The more I take a look at this ISIS thing the more convinced I become that we're seeing the opening rounds of a MAJOR regional war that will involve us all whether we like it or not.
Not just over there, Solomon. With systems like Club K out there, it is easy for devout Islam to bring the war to the great satan, or us, as well. It is so easy for a nation like Iran (or even a group like ISIS) to rent a merchant ship or rail car or two in Cuba, Nicaragua, or Mexico, and use Club K or a similar system to bring the fight to our own shores. If they struck us here in our own country, in all likelihood we would not have the courage to fight them elsewhere.
I think this is one of the best articles on the motivations and philosophy of ISIS I've read yet. Well written and researched, I think I learnt more by reading this one article than I have watching hours of overly simplistic news footage.
It also suggests ways to defeat ISIS, namely by confronting them and shattering their very stiff and rigid prophetic vision. If we stop them gaining ground and roll them back, we are basically showing them their prophecy is incorrect. Food for thought.
i linked to that a week or so ago. the problem is a bit more "intense" than even that though. our society is moving toward accepting cultures that are foreign to our own. ordinarily that wouldn't be a bad thing but in the case of Islam i'm afraid it is. imagine if Christianity adopted a stance where non-believers should be killed. if you were strictly following the Christian religion then that means you would kill or convert non-believers? now imagine in that same instance you had people that weren't "strict" Christians but believed in Jesus....they weren't into the killing or converting of non-believers but understood that it was part of the religion....but because of modernity you don't follow your faith carefully? do you get what i'm saying. the problem is Islam. the religion is poison and unless we accept that fact we will never defeat them.
if that sounds racist then i'm sorry but looking at this carefully i see no other answer.
I totally get what you're saying and I don't think it's racist. I think the first step is to stop this 'It's not really Islam' talk. It clearly is Islam. In fact, if we take what is said in the article and interview as true, the ISIS form of Islam is a 'truer' and purer version of Islam than modern Islam. The quicker we say, 'actually, this is Islam, and this is what we're going to do about it' we'd probably start finding better solutions.
I don't see them being a big problem much longer, Iran and the areas around them are mobilizing, and the thing the US is afraid to do, kill people in job lots, these others have no qualms against. ISIS has pissed off everyone, including the people that share their "kill em all" philosophy. So now they receive instead of give. And once they start losing, they'll lose their mystique and shatter.
the way i see it we're looking at a proxy fight between Saudi Arabia and Iran. you have other nations that are lining up on one side or the other with the US trying to hangout in the middle along with Europe. i contend that even if ISIS were wiped out today the proxy war would continue and with the nuclear talks between the US and Iran, everyone is missing the other people that aren't happy besides the Israeli's...Saudi. so i don't know the particulars but i see it something like this. ISIS continues on, they get close to toppling Syria, Iran steps in to prevent that by sending forces. Russia backs Syria and Iran. US troops are in Iraq trying to keep that country together but the Iraqi's provide assistance to Iran. Saudi Arabia sees all of this and backs rebel groups in Syria, and starts sending forces along the Iraq border. well i won't continue on but this thing is gonna spiral. everyone is wanting this to be minor when its anything but. quite honestly if we used the old definition of regional war, we could declare one right now.
Everything we know about Obama tells us that he will do almost anything to avoid getting dragged into another major ground operation in Iraq. And since when have the Saudis done anything other than bitch and moan? Even in 1991 with Saddam threatening to invade they didn't have the will to actually fight. What you are saying is certainly possible, but not even close to probable I wouldn't think.
I absolutely agree about the Administration, Iran could literally unveil weapons grade nuclear material packed into ballistic missiles tomorrow and they would still push Kerry's useless nuclear deal as if they were catching this shit years before they built the first reactor. Also, I don't see the Saudi's doing anything, they are much more apt to economic warfare and with an enemy like Iran, they would probably just give out money to anyone "opposed" to them.
However, aside from the standard unconventional conflicts in the Middle-East, things will spiral uncontrollably once the powers in that region decide that Iran has reached nuclear capability 'X', once that happens, all hell will indeed break lose. You would be looking at a situation ready to deteriorate horribly at any minute, involving people with literally no self-control, or - quite frankly - common sense. It's bad...very bad.
I think the problem has already morphed beyond a fight between countries. The struggle between Saudi Arabia v Iran (Sunni v Shia) is just a legacy. The situation is evolving so rapidly and the ISIS worldview has gripped the minds of the young adult Muslims all over the world ....reference groups pledging allegiance to ISIS in Libya, Nigeria, Yemen, etc. and has drawn in countless young, idealistic, fighting-age Muslims from western countries.
Think of it this way.... 1. Al Qaida attacked on 911 and a Global Jihad started (we went to Defcon 3) 2. ISIS burst out of Syria in to Iraq and the new fledgling Caliphate was born (we should have gone to Defcon 4). 3. The Caliphate grows and absorbs mainstream Muslim groups in one contiguous region spanning ME and N Africa. Armed raids in to Southern Europe begin across the Med amnd join up with the Jihadi 5th Column in Europe (We'll have no choice but to go to Defcon 5).
Try to realize this is not actualy something the US should decide on its own. This should be the subject of a discussion between the two parties involved, so South Korea and the US.
Of course the the US CAN decide this on its own, but that would also mean potentially losing a valuable ally and trade partner. Since China is one of the major potential enemies that is rather short sighted.
Behave.. its not nice to generalize all Europeans, 'we' Dutch actually have had the US's back in just about all conflicts you guys fought. Even the more dubious ones.. Troops, armor, planes in Korea, Lebanon, Former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan.. Ships across the globe
I am by no means saying 'we' are perfect, far, far from it. Funding for the military is totally insufficient, politicians are weak as hell, basically its a mess.. like anywhere else.. but no one can claim 'we' aren't reliable allies.
South Korea won't decide, that's the point. They're using America as a shield against the North. They also use America's presence as an excuse not to buy necessary military defense equipment like anti-ballistic missile weapons.
That is a situation that has grown historically. There is no reason why the US should not work to change this, but realize the US has strong reasons to be in Korea and keep them on the 'friendslist' . If it isn't for the bases and then it is for the huge military orders.
> They're using America as a shield against the North.
Not a shield, but a high deductible insurance policy whose premium is $1 billion per year.
> an excuse not to buy necessary military defense equipment like anti-ballistic missile weapons.
Koreans are building their own THAAD class interceptors scheduled for deployment around 2021, and THAAD is considered a waste of money that benefits only Japan over there.
If that were true, the current Administration would have been taking very serious steps a long time ago [along with not treating Netanyahu like crap]. Iran is basically there; they have the missiles, and they have reactors producing nuclear material. They simply need to get the necessary amounts material and weaponize it (which they may be doing now, given that they are preventing IAEA inspectors from gaining access to their nuclear sites/program), along with the various odds and ends of having a nuclear program for military application.
This deal will pretty much guarantee it. Even if Kerry's deal goes as far as everyone thinks it could, it will have a 10 year 'sunset' clause, after which, Iran could simply sprint to the proverbial 'finish'. Worse yet, no matter what the outcome is, with relation the the deal, we (US, Israel, Europe, IAEA, Freedom loving peoples, pretty much anyone who does not want Iran to have a nuke) will have no way of monitoring or policing the program in a comprehensive manner, sanctions (that they have still advanced their program under) will be lifted, and I can also guarantee that this Administration will NEVER take any kind of military action against Iran, should they get sneaky, mischievous, and continue with the program at any rate, slow or fast.
Sorry, there was no disrespect implied and I was not trying to indite all Europeans, as the vest majority of you guys are generally very good allies. I was simply pointing out that the current American Administration has engaged in quite a bit of negotiating with terrorists and that other groups from European countries have paid ransom demands (I know some Americans have tried too).
Indeed, I do not expect that anyone would do different, after all, if my country can't refrain from those activities during the Global War on Terror, I cant' [and don't] expect anyone else to.
Rather, I was simply trying to point out that in the latter years, the Global War on Terror has gone from a very dangerous spear to something more of a toothpick at the hands of various politicians (at no fault of any of the war-fighters, of any country, that fought in it).
And sorry, but its not Obama treating Nethanyahu like crap its basically the opposite. Regardless of how we think about the man, he holds the office of US president and Nethanyahu does not. We were talking about Europe and South Korea leaning on the US for defense, Israel is worst, it somehow feels entitled to not only the biggest aid package of any nation, but also to medle
Well, you have a point when saying Europe tends to want to negotiate more/ longer then the US, to my chagrin they do so with Putin also. Who knows it might even work, but it still pees me off.
As far as the War on Terror, I don't believe it should be called a war because that implies it can be fought and won like WW2 and other wars were. It can't. There certainly is a need for a lot of military power, but beyond that it needs a lot more. It needs law enforcement and intelligence to catch them at home, it needs something Putin and ISIS understand very well: a huge campaign to change peoples opinions and feelings. At the moment it looks like we, in the west do not have an answer to the rather effective media strategies of both those parties. You will possibly disagree, but it also needs empowering of the decent Muslims so they can stand up against the threat and allure of ISIS and other terrorists.
I compare ISIS to a cancer, it is stubborn, it spreads and it kills. But lie you can combat cancer with medicines, surgery, radiation and even healthy living you also need all methods available against ISIS.
Not a shield, but a high deductible insurance policy whose premium is $1 billion per year. That is still cheap. Can South Korea military and economy support the full replacement of US forces in South Korea at anywhere nearer to US$1B/year (or less)? I doubt it.
I am not an American but American taxpayers are paying (more than $1 billion per year) for US forces to be stationed there.
It's not as simple as a military decision but I would also think it's a political decision to base US forces there. If US forces leave, China can/will step in to provide the gap.
Lets be real, having bases around a region that might very well be the scene of a major conflict you have to deal with is an asset. It matters less if there are many useful units there now, you always have the option to move some in.
That does not mean it is the only choice, one can argue the cost of having these bases are to high, or that intervening abroad is non of America's business.
Those are valid choices. Just realize that each choice has many consequences possibly also beyond the intended ones. I personally believe the US ( and Europe) has quite a few good reasons to maintain these capabilities. Security ones, economical ones, historical and even moral ones.. Of course I am fully aware this also has downsides and at times backfires, but I am a firm believer in looking outwards, engaging the world instead of withdrawing from it.
If China ever lashes out South Korea is just as much in danger as anyone else in the region. That being said,it surely is possible they declare themselves neutral.. that's not unheard of in history. Such a move would limit the usefulness of these bases a lot. On the other hand, it also is a historically proven likely hood that powervacumes get filled, South Korea might very well, if the US leaves deside their best interest is served by allying with China, in which case neutrality surely is preferable.
South Korea is an economical powerhouse, bristling with modern technology. That surely is not a place we want to turn to a potential enemy.
I have to admit though, wile typing this I suddenly realize how close this is to the good old Vietnam era domino-theory. A theory that certainly did not pan out, or rather did in the reverse with the communist domino's toppling one by one.
Now don't tell me China is communist, it nowadays is a weird hybrid between state controlled uber-capitalism and a dictatorial oligarchy with communist frosting.
That thing looks like straight from a Clive Cussler novel.
It would be rather dangerous when loaded with chemical weapons or dirty bombs, but with conventional warheads there are many easier ways to do the same damage.. a few fertilizer bombs would do.
Let's not look at the 1954 Armitice. Let's not look at the Air-Sea Battle plan.
Let's look at it this way: Presume US has withdrawn (completely) from South Korea. Let's just say that in a few years, China exerts enough "pressure" that the country elects its first pro-China President.
Does anyone have any idea what's going to happen to North Korea's ambition of improving their nuclear warheads and delivery system? With South Korea in bed with China, there's no need for South Korea to make any issues. This means North Korea can expand their nuclear weapons development to a massive scale. And being short of anything but cash, anybody with millions of hard-cold cash can buy one, two, three of these and ... And this is just ONE scenario.
Yes, I agree. US forces are there at SK, the DMZ to act as "trip wire". They also act as a form of "gunboat diplomacy".
Whether or not SK can defend themselves is subject to debate. SK military has never seen combat after the Korean War. SK military may be fierce-some warriors but they are up against a totally dangerous opponent: A deranged lunatic with an fierce-some army.
This is a proxy fight between Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Iran. This entire matter gets complicated because of the lack of leadership from the White House. From Turkey down to UAE, each Arab nations don't trust each other (typical!). Even the Iraqi government don't trust the Kurds up north (even though they are doing a lot of the heavy lifting/fighting). Remember the old saying: Together we stand, divided we fall. Well, this is exactly what we are seeing. Each Arab nation goes out and "do their own thing". Collaboration? Bullshit. Coooperation? Suuuuure.
Then throw in Obama's brand of "leadership". You want someone with Hillary Clinton's icey stare. When she tells you what to do, you have no choice but to say, "Yes, SIR!". Instead, you have some gutless one-hit-wonder like Obama. When Obama tells anyone of the Arab leaders what to do they turn around and say, "Oh no, Obama. I tell you what I want to do".
Look at what Iran and Syria are doing? They are UNITED. They know what they are doing. The west and the Arab countries can just watch in envy.
Because this is a Great Powers game. It is no longer just a matter of strategic rivalry. It is far closer to the power games of the European powers from Westphalia to the Fall of Berlin. You have to play a game of Go, Chess, and Poker all at the same time. We just have to consider if it is worth the strategic cost of troops in Korea versus the strategic merit in a new and better Grand Strategy.
There is no "AirSea Battle Plan," also tripwires and gunboat diplomacy are mistaken vestiges of a former time that never were and ROK military (with potential US support from elsewhere) undoubtedly outweighs DPRK. It is not subject to debate.
The only resolution is diplomatic, not military. All this military talk is music to the ears of the war profiteers, that's all. Those who believe in military resolution of international conflict haven't been paying attention.
And that "deranged lunatic" crapola is a repeat of US crazy propaganda.
Fortunately for us, all those home grown terrorists are too fucking retarded to stage an attack like the one in the video, they usually try but fail miserably either by capture when they try to buy hundreds of kilos of fertilzer without justification or they blow themselfs up while making the bomb :) poetic justice you might call it.. The most dangerous thing those dipshits can do is grab some good ol AK-47 and start shooting the hell out of bystanders in their selected target location.
I believe that ISIS was basically a US creation to break up the country of Iraq, which it mistakenly and stupidly ceded to Iran with Operation Iraq Freedom. Iran will now take care of ISIS. Iran actually has a general, Major General Qasem Suleimani, leading the attack on Tikrit. Imagine that!
"By hook or by crook they did put a stop to the a lavishly assembled Iraqi Army." I dont think the Iranians are that bad actually, the traning the IRGC gives to their militias is good, they are disiciplined and capable. Hezbollah was a surprise during the 2006 war, they held their ground against the IDF and mantained their rockets units operational during all of the conflict, despite the Israeli airstrikes, facts acknowledged by the IDF itself.
"believe that the Syrian/Iranian fighting man to be more of a match than the opposing Saudi man." Most than likely, the only thing the saudis are good at is at buying gold coated shit and paying huge sums of money for western whores to indulge in the most degenerate acts possible.
The only resolution is diplomatic, not military. Are we still talking about NK? I don't think so. Every US leader after the Korean War has been treating NK with kid gloves. Look where NK's progress in nuclear weapons delivery has been?
The NK government has money (even funny money) to spend on weapons but no money to feed their own citizen. Heck, one NK went as far as going into China to rob Chinese citizens.
A mob in India has just stormed a jail and executed a rapist Dollars to doughnuts it's a Hindu victim and a Muslim rapist. Might be worth adding to your world is burning checks.
speaking of which, there is no large scale u.s. military presence along the DMZ for nearly a decade, ever since the transition was made between s.korea.
So the purpose of the operational bases in Korea is to occupy and pressure ROK? China diplomacy toward ROK is a threat? The US keeping a boot on ROK's neck is what contributed to the attack on Lippert.
The purpose of US bases in Korea is to provide prime real estates for US forces; without them the US forces are pushed back by at least 1,000 km away and the AirSea battle becomes far less effective.
The idea of pushing US forces back by 1,000 km itself is a huge strategic victory for the Chinese communist party.
In January the defense media broke the news that the Pentagon’s “Air-Sea Battle” concept is being renamed and absorbed into a broader multiservice effort to develop a “Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons” or JAM-GC.
30,000 troops in Korea is a long way from any global commons, whatever that is. Methinks they are groping for a raison d'être. SecDef Gates made Korea an accompanied tour because it's not dangerous.
Your "huge strategic victory" is a yawner. It's far better to stop the mutual provocations, sort of child's play, and settle this thing. Sixty years is enough already. Was it a huge strategic victory for the US when China withdrew its forces? Actually, it's required by the 1954 Armistice Agreement. China complied, the US didn't.
By hook or by crook they did put a stop to the a lavishly assembled Iraqi Army while still suffering from an International Arms embargo themselves. For some reason I believe that the Syrian/Iranian fighting man to be more of a match than the opposing Saudi man. And if the Syrians and Iranians historically lacked a professional Officer Corps to effectively lead their men then all these anti-terror operations being conducted by them against ISIS will lead to a decent officer corps that will only go to the top echelons of their respective armies.
The day the US/Iran manage to reach some compromise formula and allow Iran to re-enter the international fold....a flood of Russian/Chinese and maybe US weapons will ensure that the Iranians have not only a professional officer corps but also experienced veteran JCO's and Soldiers with maybe....just maybe combined arms.
While in my previous post I mentioned Iran not being able to match the Saudi's in monetary terms now....in the future they might. And they also have 5 times the population size.
Not just over there, Solomon. With systems like Club K out there, it is easy for devout Islam to bring the war to the great satan, or us, as well. It is so easy for a nation like Iran (or even a group like ISIS) to rent a merchant ship or rail car or two in Cuba, Nicaragua, or Mexico, and use Club K or a similar system to bring the fight to our own shores. If they struck us here in our own country, in all likelihood we would not have the courage to fight them elsewhere.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbUU_9bOcnM
I think this is one of the best articles on the motivations and philosophy of ISIS I've read yet. Well written and researched, I think I learnt more by reading this one article than I have watching hours of overly simplistic news footage.
ReplyDeleteIt also suggests ways to defeat ISIS, namely by confronting them and shattering their very stiff and rigid prophetic vision. If we stop them gaining ground and roll them back, we are basically showing them their prophecy is incorrect. Food for thought.
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
i linked to that a week or so ago. the problem is a bit more "intense" than even that though. our society is moving toward accepting cultures that are foreign to our own. ordinarily that wouldn't be a bad thing but in the case of Islam i'm afraid it is. imagine if Christianity adopted a stance where non-believers should be killed. if you were strictly following the Christian religion then that means you would kill or convert non-believers? now imagine in that same instance you had people that weren't "strict" Christians but believed in Jesus....they weren't into the killing or converting of non-believers but understood that it was part of the religion....but because of modernity you don't follow your faith carefully? do you get what i'm saying. the problem is Islam. the religion is poison and unless we accept that fact we will never defeat them.
ReplyDeleteif that sounds racist then i'm sorry but looking at this carefully i see no other answer.
I totally get what you're saying and I don't think it's racist. I think the first step is to stop this 'It's not really Islam' talk. It clearly is Islam. In fact, if we take what is said in the article and interview as true, the ISIS form of Islam is a 'truer' and purer version of Islam than modern Islam. The quicker we say, 'actually, this is Islam, and this is what we're going to do about it' we'd probably start finding better solutions.
ReplyDeleteCan you explain how this devolves into a major regional war? Curious as to your line of thought.
ReplyDeleteI don't see them being a big problem much longer, Iran and the areas around them are mobilizing, and the thing the US is afraid to do, kill people in job lots, these others have no qualms against. ISIS has pissed off everyone, including the people that share their "kill em all" philosophy. So now they receive instead of give. And once they start losing, they'll lose their mystique and shatter.
ReplyDeletethe way i see it we're looking at a proxy fight between Saudi Arabia and Iran. you have other nations that are lining up on one side or the other with the US trying to hangout in the middle along with Europe. i contend that even if ISIS were wiped out today the proxy war would continue and with the nuclear talks between the US and Iran, everyone is missing the other people that aren't happy besides the Israeli's...Saudi. so i don't know the particulars but i see it something like this. ISIS continues on, they get close to toppling Syria, Iran steps in to prevent that by sending forces. Russia backs Syria and Iran. US troops are in Iraq trying to keep that country together but the Iraqi's provide assistance to Iran. Saudi Arabia sees all of this and backs rebel groups in Syria, and starts sending forces along the Iraq border. well i won't continue on but this thing is gonna spiral. everyone is wanting this to be minor when its anything but. quite honestly if we used the old definition of regional war, we could declare one right now.
ReplyDeleteEverything we know about Obama tells us that he will do almost anything to avoid getting dragged into another major ground operation in Iraq. And since when have the Saudis done anything other than bitch and moan? Even in 1991 with Saddam threatening to invade they didn't have the will to actually fight. What you are saying is certainly possible, but not even close to probable I wouldn't think.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree about the Administration, Iran could literally unveil weapons grade nuclear material packed into ballistic missiles tomorrow and they would still push Kerry's useless nuclear deal as if they were catching this shit years before they built the first reactor. Also, I don't see the Saudi's doing anything, they are much more apt to economic warfare and with an enemy like Iran, they would probably just give out money to anyone "opposed" to them.
ReplyDeleteHowever, aside from the standard unconventional conflicts in the Middle-East, things will spiral uncontrollably once the powers in that region decide that Iran has reached nuclear capability 'X', once that happens, all hell will indeed break lose. You would be looking at a situation ready to deteriorate horribly at any minute, involving people with literally no self-control, or - quite frankly - common sense. It's bad...very bad.
I think the problem has already morphed beyond a fight between
ReplyDeletecountries. The struggle between Saudi Arabia v Iran (Sunni v Shia) is
just a legacy. The situation is evolving so rapidly and the ISIS
worldview has gripped the minds of the young adult Muslims all over the
world ....reference groups pledging allegiance to ISIS in Libya,
Nigeria, Yemen, etc. and has drawn in countless young, idealistic,
fighting-age Muslims from western countries.
Think of it this way....
1. Al Qaida attacked on 911 and a Global Jihad started (we went to Defcon 3)
2. ISIS burst out of Syria in to Iraq and the new fledgling Caliphate was born (we should have gone to Defcon 4).
3.
The Caliphate grows and absorbs mainstream Muslim groups in one
contiguous region spanning ME and N Africa. Armed raids in to Southern
Europe begin across the Med amnd join up with the Jihadi 5th Column in
Europe (We'll have no choice but to go to Defcon 5).
On the contrary, an attack like that or any attack on Western countries will only redouble the ability of the west to fight them everywhere.
ReplyDeleteYeah, the mighty Iranian army, I'm sure Isis are quaking in their little booties...
ReplyDeleteI am willing to bet my classic car that you are wrong.
ReplyDeleteNo US president, not even Obama will ever allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
Funny you say that wile we are looking at : 'brave Muslim warning about ISIS.'
ReplyDeleteTry to realize this is not actualy something the US should decide on its own. This should be the subject of a discussion between the two parties involved, so South Korea and the US.
ReplyDeleteOf course the the US CAN decide this on its own, but that would also mean potentially losing a valuable ally and trade partner.
Since China is one of the major potential enemies that is rather short sighted.
Behave.. its not nice to generalize all Europeans, 'we' Dutch actually have had the US's back in just about all conflicts you guys fought. Even the more dubious ones.. Troops, armor, planes in Korea, Lebanon, Former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan.. Ships across the globe
ReplyDeleteI am by no means saying 'we' are perfect, far, far from it. Funding for the military is totally insufficient, politicians are weak as hell, basically its a mess.. like anywhere else.. but no one can claim 'we' aren't reliable allies.
South Korea won't decide, that's the point. They're using America as a shield against the North. They also use America's presence as an excuse not to buy necessary military defense equipment like anti-ballistic missile weapons.
ReplyDeleteThat is a situation that has grown historically. There is no reason why the US should not work to change this, but realize the US has strong reasons to be in Korea and keep them on the 'friendslist' . If it isn't for the bases and then it is for the huge military orders.
ReplyDeleteHarlequinWolf
ReplyDelete> They're using America as a shield against the North.
Not a shield, but a high deductible insurance policy whose premium is $1 billion per year.
> an excuse not to buy necessary military defense equipment like anti-ballistic missile weapons.
Koreans are building their own THAAD class interceptors scheduled for deployment around 2021, and THAAD is considered a waste of money that benefits only Japan over there.
If that were true, the current Administration would have been taking very serious steps a long time ago [along with not treating Netanyahu like crap]. Iran is basically there; they have the missiles, and they have reactors producing nuclear material. They simply need to get the necessary amounts material and weaponize it (which they may be doing now, given that they are preventing IAEA inspectors from gaining access to their nuclear sites/program), along with the various odds and ends of having a nuclear program for military application.
ReplyDeleteThis deal will pretty much guarantee it. Even if Kerry's deal goes as far as everyone thinks it could, it will have a 10 year 'sunset' clause, after which, Iran could simply sprint to the proverbial 'finish'. Worse yet, no matter what the outcome is, with relation the the deal, we (US, Israel, Europe, IAEA, Freedom loving peoples, pretty much anyone who does not want Iran to have a nuke) will have no way of monitoring or policing the program in a comprehensive manner, sanctions (that they have still advanced their program under) will be lifted, and I can also guarantee that this Administration will NEVER take any kind of military action against Iran, should they get sneaky, mischievous, and continue with the program at any rate, slow or fast.
Sorry, there was no disrespect implied and I was not trying to indite all Europeans, as the vest majority of you guys are generally very good allies. I was simply pointing out that the current American Administration has engaged in quite a bit of negotiating with terrorists and that other groups from European countries have paid ransom demands (I know some Americans have tried too).
ReplyDeleteIndeed, I do not expect that anyone would do different, after all, if my country can't refrain from those activities during the Global War on Terror, I cant' [and don't] expect anyone else to.
Rather, I was simply trying to point out that in the latter years, the Global War on Terror has gone from a very dangerous spear to something more of a toothpick at the hands of various politicians (at no fault of any of the war-fighters, of any country, that fought in it).
Time will tell...
ReplyDeleteAnd sorry, but its not Obama treating Nethanyahu like crap its basically the opposite. Regardless of how we think about the man, he holds the office of US president and Nethanyahu does not. We were talking about Europe and South Korea leaning on the US for defense, Israel is worst, it somehow feels entitled to not only the biggest aid package of any nation, but also to medle
Well, you have a point when saying Europe tends to want to negotiate more/ longer then the US, to my chagrin they do so with Putin also. Who knows it might even work, but it still pees me off.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the War on Terror, I don't believe it should be called a war because that implies it can be fought and won like WW2 and other wars were.
It can't.
There certainly is a need for a lot of military power, but beyond that it needs a lot more. It needs law enforcement and intelligence to catch them at home, it needs something Putin and ISIS understand very well: a huge campaign to change peoples opinions and feelings. At the moment it looks like we, in the west do not have an answer to the rather effective media strategies of both those parties. You will possibly disagree, but it also needs empowering of the decent Muslims so they can stand up against the threat and allure of ISIS and other terrorists.
I compare ISIS to a cancer, it is stubborn, it spreads and it kills. But lie you can combat cancer with medicines, surgery, radiation and even healthy living you also need all methods available against ISIS.
Not a shield, but a high deductible insurance policy whose premium is $1 billion per year.
ReplyDeleteThat is still cheap. Can South Korea military and economy support the full replacement of US forces in South Korea at anywhere nearer to US$1B/year (or less)? I doubt it.
I am not an American but American taxpayers are paying (more than $1 billion per year) for US forces to be stationed there.
It's not as simple as a military decision but I would also think it's a political decision to base US forces there. If US forces leave, China can/will step in to provide the gap.
Well I hope you are right!
ReplyDeleteLets be real, having bases around a region that might very well be the scene of a major conflict you have to deal with is an asset. It matters less if there are many useful units there now, you always have the option to move some in.
ReplyDeleteThat does not mean it is the only choice, one can argue the cost of having these bases are to high, or that intervening abroad is non of America's business.
Those are valid choices. Just realize that each choice has many consequences possibly also beyond the intended ones.
I personally believe the US ( and Europe) has quite a few good reasons to maintain these capabilities. Security ones, economical ones, historical and even moral ones.. Of course I am fully aware this also has downsides and at times backfires, but I am a firm believer in looking outwards, engaging the world instead of withdrawing from it.
If China ever lashes out South Korea is just as much in danger as anyone else in the region. That being said,it surely is possible they declare themselves neutral.. that's not unheard of in history. Such a move would limit the usefulness of these bases a lot.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, it also is a historically proven likely hood that powervacumes get filled, South Korea might very well, if the US leaves deside their best interest is served by allying with China, in which case neutrality surely is preferable.
South Korea is an economical powerhouse, bristling with modern technology. That surely is not a place we want to turn to a potential enemy.
I have to admit though, wile typing this I suddenly realize how close this is to the good old Vietnam era domino-theory. A theory that certainly did not pan out, or rather did in the reverse with the communist domino's toppling one by one.
Now don't tell me China is communist, it nowadays is a weird hybrid between state controlled uber-capitalism and a dictatorial oligarchy with communist frosting.
That thing looks like straight from a Clive Cussler novel.
ReplyDeleteIt would be rather dangerous when loaded with chemical weapons or dirty bombs, but with conventional warheads there are many easier ways to do the same damage.. a few fertilizer bombs would do.
Let's not look at the 1954 Armitice. Let's not look at the Air-Sea Battle plan.
ReplyDeleteLet's look at it this way: Presume US has withdrawn (completely) from South Korea. Let's just say that in a few years, China exerts enough "pressure" that the country elects its first pro-China President.
Does anyone have any idea what's going to happen to North Korea's ambition of improving their nuclear warheads and delivery system? With South Korea in bed with China, there's no need for South Korea to make any issues. This means North Korea can expand their nuclear weapons development to a massive scale. And being short of anything but cash, anybody with millions of hard-cold cash can buy one, two, three of these and ... And this is just ONE scenario.
Yes, I agree. US forces are there at SK, the DMZ to act as "trip wire". They also act as a form of "gunboat diplomacy".
Whether or not SK can defend themselves is subject to debate. SK military has never seen combat after the Korean War. SK military may be fierce-some warriors but they are up against a totally dangerous opponent: A deranged lunatic with an fierce-some army.
This is a proxy fight between Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Iran. This entire matter gets complicated because of the lack of leadership from the White House. From Turkey down to UAE, each Arab nations don't trust each other (typical!). Even the Iraqi government don't trust the Kurds up north (even though they are doing a lot of the heavy lifting/fighting). Remember the old saying: Together we stand, divided we fall. Well, this is exactly what we are seeing. Each Arab nation goes out and "do their own thing". Collaboration? Bullshit. Coooperation? Suuuuure.
ReplyDeleteThen throw in Obama's brand of "leadership". You want someone with Hillary Clinton's icey stare. When she tells you what to do, you have no choice but to say, "Yes, SIR!". Instead, you have some gutless one-hit-wonder like Obama. When Obama tells anyone of the Arab leaders what to do they turn around and say, "Oh no, Obama. I tell you what I want to do".
Look at what Iran and Syria are doing? They are UNITED. They know what they are doing. The west and the Arab countries can just watch in envy.
Most seemed to have missed that this guy was a repeat offender. He had attacked the Japanese ambassador back in 2010.
ReplyDeletehttp://news.yahoo.com/us-envoy-skorea-stable-condition-knife-attack-055419869.html
Because this is a Great Powers game. It is no longer just a matter of strategic rivalry. It is far closer to the power games of the European powers from Westphalia to the Fall of Berlin. You have to play a game of Go, Chess, and Poker all at the same time. We just have to consider if it is worth the strategic cost of troops in Korea versus the strategic merit in a new and better Grand Strategy.
ReplyDeleteThere is no "AirSea Battle Plan," also tripwires and gunboat diplomacy are mistaken vestiges of a former time that never were and ROK military (with potential US support from elsewhere) undoubtedly outweighs DPRK. It is not subject to debate.
ReplyDeleteThe only resolution is diplomatic, not military. All this military talk is music to the ears of the war profiteers, that's all. Those who believe in military resolution of international conflict haven't been paying attention.
And that "deranged lunatic" crapola is a repeat of US crazy propaganda.
Fortunately for us, all those home grown terrorists are too fucking retarded to stage an attack like the one in the video, they usually try but fail miserably either by capture when they try to buy hundreds of kilos of fertilzer without justification or they blow themselfs up while making the bomb :) poetic justice you might call it.. The most dangerous thing those dipshits can do is grab some good ol AK-47 and start shooting the hell out of bystanders in their selected target location.
ReplyDeleteI believe that ISIS was basically a US creation to break up the country of Iraq, which it mistakenly and stupidly ceded to Iran with Operation Iraq Freedom. Iran will now take care of ISIS. Iran actually has a general, Major General Qasem Suleimani, leading the attack on Tikrit. Imagine that!
ReplyDelete"By hook or by crook they did put a stop to the a lavishly assembled Iraqi Army." I dont think the Iranians are that bad actually, the traning the IRGC gives to their militias is good, they are disiciplined and capable. Hezbollah was a surprise during the 2006 war, they held their ground against the IDF and mantained their rockets units operational during all of the conflict, despite the Israeli airstrikes, facts acknowledged by the IDF itself.
ReplyDelete"believe that the Syrian/Iranian fighting man to be more of a match than the opposing Saudi man." Most than likely, the only thing the saudis are good at is at buying gold coated shit and paying huge sums of money for western whores to indulge in the most degenerate acts possible.
The only resolution is diplomatic, not military.
ReplyDeleteAre we still talking about NK? I don't think so. Every US leader after the Korean War has been treating NK with kid gloves. Look where NK's progress in nuclear weapons delivery has been?
The NK government has money (even funny money) to spend on weapons but no money to feed their own citizen. Heck, one NK went as far as going into China to rob Chinese citizens.
A mob in India has just stormed a jail and executed a rapist
ReplyDeleteDollars to doughnuts it's a Hindu victim and a Muslim rapist.
Might be worth adding to your world is burning checks.
speaking of which, there is no large scale u.s. military presence along the DMZ for nearly a decade, ever since the transition was made between s.korea.
ReplyDeleteSo the purpose of the operational bases in Korea is to occupy and pressure ROK? China diplomacy toward ROK is a threat? The US keeping a boot on ROK's neck is what contributed to the attack on Lippert.
ReplyDeleteDon Bacon
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of US bases in Korea is to provide prime real estates for US forces; without them the US forces are pushed back by at least 1,000 km away and the AirSea battle becomes far less effective.
The idea of pushing US forces back by 1,000 km itself is a huge strategic victory for the Chinese communist party.
In January the defense media broke the news that the Pentagon’s “Air-Sea Battle” concept is being renamed and absorbed into a broader multiservice effort to develop a “Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons” or JAM-GC.
ReplyDelete30,000 troops in Korea is a long way from any global commons, whatever that is. Methinks they are groping for a raison d'être. SecDef Gates made Korea an accompanied tour because it's not dangerous.
Your "huge strategic victory" is a yawner. It's far better to stop the mutual provocations, sort of child's play, and settle this thing. Sixty years is enough already. Was it a huge strategic victory for the US when China withdrew its forces? Actually, it's required by the 1954 Armistice Agreement. China complied, the US didn't.
By hook or by crook they did put a stop to the a lavishly assembled Iraqi Army while still suffering from an International Arms embargo themselves. For some reason I believe that the Syrian/Iranian fighting man to be more of a match than the opposing Saudi man. And if the Syrians and Iranians historically lacked a professional Officer Corps to effectively lead their men then all these anti-terror operations being conducted by them against ISIS will lead to a decent officer corps that will only go to the top echelons of their respective armies.
ReplyDeleteThe day the US/Iran manage to reach some compromise formula and allow Iran to re-enter the international fold....a flood of Russian/Chinese and maybe US weapons will ensure that the Iranians have not only a professional officer corps but also experienced veteran JCO's and Soldiers with maybe....just maybe combined arms.
While in my previous post I mentioned Iran not being able to match the Saudi's in monetary terms now....in the future they might. And they also have 5 times the population size.