N ext time I hear someone say "It's better to be fighting the terrorist in Iraq than here in (name your US city)", I am going to go postal.
Have these people simply missed that fact that Al Qaida wasn't in Iraq before we invaded. In fact, Iraq didn't have IEDs and suicide bombers before we invaded. The terrorists are in Iraq because we are in Iraq. If it's true that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq instead of on the US streets, then how could we get any more immoral.
What would you think of neighbors who brought their fight into your livingroom and then gloated about how much better it is to have their children traumatized and their stuff destroyed than for them to fight in one of their homes?
What these people seem to be saying is "We've got a war to fight with an elusive enemy that we can't find. So instead of waiting for them to come to us at home, we've invaded ayour country and we are waiting there for the terrorists to come to us in your home."
Why is it better for innocent Iraqi's to get killed for our fight than it is for innocent American's to get killed for our fight? Are these people really arguing that its better for innocent Iraqi's to loose their homes, jobs, children, friends than for innocent Americans to suffer these losses?
By and large, these are the same people who are arguing that the terrorists are largely not Iraqi's, they've come from Syria, Iran and else where to fight us. They tell us that the Iraqi's all really love American and want us there. If that's true, how can we possibly justify that its better for us to be fighting terrorists on their street where their lives are destroyed than it would be for us to fight it on our own territory?
Radical as it may seem. Iraqi's are human beings who love their families, their homes and their lives at least as much as we do. I can't believe that any Iraqi would say they think its better for us to be fighting our war on their streets.
Do the American's who spout this trash actually think about what they are saying? Do they actually believe its better for Iraqi children to be killed than for American children to be killed? Or are they just spouting a catch phrase without ever thinking about what it really means.
_______________
Thanks for letting me vent. Its been a hard day.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
-I totally agree, dude. These are the same things that bother me to no end. Of course, I am weird and t hink that terrorism isn't a simple thing you can fight with weapons and bombs. It seems to me that this war is creating more potential terrorists than ridding the world of them... I figure if an Iraqi citizen who at first agreed with the war and supported the Americans was stuck holding their bleeding child.. That would be another future terrorist right there.
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
Amen, Rabbit.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:"It's better to be fighting the terrorist in Iraq than here in (name your US city)"
Dissecting it fundamentally, you get down to the false dilemma: As it is, someone saying this is insinuating that we have to fight the terrorists in exactly the way we have been fighting them, or you end up with a hypothetical situation that they can't prove would exist.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Nice post Rabbit.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I do believe it is better to be fighting the terrorists elsewhere, if it is done in pursuit of a worthy goal.
For instance, I'd rather the United States fought against terrorists in a foreign land while trying to protect rights of self-determination and safety in that land, than I would to have the United States fighting them in the United States, in defense of only ourselves.
Whether or not we are fighting in Iraq for a worthy cause is critically important to this question...but if we are there for a worthy cause, I do not think the statement that, "I'd rather be fighting them there than here," is immoral.
As a purely practical matter-please, everyone, keep that qualifier in mind-I do believe that we have essentially chosen the battlefield terrorists are most likely to flock towards, and if we had not, they might have chosen one less to our liking.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The problem is that the way in which we picked the battleground generated most of the terrorists (though most of them would have been called insurgents, rebels, or guerrillas in times past) participating, so its not at all clear we're distracting terrorists from other targets -- there have certainly been terror attacks in other parts of the world since then, neither a lot more nor a lot less than normal.
The US has never been a particularly frequent place for terrorist attacks, and this does not seem due to some other place(s) in the world having greater attention placed upon them, but due to issues orthogonal to a desire to cause terror for the US, such as access.
Adding a bit more economic perspective, most potential terrorists out there seem to have a relatively low willingness to expend effort. They've come out of the woodwork to be street thugs in Iraq because that's easy. If there wasn't an Iraq like this, if we hadn't created an Iraq like this by not fumbling the post-war period to heck and gone, they wouldn't be terrorists, they'd be annoying but contained normal criminals.
Additionally, many seem to view their actions as having a goal and a value -- causing general chaos in the US, despite being easy for competent people willing to get caught, isn't goal-oriented or high on most plausible value scales. Being martyred in the cause of disrupting New York's traffic for several days isn't likely very appealing despite possibly causing billions of dollars in economic harm if done right.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Whether or not we are fighting in Iraq for a worthy cause is critically important to this question...but if we are there for a worthy cause, I do not think the statement that, "I'd rather be fighting them there than here," is immoral.
I'd add to this that we must be fighting for a worthy (for the Iraqis) cause with a reasonable expectation that we'll succeed in that cause along with fighting terrorists.
If the cause is bringing self-determination (and maybe a decent standard of living) to Iraq, then we were deluding ourselves by thinking that was possible. Not only that, but our fight against the terrorists is serving to undermine progress toward our goal for the Iraqis. Our two goals in this war are at cross purposes.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think that the sentiment is rather, "If we left Iraq now, terrorists would have a training ground and launching point to come attack the US."
It's silly to press for withdrawal from Iraq when it's simply not safe to leave.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Some neocons have been saying for a while that the main reason for starting the war was to give us an "advance front" against terrorists -- that is, to fight them on Iraqi ground rather than ours.
quote:What would you think of neighbors who brought their fight into your livingroom and then gloated about how much better it is to have their children traumatized and their stuff destroyed than for them to fight in one of their homes?
If my living room were controlled by a monster like Hussein, I would think those neighbors were wonderful.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think fugu explains my point of view best.
The case that we're fighting them abroad to not fight them here, is defended nicely by Rakeesh, and I'd agree with him if one thing could be proven, or at least considered likely:
That the majority of the people we're fighting there are terrorists, and not home grown Iraqi guerillas.
I've been reading the 9/11 Commission Report for the last couple days (600 pages, and very well written I must say), and one thing is abundantly clear: We're losing the PR war. Oh certainly there are those in Iraq that want us there, that want our protection and truly want the democracy we promised them, but to a great many Iraqis, and to millions more Muslims around the region, we're basically the Soviets invading Afghanistan. It's a fascinating and chilling report, the 9/11 Commission Report I mean, and I suggest everyone with spare time check it out.
I'm not so sure the area will EVER be pacified through military means. There's a cultural and political divide here that our efforts don't seem to be addressing at all.
Anyways, that one fact I think unravels any moral superiority in the argument that fighting them in Iraq is better than here. It presupposes that we chose a battle ground, and terrorists all flew in, ready to do battle, and everyone else just got out of the way.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Will B: unless you're someone who had a relatively normal life, if one where holding political views was not healthy, but now can't walk the streets safely, frequently don't receive utilities, and can't go to a hospital because you might be dragged out into the street and shot for your religious beliefs. We've created an Iraq where the major population centers are far more dangerous than they were under Hussein.
I do think we shouldn't withdraw, however, I think we should try to significantly increase troop levels (I suspect this will mean doubling or tripling), hopefully with international as well as American troops, but with American troops if we can't get others.
We made a commitment, and we are failing in it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
We don't have the capacity, short of evacuating Germany, Southeast Asia, and half of the US of our troops, to double or triple our troop strength.
If foreign troops won't help, and if they won't really help in Lebanon, they won't help us, that means we do it ourselves, which means involuntary call ups.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, we don't have the capacity without expending serious political capital and money at home. We have plenty of troops.
There are 37 combat brigades in the army. Only 12 are deployed abroad, and only 10 are recently returned from deployment. We're also increasing the number of combat brigades.
Then there are another 37 combat brigades in the national guard. Only 4 are deployed.
All of these people are volunteers, there's nothing involuntary about using them.
As I said, we have lots of troops, if we're willing to expend the political capital to commit them. We could not fight an invasion or other major war, but that's a very different proposition. Significantly expanding an occupation is well within our grasp.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:If my living room were controlled by a monster like Hussein, I would think those neighbors were wonderful.
I presume that your opinion would differ in the neighbors ended up being even more distructive than the original monster.
Right now, the data suggests that things have been even worse in Iraq under the US occupation than they were under Hussein. Of course there is still the possibility that things will stablize in Iraq and that over the long run the Iraqi's will be better off than if the US did not invade. We all hope that this will be the case but that possibility seems more and more unlikely given how the situation has developed over the past 3 years.
[ September 09, 2006, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:As a purely practical matter-please, everyone, keep that qualifier in mind-I do believe that we have essentially chosen the battlefield terrorists are most likely to flock towards, and if we had not, they might have chosen one less to our liking.
And they might have chosen one more to the Iraqi's liking.
You should have qualified your statement "As a purely practical matter FOR US", certainly it is not more practical for the Iraqi's who are loosing their property, lives, limbs or loved ones.
Of course it is more practical for us, if someone else is paying the price for our fight. But that is a completely irrelevant to my point. From my point of view, it would be more practical if you paid my bills, swept my floors, and washed my dish. But civilized people all agree that it would be an absolute violation of basic human rights for me to force you to do those things.
We are forcing the Iraqi's to pay the price in our fight and that is simply wrong.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:I think that the sentiment is rather, "If we left Iraq now, terrorists would have a training ground and launching point to come attack the US."
It's silly to press for withdrawal from Iraq when it's simply not safe to leave.
Oh, I don't think so. I think most of them would be far too busy fighting a civil war in their own country.
I don't excactly have the means to conduct a poll: "Excuse me? You with the Kalashnikov? Do you have a moment? Would you say, in the wake of a U.S. withdrawl, you would be most likely to a) lay down your arms, b) start killing your religious enemies in Iraq, or c) hop the first plane to the United States to pursue jihad?"
I *do* know, given that attacks in Spain, Britain, and the Phillipines, and apparent attempted attacks in the United States, that if limiting the attacks of terrorists to Iraq is considered a primary goal of the Iraqi occupation, it's failing.
I spent my childhood wondering if the Cold War would end in a fatal conflagration. I wonder if my daughter will spend hers in fear of "terrorists".
And I have a very low opinion of those who feel they profit from keeping people in such fear.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: No, we don't have the capacity without expending serious political capital and money at home. We have plenty of troops.
There are 37 combat brigades in the army. Only 12 are deployed abroad, and only 10 are recently returned from deployment. We're also increasing the number of combat brigades.
Then there are another 37 combat brigades in the national guard. Only 4 are deployed.
All of these people are volunteers, there's nothing involuntary about using them.
As I said, we have lots of troops, if we're willing to expend the political capital to commit them. We could not fight an invasion or other major war, but that's a very different proposition. Significantly expanding an occupation is well within our grasp.
Deployed is different than stationed. All those other brigades aren't milling around the US. They're in Germany, Japan, etc, around the world. Tripling our troop strength, bringing it up to 30 brigades, means either a massive call up of National Guardsmen, or emptying much of the world of our military presence.
And how long will that last? Bush has already tapped the Marine reserve force, and has made it clear he would use involuntary callups once the reserve pool is depleted, which is soon. Like I said, it's doable, but not without a huge strategic gap in our defense and response capabilities.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:We are forcing the Iraqi's to pay the price in our fight and that is simply wrong.
In our defense, I think we are forcing the Iraqies to pay the price in the world's fight.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Lyrhawn: well, no, those are deployed, but you're right, they're not part of my lists. That ups the numbers from the army deployed by less than a third (it tells you right on the page, if you read it) and the numbers from the guard not at all. We're still perfectly capable of doing it.
Yes, it does involve a massive callup of the guard. I think that was implied by my post. He's using the marines because he wants to avoid using the guard as much as possible due to the political costs. I think his unwillingness to commit sufficient troops to Iraq to resurrect the nation is one of his greatest failures. I think we committed to resurrecting Iraq when we invaded. This administration loves to say that if the commanders want more troops they'll get them; the problem is, this administration sets the goals the commanders need troops to achieve; keep those goals low enough, and of course no more troops are needed. Its an awful bit of political chicanery to make it seem like the commanders on the ground think its okay for the situation in Iraq to be like it is.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I agree overall that the troops should be sent. But I think it's misleading to make it seem like the only cost is political or monetary (not that those should in any way be ignored). Tripling our troop strength there will reduce our ability to respond to a crisis anywhere else in the world, and it's not just a flippant comment, in the sense that even one person missing from a force will in some way degrade that ability, it will severely degrade our defensive posture.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That depends on what you mean by a crisis. If you mean another world war, then yes. If you mean a lesser war, then likely not. Possible ways we'd need to respond can be broadly divided into two areas: immediate response and decent-sized war.
For an immediate response, it doesn't matter where our national guard troops are, or most of the army. What matters are a few special units in the army who shouldn't be involved in an occupation anyways except as a chance to hone training (and are thus available for immediate redeploy), the marines, and the positions of our naval forces (which aren't particularly affected by the number of occupying troops in Iraq).
For a decent-sized war, there's a ramp-up period, and we'd have to be removing troops from Iraq anyways as we don't have the manpower to fight a decent-sized war and remain in Iraq. If anything, deployment for the war would be improved, as we'd have national guard troops with combat experience already in the field, including some relatively fresh ones given any sane rotation schedule. We wouldn't be removing any significant quantities of troops from any of our current overseas positions, so the situation in those places is hardly worse.
Would you care to provide a scenario, hopefully based on some actual combat so we can use numbers, where having, say, double the number of troops in Iraq would impact our ability to respond? I just want one.
Posted by crescentsss (Member # 9494) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Deployed is different than stationed. All those other brigades aren't milling around the US. They're in Germany, Japan, etc, around the world. Tripling our troop strength, bringing it up to 30 brigades, means either a massive call up of National Guardsmen, or emptying much of the world of our military presence.
And how long will that last? Bush has already tapped the Marine reserve force, and has made it clear he would use involuntary callups once the reserve pool is depleted, which is soon. Like I said, it's doable, but not without a huge strategic gap in our defense and response capabilities.
Please explain to me - because I don't understand - why we need troops in Germany and in Japan and around the world. What wars do we have to fight in Europe? Why do we need a military presence around the globe?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
And yet so many Marines are already deployed in Iraq, that the military is tapping inactive members of the corps for deployment.
How do you define immediate response and decent-sized war?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by crescentsss:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Deployed is different than stationed. All those other brigades aren't milling around the US. They're in Germany, Japan, etc, around the world. Tripling our troop strength, bringing it up to 30 brigades, means either a massive call up of National Guardsmen, or emptying much of the world of our military presence.
And how long will that last? Bush has already tapped the Marine reserve force, and has made it clear he would use involuntary callups once the reserve pool is depleted, which is soon. Like I said, it's doable, but not without a huge strategic gap in our defense and response capabilities.
Please explain to me - because I don't understand - why we need troops in Germany and in Japan and around the world. What wars do we have to fight in Europe? Why do we need a military presence around the globe?
I know that the troops in Japan and Germany are throwbacks to the end of the second WW, and in the case of Germany, to when the USSR opposed us, but now they are about the American ability to respond worldwide to any military crisis that might arise in short order. Pulling back EVERY American soldier from Europe, Asia, and anywhere else you like would weaken our country.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Well, we need troops in Japan because there are significant possibilities we would need to deploy in that area. Ditto for Europe, really, think of all the recent wars. (edit: that is, we need a significant military presence around the world because without our stabiilzing effect and intervention, there are wars that could significantly damage american interests. China alone would likely go to war with Taiwan and possibly several other states given a high confidence the US would not want to/be able to intervene).
Marines are a relatively small portion of our contingent in Iraq, and a misplaced one. I would have them brought home.
Something needing an immediate response is something needing an immediate response, something we must commit troops to with haste, meaning the troops need to be fast response capable (that is, not most of the army or any of the national guard).
A decent-sized war is a war similar to the several we've fought recently.
However, it doesn't really matter. Its up to you to demonstrate that there's a potential military action that my proposed deployment (including the addendum that some of the troops deployed to Iraq could be moved to respond to certain sorts of pressing events) would create problems with.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Nothing I say will be good enough for you. I'm not even going to bother trying. Don't really care if you want to declare victory or not, it's a moot point anyway, as we both agree on what needs to be done.
Posted by crescentsss (Member # 9494) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by crescentsss:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Deployed is different than stationed. All those other brigades aren't milling around the US. They're in Germany, Japan, etc, around the world. Tripling our troop strength, bringing it up to 30 brigades, means either a massive call up of National Guardsmen, or emptying much of the world of our military presence.
And how long will that last? Bush has already tapped the Marine reserve force, and has made it clear he would use involuntary callups once the reserve pool is depleted, which is soon. Like I said, it's doable, but not without a huge strategic gap in our defense and response capabilities.
Please explain to me - because I don't understand - why we need troops in Germany and in Japan and around the world. What wars do we have to fight in Europe? Why do we need a military presence around the globe?
I know that the troops in Japan and Germany are throwbacks to the end of the second WW, and in the case of Germany, to when the USSR opposed us, but now they are about the American ability to respond worldwide to any military crisis that might arise in short order. Pulling back EVERY American soldier from Europe, Asia, and anywhere else you like would weaken our country.
America seems to be the only country in the world that feels this way. If America is so concerned with wars that do not concern it, US troops could have been sent to Sudan and to other places where they are truly needed. How would you feel if German troops suddenly landed in the US in order to "respond worldwide to any military crisis that might arise in short order"? If this is the reason that the US had troops all over the world - why did they not become involved in the Israel - Lebanon - Hezbolla conflict? Why did they sit quietly while Russians and Chechnyans killed each other? In addition - how did these military crises weaken America?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:How would you feel if German troops suddenly landed in the US in order to "respond worldwide to any military crisis that might arise in short order"?
I don't think I'd mind that at all.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I would.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I know I would.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You're assigning intent crescent.
There's no stated purpose of altruism in the US military code.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:America seems to be the only country in the world that feels this way. If America is so concerned with wars that do not concern it, US troops could have been sent to Sudan and to other places where they are truly needed.
How would you feel if German troops suddenly landed in the US in order to "respond worldwide to any military crisis that might arise in short order"?
If Germany asked us to leave, we would. It's not like we're forcing ourselves on them.
It wasn't the West Germans having a mini-revolution in '89. For all intents and purposes, East Germany rejoined West Germany, although of course it's viewed more as a mutual reunification.
And it's not only America that feels this way. We are constantly receiving fairly serious concession regarding the terms of our troops being stationed in our allies' territory. Why? Because they (as represented by the mostly democratically elected governments) want us there.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
The whole terrorist situation is totally F-ed up, and there are some serious problems out there which cannot be solved by killing X number of terrorists.
That said, I'm happy that we don't have armed insurgents in American cities. Selfish maybe, but what can you do? Does any American seriously want terrorists here? I realize that it's not an either or situation, but considering that fact that there are not terrorists fighting in my town, I'm pretty darn happy.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Something you say will be good enough for me when you have the numbers to back it up.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
So in order to satisfy you, not only do I have to come up with a plausible world conflict for us to be involved in, but I also have to somehow find information specifically on what forces would be needed, in order to give you the necessary numbers, and then justify my point.
Sorry, not worth it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Just find an approximate timetable we wouldn't be able to meet with the new deployment that we would with the current deployment. I've shown numerically that there's no need to remove a single unit from current deployment nor send anyone abroad who didn't volunteer for duty that might include it. I've provided two instances of general situations that would still be meetable under my deployment. You're asserting that this will make us weaker, without any evidence to back yourself up.
edit: its not like we don't have tons of recent conflicts you can use to come up with potential deployment timetables.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
We invade Iran in response to them getting a nuclear weapon, or an attack by them on us, or Israel, or whoever. Much larger country, better military, better everything really. In other words, not the pushover that Iraq was. They actually have an air force too. It's not the best, but it's nothing to shake a stick at either. For all we know they've gotten help from Venezuela and their F-14s even work, who knows what they've bought on the black market in the way of missiles, though with the French selling everything willy nilly, they don't even need the black market.
Their navy is a joke by most world standards, but could possibly bloody us a bit of they banded together and got lucky. Their air force isn't spectacular either, but it's still better than anything else in the region. We'd either have to bring in an air wing, or another carrier (or two) to win air superiority. To say nothing of the integrated air defense systems they are building.
Blah blah blah details about Iran's army that I'll go into later after you try and shoot me down, but the point is, we'd need significant resources to assault the country. Once we get there, we can pull out the air assets but we'd need a staggering occupation force if we actually planned on holding it.
If we triple our troop strength in Iraq to 30 brigades, that's almost half our active duty/national guardsmen force.
Invading Iran would need probably the same force for the assault, and maybe more for the occupation, then again maybe less, it's something you can't really guess at before the fact. But with 60 brigades deployed between Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan, we'd have nothing left, almost, to respond anywhere in the world, or even to defend ourselves.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Their navy is a joke by most world standards, but could possibly bloody us a bit of they banded together and got lucky.
If recent wargames are accurate, a dozen speedboats with bombs could be sufficient to bloody a US carrier group.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Link, please.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I fail to see how having much larger numbers of troops in the country right next to Iran is going to hurt an invasion of Iran. They would seem ready-made to detach a large contingent from as the core of an invasion force, in fact. Could you elaborate more on why that isn't the case?
Remember, I've specifically said it might be necessary to redeploy some of them if a sufficient threat comes about, but that's true whether the troops are in Iraq or not. You have to show a threat where we would have time to commit if they weren't in Iraq but we wouldn't if they were in Iraq.
Destineer -- sure, if a dozen speedboats could reach a carrier. A carrier operates in the middle of a carrier group with lots of ships all capable of sinking twelve speedboats individually, much less the destructive power they can unleash together.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Doesn't much matter fugu if all those speedboats are carrying Exocet anti-ship missiles, which I guarantee they would be.
And my argument was never about timing. My argument was about the depletion of available forces due to overextension. So I don't have to show anything having to do with timing.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You rather do. There is no depletion if the ability to project force across time is not significantly affected by a troop deployment, that's the definition of what depletion is. I mean, in a literal sense there are fewer troops in the US. That's only depletion if having those fewer troops in the US ends up being a negative, which can only be done by showing the ability of troops to deploy to needed trouble spots is reduced by the rearrangement.
You haven't done that at all; your only example is of an operation that would be better served by having more troops in Iraq, and your argument that it wouldn't be seems based on something I've explicitly said isn't how things would work (because it isn't, because the military doesn't do stupid things like that) -- that we would have to keep exactly the same number of troops in Iraq when a new war opens up. When a new war opens up, of course we reassess the number of troops in Iraq, but until then we should have far more.
As for one hundred speedboats carrying exocets, I would love to see a speedboat carrying an exocet, its not a tiny missile. The missile alone, neglecting the significantly larger launcher, is 4.7 meters long, which is longer than many speedboats.
Exocets certainly are a potential threat to the US navy, but everyone who fires an exocet will be dead shortly (as their maximum range is well within the sphere a carrier group can project force), and we're not going to let our carriers into anything like exocet range from the coastline, which means any speedboat-mounted exocet attack would have to run the gauntlet of the combined firepower of a carrier group for kilometers, something speedboats aren't going to survive.
Exocet attacks (likely from traditional navy ships and ground emplacements, primarily) might cause significant damage to ships in our fleet, but carriers are unlikely to be among those harmed.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Dag, I think Destineer is referring to the Millennium Challenge 2002. Here are a couple of links:
quote:Mere days into the game, a squad of Red digital soldiers had sunk several Blue ships in the Persian Gulf by carrying out suicide attacks with explosives-laden speedboats. That's not in the script, countered the referees, who orderedthe Blue fleet to be magically resurrected.
quote:Van Riper had at his disposal a computer-generated flotilla of small boats and planes, many of them civilian, which he kept buzzing around the virtual Persian Gulf in circles as the game was about to get under way. As the US fleet entered the Gulf, Van Riper gave a signal - not in a radio transmission that might have been intercepted, but in a coded message broadcast from the minarets of mosques at the call to prayer. The seemingly harmless pleasure craft and propeller planes suddenly turned deadly, ramming into Blue boats and airfields along the Gulf in scores of al-Qaida-style suicide attacks. Meanwhile, Chinese Silkworm-type cruise missiles fired from some of the small boats sank the US fleet's only aircraft carrier and two marine helicopter carriers. The tactics were reminiscent of the al-Qaida attack on the USS Cole in Yemen two years ago, but the Blue fleet did not seem prepared. Sixteen ships were sunk altogether, along with thousands of marines. If it had really happened, it would have been the worst naval disaster since Pearl Harbor.
As I recall, haven't security procedures been changed to deal with this threat since then?
Posted by Eduardo St. Elmo (Member # 9566) on :
Yo, haven't read the entire thread, but here's something that I dread hasn't been said:
#1 The war on terrorism is being fought everywhere.
#2 It is not only being fought by killing people. In fact killing people will never be the final solution to this or any problem.
#3 Changing the way people think is the only path to a lasting peace. For thought brings forth action.
Ugh!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
fugu -
I'm done arguing the first point. I'll say I was wrong, though I don't think I am, I just don't care enough to argue the point anymore.
As for the Iranian navy, they aren't speedboats, they're missile boats. I honestly don't know the size, but it isn't a squad of boats that pull waterskiiers behind them or the size of a zodiac. The Houdong class of ship alone is 127 feet. That's one huge friggin missile if it can't fit on a ship that big.
And a carrier group can project force over an extremely wide swath of area, but that doesn't mean they are infallible. A dozen missile boats protected by a half dozen subs is a force to reckon with. They can be launched from a 110 miles away, and even with Aegis, it's possible the boats could get within range, even more so if they split up and force the carrier to split up its air force whilst moving in frigates protected by its submarine forces. Most carrier groups only have one attack sub sttached to them, though I'd imagine they'd move some assets around for the Iranians.
I'd be more afraid of a submarine launched Exocet than missile boat. Our sonar is amazingly good, which coupled with their boats being noisy as all hell means we'll probably get them pretty fast if we're in the area, but a sub can enter the zone of a carrier group without being detected and can launch a missile from long distance. At which point the biggest hope we have is point defense, and the crappy construction of the French.
I've little doubt a halfway decent commander could do damage to our fleet, but I doubt they could sink the carrier.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I was talking about speedboats, as that was the threat brought up. Speedboats are not a threat to carriers. I specifically state that traditional navy ships could well do quite a bit of damage to our naval forces.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: I spent my childhood wondering if the Cold War would end in a fatal conflagration. I wonder if my daughter will spend hers in fear of "terrorists".
And I have a very low opinion of those who feel they profit from keeping people in such fear.
And how are they managing to do it? Since when are we a fearful people? Is our faith in civil liberties and justice so frail that one attack, no matter how tragic) was sufficient to make us abandon it? Secret prisons for heaven's sake! Are we really so scared that we are willing to become this?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Actually, we are a fearful people for at least the past five decades.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Is that what we want to be?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Speedboats are not a threat to carriers.
Given the nature of the attack on the USS Cole (a destroyer), I would hesitate to make such absolute statements.
quote:And how are they managing to do it? Since when are we a fearful people? Is our faith in civil liberties and justice so frail that one attack, no matter how tragic) was sufficient to make us abandon it? Secret prisons for heaven's sake! Are we really so scared that we are willing to become this?
It's relatively easy to make accounts of the costs of war, or paranoia; the cost of military deployment, the lives lost, the rules broken. As much as anything, I think the U.S. invasion of Iraq was the result of a mindset that believed it is better to do something than nothing. Or at least, to be perceived as doing so.
It is very, very difficult to convince anyone that a single soldier or civilian should die for peace. Not "lull between conflicts." Peace. The price of not shooting back.
I'm not naive. I don't think if we pull out all our troops our enemies are magically going to go away. But I sometimes wonder if, if the same number of people are going to die, if I wouldn't personally rather die because my killer hated me irrationally than because my country's munitions killed his children.
I fear we fulfil Machiavelli.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote:...The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it… was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support. Those who did not belong to his party — tabled that. Those who doubted the mechanics of his election — ignored that. Those who wondered of his qualifications — forgot that.
History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government, by its critics. It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation’s wounds, but to take political advantage.
Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.
The President — and those around him — did that. They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, "bi-partisanship" meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused; as appeasers; as those who, in the Vice President’s words yesterday, "validate the strategy of the terrorists."
They promised protection, and then showed that to them "protection" meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken… a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated Al-Qaeda as much as we did...
Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume responsibility... ...even his most virulent critics have never suggested he alone bears the full brunt of the blame for 9/11. Half the time, in fact, this President has been so gently treated, that he has seemed not even to be the man most responsible — for anything — in his own administration.
Yet what is happening this very night? A mini-series, created, influenced — possibly financed by — the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis, continues to be televised into our homes. The documented truths of the last fifteen years are replaced by bald-faced lies; the talking points of the current regime parroted; the whole sorry story blurred, by spin, to make the party out of office seem vacillating and impotent, and the party in office, seem like the only option...
...the terrorists have succeeded — are still succeeding — as long as there is no memorial and no construction here at Ground Zero… So too have they succeeded, and are still succeeding — as long as this government uses 9/11 as a wedge to pit Americans against Americans.
This is an odd point to cite a television program, especially one from March of 1960. But as Disney’s continuing sell-out of the truth (and this country) suggests, even television programs can be powerful things.
And long ago, a series called "The Twilight Zone" broadcast a riveting episode entitled "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street." In brief: a meteor sparks rumors of an invasion by extra-terrestrials disguised as humans. The electricity goes out. A neighbor pleads for calm. Suddenly his car — and only his car — starts. Someone suggests he must be the alien. Then another man’s lights go on. As charges and suspicion and panic overtake the street, guns are inevitably produced. An "alien" is shot — but he turns out to be just another neighbor, returning from going for help. The camera pulls back to a near-by hill, where two extra-terrestrials areseen, manipulating a small device that can jam electricity. The veteran tells his novice that there’s no need to actually attack, that you just turn off a few of the human machines and then, "they pick the most dangerous enemy they can find, and it’s themselves."
And then, in perhaps his finest piece of writing, Rod Serling sums it up with words of remarkable prescience, given where we find ourselves tonight. "The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices - to be found only in the minds of men. "For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own — for the children, and the children yet unborn."
-- Keith Olbermann
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Sterling: yes, if a carrier were to sail directly up to the shore, and then the commander were to ignore the rules of engagement in order to be nice to the speedboats going close to his ship, it might theoretically be possible for several carrying explosives to do some damage, possibly even sinking it.
Of course, its also true that if a carrier commander were to let a group of men aboard with blowtorches and allow them to wander the ship applying those blowtorches as desired, they could sink the ship. Yet we don't say blowtorches are a threat to carriers.
Carriers don't get into situations like the USS Cole was in. At some point one has to note that something is so far beyond the realm of possibility in any operational setting that its not worth talking about.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Arguably, the attack on the Cole was possible not because the rules of engagement (at least of the time) were ignored, but because they were followed.
I'm not a munitions expert; I'm not going to claim knowledge of the operative range of aircraft carriers, or the weapons that might be brought to bear in the event of numerous small, possibly sub-radar sized targets mounting an assault.
However, the insurgent groups in Afghanistan and Iraq have proven highly adept at turning hundreds of thousands of dollars in technology and armor into scrap metal with a fraction of the cost in hardware, so I would caution against saying "never".
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
Since it hasn't been mentioned it yet what about N. Korea? I don't pretend to be an expert on such matters but wouldn't deploying that many troops to iraq severly hurt our ability to fight with the other member of the axis of evil. Also let's not forget that just because brigade is not deployed does not mean it is combat ready. When a brigade rotates out of Iraq they replace equipment, soldiers get transfered or leave, also there's an influx of new soldiers to train.
Here's an article about the combat readiness of our Army National Guard Army Times
quote:More than two-thirds of the Army National Guard’s 34 brigades are not combat ready due largely to vast equipment shortfalls that will take as much as $21 billion to correct, the top National Guard general said Tuesday
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Only strengthens my argument from earlier.
Though I'd bet fugu would disagree.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That would be a problem requiring the expenditure of political capital (to insert equipment requisitions in the budget) to remedy, but would be rather quickly remediable. Furthermore, if you look at the numbers, we only need a third of them to double the number of troops in Iraq (initially; we'll need more for troop rotations, but by then the equipment will be taken care of).
The rules of engagement are different for an aircraft carrier. Also, they are different during an operation. Also, they were updated after the Cole.
edit: btw, I'm not talking about a literal difference in the rules of engagement, I'm saying how the navy chooses to protect its aircraft carriers is different from how it chooses to protect its destroyers. There may be a literal difference as well, but I don't know.
[ September 13, 2006, 08:08 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Depends entirely on how much equpment is needed. It takes more than a couple weeks to resupply a unit and crank out some humvees, Abrams and Bradleys.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I am unaware where I said the number of troops in Iraq needs to be doubled or triple within a couple of weeks. I'd bet it would take at least several months to build up our forces to that level. Furthermore, see where I have already pointed out that a third of national guard forces are sufficient (in addition to appropriate army forces) to double the number of troops, so the time taken to equip the remaining units is irrelevant provided it is less than, say, six months or a year (depending on rotation schedule).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I guess my comment then depends on your definition of what "quickly remediable" means. Like many other things, we seem to differ on our opinions of how fast "quickly" is.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Less than 6 months is quickly for any action involving millions/billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of people, the government, and the military.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm in the middle of reading an interesting article drawn from an essay by George McGovern outlining a withdrawal strategy. I'm not convinced, but I'm mulling it over. It might also be applicable to the NATO force in Afghanistan.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Is it online twinky? Link?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
It's in the October 2006 issue of Harper's, which ought to be on newsstands shortly if it isn't already. I got mine in the mail yesterday.