I'm unhappy to see this happening for a number of reasons...
Because it's the first step into another series of mistakes. :mad:
We have got to change the process that requires 'missions' and commitment of forces to justify existences -- and budgets; that's just stupid. :rolleyes:
My objection to this one,
as also to Libya (and Syria), is that it is outside my geographic bounds (Atl. Lit, WH, Pac. Lit).
That being said, I wish US troops good fortune wherever they are - regardless of how boneheaded USG policy happens to be re: that area.
Now, if a similar situation existed, say, in Bolivia, I'd probably hold up a green light.
Regards
Mike
Orbits are for the excitable who worry about the world...
and that isn't Isch on either count... ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
carl
At its' heart, it is a humanitarian mission. In that part of the world, the most effective humanitarian assistance that can be given is to kill some people dead. Ergo, the SF is the most capable humanitarian organization available.
No, SF is not the most capable humanitarian organization around. Especially not for your purpose -- with which I agree; I just do not agree that it is in the interests of the US to provide that assistance, be it SF or whoever.
We have had people there, this is an excalation andI know how the US government works. Trust me, this is an Elephants trunk -- or a Puff Adder, too early to tell -- worming its way into the tent. This does not bode well... :rolleyes:
Twenty seven lashes, wet noodle...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bill Moore
but to claim they're doing more in Africa than we are is a bit of a reach.
I said 'have' -- past tense. I acknowledge we're catching up net mission quantity wise even if most are Flintlock like efforts instead of killing bad guys.
Quote:
I recall the French Garrisons in a West African country, and they didn't do anything for that nation, and the locals hated them because of their arrogance.
They're FRENCH, whaddya expect... :D
Quote:
Presence alone does not equate to action. No European nation to my knowledge has invested in Africa like we have with the ACRI and ACOTA programs, then the follow on post 9/11 programs. Please point out where they have?
No, presence dose not equate to action -- but it does add significantly to knowledge and capability for action. No, they have not invested like we have because they do not spend money as prolifically (note I resisted the desire to say 'stupidly') as we do, thus, as you know I can't point out that they have done 'more.' I can point out they have more commercial interests there than we do and they have former colonial ties (good and bad in that).
Quote:
With the recent exception of Libya what has Italy done militarily in Africa that wasn't self serving?
What has any European nation or the US -- or China -- done there that wasn't self serving? That's what it's all about. And the Africans are quite aware of that.
Quote:
Any person that thinks mindless murder on a mass scale and recruiting kids into a militia may be a morally bankrupt practice may consider this a crisis of conscience.
Probably so; my problem is not how one gets from such a crisis to a responsibility to act, it is that what action is taken be intelligent and not a misstep.
Quote:
True we ignored the slaughter in Rwanda ...President Bush made the statement that there would be no Rwanda's on his watch...President Clinton intervened in Bosnia, and then Kosovo (slowly and largely after the mass murder and mass migrations). We can debate whether it is right or wrong to commit U.S. troops and finally come to an agreement or respectfully disagree, but in this case Congress did debate it and agreed we should.
Congress agreed with all the interventions, including that in Iraq with which you disagree so I'm unsure that's a plus. My problem with 'humanitarian intervention' of the types you cite is that such efforts generally do more harm than good to the afflicted; they are terribly expensive in ALL aspects; they rarely achieve the nominally desired results and they tend to last for years -- they provide little or no benefit to the US except to make some people feel good. That is essentialy true for all those you named...
Quote:
I worked in West and North Africa, I haven't been to Central Africa, but I have seen the dynamic between U.S. black SF troops and locales and since they were high caliber soldiers they were respected.
They were -- but they in my observation were respected for their military quality and that overcame the fact that they were Black but not African. On rare occasions when they attempted to blend, it almost invariably failed.
Quote:
I didn't see or sense any hostility.
Nor did I. Neither did I see any more or less acceptance than was accorded white guys or hispanics.
Quote:
Since I am not a member of the National Security Staff, I borrow what others have written.
No disrespect to you but bunches to the National Security Staff, State and Congressional types who I think mean well but based on performance, I consider to be broadly inept and caught up in archaic thinking.
Quote:
No we're not in the Cold War, but we all are competing for market and natural resources, so access remains a national interest. I wouldn't label it a critical national interest, but still important, and committing a couple hundred SF troops is hardly a huge commitment.
I acknowledge that some see it as being important and accept that it can be so considered, further agree that while an interest, it is not critical and that small SF commitment is tolerable. I do note that escalation is still occurring -- the Admin said 100, you say a couple of hundred... :D
That's my concern. Growth. The 'system' will demand it...
Quote:
...we don't own the problem, the regional nations do, so in the end we can pack up and go home if we're not effective in helping them.
And what will that quitting and taking our marbles home do for our influence thereabouts? I do agree it is THEIR problem and I have no problems helping them work on it; the issue is how to help and a failed mission will not do our street cred a lot of good. The AO is a mess in all aspects with little to no infrastructure and we're sending a bunch of suburban dwellers who are well enough trained but are used to comforts of a sort and who do not know the terrain or the people on a short tour. I further suspect that the leaders of the incoming troops may not pay as much attention to the guys who have been there for a while as they probably should -- we're bad about that. Hopefully, it'll work out.
Quote:
This isn't the same as sending the 82d and then ending up with a we can't pull out now or we'll look like we lost (as we did in Somalia).
I suspect tha had the 82d been sent to Somalia instead of all the folks who were, it might have ended differently. One of the more embarrassing days of my life was the day after that debacle when a Somali militia honcho was quoted in the NYT speaking of the Unit and 3d Ranger; "They did the same thing six times. Tactically you never do the same thing twice..."
Quote:
In regards to the same government well I can't argue that one, and if this fails it will likely be due to dumb decisions coming out of D.C.
Often the case but not usually solely to blame. See Somalia example.
Quote:
As long as it is small scale and we remain largely in a supporting role I hope there is a next. This is simply DIME playing out in a smarter way than it did in OIF or OEF-A.
It won't; we won't; and I hope not because we'll screw it up -- and that's from Ken, the incurable optimist. :wry:
Quote:
First, I hope we don't enter a post Vietnam and post Somalia period where we're paralyzed by the failures of those missions (and now OIF and OEF-A) to the extent we don't intervene when we should.
That's the question -- when we should...I have no problem with interventions that make sense, I have a big problem with stupidity and dumb forays against Windmills.
Quote:
Two, this is a feasible mission and IAW our doctrine prior to 9/11 that "may" intelligently synchronize the elements of national power to achieve the desired ends. SF will play a small but critical supporting role, with State Department in the lead.
Yep, it is and hopefully State will in fact be in the lead. Yet again, I'm not that concerned with this mission -- I'm concerned with what will follow this mission. Mark my words, there will more and worse... :mad:
One last trio of questions, though. This: "...intelligently synchronize the elements of national power to achieve the desired ends..." sounds good, great even. What's it really mean? What are those elements of national power? What, in fact, are the desired ends?