TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Bush Seeks Help!
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel But some would argue that the Cold War was in fact a form of colonialism. But instead of the historical norm of taking resources/land from the colonies the US and USSR instead gave large quantities of material and monetary aid to the nations under their influence. Virtually all of the military conflicts of the second half of the 20th century were waged between groups which wanted to put a given region into one sphere of influence or the other. MrS

You could argue that Cold War was colonialism, but then you are redefining the word colonialism to mean something different then we all concieve of it in our minds...

However, I believe that almost all "those" military conflicts waged in the second half of the 20th century, were post-colonial. They just had 'investors' (read super-powers) to help fund their enterprises due to the cold-war conflict. The investors in exchange for their invesement woudl get some oversight. In esence both sides used each other, the locals in efforts to win their struggle, and the big-boys in order to win geopolitical concessions.

I am thinking only Korea conflict might be argued as non-colonial based, but then again Korea is a relic of Japanese, Russian and Chinese colonialisim that preceeded WWII.

So my point is that, yes in the 20th century we saw post-colonial wars, however these were limited in effect and influence due to the cold war that put them in stasis... For that reason, 70+ years latter now we see a resurgence of the same clashes, and others which were put on hold.

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel The current invasion of Iraq did create a quick "victory" yes. But it was far from what the Powell doctrine would consider an overwhelming force. The tactics used were a lot closer kin to the German Blitkreig invasions of WWII. Hit hard, fast, and deep into enemy territory and shock your opponent into submission. But even the Wehrmacht had sufficient troops to mop up any left-over resistance after the first wave went through.

Actually the Wehrmacht encountered significant resistance following the initial break through as well. However, they were quite efficient in brutalizing the local populace such that resistance for the betterment of your people was counter-productive. However, even with such brutal tactics, they had over a million troops occupying Europe over the course of several years and the resistance movements were still quite strong.

quote:

The US did not have enough troops amassed on the entry-point to protect vital supply lines from ambushes, much less to do any real mopping up behind them. This is part of the cause of the problems there today. Much of the lighter resistance was bypassed or even ignored in the thrust to Baghdad. An "overwhelming" force would have subdued ALL resistance, not just that in armored vehicles or along the supply routes.

The US military is illequipped to fight any such war of "overwhelming" force. That's simply not the way the US military has been or ever was designed since possibly Korea. If anything, that's Soviet military doctrine to utilize numerical supereriority to win the battle, the US military utilizes tactical superiority. Even if the US were to use an overwhelming force with thousands of tanks to attack on all fronts (an inefficient tactic and a logistical impossibility in my opinion) the outcome would have likely been exactly the same. Once the command and control structure has been rendered inoperative units will almost always cease to become an effective fighting force and disband without any cohesion. It's not like the future guerillas would have stuck around to get killed then when they can flee to live and fight another day.

quote:

My opinion is that had Saddam and his cohorts not bailed out of Baghdad so quickly and dug in a bit, we would be in a "better" situation today. The battle for the city would have taken longer, and unfortuanately harmed more civilians. But it would have allowed the US and British forces to do some better mopping up. It would also have allowed the groups repairing infrastructure to get into the swing of things.

Kind of agree. It would have been somewhat advantageous to kill Saddam's loyalists in one place rather than hunting them down every which way. Actually it woulda been nice to capture Saddam ... without him, the regime is virtually nothing and the resistance has no status quo to return to.

quote:

Declaring an "end to major combat operations" was premature at best. It was an outright lie for the sake of a few sound bytes and photo ops at worst. At the very least it was an idea pushed by political, not military advisors.

No actually it was the end to major combat operations in the context of modern military doctrine. If you're in command of a brigade in Iraq right now what's your target going to be? There is no strategic target to take or any tactical military target to destroy. What we are seeing right now are limited combat operations conducted to secure the occupation. To put things in some perspective, the death rate among US troops is actually less than the murder rate of some large cities. Of course this does not take into account the murder rate of Iraqis as well.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Kind of agree. It would have been somewhat advantageous to kill Saddam's loyalists in one place rather than hunting them down every which way. Actually it woulda been nice to capture Saddam ... without him, the regime is virtually nothing and the resistance has no status quo to return to.

Not to mention the residual fear of innocent Iraqis that if he is not proved dead or captured, he will come back and start again where he left off once the US becomes bored and leaves.

quote:

No actually it was the end to major combat operations in the context of modern military doctrine. If you're in command of a brigade in Iraq right now what's your target going to be? There is no strategic target to take or any tactical military target to destroy. What we are seeing right now are limited combat operations conducted to secure the occupation. To put things in some perspective, the death rate among US troops is actually less than the murder rate of some large cities. Of course this does not take into account the murder rate of Iraqis as well.

Point taken.

Detroit and Baghdad have a lot in common in recent times: Lots of murder, lots of poverty, no power.

MrS

I think that if we go further in history, all the problems in the middle east where the groups hate each other, in this case Iraq, have to do alot with how the English outlined Iraq and the middle east countries. Yes.. I think a great deal has to do with been their fault in terms of heaving three "hate each other" groups into one country.. big mistake.

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa My own guess is that Douglas Feith will go (= tactical goal). Paul Wolfowitz's resignation would be a key change of US foreign policy (= strategical goal). Rumsfeld fired would make almost the entire political field smile (= the great prize).

I don't know I don't think Rummy will go anywhere. Bush is not the type of guy that fires many people (no one fired for 9-11 for instance).

Rumsfeld being fired would not necessarily change the transformation efforts of the US military. Though it probably would lessen the amount of privatization of many facets of D.O.D. operations.

Many of these "new weapons" the US Army wanted should not be brought back regardless of who is in charge because they do not fit any current or forseeable need. The Crusader is the most visible of these.

Crusader was designed to operate in a "traditional" battlefield with two large armored forces facing each other across a "front line". With the collapse of the USSR, there is no longer a credible scenario in which the US would need such a sophisticated and costly artillery piece. The biggest problem with Crusader, just as with the M1 Abrams is weight. The biggest aircraft in the us arsenal only carry one of these machines at a time which makes it difficult to use them in any deployment that does not have a 2-3 month window of preparation to allow for surface transport. Increasingly US military operations require a response of days or at most weeks, not months.

I am all for returning to a active duty force strength along the lines of what we had in Gulf War I which I believe would require the recreation of 4 divisions. But "transformation", as it was called by former Chief of the Army Gen. David Shinseki (now retired), is vital. But Shinseki's idea was not to decrease the amount of troops but to shift them army from a heavy armor based fighting force to a more versatile force along the lines of the 10th Mountain Division. Unfortunately many peple now are confusing what Rumsfeld is doing by cutting "costs" by privatising many military functions as the same as what Shinseki championed.

The decrease in active duty military in the US, however much we may want it to be true, cannot be attributed to Don Rumsfeld alone. The force levels have been systematically reduced since the collapse of the USSR by each president. What Rumsfeld has done is make more and more uniformed jobs into civilian ones, usually outside contractors at that. In many places there are no longer uniformed MPs, that has been shopped out to independent contractors.

Bah, I have rambled enough for now.

MrS

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.