US swaps 5 Gitmo prisoners for US soldiers release, but many questions remain

[High Fidelity]

Here is what needs to happen in Iraq.

Pakistan resumes air strikes to flush insurgents from volatile border region | Reuters

Forcing them somewhere else just makes them someone else's problem.

 

[Armoured]

Here is what needs to happen in Iraq.

Pakistan resumes air strikes to flush insurgents from volatile border region | Reuters

Great plan. Using who's airfarce?

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Iraq should defend Iraq. Rather simple, actually.

Here is how not to do foreign policy. The brutal incompetence of the Obama administration never ceases to amaze me.

US condemns Isis 'mass execution' as White House signals Iran cooperation on Iraq - Telegraph

 

[theophilus777]

I don't think this is possible and I think the past 10 years are a testament to that.

How so? Nothing even remotely similar to this has been done in the last 10 years; or ever, to the best of my knowledge.

 

[theophilus777]

QFT. What's the difference between 9/11 and a dead dairy cow?

At least you didn't say dead yak. And utter disregard for human life noted.

 

[High Fidelity]

How so? Nothing even remotely similar to this has been done in the last 10 years; or ever, to the best of my knowledge.

Why have we been fighting the Taliban? Because we just bumped in to them whilst out of a stroll?

 

[Armoured]

At least you didn't say dead yak. And utter disregard for human life noted.

I said dead yak in simile to my wife's navigational ability, and I stand by it. As for disregard for human life, I'm not the one demanding more troops be pointlessly thrown into the meat grinder for no appreciable gain, not to mention the associated collateral damage. I don't think it's me you want to be complaining about when it comes to disregarding human life.

If you want to accuse me of being tired of people using 9/11 in the hope of derailing any rational discussion by cheap appeal to emotion, well, hey, ya got me. Guilty as charged.

 

[Armoured]

Iraq should defend Iraq. Rather simple, actually.

So they should. However, in practice they may find that somewhat difficult, you know, after we destroyed their military and all. I'm not suggesting we send troops back, in fact, that's the last thing I want to see. But I will admit it strikes me as faintly absurd to expect Iraq to see to their own defences now it is politically expedient, after we've spent so much effort making sure their military capability was slightly less than that of the Salvation Army.

 

[theophilus777]

I said dead yak in simile to my wife's navigational ability, and I stand by it. As for disregard for human life, I'm not the one demanding more troops be pointlessly thrown into the meat grinder for no appreciable gain, not to mention the associated collateral damage. I don't think it's me you want to be complaining about when it comes to disregarding human life.

If you want to accuse me of being tired of people using 9/11 in the hope of derailing any rational discussion by cheap appeal to emotion, well, hey, ya got me. Guilty as charged.

None of this makes any sense. You apparently forget how US got drawn into the WOT. Some of us prefer that sort of thing not happen again.

 

[Armoured]

None of this makes any sense. You apparently forget how US got drawn into the WOT. Some of us prefer that sort of thing not happen again.

What part doesn't make sense to you? How do you think re-invading Iraq makes terrorism less likely elsewhere?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I couldn't tell if you were referring to Iran w/ nuclear energy, but I think its a good idea, provided UN scrutiny.

You couldn't tell?

Can you explain how the current situation is different, on either front?

It's not -- so why you're explicitly suggesting we do what we did then is, again, something of a mystery.

Still sounds like you're saying if we send drones to make strategic kills, and do it well, they'd be ok with that. i think we need some boots on the ground to do that, but they can be in small groups,. special ops. Somehow I think they'd still object.

"Somehow" you think people would object to a foreign army in their country? Well, don't go out on a limb there, chief...

I'm not missing that at all. I'm just saying the psychological advantage this would give us against a conventional enemy is lost, due to religious zeal, stupidity or lunacy, whichever you prefer to call it. the advantage is reduced to those we kill, w/o being killed ourselves.

Not at all -- we still have the psychological advantage. It is less than it would be against a conventional enemy, but even religious people an be frustrated -- it just takes more work... too much to justify the expense of the drones.

And you have yet to defend your position that we can't kill them all. As much as I know about our arsenal, I suspect you know more. Which would mean you know we very well could.

And you STILL have the "kill all the bad guys and we win" video game approach to warfare.

So USA #1 = we suck? We attacked cities and armies. Not alliances, and certainly not strategy.

Not quite as simplistic as you like -- we both agree that we've been going at Iraq and Afghanistan the wrong way.

Altruism is a non-existent unicorn, but this is the wrong forum for that.

Indeed -- so now you understand why your butter and Blankets strategy is doomed to fail.

Alliance w/ AQ and/or Taliban. That was the primary stated reason, that most libs and doves here have forgotten.

No, we remember -- we also remember it was a lie.

Of course that ideology would have us march right across into Saudi Arabia, and maybe Egypt too. One colony from oil field to shining oil field would not be that difficult to conquer, and obviously keeping it intact would be superior.

Indeed -- except Saudi Arabia and Egypt are our allies, and maybe you need it explained that one does not conquer their own allies...

Skillful diplomacy; walk softly and carry a big stick.

The Taliban isn't afraid of our big stick.

Point out we can push them off their precious territory rather easily, but have no real motivation to do so.

Is that why we haven't done it already? Lack of trying?

State plainly that it would be cheaper to simply do some of the Nation building we always do after blowing a place up, w/o needing to blow up AF, esp considering it was in a shambles to begin with.

It may be a shambles, but to the people of Afghanistan, it's their shambles. They're not going to appreciate you blowing it up; you're drive them straight to the Taliban.

Point out rather pointedly that the Taliban had 0 cred with the Int'l community because they had neglected their populace, not providing any essential services, and couldn't be considered a legit Gov't. Let 'em get piping mad if they want, when truth does that its needed.

The problem is that we also have 0 cred in that area -- how much simpler can I make it for you? We're not wanted there.

Broker a peace deal if possible, that starts with a massive influx of humanitarian aid, coupled by media to show the world if they commit any human rights violations.

We don't even trust the media; you think they will?

(Killing unarmed people counts) Make them put their money where their mouth is, if they think their populace really wants them in power they will improve their own position along with everybody else's. Make sure every other country knows the details of the deal before anybody sets foot in AF for the effort.

Neither they nor anyone else cares if the populace "wants" them in power -- all that matters is they absolutely don't want US in power over there... don't you get it?

And if the Talibs refuse, our bargaining chip was normal warfare, but no Nation building. IOW, get out of dodge as soon as our military objective was completed. How long did that part of the operation take again? How much blood? How much treasure? How much did we do to remove their ability to do us harm? That part of it was actually pretty effective. All I'm saying is give them the choice, and make it one or the other but not both.

So, WWI-style obliteration; killing all the people we were claiming to want to save. That'll go over well with the international community...

No liberation involved in this scenario; unabashed colonizers.

So... conquest, then. Be the monsters they say we are, and justify every terrorist act against us -- past, present, and future.

I see the point far better than you. You're the one confusing the Gospel with a text book for how to accomplish world peace.

Yeah, I guess it is rather ridiculous to look to the Gospels for messages on peace...

That part of things is not designed for a willing populace. And again, we'd be far more moral than the Taliban ever was. (Unless you really really like long beards, I guess?)

So we can be conquerors, as long as we tell ourselves we're better than the people we conquered? Sounds like the Roman Empire to me.

 

[TLK Valentine]

SEE: post WWI Germany. We have sunk terrible blood and treasure, but not accomplished any lasting objective.

So your master plan is to do it all again exactly the same way -- but to preface it with a threat to do so if they don't let us "help" them first?

Keep tabs on them, and have them pay for it. You don't recall that was W's plan from the beginning?

Worked like a charm, didn't it?

Who said anything about "hero?" And colonizer, please. Empires colonize.

Toe-may-toe; toe-mot-toe -- call it what you will to rationalize it.

Actually I don't, and never did. Slow suicide is taking a hit like 911 and doing nothing.

Quick suicide is taking a hit like 9/11 and fighting without thinking.

I've laid out 2 drastically different plans.

Indeed -- their only similarity was that they were both bad ideas.

But OBL was a start.

And are we safer for it?

If we colonize, and rule, then they're not in competition with us and they can progress as rapidly as possible no problem.

I'm sure George III thought the same thing about his American colonies.

And here I was thinking you might care about the plight of the Palestinians. No? You've been talking about removing their political objective ... if Israel kills all the Palestinians as they've been accused of, terrorism ceases?

You thought wrong. Israel kills the Palestinians; the Palestinians kill the Israelis; let the chips fall where they may, because it's not our responsibility.

Like I said easy to conquer difficult to maintain. Those pesky colonists are bound to become more trouble than they're worth sooner or later, but in the meantime there's profits to be made ol' chap! Why should Halliburton have all the luck?

So you're deliberately being greedy and short-sighted? Exploit them for as much quick cash as you can, and then wonder why some of them fly planes into our buildings?

You know what they say about those who don' study history...

Not peacekeepers at all, more like prison wardens, or maybe Dukes and Princes.

Ah, someone to keep them properly oppressed and make sure they don't get out of line -- yeah, sounds like conquest to me.

Finding competent people to (willingly) fill the positions is merely a logistical challenge.

One you're not even bothering to address..

Keeping them from becoming corrupt might prove harder.

Indeed -- how does one keep prisoners from becoming corrupt...

I think we could do better than Merry Old England.

If we drop all pretense of morality -- you seem to have a head start on that.

Different objective entirely. Different rules of engagement. Stare at Judge Dredd and you suddenly see things differently.

I had a feeling you were getting your strategic ideas from video games -- I should've known it was comic books.

There's a reason these folks responded well to the likes of Saddam, and we don't need to resort to injustice to achieve order. We would need to make an example of swift justice though. I don't think separation of powers would be the order of the day ...

Nice to know our American principles can be abandoned when they become inconvenient...

So we can rule out altruism then?

Altruism doesn't exist -- remember?

Balance of power means nothing either?

How does being Israel's ally help the balance of power?

PROTIP: It doesn't.

We're the God looking down at the ant farm? What happens when we turn the red ants loose on the black ants?

Not an ant farm; more like a hornet's nest. We stop poking it, and they stop stinging us.

Simple, really.

This scenario is a lot less moral than colonizing the place. Palestinians get rights violated sharply worse, their violence increases sharply, terrorism rises sharply with it, Israel responds with disproportionate force ...

None of which is directed at us.

how big would you like to see Israel become?

Doesn't matter to me -- you're the one who wants to keep all our allies inferior.

I mean the Palestinian refugee situation IS hopeless, right? Just euthanize them all, much more humane is it?

If that's Israel's idea of a "final solution," history will note the irony.

Not to mention it'll show the folly of ever supporting them in the first place.

I'm thinking everyone would fare better if we just annexed it.

Conquer Israel? Why not just let the Arab nations have it? Same results; less effort.

Altruism, bribery, tamato tomahto ... a deal's a deal.

There's no "deal" if they don't trust us. PROTIP: They don't.

That tactic is overused only once "they" give up their aspirations as terrorists. You already defined winning that way, remember? That really is what the war on terror is about. You're saying we should have done nothing; they would never give up their aspirations that way.

Which aspirations would those be? Do you even know why terrorists attack us?

 

[TLK Valentine]

What part doesn't make sense to you? How do you think re-invading Iraq makes terrorism less likely elsewhere?

He seems to think that once you "colonize" a place, they automatically become all peaceful and docile...

 

[Armoured]

He seems to think that once you "colonize" a place, they automatically become all peaceful and docile...

Of course. Just like the Macedonian Greeks found, which is why there have been no changes to imperial dominions since Alexander.

 

[Armoured]

Do you even know why terrorists attack us?

The sad thing is a lot of contributors in this and similar threads, and even some political commentators, genuinely seem to believe the "They hate us for our Freedom" line. Virtually none of the "bomb their cities flat, kill the adults, convert the children to Christianity" school seem to have even a passing familiarity with what these people are so angry about. And, perhaps more frighteningly, even less seem to care that they are so ignorant of the enemy's motivations.

As though you can ever hope to win a war if you don't understand what the enemy is fighting for.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The sad thing is a lot of contributors in this and similar threads, and even some political commentators, genuinely seem to believe the "They hate us for our Freedom" line. Virtually none of the "bomb their cities flat, kill the adults, convert the children to Christianity" school seem to have even a passing familiarity with what these people are so angry about. And, perhaps more frighteningly, even less seem to care that they are so ignorant of the enemy's motivations.

As though you can ever hope to win a war if you don't understand what the enemy is fighting for.

Indeed -- Know your enemy and know yourself was one of "Sunny Zoo's" most important maxims. A pity Theophilus chooses not to learn from him... Or history... Or anything else...

 

[theophilus777]

What part doesn't make sense to you? How do you think re-invading Iraq makes terrorism less likely elsewhere?

Look at the players in the current distress. Do they have any history? How is leaving them to their own devices undisturbed a good idea? Also note I never said anything about re-invading, so sticking to the point might be better.

 

[theophilus777]

It's not -- so why you're explicitly suggesting we do what we did then is, again, something of a mystery.

How do you conclude I've suggested that? Nothing I've said is consistent with that idea. I'm pointing out there seems to be little difference between leaving AF and Iraq to fend for themselves now, vs Germany post WWI. Do you disagree?

Not at all -- we still have the psychological advantage. It is less than it would be against a conventional enemy, but even religious people an be frustrated -- it just takes more work... too much to justify the expense of the drones.

That's why I say it is the value / need of the target; a much less subtle equation. You are of the persuasion that after 911 there was nothing to be done, so I don't see what could possibly be worth any expense in your mind. I also wonder what your vision for our military is? No standing army at all, National Guard is enough? I like that idea. I think we should be re-arranging everything so as to be able to defend our borders against China, should they get power drunk in the next 30 years. Weapons exist to do that, we just haven't invested in them.

Indeed -- so now you understand why your butter and Blankets strategy is doomed to fail.

No, I understand your reference to altruism is a red herring. Neither one of us can really speak to any likelihood of success because no such thing has ever been attempted.

No, we remember -- we also remember it was a lie.

Often the tags are the best part of a thread. "The cake is a lie?" Where does that one fit in here? Bush lied people died is a soundbyte that will rot your brain, remember? Now we didn't truly attack the alliance itself, as per Sun Tzu. Instead we attacked an ally, and had no choice but to at least disrupt the flow of support. Crude, but still at least marginally effective.

I have yet to see you explain how to attack the strategy itself of any present day terrorist organization. If Sun Tzu has any valid application now, wouldn't that be the primary focus? Or even just for discussion sake, re-hashing the post 911 world? The butter and blanket approach might confound their strategy, if not directly attack it.

Indeed -- except Saudi Arabia and Egypt are our allies, and maybe you need it explained that one does not conquer their own allies...

That problem could be corrected easily enough. Besides, Saudi Arabia is a huge funding source of terrorists. Maybe these Gov't aren't technically a puppet, just more of a front? What is the relationship between public officials and funding terrorism? But do realize that neither of my stated approaches are anything other than personal rumination of what could be, as an alternative to what is, that has such ample room for improvement. Just trying to digest the current state of things, that's all. Its pretty unpalatable. I appreciate you being a sounding board.

The Taliban isn't afraid of our big stick.

the dead ones are, or might as well be.

Is that why we haven't done it already? Lack of trying?

We pushed the Taliban aside in short order. We just let them back in, so yes; for lack of trying. I suspect you are a vet, and I'm surprised you don't object to handing over our gains to them as being disrespectful to the sacrifices made by our soldiers. Regardless, changing horses in the middle of the stream is poor form.

It may be a shambles, but to the people of Afghanistan, it's their shambles. They're not going to appreciate you blowing it up; you're drive them straight to the Taliban.

Precisely why I think negotiations along these lines might have worked.
Giving people an option that is better for them tends to work. You just have to reveal what's in it for you, too. I've done that. You haven't shown why it must fail. Just like you haven't shown why war can't be won by killing your enemy. You might be right on both counts, but you haven't shown either. It may well be a dated idea, but throughout history war has been all about killing people. I don't know of an instance where they fought to the last man, legend of the 300 Spartans excepted. Usually surrender is achieved first.

The problem is that we also have 0 cred in that area -- how much simpler can I make it for you? We're not wanted there.

You're really not adorable when you think you're presenting new info that is actually old. War is not about being wanted.

Neither they nor anyone else cares if the populace "wants" them in power -- all that matters is they absolutely don't want US in power over there... don't you get it?

The only aspect of my stated plan that has US in power there is colonization, which is not what is being discussed. You are the one not getting it. Why not?

So, WWI-style obliteration; killing all the people we were claiming to want to save. That'll go over well with the international community...

We actually did that, remember? I'm pretty certain that after doing so, sticking around was a mistake in your mind. You may pick one or the other but not both.

So... conquest, then. Be the monsters they say we are, and justify every terrorist act against us -- past, present, and future.

Its what we've got anyway, the only difference is the iron fist to rule them with. We can't do that from here, but we could from there. Think of it as opening up a new job market Someone else mentioned the only solution would be to eradicate the entire Middle East. Pretty much, it just defines eradication in a way that not merely keeps them alive, but improves their standard of living. As I started out by saying, just like the butter and blankets scenario, this one will never happen either. Which means AF has destroyed the US empire as well. Unless you see a way of salvaging our way of life?

Yeah, I guess it is rather ridiculous to look to the Gospels for messages on peace...

It is if you're going to take them completely out of context as you have done. No mix and match with Sun Tzu, who speaks to Nations; Jesus speaks to the individual heart, not the Gov't. Christianity has absolutely nothing to say on the subject of politics. Silent. And it was never designed to partner with political power, as the dark ages attest. Didn't you say you believe in learning from mistakes?

So we can be conquerors, as long as we tell ourselves we're better than the people we conquered? Sounds like the Roman Empire to me.

Better "better than" doesn't enter into it. What corner of the globe hasn't leveled the accusation of Pax Americana? And I rather like Alexander the Great's model better, if you please. I notice you do not make the charge that we can not do it. I point out we were much more capable of doing it in '03, and by comparison to what was actually done, this idea might have been better for our Nation; bat guano crazy though it is.

 

[theophilus777]

So your master plan is to do it all again exactly the same way -- but to preface it with a threat to do so if they don't let us "help" them first?

Nothing of the sort. Do try to keep up? These are both ideas of what could have been done originally; you know, AF in '01. I haven't considered any application for either idea now.

Quick suicide is taking a hit like 9/11 and fighting without thinking.

Why do you pretend we didn't achieve swift and large military victory, greatly reducing the enemy's ability to do us harm? A lot of planning (thought) went into it, and it worked.

And are we safer for it?

Perhaps you've heard of this stuff, "empirical evidence?" Yes, we are safer for it, as attested to by the fact we have not been successfully attacked again on domestic soil.

Ah, someone to keep them properly oppressed and make sure they don't get out of line -- yeah, sounds like conquest to me.

Not at all consistent with your fear of continued terrorist acts though, is it? Pretty much guaranteed to stop all that, and like nothing else would.

Indeed -- how does one keep prisoners from becoming corrupt...

All that time reading Sunny Zoo and you don't know how the world works? Pay them well. Cheaper than our current ops in the WOT.

If we drop all pretense of morality -- you seem to have a head start on that.

That's already been done long ago, as documented by Ian Fleming. and you spelled out the actions more plainly, right in this thread. Morality? Who would believe the claim? You can't be that naive?

Not an ant farm; more like a hornet's nest. We stop poking it, and they stop stinging us.

Ok, so you ARE that naive! Is this the part where we all hold hands and sing kumbaya?

Which aspirations would those be? Do you even know why terrorists attack us?

You have stated your opinion, that if we bow to Saudi kings like Obama, but this time complete with white flag, those big bad guys will stop beating us up and leave us alone. Specifically that would mean getting out of the Middle East entirely and not supporting Israel any longer. Granted, those ARE primary reasons for terrorism in the first place, but it is naive to think those actions would stop their efforts. You are overlooking your own observation, that it is western culture in their region that they object to. We wouldn't take it away with us, because some people there actually like it. "Globalization," you might call it. And with the Palestinian / Israeli conflict not resolved, we in fact ARE responsible for that mess, right in their midst. To think they would "stop stinging us" anyway is far more extreme on the bat guano scale than anything I've put forward.

So with no clearly superior solutions emerging, maybe we have to admit that what was actually done wasn't unreasonable, complete with mistakes and all. But Barry's trade for these 5 stinks to high heaven. We don't know all the details of the negotiations, nor do we know what aces might be up the sleeves of those on our side. Nor do we know if these 5 will be seen as friend or foe by our enemies. And we may not know much more for 20 years or whenever they start de-classifying it.

 

[bhsmte]

He seems to think that once you "colonize" a place, they automatically become all peaceful and docile...

Good luck with that.

This region has had a certain culture for centuries before America even existed. To think we are going to change that culture, is naïve at best.