The US, The UN and Iraq

Asherman, the USA has resources to destroy the entire world - therefore, totally benefiting no one!

Asherman

I concur regarding the unique modern dangers posed by a stateless, fabian enemy.

On another thread, we discussed 'real politic'. There is a further aspect to this notion/strategy which arises for me in this situation.

Where the enemy is not tied to a physical location, where he might be anywhere, including amongst us, then one set of real politic tools (21st century military) become quite useless, and another set (diplomatic/economic/information/aid) arise by default.

It is because of this unique present situation that I think this administration may well screw up rather badly, I'm afraid.

What is bothersome to me is the democrats complaint that Bush is not doing enough to stifle/fight terrorism. If they have a better way to battle our war on terrorism, they should share their ideas - not just complain. c.i.

Blatham

I don't know what crystal ball you have dragged that tired prediction of gloom from------At least this administration is not just sitting around wringing their hands and whimpering about how unfair the world is.

Carter would still be micro-managing the white house tennis courts----Clinton would be in the closet with Monica-----Gore would be wailing about how unfair Fox news is----I would much rather have the current bunch in ---thank you.

Hope you had a nice Christmans-----I wish you would start the new year with something besides doom and gloom.

I only want to start the new year with an entire new Senate and Congress----wouldn't it be great to start with a clean slate?

The United States possesses the military resources to win any conventional battle against any other nation currently in existence. It is because of the strength of our conventional forces that our huge stockpile of nuclear/thermonuclear weapons are unlikely to be necessary. Hence, our nuclear capapability becomes only a deterent against first use of a nuclear device against us, or our vital interests. The United States will use it's nuclear arsenal only in retaliation for an nuclear attack.

No responsible government in the world today would initiate a nuclear exchange with those nations holding significant numbers of munitions. Irresponsible governments, and thugs, may either miscalculate or believe that first use of nuclear weapons would go unpunished. There are those in the world who believe that the American people are weak, indecisive, and unwilling to resist aggression if any casualties are likely. Our reluctance to harm "innocent" civilians is taken as proof that we are fools when it comes to war. They are wrong, but we may have to lose a million dead somewhere before the lesson is learned.

Is war inevitable in Iraq, and/or North Korea? Probably. The anaylsis at the head of this thread (I think it is this thread), by Craven and Timber are on point. Neither Iraq nor North Korea, separately or together can withstand the military might of the United States. Their only hope is to persuade the American People that we shouldn't put our troops in harms way.

Let us say that military action is avoided for the moment. North Korea will increase its stockpile of nuclear devices and delivery systems capable of reaching ever greater distances. PRK will continue to increase subversion and covert actions against the South. It will increase its demands that U.S. military forces leave Korea, thus leaving ROK to stand on its own. At what point do will we have the courage to say, "NO MORE", and mean it? If the PRK came South again in force, would they target the US Marine division in Okinawa with a nuke as the closest relief force available? That is well within their capability and demonstrated mindset.

How would Iraq and Saddam use the interlude? Saddam probably doesn't have a nuclear capability yet, but almost certainly possesses other weapons prohibited as a result of the Gulf War agreements. Saddam is paymaster for the most virulent of the Palestinian terrorists, and has supported terrorist actions in other parts of the world. He miscalculated by invading Kuwait, but that was just the last of a long series of aggrssions against neighboring states. The region will continue to be on a slow boil as long as this thug remains in power. Will the Middle East suddenly become a new Eden with Saddam off stage? Nope, but it will be more stable and predictable.

I find most troubling that the bad guy's job is insanely simple if merely a "Dirty" explosion is desired. That is orders of magnitude less complicated than an actual spontaneous fision event. Common household explosives woud serve in perfectly adequate fashion to spread radioactive material over a considerable area. The only realistic -potential for such device exists in the philosophy of Stateless Terrorism, and falls chillingly into Stateless Terrorism's realm of capability.

Some time ago I read somewhere that in terms of capital expenditure and assumed capability, the Conventional Forces of the United States were roughly the equal of the next 25 nations combined. Adding in our nuclear capability, we are formidiable beyond challenge. Misperception of the scope of US strength and breadth of power stems from the disinclination of the US to use "All Available Resources", disregarding nukes. Over the past half-century and more since WWII, the US has been engaged in a series of conflicts and disputes entailing US Military Involvement. Among the cheif criticisms of US practice in these unpleasantries, among field commanders and analysts alike, has been lack of adequate support and resources to be militarily efficient. The US holds back her punches, and this is seen by some as a weakness. Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, even Balkan Peace Keeping and the first Gulf War, would have turned out differently had not political considerations tempered US Military Might. The vigrous strategic bombing of China accompanied by ground action across the Yalu were well within American Military Capability at the time, but we wished to avoid provoking The Soviets. Much the same applies to Viet Nam. Strategic Bombing got bad World Press, and the "In-The-Dirt" battle plans were Administration Micro-Managed from Stateside to such ridiculous extent that clear and threatening tactical targets were proscribed from attack. There would have been no "Blackhawk Down" had a couple Heavy Armor Brigades and a Heavy Mechanized Infantry Division with appropriate Air, Artillery, and Naval Support been tasked with Somalia as opposed to lighter forces which could be construed as "Merely Humanitarian Intervention". Substantial Iraqi assetts and personnel survived the withdrawl from Kuwait despite US capabilty to prevent same. The US has for over fifty years been reluctant to use "Enough Force" to get the job done unambiguously.

I for one feel it is long past time we let it all hang out, short of The Nukes, of course, and conclusively kicked some butt. Once one of the bullies or two lies bloodied and unmoving on the barroom floor, his compatriots are far less likely to pursue the matter further.



timber

timber, That's easier said than done. I'm still against collateral damage to pursue your kind of muscle bragging. c.i.

Timber and Asherman

Well said---both of you----you're bringing a lot of class to this forum as well as a lot of sound reasoning and logic.

I grant the impracticality of the approach if carried to the extreme. Still, following the re-landscaping of Carthage, the Romans enjoyed a fair period of relative tranquility. I admit however, that it is fortunate we are not Romans ... for ourselves and for the Wolrd.



timber

Timber

Now even C.I. and LW migth agree with you there)))))))))

perception, I wish to avoid war, and barrom brawls, and am willing to pursue all alternative options. There comes from time to time a point, however where a fight is inevitable. If one must fight, one is well advised to give the issue full attention in the interest of ending the matter as quickly and efficiently as possible and in furtherence of discouraging further contention or misunderstanding..


Of interest ... the 96 Hour Deployment Alert Status was announced for the George Washington Carrier Battle Group a short time ago. A couple Carrier Battle Groups yet remain off Alert Status, but change there would imply imminence of bellicose plans. A sudden lack of interaction with their surrounding civilian communities on the part of a couple of specific domestic Air Force Bases is another harbinger to be anticipated. A large Reserve callup may be expected some weeks before actual hostilities, and likely will precede redeployment of significant further Air and Naval Assets. There is time, but it grows short.



timber

Without dealing in specifics, as it would be a disservice to my sources of information, i've spoken to reservists who have received written notification of such preparations, and who have been ordered to prepare for deployment within a 48 hour notice.

Timber

My sentiments exactly----in regard to Korea-----I think we should withdraw every soldier from South Korea----that would signal that madman that we recognize the only way to militarily battle his million man army is with nukes there fore we must move our troops out of harms way. South Korea doesn't want us there and quite frankly we need not lose one more American life in that foul place

perception, "Amen," and I don't mean in the religious sense. c.i.

Might it not be taken to mean the US has no further interest in South Korea?

Not if we announce that any invasion of South Korea will be looked upon as an act of war as the last soldier departs. We would simultaneously announce that we have ships loaded with cruise missels tipped with tactical nukes-----I do not want a nuclear war but if diplomacy does not work we have no other logical choice---it is lunacy to allow them to gain more nukes and it is lunacy to try and fight them in a conventional war. Even if we send stealth bombers over the north with 2000 lb smart bombs we can destroy many of their important facilities but then they will retaliate and destroy Seoul and everything in the DMZ and within 20 miles south of the DMZ----am I correct timber?

The effective destruction of significant portion of South Korea in astonishingly short time is well with the capability of North Korea. Much could be done in but a few hours with Airpower, Conventional Missles, and Artillery, without resort to Ground Troops. 37,000 In Place US troops have nothing to do with this other than being in some similar, if not so defenseless, peril.



timber

The existence of U.S. military forces on the ground in South Korea is the best guarantor that the PRK will not attack South of the DMZ. To do so would inevitably draw the U.S. into a hot war that would ultimately mean the destruction of the North. If the U.S. withdrew, the North would consider that a strong indication that the U.S. no longer regards Korea as within it's sphere of protection. A swift advance on Seoul would suffer from ROK prepositioned assets, but Seoul probably would fall within a week at most. The remainder of the South, I'm afraid would crumple within two months. I believe that the forces North of the DMZ have ample petrol and ammunition for a 60-90 day campaign.

If we withdrew from the Korean penninsula and the North attacked again, how could/would we respond? During the Korean War we had a toehold within the Pusan Perimeter, and that was a tremendous asset. Today we would have to bring forces from Okinawa and Japan. both of which are within nuclear reach of the the PRK. Where would the Marines land? Inchon again, not likely. Landing on the Korean penninsula would be a very difficult and expensive task. Could the North be defeated by airpower alone? Again, not likely. North Korean implacemets morth of the DMZ would be difficult to destroy, and as the North Korean army spread out across the south and mingled with the civilian population they would become difficult aerial targets.

It has been suggested that the North might only engage in artillery and conventional rocket operations against the South. I don't believe that would happen. The North, I think knows the importance of using its infantry to occupy and subdue the South. During the Korean War, the North slaughtered tens of thousands of South Koreans, and they haven't changed their approach to occupation since.

I'm called away to defeat a host of grandchildren at a game of Clue. That's more fun than blathering on about this stuff. Over and out to you Timber.

I'm no pacifist by the strictest sense of the word, but timber's barroom analogy is troubling in that it infers the participants are drunk. Drunk with power, I would say.

Sure, Asherman ... scamper off and divert with an entertaining evening of Clue, leaving the rest of us with this brow-wrinkling game of Risk. We'd all be better off playing Trivial Pursuit, methinks. Oh, wait a minute ... I suppose, on second thought, we are so engaged, aren't we?

Oh, well. I perceiveve the DPRK leadership not unmindful of its own certain destruction regardless the fate of ROK should it come to hostilities. In but a few days at most, Conventional US Strategic Air Assets could eliminate all that permits the DPRK to function beyond the Hunter-Gatherer level. I do not see DPRK committed to murder-suicide. What they seek is economic relief. They just have a strange way of lobbying for it. Somehow, they figure escalating the behavior which gained them the sanctions presently inconveniencing them will result in the removal of those sanctions. I fail to follow their logic. Their one strong point is our long demonstrated inclination toward appeasement. They may find our patience and amicableness has diminished.



timber