But, grasshopper, better to be lied about than ignored.Originally Posted by Tom Odom
It's like the first time I saw myself cited in a scholarly book and found out I was used as the best example of an American academic who was a "dupe of Mozambican information." I still ran around like Navin R. Johnson yelling, "I AM somebody!!"
True enough...Ambassador Krueger's book on Brurundi with a chapter about me and the RPA is now out--from University of Texas Press as a counter to TAMU Press who published my memoirs.
Does the Heritage Foundation know you have a FRELIMO membership number?
What's it worth to ya if I don't tell 'em?
Tom
First time I ever testified in the Senate was on Helms' plan to fund Renamo. Needless to say, was agin it, which didn't earn me any Jesse points.
True enough...Ambassador Krueger's book on Brurundi with a chapter about me and the RPA is now out--from University of Texas Press as a counter to TAMU Press who published my memoirs.
Does the Heritage Foundation know you have a FRELIMO membership number?
What's it worth to ya if I don't tell 'em?
Tom
Can you please give me the reference for the legitimacy of the OIF campaign?
Maybe: US self defense against the oh so many IRAQI WMDs we found down there?
Best wishes,
BRUZ
Tom is making reference to public law, which specifically outlawed assassination and some other covert forms of regime change. And I'm still waiting to see some substance in these posts. Snappy drive-bys only get so much mileage...
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Yes, I have.
Many here on this forum (especially those who worship Mr Kilcullen) try to bend classical Insurgency/Counterinsurgency doctrine into something that fits exactly into the present IRAQI situation ("struggle for control over a contested political space between a state or a group of states or occupying powers [obviously Mr Kilcullen means something like the US military protectorate in IRAQ], and one or more popularly based, non-state challengers") but while doing so they don't see : IT'S NOT AN INSURGENCY DOWN IN IRAQ!!!!
My advice: stick to classical COIN doctrine and focus on the Afghanistan theatre (I DON'T say: send more troops there!!!) where it applies and get out of IRAQ after a handover to the UN.
Because one of the big problems in IRAQ is simply the huge US military footprint.
Violence will NOT stop after a US withdrawal, but it will definitely calm down with no US targets roaming the streets.
BRUZ
And who or whom is the UN? What nation? What country is going to provide a 150K soldiers? Who at the UN is going to pay for that force? If you think it is a boondoggle now wait until w court martial soldiers who refuse to serve under foreign commanders.
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
So please can YOU provide me with the legitimate basis for the OIF campaign then?
Remember: German Officers were hanged after WWII because of conducting an AGGRESSIVE ATTACKING WAR against the Soviet Union (BTW at that time a dictatorship very similar like that of Saddam Hussein) ...
BRUZ
Do you have any real evidence for this assertion? Since much of the conflict seems to be devolving to tribal and religious levels, why would a major US withdrawal make a difference in those conflict areas? And as selil asked, how do you expect the UN to handle something like Iraq when they can barely handle Africa and other regions? Whose classical COIN doctrine do you suggest people stick to? France's? Rome's? Britain's?
And in case you weren't aware of it, typing in ALL CAPS is considered shouting. You can easily make your point without it.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Because the (huge) US military presence in the Middle East is a power hub for the recruitment of new jihadists.
bruz
Bruz,
As Steve said, I was referring to US legal code when it comes to regime change.
As for what you describe as a legal basis for invading Iraq, inside the US the decision of the President to do so covers that nicely, especially when supported by Congressional approval to use force.
Now I am shifting gears and putting on a moderator hat. The use of all CAPS is shouting and no one here needs it. If you wish to make your points, try offering complete thoughts and avoiding useless parallels.
Tom
Are you suggesting the invasion was illegal?
I am just asking for the legitimacy of it, because somebody answered me that a "coup" instead would have been illegal.
So far nobody showed up with a convincing answer to my question other than the US president ordered the mission; therefore I don't wonder why the Iranian President can make a point in stating that the US does what it wants but denies others to do the same.
BRUZ
Who are we a threat to? What country have we threatened?
See the difference?
Feel free to call my parallels useless without further statements, but don't be surprised if I don't find that very convincing.
BRUZ
Why are there so many people fighting against the US?
Obviously they feel somehow threatened?!
A coup as you stated was to be "arranged by the CIA". I took that as arranging the demise of a state leader through direct or indirect means. There are lawsa against that with definite legal triggers which get the Congress and the executive arm involved under very close legal scrutiny. Assassination is illegal as is support to any group planning an assassination.
An decision to invade is different in process and end state. Again in the case of iraq the Congress and the Executive Branches were involved.
As for the above, I am not going to exchange posts like this with you. PM sent.Feel free to call my parallels useless without further statements, but don't be surprised if I don't find that very convincing.
Tom
He is on the mark about one thing--there are some bizarre contradictions in American policy and law. Regime change by coup or assassination is generally proscribed (with some exceptions); regime change by conventional invasion OK. It's legal during armed operations to bomb an enemy fuel dump and cause massive ecological damage, but would be illegal to use biological agents which would turn the fuel to gel and render it ineffective without causing a massive fire. It's legal to shoot enemies with bullets, but not to tear gas them.
I think that covers just about everyone when it comes to contradictions in international law, LOAC, and so on. It's all almost other-worldly sometimes.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
why it may make a difference...
I just came across this to stress my point:
It's taken from the narrative by Shelby Foote on the US Civil War (Volume I, Page 65):
When a poor Virginian Private was taken prisoner by some Unionist soldiers he was asked, why he was fighting, as he obviously was not rich, owned no cotton farm, had no slaves and had really no need for upholding slavery.
He simply replied: "I am fighting, because you are down here."
So maybe if one would ask some jihadists in the Middle East today why they are fighting against the US troops there, they may simply reply: "We are fighting, because you are over here."
bruz
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks