|
JT Jag posted:America is still loving amazing at conventional warfare, it dismantled the state of Iraq in less than a week. It just hasn't wrapped its head around the idea that the world has moved on to an age where asynchronous warfare is more commonplace. It's all asymmetrical when the opponent is a figurative Goliath. No one wants to get in a straight up sword fight when you can just hurl a well placed stone between the eyes.
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 18:25 |
|
|
JT Jag posted:America is still loving amazing at conventional warfare, it dismantled the state of Iraq in less than a week. It just hasn't wrapped its head around the idea that the world has moved on to an age where asynchronous warfare is more commonplace. Or that "winning" can be a lot more complicated than "killing more of them and blowing up more of their stuff."
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Or that "winning" can be a lot more complicated than "killing more of them and blowing up more of their stuff." It certainly is more difficult to kill an idea. US took too long to realize that and for every Iraqi or Afghan village infrastructure project that gets completed(if at all) you have two incidences of collateral damage keeping the flames going. Edit: Pump DoD money into the SeaBees.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Or that "winning" can be a lot more complicated than "killing more of them and blowing up more of their stuff." Also known as the only republican war strategy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:That's the most recent polling, it dropped this morning So you mean Chipotle-gate hasn't made the nation realize what a monster Clinton is? Maybe if they just flog it, like, really hard, for several more months they will get the result they seek. I think possibly my favorite thing so far is Trump retweeting that line about if Hillary couldn't satisfy her husband how can she satisfy America. Yes, let's have your obnoxious cartoon caricature of a rich guy, famous for ditching his attractive wife for a younger woman, hold forth about how that hag couldn't keep her man at home! America's women will no doubt respond well to this. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
How much money did the US pump into Europe via the Marshall Plan versus how much was (badly) invested into Iraq (through private contractors that pissed it all away)? Could the country have turned out better if the Army Corps of Engineers kickstarted them into the 21st century through brute force, or were insurgents always going to blow it all up even if the money was actually being spent wisely?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I'm glad that everyone is appropriately informed about the likelihood of man made EMP but those of us in planning government emergency response actually do talk about EMP as a serious infrastructure threat because the last bout of seriously bad solar weather happened in the 80s and were really not sure how poo poo will go down in the next 30 year event ( and yes that's due soon) Quick question - why do we talk about hardening the grid but not hardening everything? Like wouldn't a massive EMP blow up approximately all electronics? Like everything from laptops and cell phones to newer cars to some thermostats? Tiler Kiwi posted:I've heard this but I don't know if its anything more than a platitude that came about after Vietnam. Didn't the US do an awful lot of regime changes during the cold war? Didn't the Soviets do likewise with Eastern Europe? Isn't there a fuckton of historical examples in general of an outside entity setting up puppet governments or otherwise dictating how things are run in their sphere of influence? I think its accurate to call it a lot more difficult and dirty than people would like to imagine, but taking a strict "can't ever work" approach seems sort of simplistic. I'm not a history expert, but I think there were two factors. First, there was a larger, slightly less corrupt opposition that we backed in a lot of those regime changes, meaning we were starting less from scratch. Second, those regimes weren't particularly stable either, they were just less unstable and since it wasn't American troops fighting and dying to uphold the new regimes it drew less notice in the US.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:So you mean Chipotle-gate hasn't made the nation realize what a monster Clinton is? Maybe if they just flog it, like, really hard, for several more months they will get the result they seek. That screenshot I posted came from a tweet entitled "Reminder: this is the response to the question 'how will Hillary overcome this scandal'"
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
Asymmetrical warfare isn't some magical win button. It's much, much more difficult to carry out, has a more limited impact, and requires a level of commitment grand-scale warfare does not. What it does do effectively is make life for an occupying force a living hell of distrust and security headaches, which can quickly make any supposed benefits of a war seem to be not really worth it, after all. Remember that the Tet Offensive was an attempt by the Vietcong to wage traditional war against the United States and it failed in every respect but one: It demonstrated the utter uselessness of the long US occupation thus far and soured a great many fence-sitters in the states on the war. Iraq never grew into anything beyond insurgent level, but we didn't have even half a plan on what to do after we occupied the country so we were hosed from the get-go. If we go by a simple 'hostile killed+materiel destroyed' metric, the US was beyond spectacularly successful in Iraq and Afghanistan. But those numbers don't say a drat thing about the real costs of a war.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Asymmetrical warfare isn't some magical win button. It's much, much more difficult to carry out, has a more limited impact, and requires a level of commitment grand-scale warfare does not. What it does do effectively is make life for an occupying force a living hell of distrust and security headaches, which can quickly make any supposed benefits of a war seem to be not really worth it, after all. Remember that the Tet Offensive was an attempt by the Vietcong to wage traditional war against the United States and it failed in every respect but one: It demonstrated the utter uselessness of the long US occupation thus far and soured a great many fence-sitters in the states on the war. Iraq never grew into anything beyond insurgent level, but we didn't have even half a plan on what to do after we occupied the country so we were hosed from the get-go. They also don't say anything about endstate. Our goal in Iraq and Afghanistan was regime change. A victorious outcome was a friendly, democratic government in those countries. That cannot be achieved through superior military force, and probably can't be achieved by any external pressure we can put on. Therefore we lost before we even started.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:My middle school literally sold little plastic tubs full of cookie dough in the cafeteria
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:How much money did the US pump into Europe via the Marshall Plan versus how much was (badly) invested into Iraq (through private contractors that pissed it all away)? Could the country have turned out better if the Army Corps of Engineers kickstarted them into the 21st century through brute force, or were insurgents always going to blow it all up even if the money was actually being spent wisely? I don't know much about the subject and the one google search result that seemed like it'd offer you some answer was behind a pay wall on Foreign Policy, but from the title (for whatever it's worth) stated the US outspent the Marshall plan in Iraq. Hopefully someone with more knowledge will come and overwrite whatever I say. That said... Don't think they'd be that disingenuous for FP to not take inflation into account though. Though not sure how comparable they can be. Europe didn't continue to be a war zone during reconstruction and a lot of the money granted to Europe was returned to the US in the form of increased exports for US goods. Where the hell the money in Iraq went, hell if I know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:Quick question - why do we talk about hardening the grid but not hardening everything? Like wouldn't a massive EMP blow up approximately all electronics? Like everything from laptops and cell phones to newer cars to some thermostats? Hardening is expensive and you typically have to trade off something else desirable (radiation-hardened CPUs in today's space probes have performance equivalent to late 90s desktop computers). Also, if your cell phone or thermostat blows up you can get a new one; if the power grid blows up your country is hosed for years if not decades.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:Quick question - why do we talk about hardening the grid but not hardening everything? Like wouldn't a massive EMP blow up approximately all electronics? Like everything from laptops and cell phones to newer cars to some thermostats? The short answer is that we can't get the free market actors to stop using hard coded passwords for cyber security in inconsequential systems like power plants and HVAC systems and the like, trying to tell the American public that at some random time interval we cant predict the sun is going to have a plasma tantrum and send an electromag hail storm to end civilization as we know it is not an easy political sell. You can see this useless behavior in how we are currently dealing with the wild fires that keep happening in the west side of the country. The real issue is that America is very reactionary right now and with the power on we can get key transformers restored in 3 months, we being reliant on cost benefit analysis of the private sector only have spare parts for 10% (if that) of the grid being damaged which is way less than what a significant solar event
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:They also don't say anything about endstate. I think it was in Woodwards first book on the war from the perspective of the Bush administration, and everyone was just out of their loving minds as far as their expectations go. Everyone among the joint chiefs were like "this poo poo will not work are you insane" and most people in the administration just wouldn't hear about it. We might have had SOME luck without kicking baathists to the curb, but when wolfowitz was going "eh we can do it with like 10,000 troops no problem" we were hosed from the get-go. I don't think there was a step along the way where the US didn't squander any/all goodwill among Iraqis that could have helped smooth some things out somewhere. The scary thing about the Iraq war to me wasn't that we basically curbstomped Saddam and their military because we knew we could do that, but that everyone (including many people in the military) knew how bad we were loving things up long before we ever set foot in that country and that the administration just didn't give a poo poo. They were so blindly enthusiastic in just knowing they'd get the outcome of their dreams that they didn't plan for any contingencies. They did everything wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Tiler Kiwi posted:I've heard this but I don't know if its anything more than a platitude that came about after Vietnam. Didn't the US do an awful lot of regime changes during the cold war? Didn't the Soviets do likewise with Eastern Europe? Isn't there a fuckton of historical examples in general of an outside entity setting up puppet governments or otherwise dictating how things are run in their sphere of influence? I think its accurate to call it a lot more difficult and dirty than people would like to imagine, but taking a strict "can't ever work" approach seems sort of simplistic. Bring this opinion over to the Mideast thread of sadness. But here's a preview: you're incredibly wrong. EDIT: And I can't think of one successful example of your first paragraph in modern times, outside of an authoritarian context, which when let up for one instant, completely collapses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
The only successful regime changes that were successful that one might reasonably argue were us-led were maybe west Germany (I don't think it counts since it's not like the republic system was alien to them) and Japan, and in both cases those nations were already industrialized - even if their infrastructure was hosed, their populations were at least familiar with industrialization. I think Japan got a kickin' rad deal out of it all things considered. They save tons of cash by not having offensive forces and the U.S. taxpayer covers the bulk of their anti-China needs. What's a nuke or two when you get that? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
zoux posted:That screenshot I posted came from a tweet entitled "Reminder: this is the response to the question 'how will Hillary overcome this scandal'" You should have given Joementum credit for his tweet
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:How much money did the US pump into Europe via the Marshall Plan versus how much was (badly) invested into Iraq (through private contractors that pissed it all away)? Could the country have turned out better if the Army Corps of Engineers kickstarted them into the 21st century through brute force, or were insurgents always going to blow it all up even if the money was actually being spent wisely? 103 Billion and change adjusted for inflation but keep in mind the view of the US post-WWII was far more positive than Iraq/Afghanistan for a lot of reasons but mainly the fact that we were helping in pushing a foreign invader out of their country rather than invading to topple their government. http://www.stripes.com/news/afghanistan-to-cost-more-than-marshall-plan-watchdog-says-1.295907
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:America is still loving amazing at conventional warfare, it dismantled the state of Iraq in less than a week. It just hasn't wrapped its head around the idea that the world has moved on to an age where asynchronous warfare is more commonplace. Amazing at blowing tanks up in a desert. Not so amazing at securing things like...large stores of 155mm artillery shells that could conceivably be used to construct IEDs for the next ten years. Every time I see one of those war port videos I think of Rumsfeld saying "democracy is messy"
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
Quote of the morning, "Listen, we elected Warren G. Harding." ~ Roger Ailes, on Ted Cruz's chances of becoming President.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Xibanya posted:The only successful regime changes that were successful that one might reasonably argue were us-led were maybe west Germany (I don't think it counts since it's not like the republic system was alien to them) and Japan, and in both cases those nations were already industrialized - even if their infrastructure was hosed, their populations were at least familiar with industrialization. Grenada I guess, but that was just restoring a parliamentary democracy momentarily overthrown by a coup. Its not about individual actors (Bremer is straining this, though). But its about institutitions, or the lack of them. There's some interesting literature on post colonist societies run along Common/Civil law lines (and English run colonies v. other European nations). The main difference being how much infrastructure and other goods were left behind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Tiler Kiwi posted:I've heard this but I don't know if its anything more than a platitude that came about after Vietnam. Didn't the US do an awful lot of regime changes during the cold war? Didn't the Soviets do likewise with Eastern Europe? Isn't there a fuckton of historical examples in general of an outside entity setting up puppet governments or otherwise dictating how things are run in their sphere of influence? I think its accurate to call it a lot more difficult and dirty than people would like to imagine, but taking a strict "can't ever work" approach seems sort of simplistic. Uhhh let's consult wikipedia because cold war regime changes aren't a thing I personally know a lot about, I'm a bit familiar with the resulting genocides and mass murders though. Syria 1949: Overthrown after 4.5 months. Iran 1953: Duh. Guatemala 1954: Genocide, 200,000 dead. Tibet 1955: Armed the anti-communist insurgency, Didn't End Well. Indonesia: 1958: Anti communist rebels armed and funded by CIA. Within 10 years began a genocide, 1,000,000 dead Cuba: Bay of Pigs et al. Iraq 1960: Iraq didn't turn out too great. DRCongo 1960: Mobutu Sese Seko took power with large amounts of western aid. DRCongo didn't turn out too well. Vietnam: Duh Could keep going but like drat dude at least google it Edit it's pretty trashy to try and hand wave Vietnam as if it doesn't matter sugar free jazz fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Apr 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
sugar free jazz posted:Uhhh let's consult wikipedia because cold war regime changes aren't a thing I personally know a lot about, I'm a bit familiar with the resulting genocides and mass murders though. Noriega has a pretty swank cell now so it didn't all end badly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:So you mean Chipotle-gate hasn't made the nation realize what a monster Clinton is? Maybe if they just flog it, like, really hard, for several more months they will get the result they seek. I tuned out for a week or so and I'm confused about what the Chipotle thing is about. Is it just that she went to Chipotle instead of whatever other fast food joint is considered the most American now by the GOP?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:I tuned out for a week or so and I'm confused about what the Chipotle thing is about. Is it just that she went to Chipotle instead of whatever other fast food joint is considered the most American now by the GOP? Yup.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
I thought it was that she didn't tip.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
No one knows what the Chipotle thing was about. That is why it is so great.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
zoux posted:I thought it was that she didn't tip. We only learned that on Day 3 of Chipotlequiddick.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:I tuned out for a week or so and I'm confused about what the Chipotle thing is about. Is it just that she went to Chipotle instead of whatever other fast food joint is considered the most American now by the GOP? She did it to appeal to Latino's (source: Whichever right wing talk person made that up first). Also, she didn't tip.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Chipotlequiddick. Oooh nice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
withak posted:No one knows what the Chipotle thing was about. That is why it is so great. It was about which presidential candidate tips the most and why that makes them a good future US head of state.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
withak posted:No one knows what the Chipotle thing was about. That is why it is so great. Hillary's Iraq.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:I tuned out for a week or so and I'm confused about what the Chipotle thing is about. Is it just that she went to Chipotle instead of whatever other fast food joint is considered the most American now by the GOP? We've had, variously: -She made the Chipotle leak the security video so America could see what a (fake) populist person she is, pretending to be one of them stopping at a fast food joint! A veritable Potemkin Burrito, if you will! Facade! Lies! ARRRRGH -She didn't tip (cue Mr. Pink dialogue about which fast food joints society deems tip worthy), causing at least two of the GOP pack (Jeb and maybe Cruz? Or Rand and Cruz? Rubio?) to snark out about how THEY went to Chipotle just this week and each tipped like a hundred bucks -Another opportunity to snark out about HRC not driving her own car (Jeb). -It's her cynical ploy at Hispanic outreach (even though Chipotle seems about as "Mexican" as Taco Bell to me) - Fox News So in other words, nothing coherent, just white hot rage ball stuff. And we have over a year to go of this. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:-She didn't tip (cue Mr. Pink dialogue about which fast food joints society deems tip worthy), causing at least two of the GOP pack (Jeb and maybe Cruz? Or Rand and Cruz? Rubio?) to snark out about how THEY went to Chipotle just this week and each tipped like a hundred bucks Rubio and Pataki went to Chipotle last week. Rubio gave the cashier the thumbs up. Pataki tipped $5 and shook hands with everyone in the restaurant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
zoux posted:I thought it was that she didn't tip. Well if they had given more chicken instead of shaking the spoon after scooping to dislodge some maybe they would have gotten a tip  withak posted:No one knows what the Chipotle thing was about. That is why it is so great. The more I try to find out what is going on the less sense if makes. It appears to be somehow even worse than Obama getting the "wrong" mustard on his hamburger. I'm even seeing a mix of "ugh blatant photo op" and other outlets saying she made a mistake by not turning it into a shake hands with everyone photo-op
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:The more I try to find out what is going on the less sense if makes. It appears to be somehow even worse than Obama getting the "wrong" mustard on his hamburger. I'm even seeing a mix of "ugh blatant photo op" and other outlets saying she made a mistake by not turning it into a shake hands with everyone photo-op Here's a full run-down of everything we know about Chipotlequiddick, or Beanghazi, if you prefer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Here's a full run-down of everything we know about Chipotlequiddick, or Beanghazi, if you prefer. Clinton Hillary Is Probably Obama Trying to Lure Everyday Americans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Quote of the morning, "Listen, we elected Warren G. Harding." ~ Roger Ailes, on Ted Cruz's chances of becoming President. That isn't very flattering towards Sen. Cruz
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 18:25 |
|
|
Hillary Clinton has been a major political figure for over two decades. Can they seriously not find anything more damning than a burrito purchase?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 17:16
|
|
