What was it they said about "Gog and Magog"?

[ladajo]

In has worked in principle for the entire history of warfare.
The trick is understanding your context of ownership.
If you want to own it, you have no recourse but to seek assimilation.
If you want to manage it, then that does not mean you need to be there all the time.
If you want to influence it, then that generally means that if you are there, it is for targeted interventions only, then you get out and use external influence.

There is a strong argument made and to be furthered about humanity's natural preference for warfare. In you haven't read it, give Max Boot's "Invisible Armies" a spin, and also "The Savage Wars of Peace". He, and some others did into small wars, but part of his argument glosses over the scalability of Blended Interventionist / Insurgent warfare and how it manifests across the full range of combatants, undeveloped to large developed. The principles are sound, and can be applied, in my opinion, across a the full range. There are many parallels to be made from a policing theory perspective as well.

[mvanwink5]

Ladajo,
You live in a fantasy of shoulda woulda coulda. This is a democratic republic not a totalitarian state with a 1000 year ruler. Put the strategy and rules in place by spending 2 trillion dollars (broke guberment), countless lives lost plus tragically wounded brave and loyal men and women (of all sorts) and 4 years later you get President Chuckle Head who abandons your genius 50 year plan. And propaganda turns to distrust and disgust, and the military becomes cynical and disillusioned.

The best you can hope to sustain is 'Switzerland,' but 'smart' neocons will never give up their belief in world management... their way.

[Diogenes]

Diogenes is funny because most of the republican candidates said that they would send troops to the middle east to "clean up". Translated that means "make things worse". But that is IMHO intentional because the military industrial complex keeps making money that way.

More troops wouldn't have been needed in the Middle east if the lazy, ignorant and stupid "Precedent" hadn't pulled them out against everyone's warning. His efforts to topple Gaddafi and Assad also greatly contributed to the Fiasco that Syria and Iraq has become.


This is what happens when you let an ignorant, stupid man-child sit at the big boy controls.


Yes, more intelligent and responsible people are suggesting that we have to put troops back in to clean up the horrible mess Obama made when he pulled them out.

[Diogenes]

I just cant look back once in history where the US meddled in affairs that were not its place to meddle in that turned out well.

Easy. Putting Shah Pahlavi into power was such an occasion. That turned out wonderfully.


Then we had to elect an idiot that ruined everything. His name was Jimmy Carter.

[choff]

With Russian troops now fighting in Syria the ME situation has become more complicated, if it wasn't enough already. It raises the prospects of U.S./NATO troops either fighting against the Russians or as allies of the Russians against ISIL. Providing of course, that ISIL aren't our guys in disguise, as some have suggested.

[Skipjack]

I just cant look back once in history where the US meddled in affairs that were not its place to meddle in that turned out well.

Easy. Putting Shah Pahlavi into power was such an occasion. That turned out wonderfully.

Funny, it is one of the examples for where the US meddling with things that were none of their business backfired horribly. The US toppled democratically elected government to put a despot puppet in its place. What could possibly go wrong?! Shah was not very well liked by his people and that played into the hands of the mullahs and their revolution. And the whole coup has until this day cemented the distrust of the Iranians in the US, which of course also plays into the hands of the mullahs.
Now explain to me again how putting Shah Pahlavi was a good thing?

[ladajo]

Ladajo,
You live in a fantasy of shoulda woulda coulda. This is a democratic republic not a totalitarian state with a 1000 year ruler. Put the strategy and rules in place by spending 2 trillion dollars (broke guberment), countless lives lost plus tragically wounded brave and loyal men and women (of all sorts) and 4 years later you get President Chuckle Head who abandons your genius 50 year plan. And propaganda turns to distrust and disgust, and the military becomes cynical and disillusioned.

The best you can hope to sustain is 'Switzerland,' but 'smart' neocons will never give up their belief in world management... their way.

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

I am not speaking in the 'see what we shoulda' done wuz'. Maybe you misunderstood. What I am talking about is a different approach. One that uses principles of policing and small wars to bring about desired influence. I am most certainly not talking about a long term plan with intricate maniacal details leading to world domination. What I am talking about is an alternate strategy, which is founded in the history of internal and external conflicts, and centered on the idea of not subsuming the rest of the world for control and direction. It is one that uses focused applications of power to create effects. Effects that are seeking to guide future outcomes in a favorable direction.
Fundamentally it is a change in strategy, not plans. They are two different things. Think of it like the difference between cooking as you go, vice following a detailed meal plan and associated recipes. The theory is that if you stay inside the lines (policy and doctrine), your coloring will be adequate. It matters not so much which colors you pick first, and how often you change them. You make those choices as you go, all the while staying inside the lines.
This is not some world domination conspiracy attempt for long term imperialist power and control. In all fairness, it is actually very similar to how the Russians and some others are doing business. At work, this is known from me as "Instability Warfare". My take however, is on the "Stability Warfare" side, but using small wars and kinetic policing approaches combined with other D, I, & E national power levers of much more temporal natures. All that said, one must be careful, as nature abhors large vacuums. My method proposes creating small focused vacuums in a more thoughtful manner, accompanied with coordinated applications of small pressures to fill those micro-vacuums with substance more palatable to our objectives. I am also not saying that it will be right every time, but it is easier to course correct small changes than brutal large ones.

[Diogenes]

I just cant look back once in history where the US meddled in affairs that were not its place to meddle in that turned out well.

Easy. Putting Shah Pahlavi into power was such an occasion. That turned out wonderfully.

Funny, it is one of the examples for where the US meddling with things that were none of their business backfired horribly.

No it didn't. The Shah was dragging religious nut-job Iran into the 20th century. It was good for Iran, it was good for the world, and only some kind of nitwit would regard it as a "horrible backfire."

The US toppled democratically elected government to put a despot puppet in its place. What could possibly go wrong?! Shah was not very well liked by his people and that played into the hands of the mullahs and their revolution. .

About that I do not give a D@mn. "Democracy" was a bad idea when the Greeks invented it, and a "Democracy" among Lunatic religious NutJobs is even worse. I absolutely do not care about a Democracy among the adherents of the Islamic religion. They will invariably demand the Koran be followed, and we will eventually end up having to deal with them with some form of kinetic argument.


"Islam" is not compatible with "Democracy." It's foundational principles do not support the concept of "equality" or "tolerance." Beyond that, I am concerned with the Interests of my country, not theirs.

And the whole coup has until this day cemented the distrust of the Iranians in the US, which of course also plays into the hands of the mullahs. .

And I am supposed to give a d@mn about the distrust of the Iranians? Had Jimmy Carter not mucked things up, they would not now be threatening to start a world war. I am perfectly happy dealing with an Iranian despot that keeps the religious nut jobs under control.


While we are on this subject, how is it that Mr. Skipjack who has absolutely no tolerance for "Religion" and writes constantly about how much he hates it, suddenly concerned with what the people who constitute the world's gravest threat from religious nutjob, think?


Could it be you just hate the "Christian" religion, and have no such animosity to direct at the one which has murdered 100 million people since it started? Selective outrage explains it.

Now explain to me again how putting Shah Pahlavi was a good thing?

I do not think that I am able to do such a thing. You demonstrate constantly that you lack the capacity to grasp the essential elements or reasoning necessary to have a better understanding.


With Shah Pahlavi, Iran would have continued to modernize and to move away from their doomsday version of Islam. Obviously you only prefer modernity and what you regard as "scientific advancement" when it comes to people in your newly adopted "sanctuary" country.


For Barbarian minded Iranian kooks, you are all too tolerant.

[Skipjack]

No it didn't. The Shah was dragging religious nut-job Iran into the 20th century. It was good for Iran, it was good for the world, and only some kind of nitwit would regard it as a "horrible backfire."

I do agree that the Shah was more western oriented and he did some good. But, the government he replaced was actually quite secular and not "religious nut job", as you call it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh

You should brush up on Iranian history for a bit

It backfired of course because it made the US a hate target "you toppled out elected government in a coup, you are imperialists, you can not be trusted, blah, blah, blah!". It played directly into the hands of the mullahs, which I despise as much as you do.

"Democracy" among Lunatic religious NutJobs is even worse. I absolutely do not care about a Democracy among the adherents of the Islamic religion. They will invariably demand the Koran be followed, and we will eventually end up having to deal with them with some form of kinetic argument.

Your ignorance of history is symptomatic for the rest of the US population and a reason why the US fails so miserably in its foreign politics.
As I said, the Iran of the time of the coup was not in the hand of "lunatic religious nutjobs". Prime Minister Mosaddegh was one of those politicians that advanced secularity in Iran at the time. He would have probably done a better job than the Shah. The reason why the US had him removed was because he wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil fields which the British did not like (would have cost them a lot). So after initially supporting him, the US decided they would rather like a stronger UK and the CIA instigated the coup.

[mvanwink5]

'a reason' no.

The reason why the US had him removed was because he wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil fields which the British did not like (would have cost them a lot).

yes. Crony oil and 'genius' meddlers (I like the description of 'weapons grade hubris, a lot) describes our foreign policy. With all the other crony motivations, genius strategic meddlers, and full on utopia hubris, the US foreign policy is and will be a nightmare. 'Smart' foreign policy of a democratic republic is an oxymoron.

[ladajo]

And historically, of course, European nations have been sooo much better with history and politics.
Let us ignore the rampant several thousand year M.O. where Europeans have re-written history to suit there own politics.
Let us also ignore that on the face of the known earth, European politics have resulted in more deaths and destruction than any-where or any-when else. In fact, let us ignore that European politics continue to punish the world community with war, death, and destruction to this day and the foreseeable future, even from policies, decisions, and actions that occurred decades, centuries, and in some cases millennia ago.
Let's see, the U.S. has about 250 years of political history, and while shaping the world, changing balances and norms, on a comparison basis, it can not hold a candle to what has been wraught by Europe, and for the record, in a decidedly more negative manner.
Granted, the jury is still out on the future, but looking back over 3,000 years,most of the drama is, was, and will carry forward as that created by Europe.
You want to know the next big million people death and destruction event: Probably it will spawn out of Syria, involve failed Russian intervention, and lack of action on Europe's part. This will lead to the Middle-East Puss Ball (which for the record is a European creation), exploding and consuming several millions of folks before it is done. If you don't think this is well on the way, then you need to pay much more attention to use of WMD, Russian escalation, mixed with more factions than can be counted all vying for individually determined "values of the object" that no other engaged party understands.
One of the most destructive warfare situations is when the conflict presents with parties who are fighting over different things and don't know it. Resolution is only found when the involved parties take the time to understand what the others are striving for. It is all about the object, and it's value. Conflicts tend to be short and contained when it is the same object and the seeking parties understand how each other value it. If not, look out. Welcome to the Greater Syria conflict. Most likely place for the second use of nuclear weapons in human warfare.
No stops on that train.

[mvanwink5]

Nice analysis, but it completely misses the only major issue, Islam * Billion muslims.

[Skipjack]

And historically, of course, European nations have been sooo much better with history and politics.

Never said that European nations had a clean history without mistakes. They most certainly have screwed up big time over and over again. Just look at the borders in North Africa! That said, it seems to me that recently we seem to have learned from our past mistakes and are doing a better job at staying out of things that are none of our business.
I would strongly suggest that the US do the same. As I said, it has not done anyone much good.

[Diogenes]

No it didn't. The Shah was dragging religious nut-job Iran into the 20th century. It was good for Iran, it was good for the world, and only some kind of nitwit would regard it as a "horrible backfire."

I do agree that the Shah was more western oriented and he did some good. But, the government he replaced was actually quite secular and not "religious nut job", as you call it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh

He was a socialist. Almost as bad. As for them being religious nut jobs, much of the Muslim world was relatively sane during this period. Even the Jews and the Arabs were getting along (more or less) shortly before this time. It goes through it's spasms. This is explained pretty well by David Goldman in this article.

You should brush up on Iranian history for a bit

As should you. The Persian empire has had a bad habit of starting sh*t.

It backfired of course because it made the US a hate target "you toppled out elected government in a coup, you are imperialists, you can not be trusted, blah, blah, blah!". It played directly into the hands of the mullahs, which I despise as much as you do.

Nonsense. They just wanted power and that was the only excuse they could find to seize upon. The average Iranian did not really give a crap, it was the small determined minority among them that agitated the overthrow of the Shah and the institutionalization of Theocratic Islam.


We have seen over and over again, that in a Muslim country, the "moderate" Muslims will stand around wringing their hands and saying "Oh Dear", while the radicals implement actual Islam, and go about killing heretics and infidels. "Heretic" is here defined as anyone who opposes the Islamic based killings they are committing.


The Shah backed off of his normal "nutjob" suppression because Jimmy Carter made the Shah's "human rights" abuses the primary world dialogue regarding Iran. Jimmy Carter didn't understand that any viable ruler of Iran pretty much had to engage in some level of oppression just to keep the Religious Wackadoodles under control.


I've known people stationed in Iran during this time period. I have talked with them at length about Iran before and after. Some of them hate Jimmy Carter. Others of them REALLY HATE JIMMY CARTER.

"Democracy" among Lunatic religious NutJobs is even worse. I absolutely do not care about a Democracy among the adherents of the Islamic religion. They will invariably demand the Koran be followed, and we will eventually end up having to deal with them with some form of kinetic argument.

Your ignorance of history is symptomatic for the rest of the US population and a reason why the US fails so miserably in its foreign politics.

When we fail in our foreign politics, it is usually the result of having a Democrat running foreign policy, or from listening to the "nation building" component of our Ivy League (bleeding heart liberal socialist) trained Diplomatic corps. Reagan's foreign policy was mostly pretty good. He made a few blunders, but he more than made up for them with his overall performance.

As I said, the Iran of the time of the coup was not in the hand of "lunatic religious nutjobs". Prime Minister Mosaddegh was one of those politicians that advanced secularity in Iran at the time. He would have probably done a better job than the Shah. The reason why the US had him removed was because he wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil fields which the British did not like (would have cost them a lot). So after initially supporting him, the US decided they would rather like a stronger UK and the CIA instigated the coup.

Like I said, he was a D@mn socialist, and addressing the relative moderateness of 1950s Iran, I have to compare them to Gremlins.




They are fine until you feed them after midnight, then their true nature comes out.

[ladajo]

Nice analysis, but it completely misses the only major issue, Islam * Billion muslims.

1.5 Billion muslims verses 5.5 Billion non-muslims.

are doing a better job at staying out of things that are none of our business.

Well, uh-huh. And how's that working out with the million refugees and growing issue? Like maybe Europe (and the US) should have headed the whole thing off at the pass and taken out Assad up front? I think there is a strong argument to be made that had that happened, a lot of other shit wouldn't have. A directed small intervention shaping the path forward is what was called for. Now look what your "hands off" theory has brought upon the greater community. An impending war train with no stops.
That really worked out well for you brilliant Europeans who learned so well from past lessons.
Looks an awful lot like Yugoslavia. You remember, the one where you all tried to play "hands off" and it blew up in your faces, with some shock waves still reverberating. Who was it you all begged to come and clean up your mess, oh yes, that's right, the U.S.
If you are going to be "hands off" it is because you can afford to be. The path is not one that is going to end in a train wreck.
As the old adage goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Too bad you all have not figured that one out yet.
How many pounds of cure do you think is going to be required for the EU to deal with the endless stream of refugees? You remember, that stream of humans that won't stop until there is either a real intervention in the Greater Syria war, or the Puss Ball explodes and countless millions (in lots of places) die.

Things are all roses, keep it up. Right-oh! "Hands off" is the ticket! We've got this!