You generated some questions...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zack
...what evidence do we have that this message was effective with those we were sending it to?
None. Too early to tell. The strong probability is that it was effective. we'll see but I suspect the targets -- the nations, not the non state groups, got the message.
Quote:
If OEF was meant to deter AQ, why have we had a bunch of attempted operations in the US and some successful ones in Europe?
Not what I said. South Asia -- the Nations thereof. No nation's big military action is going to deter a non-state actor; OTOH military actions will deter adverse action and support by other nations who have those things and don't want them destroyed. Individuals and ill minded groups don't care what happens to nations, theirs or yours...
Quote:
They have also had no qualms about attacking US/Coalition forces in the region (which, while not on US soil is certainly a US interest).
AQ and the Talibs have -- has any nation overtly sponsored either?
Quote:
I don't see how OIF strengthened our deterrent either. Post-invasion was bungled so badly that it seems more reasonable to say that OIF damaged our ability to deter ME states.
It certainly wasn't as effective as it could have been were the post attack not so badly flawed, however, it'll likely end up being almost as successful. The message in the attack was that the US is nuts; that got pretty good coverage. That was the prime intent.
Quote:
If it was in fact just to deter WMD proliferation, Libya might be evidence of this, but I have read that Gaddafi's decision was quite apart from OIF.
WMD had almost nothing to do with Iraq; they were used as the stated rationale -- and the Administration later acknowledged that was one of their several big mistakes.
Quote:
Our goal is to keep Americans, and their interests safe (particularly their lives). That is what deterring attacks is all about.
Who says that is our goal? Can you explain to me how you would do that? With any assurance at all...
Quote:
If we are not deterring them, we are forcing them to move their networks into less accessible areas, and we are swelling their ranks, then how have we done anything but make our situation worse?
First, what make you think we're swelling their ranks? Second, our situation worse in what way? Third, how do you deter a group of people that effectively have nothing you can attack except themselves as individuals and their funding?
Not as much accomplished as most would hope. Including me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zack
So what is the end state then?... So we will have made the point that if you harbor terrorists that attack the US itself (not abroad) we will deal with you directly. This may be an effective deterrent, but once again, I don't see how AQ's ability to strike on US soil had anything to do with state sponsorship.
It was not the sponsorship, there was none -- it was hosting AQ headquarters and training facilities.
Quote:
Furthermore it doesn't address state sponsored groups that attack our interests abroad. Hezbollah blew up the Khobar towers with Iranian help, etc... They and their state sponsor have consistently opposed US interests and killed US soldiers and continually threatened and fought against Israel.
Don't confuse your Hezbollahs. The one that hit Khobar was Hezbollah Al Hejaz; the Saudi Arabian home grown variant, not the Lebanese model. The Saudis effectively dismantled theirs after we got off Saudi territory. The Lebanese version has pretty well left us alone since the Marine Barracks and Embassy bombings and kidnappings in Beirut -- which Reagan handled very poorly.
Quote:
Maybe you are right about the foreign fighters, I have not done the field research myself, but nonetheless I would hesitate to think that they all "have an agenda."
Most everyone has an agenda of some sort. Nothing wrong with that, it's just wrong when you try to obscure your interest and pass it off as pure and objective news or reportage.
Quote:
You think that that by invading and occupying Afghanistan we have told other sponsors of terror (against the US homeland) that we will destroy you if you hit us. This, to you, is worth the blood and treasure sacrifices we have made.
Too soon to tell for certain but I believe that a big part of why we went to both nations was to restore credibility. Whether that was the reason or not, the practical effect is that the cred has been essentially restored.
From 1979 until 2001, we were probed and provoked by folks from the ME -- not just AQ but the Muslim Brotherhood and several others and the fact that ME folks were AQ in Afghanistan added it to the mix -- and four Presidents refused to respond forcefully to those probes. That loss of credibility from Viet Nam, through Somalia and the failure to properly respond to the strike and bombings led folks to believe we could be continually pushed until we toppled. Been the cause of almost all our wars, some one though the Americans wouldn't respond. So the credibility had to be restored. Not leaving Iraq helped a great deal, not leaving Afghanistan until it is in better shape will help more.
In both cases, a far better job by the Armed Forces and fewer casualties would have enhanced that effect but the services did the best they could with what they had. My guess is that both will prove to have been worth the effort and the cost.
Quote:
My contention is that the Taliban were not necessary or involved in the 9/11 attack, and as their sponsorship was not necessary to AQ's success, we should focus our attention elsewhere. Our interests abroad are still at risk to state sponsored terror groups, and thus I don't think OEF has deterred terror sponsorship. So the tradeoff has not been worth it in my opinion.
We can differ. The only real state sponsor of any significance at this time is Iran and they're a whole different ball game on several levels...
Quote:
Would you distill exactly what the real strategic intent behind OIF was? I think I understand your position on Afghanistan, but what were we deterring other ME states from doing? other than proliferation of course.
In the ME -- and all the former Persian Empires (plural) which included all or part of Afghanistan, the Eye for Eye rule is followed. Afghansitan was the eye for the eye of hosting the crew that financed the 9/11 attack. Most in the area totally understood that. Iraq, OTOH, was the arm for the arm -- in the ME, eyes and arms are not interchangeable; responses are expected to be specific -- that were all the attacks around the globe including Khobar Towers and the African Embassy Bombing, the USS Cole and so forth. All those attack emanated from various parts of the ME (and few if any of the attackers were deprived youth) so the issue after 9/11 became we could not really stop attacks on the US, we're too big and the borders are too porous. All these attacks originated from various nations in the ME, so the question became could we send a message to the whole ME?
The issue was to convince them to not support actions or host those that would act against American interests
Voila, there's Iraq, geographically central, plenty of room for basing, will not disrupt the world oil supply (important -- we wanted China and India to have all the oil they wanted...), hated and despised dictator, pariah state -- there will be upset but it will be mild and then we'll have forces in the area that will help keep the neighbors honest. Folks in the ME of course screamed -- but they knew what the message was even if most in the west couldn't understand it. All the WMD and thus proliferation stuff was mostly diversionary because any attempt to state up front the real reason -- to send a message -- would never have flown past Congress whose approval was desired.
Had we gone in and gotten out quickly as was originally planned, the message would have been far more potent. It still will be adequate, I believe. Why the change to the plan in early May 2003 from rapid departure to staying, I don't know -- but it'll come out some day
If it has, I haven't noticed it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zack
An expensive occupation (blood and treasure) would also seem to detract from the "stability" of our nation as well.
but the real question is why did we elect to stay rather than do as you suggest...
Quote:
We would spend less money, incur fewer casualties, less negative response from other countries in the region, and still disrupt the networks, c&c, and emphasize that cooperation of AQ is something we will not stand for.
Without knowledge of why that course was elected as a change to the original plan, we can only speculate. What has happened has happened. It will all come out eventually and then -- only then -- will we be able to assess the pros and cons.
Quote:
It seems to me that the occupation (if either) is more untenable than a limited, but strong response.
Many agree with you, Thus why that was not done is a mystery -- at this time. Make no mistake, it is a political mystery, not military.
In the meantime, The key is to do as Overland suggests and NOT let others place us in the reactionary mode -- though I'm not at all sure that our Congress is prepared to accept that idea.
We agree on the point that our continued presence
which you call an occupation has not been beneficial, I think. I'm not sure we agree on whether all things considered either action, to include the occupation or stability operation, was worth the cost.
While I think the post attack phase in both nations was badly mishandled by the government, I fault the Army in particular for not being better prepared. Whether the results achieved (or likely to be achieved) justified the gross costs will hinge on the reason we stayed to a great extent (i.e. it was certainly political but domestic or international?). We'll know more eventually but based on what I have seen and heard thus far, I believe that both were worth it.
I think we agree that we can rely on Congress to be reactionary -- and not to allow anything remotely looking like forward thinking... :D