We lose because of "proportional response." That isn't solely a lefty thing.
Neocons bought into this nonsense when we invaded Iraq under W.
I think we went in with 168k or so?
In my mind, if we go to war, we go ALL IN and overwhelm the enemy with massive force, or don't bother going.
In Iraq, we didn't have enough force to wall off the Iraqi border from having insurgents joins from other countries and we didn't have enough troops to hold territory after we had cleared out an area.
How many towns did we have to go back and retake?
We always underestimate the opposition and sometimes it is simple as American arrogance.
And of course not leaving a residual force when we left was a major mistake as well.
I read an article on this today, and now I can't find it. I'll try and paraphrase.
In the past 50 years or so, every conflict was built around coalitions. How'd that work? We were only as strong as the weakest link. Seems like it never works, but we did everything from a multi-lateral point of view. Oh yes, the coalition of the willing.
Instead of fighting militarily existing countries. The strategy would be to cripple and/or destroy them financially. You eliminate their ability to operate in the capital markets. You eliminate their ability to do business with the U.S. in ANY capacity, and as a result, most of the Western world. Think about what we make and what we do that most other countries don't? How do you use them as weapons? This would be in addition to suffocating sanctions. I honestly believe we could enforce leadership change in a country like Venezuela in less than 6 months if we just squeeze the financial shit out of them. You can do this in a unilateral way. Coalition of the willing? Who cares, it's not needed, and it's a lot cheaper.
Before you say, how do you control the French, who may not want to support crippling sanctions? Take away any non-supporter their access/license to do business in the largest market in the world.
Our military will still be used against terrorist organizations and failed states. I don't think it requires 10 Army divisions rolling through the desert or jungles anymore. You use the dollar and financial markets as a weapon, as well as the military. The latter is a combination of air strikes, drones, targeted killings of leadership and their families. And yes that will require boots on the ground.
Posted By: JackDunphy
We lose because of "proportional response." That isn't solely a lefty thing.
Neocons bought into this nonsense when we invaded Iraq under W.
I think we went in with 168k or so?
In my mind, if we go to war, we go ALL IN and overwhelm the enemy with massive force, or don't bother going.
In Iraq, we didn't have enough force to wall off the Iraqi border from having insurgents joins from other countries and we didn't have enough troops to hold territory after we had cleared out an area.
How many towns did we have to go back and retake?
We always underestimate the opposition and sometimes it is simple as American arrogance.
And of course not leaving a residual force when we left was a major mistake as well.
We should be the world leader in that department. Imagine if N. Korea was capable of doing what they did, and I realize there is some thought saying it wasn't N. Korea, but just imagine what we could do to them, or Iran, or whomever.
I'd like to read your piece SC, so if you find it, post it please. Sounds interesting.
-- Modified on 1/14/2015 9:59:56 PM
for whatever reason, I couldn't copy and paste. So, do a Yahoo Search under "U.S. Weaponization of Finance a top risk in 2015: Bremmer". It will be a 3 minute interview with some text below. It's part of Yahoo Finance.
I obviously took a lot of liberty in my paraphrasing, like my Keyser Soze (Usual Suspects) impression of killing family members, as well as other stuff (lol). But you should generally get the point.
You mention cyber attacks, and we need to understand how much we control, or can control. Think about Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. I guess we could in effect electronically shut down the Middle East in a nano second, but as a current shareholder of all 3 companies, even I might say, "give me a 1 minute head start so I can sell my positions.
Posted By: JackDunphy
We should be the world leader in that department. Imagine if N. Korea was capable of doing what they did, and I realize there is some thought saying it wasn't N. Korea, but just imagine what we could do to them, or Iran, or whomever.
I'd like to read your piece SC, so if you find it, post it please. Sounds interesting.
-- Modified on 1/14/2015 9:59:56 PM
"Of critical importance, the weaponization of finance is a tool that can be used with minimal cooperation from other governments. The most important near-term challenge is the damage inflicted on transatlantic relations. Europe will become more frustrated with an American unilateralism that Europe (and European banks) must pay for. Also, the US could well slap new sanctions on Russia and/or Iran, eliciting a backlash in 2015. Over the longer term, though, others will diversify away from reliance on the dollar and US-dominated institutions, particularly in East Asia, where China has the muscle and the motive to create its own institutions, and where there is less dollar-denominated debt to complicate the process. The Asia infrastructure investment bank, the BRICS bank, and the Silk Route Maritime and Overland initiatives are all steps in that direction. These projects, combined with Beijing's determination to broaden and deepen commercial and investment relations across the region, will eventually undermine Washington's ability to use these tools to lean on financially weak states.
And a fat tail concern for 2015, also related to the rise of strategic sectors: Governments targeted by sanctions will increasingly treat companies that comply with them as instruments of American power. This will expose these firms to heightened risks of retaliation-- from regulatory harassment to contract discrimination to cyber-attacks. The US financial sector is particularly vulnerable on this count."
http://www.eurasiagroup.net/pages/top-risks-2015#11
Posted By: St. Croix
for whatever reason, I couldn't copy and paste. So, do a Yahoo Search under "U.S. Weaponization of Finance a top risk in 2015: Bremmer". It will be a 3 minute interview with some text below. It's part of Yahoo Finance.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bremmer--with-shift-to-more-sanctions--u-s--relationship-with-europe-eroding-132100751.html I obviously took a lot of liberty in my paraphrasing, like my Keyser Soze (Usual Suspects) impression of killing family members, as well as other stuff (lol). But you should generally get the point.
You mention cyber attacks, and we need to understand how much we control, or can control. Think about Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. I guess we could in effect electronically shut down the Middle East in a nano second, but as a current shareholder of all 3 companies, even I might say, "give me a 1 minute head start so I can sell my positions.
Posted By: JackDunphy
We should be the world leader in that department. Imagine if N. Korea was capable of doing what they did, and I realize there is some thought saying it wasn't N. Korea, but just imagine what we could do to them, or Iran, or whomever.
I'd like to read your piece SC, so if you find it, post it please. Sounds interesting.
-- Modified on 1/14/2015 9:59:56 PM
North Korea (50 Years I’d guess), Saddam’s Iraq, or North Vietnam.
Plus it provides an incentive for the target country to retaliate against US firms (nationalization, protectionism, intellectual piracy, and cyber attack- and to move against the dollar. And you try that one on China and it would probably drive the US into recession. Who do you think buys US treasuries? If you want to raise interest rates in a hurry, see what would happen if China stopped buying.
I think “weaponization of finance” would be most effective against democracies who need access to US capital markets. Against dictatorships, the leaders stay in power and the people suffer. But they are the good guys.
BTW St.Croix, I’ve decided to rehire you as my financial adviser. Now that you are rehired- YOU ARE FIRED for telling me that FCX was a “good idea.” Between that and Hi Crush, and I feel like someone is using the “weaponization of finance” against me
I did say FCX was a good idea at the time, but unlike you, and I didn't buy it. And if I did, I would have put in a "stop loss" to limit my downside, something your stubborn ass doesn't seem to grasp. Just like BAC, you're now going to have to wait 5 years to get your money back. Didn't I mention a few weeks ago the major institutions were recommending shorting copper. Admit it, you're not very good with money (lol).
As a bleeding heart liberal who won't even allow the use of drones because some poor innocent dog might get a hellfire missile shoved up its ass, you would appreciate the non-violent approach.
Look at the post I sent I just sent to Jack and watch the clip, then comment.
Both have been subject to crippling sanctions for years and we have yet to see a change of government. I suppose you'll say the sanctions are not strong enough and should be ramped up, and you could be right. So far, sanctions have at least brought the Iranians to the bargaining table, though it's far from clear they are negotiating in good faith.
More recently, sanctions brought against Russia by the US and Europe have had minor success in squeezing Russia over its Ukraine policy, though the collapse of world oil prices have done at least as much.
It still may take military action to make sure Iran doesn't produce a bomb.
If he lead a joint mission with Israel to knock out their nuke program. He does that Nick, and I will praise the shit out of him! Straight up.
Posted By: JackDunphy
If he lead a joint mission with Israel to knock out their nuke program. He does that Nick, and I will praise the shit out of him! Straight up.
Iran backing down on their Nuclear bomb program is about as likely as Russia relocating their Ukrainian compatriots to Siberia.
If Hillary can keep her failing health above ground for a few more years, that's the World's best remote chance, of stopping Iran's underground nuclear bomb program.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePrRh6mfQ8Q&list=PL79FBD83D35DF4EC3
Posted By: inicky46
Both have been subject to crippling sanctions for years and we have yet to see a change of government. I suppose you'll say the sanctions are not strong enough and should be ramped up, and you could be right. So far, sanctions have at least brought the Iranians to the bargaining table, though it's far from clear they are negotiating in good faith.
More recently, sanctions brought against Russia by the US and Europe have had minor success in squeezing Russia over its Ukraine policy, though the collapse of world oil prices have done at least as much.
It still may take military action to make sure Iran doesn't produce a bomb.
They negotiate with "the mentality of the bazaar," gaming the entire process. So I think Jack's scenario of a US/Israeli strike is a reasonable fallback position.
That's not possible with N. Korea so long as China is backing them. And China's help is the only reason the sanctions haven't brought that government down.
Just today it was reported that China is establishing citizens' militias on their N. Korean border because so many from that country (even soldiers) have been crossing the border to rob Chinese of food. When soldiers are doing it, too, you things are dire.
but then again, I want $100 oil, and just us rattling our sabres hard enough ought to raise the price twenty bucks a barrel or so.
I refuse to lower my standards and I will not drink cheap booze or fuck ugly women. So lets go bomb the shit out of somebody, anybody, as long as they produce oil. lol
Your version of today's news is many years old. China has had citizen militias since Sun Tzu .
In your defense you are a loyal comrade of often late yahoo news, you dire thing. 
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2009/02/north-korea/oneill-text
Feb 2009
"A frigid November day pressed against the windows of a shabby apartment building in the Chinese city of Yanji, ten miles from the North Korean border. Three stories up, footsteps stopped outside a door. At the sound, two young women hurried to a back room and shrank against a wall. Then came a knock. The women, defectors from North Korea, bowed their heads, expecting the worst. If the Chinese police found them without identity cards, they would be deported in handcuffs and chains. Back in North Korea, they would be sentenced to years of hard labor in a prison camp.
Some 50,000 North Koreans, and possibly many more, are hiding in China, uncounted others have come for a few months and then slipped back to North Korea with food and money.
The exodus from North Korea began in the mid-1990s as a devastating famine broke out across the country. In the worst hit areas, people were reduced to eating roots, grasses, and tree bark. More than 2.5 million people would perish. At first the Chinese openly aided the desperate border crossers. But following protests from the North Korean government, China cracked down. Police regularly raid neighborhoods and villages to ferret out North Korean runaways, who live in terror of being caught and deported. In North Korea, crossing the border without permission is punishable by three to five years in a prison labor camp, and conspiring with missionaries or others to reach South Korea is considered treason, with offenders starved, tortured, and sometimes publicly executed.
In the mid-1990s the few dozen defectors arriving each year were greeted with adulation and hefty rewards; most were elite members of the military or Communist Party from Pyongyang who brought valuable intelligence. With rare exceptions, today's defectors, averaging more than 2,000 a year since 2006, are farm laborers, factory workers, and low-level soldiers and clerks from impoverished regions"
Posted By: inicky46
They negotiate with "the mentality of the bazaar," gaming the entire process. So I think Jack's scenario of a US/Israeli strike is a reasonable fallback position.
That's not possible with N. Korea so long as China is backing them. And China's help is the only reason the sanctions haven't brought that government down.
Just today it was reported that China is establishing citizens' militias on their N. Korean border because so many from that country (even soldiers) have been crossing the border to rob Chinese of food. When soldiers are doing it, too, you things are dire.
Here's the article. But I suppose you know better.
As for my correcting spelling, the only reason I don't do it for you is it would take all day. You write like a third grader.
-- Modified on 1/15/2015 8:28:40 PM
Davis Icke?! hahahahahahahahahahaha! Don't forget Alex Jones!
Posted By: quadseasonal
Iran backing down on their Nuclear bomb program is about as likely as Russia relocating their Ukrainian compatriots to Siberia.
If Hillary can keep her failing health above ground for a few more years, that's the World's best remote chance, of stopping Iran's underground nuclear bomb program.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePrRh6mfQ8Q&list=PL79FBD83D35DF4EC3
Posted By: inicky46
Both have been subject to crippling sanctions for years and we have yet to see a change of government. I suppose you'll say the sanctions are not strong enough and should be ramped up, and you could be right. So far, sanctions have at least brought the Iranians to the bargaining table, though it's far from clear they are negotiating in good faith.
More recently, sanctions brought against Russia by the US and Europe have had minor success in squeezing Russia over its Ukraine policy, though the collapse of world oil prices have done at least as much.
It still may take military action to make sure Iran doesn't produce a bomb.
by John Perkins. Points out another reason why poor countries, many of them Muslims, hate us.
-- Modified on 1/15/2015 9:35:03 AM
Which probably isn't the only answer. That and many wars are deeply ideological, aren't ideas meant to be challenged?
Posted By: mattradd
Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. We keep behaving in ways that increase the numbers of our enemies! Why? It would be reasonable to assume because we haven't learned from our mistakes. However, that begs the question, why not? I suspect, part of the answers is because the industrial military complex can't be supported adequately, in the manner and style that it's members are accustom to, with wars that have been won.
It's because we are not Muslim. If our behavior created more enemies what do those girls in Africa do? Their crime was to receive an education and for that they were kidnapped,raped, and enslaved. What did US behavior have to with Muslims bombing a church full of people? Or the bombing of a nightclub in Indonesia? Or Muslims slaughtering other Muslims?
We can argue about the wisdom of sending thousands of troops into historically chaotic countries. All the more reason to use bombing strikes and drones. Unfortunately civilians will die,just like in Japan and Germany. So be it. It's up to them to weed out the cancer in their world so it cannot spread here.
The three wars you mentioned were fought to the same conclusion as Korea.
Just using Vietnam, we fought to and negotiated the same result as Korea, but after the bullets stopped flying we stayed, without losing any lives, and secured the peace. The result was what you saw in Korea.
We did the same thing in Vietnam, but we did not stay to enforce the peace that we fought for. The Senate, led by the Dems, prohibited any aid after the truce, so when the north violated it the south fell.
Iraq is the same. When Obama took office the hard work had been done, we were no longer dying, the number of deaths of Iraqis dropped tremendously. As Obama said, it was safe and secure.
Had we stayed and enforced the peace, it probably would have been done with very few, if any lives lost. How many died in Korea after the truce? But we left before it was secure and it collapsed.
The same thing will happen in Afghanastan. It had been pretty much one, the militants were out and on the run, as they were in Iraq. But the two states were not yet able to secure tthe gains we made.
Ironically, the military complex could have been sustained because the most expensive part was over.
Our residual forces in Korea have not been a burden, especially as the provide us with bases in that part of the world.
We won the wars, but we lost the peace
