded to a request from the Baltic countries to expand air patrols over their areas (listening to a replay of a Parliamentary session held Friday). Poland began increasing its military budgets heavily last year. www.aei.org/outlook/polish-hard-power-investing-in-the-military-as-europe-cuts-back An exercise planned for NATO-Ukraine training in July of this year was originally cancelled, but may now be re-scheduled for later this year (same Parliamentary session as above). It would be sort of ironic if Obama's greatest foreign policy achievement was projecting so much US weakness that it finally causes our NATO allies to begin picking up the slack. To his credit though, that would be one hell of an achievement. The problem is, they are 'responding' in a typical fashion, by building a "Rapid Response Team". Of 4000 individuals. Which means they are essentially putting a suicide element out there as a trip wire.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Sept 2, 2014 23:20:23 GMT -5
It would be sort of ironic if Obama's greatest foreign policy achievement was projecting so much US weakness that it finally causes our NATO allies to begin picking up the slack. To his credit though, that would be one hell of an achievement. The problem is, they are 'responding' in a typical fashion, by building a "Rapid Response Team". Of 4000 individuals. Which means they are essentially putting a suicide element out there as a trip wire. Well, they've been utterly dependent on the US for their defense for a very long time. Most of them, except maybe the Poles and Brits, have forgotten how to do these things. Hopefully they learn quickly.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Sept 3, 2014 8:44:51 GMT -5
The problem is, they are 'responding' in a typical fashion, by building a "Rapid Response Team". Of 4000 individuals. Which means they are essentially putting a suicide element out there as a trip wire. Well, they've been utterly dependent on the US for their defense for a very long time. Most of them, except maybe the Poles and Brits, have forgotten how to do these things. Hopefully they learn quickly. What's ironic is that it may be France that will lead the way. They have shown some serious backbone recently during several different situations.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Sept 3, 2014 8:49:58 GMT -5
Well, they've been utterly dependent on the US for their defense for a very long time. Most of them, except maybe the Poles and Brits, have forgotten how to do these things. Hopefully they learn quickly. What's ironic is that it may be France that will lead the way. They have shown some serious backbone recently during several different situations. Actually, they have. So yes. Credit where it's due. It is indeed ironic that a hard core French socialist like Hollande turns out to be less of a pacifist than Obama. But that's just how far the Democratic party has fallen in this country. And someone needs to tell Obama that "leading from behind" means "following."
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Sept 3, 2014 14:51:57 GMT -5
I don't think Obama cares enough to matter, and that none of this will happen anyway. I'm not sure Obama could bluff him. If we had a Reagan in the White Housr though, it might work. What I'm hoping will happen in all of this is that the Europeans will realize we don't have their backs anymore, and they can't rely on the US to provide for their defense, and that they'll re-arm accordingly. It's sort of odd when the French display more backbone than the US - as they've done in Mali. Germany has already started rearming. And the French have already registered concern over it, with reason, but the French are in league with Putin. Selling him naval vessels. There's an update on this today: Apparently the French have developed even more backbone: Yahoo NewsI hope they've taken the Russians money and keep the ships.
|
|