Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests

Ukraine

The Management is not responsible for the contents of this forum. Enter at your own risk.
Re: Ukraine
Post by namelessfly   » Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:10 pm

namelessfly

Excellent point except the Quibble that the National Guard unit that Palin's son served in was deployed to Afghanistan. She wrote that Track was very embarrassed when she ended her speech at the deployment ceremony with a "Whooo Raahhh". The Alaska National Guard was also the only unit who decorated their barracks with photos of their Governor.


biochem wrote:
I was there in 2003-2004. Reconstruction projects started as soon as we had semi-permanent bases. The biggest obstacle was the tribal Arabic mindset of doing business, not money. It was all well and good to say you'd pay a million dollars in cold, hard American cash to build a water treatment facility or $10k for a school; if there weren't any locals capable of completing the project, or accepting the project without trying to embezzle 80% of the money, it wasn't going to get done.

What we needed was more than a battalion of troops to deal with an entire city. We needed to keep everybody in the initial push, plus everybody who followed them in summer/fall, PLUS everybody who reinforced in early 2004. We didn't need one more division in-country, we needed five or ten more.

If the United States didn't have enough troops (again, not one more division) to invade and secure the country in March of 2003, then either it shouldn't have invaded in March 2003, or it should have been scrambling to get more troops in 2001-2002, while the material build-up was going on in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and our civilian leadership knew it wanted to invade. Either one points to a dramatic failure of strategic leadership at a policy-making (civilian) level.

When the military leader of your army says "We don't have the troops to pull this off," you don't ignore him and go ahead anyway. You assume the guy with 40 years experience has a little bit of a clue what he's doing, and you figure out what you need to do. Maybe that's putting everything you've got except the 18th Airborne Corps into Iraq for the next five years with WW II style deployments instead of trying for one year Vietnam style rotations. Maybe that's going in front of the nation and saying, "Because of Bill Clinton's drawdown, we need more soldiers to pull this off. Congress, you need to authorize 150,000 more soldiers *right now* because we swear that Saddam Hussein has WMDs and can hit Washington DC with them this instant, cross our hearts."

When the American leadership attempted to reconstitute the Iraqi Army (which didn't start until around November of 2003), the assumption was that soldiers were soldiers anywhere you go. American soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, same thing, and they're capable of the same tasks. Anyone who paid attention to various Israeli/Arabic conflicts should be aware that's not true. Either the American strategic leadership was unaware, ignoring those lessons, or inept. I don't know which is the case. Culturally, Arabic armies are similar to a late feudal European army, which is one reason they're so ineffective by comparison. If you tell an Arabic army to do something difficult, dangerous and/or uncomfortable, you're going to see losses every time you don't keep a guard to watch the inside of the camp.

The Iraqi Army was disbanded by Paul Bremer in May 2003, well before these reconstitution attempts. Bremer stated it was to reinforce the idea that the old regime was gone and not coming back. You're correct that Iraqi military units were useless in April 2003. The same was true in 2004, 2005, all the way up to 2014. Outside of portions of the Republican Guard, the concept of a professional military never truly existed in Iraq. Why the units that were underfed, undersupplied and unable to even care for themselves in January 1991 and March 2003 would suddenly become effective because Americans were giving orders is a mystery.

This was his second order, the first being the forcible disbanding of the Baathist administration and forbidding anyone with Baath affiliation from holding office. The British were still trying to bring the remnants of the Republican Guard they'd fought in Basra into the fold when Bremer cut their legs out from under them. The idea that those two orders support the concept of using existing Iraqi organizational structures is ludicrous. Being a Baathist in Iraq is like being a Communist in China, or a Democrat/Republican in the United States. If you want to have any decent civil service job, you join up. Paul Bremer wanted to rebuild everything from the ground up, without using anyone in the old regime. The problem is, you can't run a government without having a single person with civil service experience in it.

By the time the Americans had reached Baghdad in April, the only opposition to taking the airport came from Fedayeen fanatics in pickup trucks trying to charge tanks. One armored brigade with infantry support tried to hunker down in the city itself and destroy the Americans from hull-down positions and was wiped out for their troubles.

The vast majority of the Iraqi Army wasn't coming out to fight, risk death against a vastly superior enemy, and be taken prisoner if they were very lucky. Telling them to report to their barracks, sit their butts down and get fed on a regular basis would still have been possible in April/May, but the humanitarian supplies to do that didn't exist. Until well over a year later, even sufficient translation resources didn't exist.

The supposed flex capacity in Iraqi oil production that would pay for the war didn't exist either. I walked through a pumping station that was allegedly going to push over a hundred thousand barrels a day of crude. It hadn't worked for 20 years and the pipeline itself was rusted through in places.

Your comment on Al Sadr is a complete red herring. Even if there had been a million U.S. soldiers in Iraq at that time, it would have changed nothing. American military forces weren't allowed into holy sites like mosques without express clearance from senior leadership, unless they were being shot at from inside at that very moment. It took about a week for the Iraqis to figure that one out.

The American civilian leadership made the decision to conduct a short, victorious war on the cheap. The Americans would be welcomed as liberators, so there was no need to worry about controlling the country. The Iraqi oil infrastructure would pay for it. The Iraqis would spontaneously create a new government in cooperation with the CPA. We'd be gone in six months. Blaming Ted Kennedy or Turkey is like blaming Admiral Filareta for losing the second Battle of Manticore.


Thank you for the succinct boots on the ground summary.

The single thing that I liked best about the McCain candidacy, is that he and Palin both had sons serving on the ground in Iraq. That would have given McCain access to first hand information direct from the troops similar to the above as opposed to the heavily filtered official reports that Bush and Obama worked from. Everyone in Washington has an agenda and it is difficult for leaders to get truly accurate information that hasn't been filtered through the lens of someone's agenda. I don't know if Bush & Obama would have made better decisions if they had received this type of first hand information from someone they could trust such as a son but I would like to think so.
Top
Re: Ukraine
Post by namelessfly   » Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:15 pm

namelessfly

The other big precedent was Obama backing down on the ABM radar in Czeckslavakia and the ABM missile launchers in Poland.

Obama allowing Hillary to incite and enable the Arab Spring also demonstrated profound stupidity. This of course gives Putin reasonable suspicion that the US incited and enabled therecent coup (legally, this is what it was) in Ukraine.




biochem wrote:I am a bit surprised about how Putin reacted. He went for the military solution immediately. I expected him to be a bit sneakier. Historically he has done a lot more behind the scenes manipulation than open conflict. His KGB background no doubt.

However, I think it will work for him. Neither Obama nor the Europeans have the will to stand up to him. Obama's Syrian escapades convinced him that Obama is a toothless tiger. When you are President, you should NEVER draw red lines unless you are prepared to back them up. Having drawn that line Obama should have done something when it was crossed to maintain his credibility. Even something symbolic such as dropping a cruise missile on one of the many presidential palaces with advanced warning to everyone to evacuate, would have worked. We're now paying the price for that. Putin is giving Kerry lip service while basically doing whatever he wants.

The Ukraine situation is a mess. Neither side is composed of anyone I'd want ruling me. I do think that we should stay out of it at this time. But we needed that credibility, because now that he has seen the ease of the military option Putin may not stop with the Crimea.
Top
Re: Ukraine
Post by namelessfly   » Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:17 pm

namelessfly

Putin wrestles bears, Obama wears Mom-Jeanes.

http://conservatives4palin.com/2014/03/ ... nnity.html
Top
Re: Ukraine
Post by Tenshinai   » Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:03 am

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Sweden

namelessfly wrote:The other big precedent was Obama backing down on the ABM radar in Czeckslavakia and the ABM missile launchers in Poland.


:roll:
That was pure stupidity from the start and was just part of GWBs method of paying Poland for their support in Iraq.
The missiles were 99% useless against anything supposedly coming from Iran and the other "BIG BADs".

Do recall that Russia offered NATO cooperation and full access to their aerial radars in southern Russia, which actually would have a chance of picking up a threat from the middle east area before it´s too late to do anything useful about it.
President shrubbery didn´t just reject it, instead he cobbled together the nearly useless waste of money that you now lament.

Obama saved you from having to print some extra money, and you barely even lost any capability from it, whining about it is just silly.

namelessfly wrote:Obama allowing Hillary to incite and enable the Arab Spring also demonstrated profound stupidity. This of course gives Putin reasonable suspicion that the US incited and enabled therecent coup (legally, this is what it was) in Ukraine.


Reasonable suspicion? Uh, with the leaks of US phone traffic to and from the Ukraine, it´s not a suspicion, it´s fact, US state department doesn´t even try to deny that the intercepts are for real.
Along with the rest of the evidence, even without the intercepts the only question is just how BIG was EU and USAs involvement in causing the coup.

That they were involved is already far beyond any doubt.

In response to those who shall otherwise be ignored.

2 years old data.

However; given how small the cohort of fertile women has become, their population is inevitably going to implode.


Eh... Riiight... Say what?
They have almost 9 males per 10 females in age to have kids and you claim...Uh, yeah, maybe you should go sleep it off or something.

Certain people do not know their recumbent from an oil well about US fossil fuel reserves, particularly shale gas reserves. We have about a century worth of oil and Gas not to mention centuries worth of coal plus unimaginable reserves of Uranium, Thorium and Lithium.

:roll:

A century? Sure, if you access just about every last drop. Including all the oil and gas that is bloody freakin EXPENSIVE to get up.
Are you willing to pay from 5 to even beyond 40 times the current gas price? I rather doubt that.

And who said anything about nuclear power? I didn´t.

But seriously, "unimaginable?" :lol:
Top
Re: Ukraine
Post by Daryl   » Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:38 am

Daryl
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3489
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

"Excellent point except the Quibble that the National Guard unit that Palin's son served in was deployed to Afghanistan. She wrote that Track was very embarrassed when she ended her speech at the deployment ceremony with a "Whooo Raahhh". The Alaska National Guard was also the only unit who decorated their barracks with photos of their Governor."

Goes to show just how cold the nights are in Alaska.
Top
Mea Culpa
Post by namelessfly   » Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:52 am

namelessfly

I misremembered about the nuclear disarmament of Ukraine. I had stated that it was President George H W Bush the senior who negotiated the nuclear disarmament of Ukraine when it was President Clinton. Clinton very astutely encouraged Ukraine to relinquish the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world that was more powerful than that of France, England and China combined without providing any security guarantees beyond a promise to complain to the UN if Russia decided to invade them or even nuke them.
Top
Re: Ukraine
Post by namelessfly   » Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:07 pm

namelessfly

Thanks to the Lamestream Media in the US, there was very little coverage of Ukraine until the riots escalated prior to the coup. Thanks to he who should be ignored, I was inspired to Goggle "Ukraine, Incitement and Intercept". It turns out that the Obama and the EU (the USEU?) created this fecal storm by inciting and enabling the demonstrations that overthrew the elected President of Ukraine.

There are no good guys in this situation.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the existential threat ceased to exist. Russia remains a global competitor but need not ve an enemy. Provking a conflict by inciting rebellion in Ukraine is profoundly stupid.
Top
Re: Ukraine
Post by namelessfly   » Wed Mar 05, 2014 7:01 pm

namelessfly

Take a look at this population pyramid for Russia.

http://www.indexmundi.com/russia/age_structure.html

Even with the recent, very modes increases in TFRs in Russia, the cohort of women of childbearing age is getting smaller. Russia's population will drop by about 40% within a generation. Unless they have a dramatic increase in GDP per worker, their economy will continue to implode. Thisis having a profound impact on Putin's motives.
Top
Re: Ukraine
Post by Tenshinai   » Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:48 pm

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Sweden

namelessfly wrote:Take a look at this population pyramid for Russia.

http://www.indexmundi.com/russia/age_structure.html

Even with the recent, very modes increases in TFRs in Russia, the cohort of women of childbearing age is getting smaller. Russia's population will drop by about 40% within a generation. Unless they have a dramatic increase in GDP per worker, their economy will continue to implode. Thisis having a profound impact on Putin's motives.


Sorry, nothing odd about that population pyramid.

And the Russian economy definitely isn´t imploding! Have you even checked up on their economic development in the last decade?

"Doing decently well" may be too much of an understatement.
Top
Re: Ukraine
Post by RandomGraysuit   » Thu Mar 06, 2014 12:05 am

RandomGraysuit
Captain of the List

Posts: 470
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 5:03 pm

namelessfly wrote:Excellent point except the Quibble that the National Guard unit that Palin's son served in was deployed to Afghanistan. She wrote that Track was very embarrassed when she ended her speech at the deployment ceremony with a "Whooo Raahhh". The Alaska National Guard was also the only unit who decorated their barracks with photos of their Governor.


Good for him?

Among other reasons why he might have been embarrassed, "Hoorah" is a Marine thing. It's like bringing your grandmother to the Superbowl and she asks if the Yankees will be playing. "A" for effort, grandma.
Top

Return to Politics