That's a rather assinine statement...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
...Zimbabwe for example could have been and could still be sorted out with two non-ballistic cruise missiles. One for Mugabe and one for his Joint Operations Command (JOC) when in session. It would have been as easy as that. But there is no way China would give the nod for such action.
Nor is there much of any way the US Congress would give its approval of such an action -- not to speak of the rest of the world. While you may have an argument with Mugabe, I suspect the majority of your fellow South Africans would go bonkers criticizing the US had we foolishly done what you suggest. :wry:
As for no commitment in Africa, I presume you mean large scale combat troop commitment as opposed to the number of US force commitments in Africa today and over the past 17 years. Your logic on the issue was also shared before late 2001 by a number of people who said the US would not commit troops but would merely do what you suggest, lob a missile or two, therefor they could attack the US with impunity -- or close to it...
Every war we've been involved with for over 220 years occurred in large part because someone made the stupid assumption that "the Americans won't fight." The later ones tend to last too long because we foolishly try to be nice -- I think we're finally starting to realize that's really dumb on our part.
You're kidding, right? No bait in that, simply a lack of knowledge of the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
I would have thought it would be easier (to get congressional and world support) to toss a few missiles into Zimbabwe than to invade Iraq?
Possibly true for many places, less true for any former British colony. You apparently didn't notice that we tend to defer to the British on those. As for other places, you may be correct -- but that only shows how out of touch 'western values' are with reality.
Quote:
Maybe you missed it but most of the world went bonkers when the US went into Iraq? Did the US give damn?
I say western because the ME predictably did object to our invasion of Iraq but only on a pro forma basis to get the 'rest of the world' roused in a futile attempt to stop it. You may have noted that once it went, they basically quited down -- because they fully understood why we had done it even if most westerners did not.
Many have never figured out that Afghanistan was about attacking the US on its own soil and that Iraq was a message to the Middle East that a long series of probes and action emanating from there against US interests worldwide need to stop. WMD, oil and all that foolishness had virtually nothing to do with it.
The folks in the ME understood that and you may have noticed that the Asians made almost no noise about it because they understood that it was all about reversing the damage four previous Presidents had done by accepting probes from the ME since 1979. All the noise was European hearth yammering. They and South America. Who rightfully object from experience to our meddling and interventions. :o
Some people here also yammered; about a third. That's typical here for any military effort, 1/3 objects, 1/3 thinks it's a great idea and those two swap depending on which political party is in power. The remaining third will support as long as progress is being made. Been true for all our wars and incursions.
Quote:
But now you are suggesting that the US should worry about what the people of the world would think about Zimbabwe's criminal leadership being taken out when they don't give daman about using drones to fire missiles into Pakistan (a supposed ally) against the wishes of the government and people of that country?
Nah, I'm suggesting that we do not meddle with former British colonies unless they agree (and that includes Pakistan...) and, far, far more importantly, that Zimbabawe (unlike Pakistan) has little to no effect on US interests therefor the cost isn't worth the effort.
Quote:
Consistency, Ken, consistency.
Oh, we're as consistent as we can be with an electoral system that changes the political complexion of the nation every two years to at least some degree -- that makes for a great lack of continuity and a total inability to have a grand strategy or even a fairly consistent foreign policy. :D
Not a problem, we get by... :cool:
We are remarkably consistent on two things, defense and foreign policy wise, and only two things:
We do not tolerate potential physical threats, we will disrupt them or take them out by fair means or foul and regardless of the opinions of others.
We will react adversely to any thing that appears to be a significant constriction of our trading ability in international commerce and movement.
That's been true for that 220 years. I'd say that was pretty consistent. :D
The role of non-African powers in Africa: a discussion
In one particular current thread 'South Sudan: a laboratory for stabilisation':http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=8460 some disturbance has been caused by a series of posts speculating on the role of the external, or great powers in Africa, in places like Zimbabwe and what exactly will China do?
I have created this new thread for the discussion and moved some of the posts to here - leaving an explanation behind.
Neither in one sense, both in another and
most likely a continuing conflict here in the States over which one should receive precedence.
Bottom line is that while all nations have 'special relationships,' for the US as those others, those relationships get trumped by national interest so we'll waffle back and forth.