Beginning of US Military Action?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
CNN's reporting "a lot of activity" at US Air Force bases this morning, and AF reserve troops have been called up.

Scenarios for what comes next?

fritz, Thursday, 20 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Fritz, I don't think what we need is more idle speculation when it comes to something like this. Don't you think it's scary and immediately hurtful enough as it it? I am not saying we should avoid all discussion but we should be wary about random gossip when we have very little information.

Sarah, Thursday, 20 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

It's not random gossip, the forces have been gearing up for the past week or so, starting (I think) with the USS Enterprise (yes, really) being turned round and sent back to the Gulf.

DG, Thursday, 20 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Well then, I'm sorry for not wanting to speculate war disaster scenarios. Maybe you're trying to prepare yourself for something horrible that might happen but I don't want to sit about discussing "will they do this, will they do that".

Sarah, Thursday, 20 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

They're still figuring it out. Half of Bush's advisors want commando raids, special forces, etc. which is clearly the only sensible military response. The other half see this as an opportunity to topple Saddam, the Taliban, and a host of others -- I think the big dogs are already salivating over some prizes (i.e. Unocal's potential oil pipeline across Afghanistan; control over Iraqi oil; more influence over OPEC; a force of troops closer to Russia than ever before) that would have been politically untenable to claim before last week. Peace negotiations would mean they have to give these things up, which in their minds they've already won...

Tracer Hand, Thursday, 20 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

It's not game-playing or gossip, I'm just looking to hear some informed opinion on what the US might do next and what these actions will mean for all of us. I don't mean to be rude but if that offends you, by all means don't read the thread.

fritz, Thursday, 20 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

opinion on what the US might do next = not nearly as good as FACTS about what US might do next. which are thin on the ground. but follow the money and you can be the next Hoaxtradamus

Tracer Hand, Thursday, 20 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

National Public Radio were this morning quoting Bush as saying to his military advisors 'What's the point of sending a million dollar missile after a couple of guys in a tent and hitting a camel in the butt?'

Which, if he really said it, is the closest he's come so far to lucidity.

Momus, Thursday, 20 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Heard that quote a few days ago as well, apparently in a meeting with some senators who were doubtless being the source. Statements like that are precious little to base any hope on, but still it's something.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 20 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Someone said something like that on the BBC this morning, questioning the sanity of using a $10 million missile to destroy a $10 tent. No reference to Bush though.

DG, Thursday, 20 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

It was quoted in today's Guardian, attributed to Bush, except they used "keister" rather than "butt", and then helpfully put "[bum]" afterwards.

Tom, Thursday, 20 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

"Kiester[bum]" is my new word of choice.

Dan Perry, Thursday, 20 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

bum/keisters aside, for a mo...

so what can the States do? Bombing seems untenable morally as a response to the wtc - except on a basic eye-for-an-eye level that I think fewer and fewer of the american people would embrace. Even militarily it seems useless as well - unless they want to smart-bomb bin Laden off the face of the earth (presuming they can find him) and make him a martyr and even more of a hero and inspiration to extremist muslims. A commando raid seems risky given the terrain and the experience of the Afghan fighters. Americans have been very wary of deploying troops on the ground since Somalia and this is a thousand times scarier. And any action at all might spark a uprising in Pakistan, thereby putting atomic weapons into the hands of the fundamentalists. So are the states actually in a situation where they will be forced to use diplomacy and negotiation? Nice luck to have George W in charge in a brains over brawn situation.

fritz, Thursday, 20 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

This might just be a 'speak softly and carry a big stick' situation in the end yet. But who knows?

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 20 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Taking sides: keisterbum vs cosmobutt

(Nick invented the second earlier today...)

Smart bombs = not invented yet...

mark s, Thursday, 20 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Most interesting site in a while, from a retired U.S. PSYOP (Psychological Operations Warrior) found here

Intro: "Psychological Operations or PSYOP are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of organizations, groups, and individuals. Used in all aspects of war, it is a weapon whose effectiveness is limited only by the ingenuity of the commander using it. "

Nude Spock, Thursday, 20 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

commander = hanle y
selected information = sperel
organizations, groups, and individuals = ILE

mark s, Thursday, 20 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

This might just be a 'speak softly and carry a big stick' situation in the end yet. But who knows?

It more like "Speak big and stupidly to the big and stupid people, let the smarter people realize I'm just talkin' big and stupid, and carry a big stick."

I think Bill Maher pointed out wisely that JFK was a horrible public speaker, but seemed to handle the Cuban Missile Crisis. Not to compare JFK and Bushie jr. by any means, but I do get the sense that things are being handle better than they are being said.

Brian MacDonald, Thursday, 20 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

JFK was a horrible public speaker? first time I've heard that one, are you sure Maher wasn't being sarcastic?

fritz, Thursday, 20 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

The adminastration is being very tight lippedd to the press about what they plan to do. It seemed a few days ago, we were hearing how this war would have to be won with mean and dirty intelligence. And yet, we are seeing lots of troops and war hardware moving into the Gulf. Meanwhile, the missing toll at the WTC has topped 6,000.

bnw, Thursday, 20 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Advance word on the speech, though, is that it's going to counsel for patience and 'correct' (however you choose to define it) action. Which is a good thing, if you ask me. As for the troop moves -- let's use recent history as an inexact equivalent, and note that a fair amount of troops were sent to the Gulf almost immediately after the invasion of Kuwait, but that nothing was directly done for many months to come. I'm guessing the idea is to show the flag, if you will, more than anything else.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 20 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Of course, you do realise if whatever action they take is an amazing success, Bush will become a GRATE AMERICAN HERO and your grandkids will be taught about how GRATE he was.

DG, Thursday, 20 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

No need to remind me of that, unfortunately. Hmm...

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 20 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Well if the action is an 'amazing success', DG, why would he not deserve that? If the action has destabilising or bad long-term effects but looks successful initially - *that's* the problem.

Tom, Friday, 21 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Well, there's the fucking Gulf War for you right there. It *looked* good, but:

1) forget the human cost and let's talk in cold military terms -- had Bush not given the word to cease fire after a few days of direct counterattack, the rest of the Iraqi forces would have been annihilated, not escaped back to Baghdad and helped support the regime against the revolts north and south and keep Hussein in power etc. etc.

2) as I understand it, bin Laden got specifically pissed when we put in troops in Saudi Arabia and kept them there because of the Gulf War, etc. etc.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 21 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Wot I meant was that everyone thinks Bush is a complete berk, Curious George etc etc, and perhaps one day there will be memorials all over the place to his GRATE LEADERSHIP, despite the fact that if any military action is a success it will have bugger all to do with him, as he will neither fight (obviously) or have any hand in the planning apart from the final authorisation.

DG, Saturday, 22 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

five months pass...
Afghanistan News

Afghanistan News, Thursday, 21 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I was wondering when something like that would happen, frankly. Question is -- old mine or new?

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 21 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

quite the conversationalist, this afgahanistan news bloke

electric sound of jim, Thursday, 21 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

He's certainly to the point.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 21 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.