Another Country Heard from

The Colonel from Kandahar. Can I vote for this guy?

1. The continued fear by the enemy of the Afghan people having a future based upon education, which leads to opportunity and advancement. Again, these Mad Mullahs will lose power, no different than in 1517 when Luther empowered us and threatened the stranglehold of the Catholic church.

2. Last night, I read a Congressional blog from Democrat freshman Representative who addressed casualties as a reason to disengage from Iraq. We all know that we have lost 3000 of our Comrades and some 22,000 wounded. Yesterday the media was touting the number of US servicemembers killed in Iraq in April at 100. However, if you look at the enemy losses in Herat, est 120 in one engagement, should we not do a fair analysis and comparison, that is if deaths and casualties are a criteria for measuring success? I feel we should publiciize enemy deaths, wounded, and detained, this serves to level the comparison playing field as well, may even dissuade enemy recruiting efforts.

In the same blog this Congressman bemoaned the expenditures in this endeavor. Yesterday some of us did some research, WWII (45% of GDP), Korea (15% of GDP), Vietnam (topped at 10% of GDP), Iraq and Afghanistan? (less than 2% of GDP) has been spent. And currently we are only spending less than 5% of GDP on our defense budget.  There was a pretty interesting jpg that went around for a while which stated, "Marines are at War, America is at the Mall".....and with a Dow Jones of over 13,000 that is probably a good assertion.

3. Here is the bottom line, we are in the "Best" strategic position to affect this current conflagration, there is only one problem. We are like a Bull that goes after the "pretty red thing" and not the Matador, until we are worn down and the fatal blow is given. The Matadors are in Pakistan, Syria, and Iran and until we begin to seriously take note of that and disrupt these external influencers we are just charging the red cape, and in turn getting worn down. If we want to do this right? Execute cross border strike operations, enemy oriented to deny terrorist sanctuary and training bases, disrupt external support, and interdict infiltrations into Iraq and Afghanistan. Musharref, Asaad, and Ahmadinejad are laughing at us.

Al Qaeda in Iraq (Sunni) purposefully began the sectarian violence by bombing the Shrine mosque in Samarra. Iran responded by backing Shiites. Both have created a situation of misdirection, due to support from Syria and Iran. Taliban has found reenergized possibilities thanks due to being able to have a "hands off" area in Waziristan, and of course they get upset with Pakistan govt when we hit them.....not our concern.

Comments

[Josef K]

Yeah, and can I get me appointed US President for one hour? Here's what I'd do in my first four minutes...

First minute: Atlas Shrugs appointed CIA Director.

Second minute: John Bolton sent back to UN.

Third minute: Appointment of Sir Rudy Giuliani for Vice President.

Fourth minute: Fire, on live TV, Condi Rice.

[Always On Watch]

Regarding point two, here's one of today's WaPo's headlines, above the fold: "April Toll Is Highest of'07 for U.S. Troops." I haven't bothered to read the article--already knowing what it will say.

[danceswithgoats]

Ref. the Colonel's comments:

1. We are playing "whack a mole" in Afghanistan and Iraq. Useless.
2. We need a real, live declaration of war against International Islamic based terrorism.
3. We then build up a world class HUMINT capability and start identifying the "mad mullahs" or anyone else advocating violence against the West of the US.
4. The POTUS is presented a dossier with the findings of the intel. He signs a memo declaring said person a "combatant".
5. We then send a team to kill said combatant. We move weapons around through diplomatic pouches because we are at war. The trigger pullers slips on a badge identifying them as members of the US armed forces as they pull the trigger and then slip it back off. Stuffing a pigs ear in the dead combatants mouth would be icing on the cake but not required.
6. We then release the didacted intel and combatant memo with a copy of the Laws of Land Warfare to the media.
7. Keep repeating until the people pushing Jihad are all dead or keep their mouths shut.
8. I would also survey what is being sold in mosques and if any of it advocates violence then I would post a notice that said mosque is no longer a protected site IAW the Laws of Land Warfare. Cruise missile to follow.
9. A real high value target would be a Saudi princlet in the act of handing over money to a terrorist organization.
10. War is hell. The only moral way to wage it is ruthlessly, violently and quickly. We are going to drag out this "whack a mole" process for years.

[Bearster]

"Execute cross border strike operations..."

Huh?

How about:
1) begin a campaign of bombing in Iran, Saudi, Syria, etc.
2) first take out all of their capabilities to wage war including radar, communications, airfields, military bases, hardware, and personnel, manufacturing
3) state the goal: to kill them until they are dead or submit in inconditional surrender
4) use the smallest possible munitions THAT CAN ACCOMPLISH THIS GOAL IN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME (i.e. 3 months). If this means nukes, so be it.
5) Victory

It's simple, it's inexpensive, it's quick. And we don't have the moral fortitude to do it.

[danceswithgoats]

Bearster,

It is easier than that. Knock out their ability to pump or desalinate water. In most of the Middle East that would do them in.

You're welcome.

[Bearster]

If that would kill enough of them to bring them to beg on their knees for the right to unconditionally surrender, then I am all for it! Whatever loses the least number of American military personnel, is quickest, and cheapest (in that order).

[Grandjester]

You two are fucking kidding, right?

I thought LtC West was out of his mind but you two clowns take the cake.

[danceswithgoats]

Grandjester,

I'm not kidding. I don't see the utility of killing gullible 19 year old wanna-be jihadis when we could go after the 45 year old educated people sending them to kill us. Everything I recommended is in accordance with the laws of land warfare. Personally, I think Bearsters ideas will achieve nothing because we don't need to fight entire countries. We need to go after the source of the contagion. We are treating the symptoms.

[Bearster]

Jester, either you don't realize you're in a war for your survival, or (like the Democrats) you want to lose. There is a growing number of people who don't want to live; they want you to die. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid certainly fall into this category.

There is a very determined gang of murderers who want to kill you (the Islamists don't want to live either, they also want you to die).

Save your curses for the enemy please, and let's all focus on fighting as if we want to live.

I obviously don't agree entirely with danceswithgoats. But at least the debate is in the proper arena: what will it take to defeat Islamism?

[Grandjester]

danceswithgoats, you have some really odd concepts about war. It's called the Geneva Convention, according to the US Constitution, it is the law of the land, your LoLW is not.

Bearster, you are obviously a sociopath with delusions of genocide. Please get the help you need.

[Bearster]

jester, I can't tell from your response if you simply have no idea that you're in a war for your survival, or if you want to lose the war.

Do you feel that the US committed "genocide" against Germany and Japan in WW2?

[Grandjester]

"jester, I can't tell from your response if you simply have no idea that you're in a war for your survival, or if you want to lose the war."

I have a very good idea who and what ideology we are fighting. As to lose the war, I am sure we have very different ideas about what constitutes winning and losing (and apparently what war we are fighting, you want to add how many countries beyond Iraq and Afganistan?). I disagree with your strategic and tactical acumen.

Your repeated analogies to WW2 hold no bearing on the current situation. Your post would indicate war against all islamic countries until "surrender" which cannot happen in a manner even remotely related to the end of WW2. So I surmise, since they will not surrender to your standards, they must all be killed.

"the goal: to kill them until they are dead " Your words? Sound like genocide to me.

[danceswithgoats]

Grandjester - you need to educate yourself. Google Law of Land Warfare or Law of War and see what comes up. The Geneva Convention and the Constitution have nothing to do with each other other than the US is a signatory to the Geneva Convention. Other than the "pig ear" piece, everything I propose is IAW the Geneva Convention. War is between combatants. Just because someone wears civilian clothes and preaches war in a Mosque doesn't necessarily mean they can't be a combatant.

[Bearster]

jester, you have contributed nothing here other than cursing, presumption to judge my psychology, and now your claims that you know very well.

Your method is the textbook case of intellectual dishonesty. You don't seem to feel any need to posit a defensible position, just take potshots at others.

Frankly, I think we're facing an enemy who is patient enough and big enough to commit genocide in the USA. More importantly, they believe this is moral and inevitable.

I am sick and tired of the loser position (I mean this literally, not as ad hom) that we have to roll over and accept this. Or the loser position of simple denial. Or the loser position of wringing our hands that a proper response is "genocidal."

If it is indeed true that we face a determined enemy with the power to destroy us, then we must kill them and kill them and kill them until they either stop of their own accord, or they are dead.

Anything less is a plan to sacrifice the lives of Americans. And that's morally obscene!

[Grandjester]

Dance with goats, according to the google, Laws of Land Warfare based on Geneva, Hague, UN Charter and others. Accoring to the US Constitution (read it sometime) all treaties signed by the US are law bound by said Consitution. Correct? Then let's take a look at your proposals that violate the above: From your original post #'s 4,5,7,8,9 & 10. And then there is this "Knock out their ability to pump or desalinate water". If there are to be "Laws" or "rules" of war, then we are treaty and constitutional bound to obey them otherwise we will be savage psychopaths like those "mad mullahs" or bearster.

Bearster, I have read your posts and responded in a coherent and intelligent manner. My use of the F word as an adjective was merely to point out your absurdity, not as a curse. I find your absolutism insane, and there are points of view between your black and white assesments. You are wrong sir, on many levels which I wish I had the time or inclination to address.