Site New Answers Search Boards ILM ILE Answers New Question New Questions New Poll Blog View Register Login

And while the CIA and White House go at it, Stratfor says Rumsfeld and the Pentagon are essentially fucked

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
And for good reason, I'd think.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 1 October 2003 03:08 (twenty-two years ago)

What happened to the days of wine and roses? Or Camelot? Or even the million points of light?

― I'm Passing Open Windows (Ms Laura), Wednesday, 1 October 2003 04:07 (twenty-two years ago)

The Stratfor analysis is really interesting. Completely disregarding issues of why the U.S. has decided to construct another Viet Nam scenario, whether it's moral or justified or blood for oil or revenge or whatever, it says, if you're going to have a war, you might as will win. And it looks like no one (in the U.S.) has made any preparations to win.

― Skottie, Wednesday, 1 October 2003 05:53 (twenty-two years ago)

"Unpredictability of the number of theaters?" Try 'one big one', ie the whole world. Do I have to tell everybody EVERYTHING? *sighs*

― dave q, Wednesday, 1 October 2003 06:56 (twenty-two years ago)

An interesting tactical-level analysis of the Iraq situation can be found on David Hackworth's site. Be forewarned that he's pretty neanderthal w.r.t. a lot of things (especially women in the ranks), but some of the commentary is spot on. A fave quote:

Nothing is more basic than Basic Combat Training. Basic to the ways of war. Basic to national security. Basic to the very survival of the United States. So how come Fort Jackson, the single largest producer of Basic grunts, male and female, is under the command of a general who piled up more friendly fire casualties than anyone else in Desert Storm?

― Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Wednesday, 1 October 2003 07:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Skottie there's plenty of people who had preperations for how to win this war - they work in the Pentagon. unfortunately their boss is an incompetent arrogant moron who has a crazy theory called the 'rumsfeld doctrine' that involves taking the powell doctrine (ie. us war college post-vietnam cw on strategy, force size, exit strategy, etc.) and then doing the opposite and then, and this is the key part, NEVER budging from this theory no matter what anyone - including (especially) reality - sez.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 1 October 2003 07:24 (twenty-two years ago)

I have a friend stationed in Kuwait. He may get moved to Iraq. Fuck.

I feel his pain, but at the same time it's very interesting to read the ramblings of a massive Pulp fan in the army. Something about the pictures of him in the desert wearing Faint T-shirts...very surreal.

― Sarah Pedal (call mr. lee), Wednesday, 1 October 2003 07:36 (twenty-two years ago)

It's funny because it's true.

[bell tolls]

― jackson andervill, Wednesday, 1 October 2003 09:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Here's the trouble: Giving more money to the Pentagon is a bad idea. It's a bloated monster, porked out of control, and the chance of the military spending those extra funds on upping soldier's wages/pensions/homes = exactly nil. Instead, the money always goes to defense contractors (Boeing, NG, Lockheed etc.), who are still finishing off the designs on 20-year-old weapons designed to fight the cold war. The result being: if Al Qaeda decided to attack the US with a 200-strong tank batallion over the hills of Eastern Europe, the US would be prepared. Any other way, they'd be fucked.
I think STRATFOR's dead wrong. Don Rumsfeld would love a new influx of troops, as he'd have far more of an excuse to go off and fight his charming little micro-wars across the globe. (Think Indonesia, plus deployments in Taiwan, the Ukraine, and eventually Iran and Saudi. Oy.)

― Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Wednesday, 1 October 2003 14:26 (twenty-two years ago)

At least stratfor put force size in terms of clear market economic (something bushco must surely understand). You want more soldiers , you have to pay for them, which messes up the whole tax cuts thing, and pushes the deficit to far out new proportions.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 1 October 2003 15:03 (twenty-two years ago)

I have thought of a new doctrine for the USA - a programme of Smash & Grab wars. The things the US army is good at is stuffing over people in Blitzkrieg wars. So what they should do is stage rapid invasions of countries that are giving the USA jip, smash them up, and then leave v. quickly. None of this shite about nation building or any of that.

I reckon it would take about ten years of continuous war to Smash & Grab the entire world.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Wednesday, 1 October 2003 15:19 (twenty-two years ago)

that neocon 101 right there

― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 1 October 2003 15:24 (twenty-two years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.
Site New Answers Search Boards ILM ILE Answers New Question New Questions New Poll Blog View Register Login