Politics and Statesmenship: A Forum Special Report

[Guard Dog]

I wouldn't worry much about this Iran stuff. Unless they do something stupid like actually attack a US ship nothing will come of it. Just some saber rattling and two rooster strutting on opposite sides of a fence. 

[BruceVC]

4 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

I wouldn't worry much about this Iran stuff. Unless they do something stupid like actually attack a US ship nothing will come of it. Just some saber rattling and two rooster strutting on opposite sides of a fence. 

I agree, brinkmanship is normal when it comes to Iran issues and politics around there actions  

[Gromnir]

2 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

Agreed, we are terribad at that.

It makes me wonder if Japan and Germany were just dumb luck wrt rebuilding after WWII. Or maybe Western and ME mindsets are too far apart to work together?

peacekeeping and nation building effort success is in large part a matter o' will. 

the wh, pre-iraq, were getting estimates that 500,000 troops would be needed to maintain peace in iraq for the first years following successful liberation. 500k.  US knew how costly it would be in terms o' manpower and dollars to rebuild iraq. japan saw 350k us troops. germany, a bit misleading, had  a peak 1.6 million us troops in country. 

history suggests twenty troops per thousand population is threshold needed for initial post liberation peacekeeping. no doubt skill o' occupier will make adjustments possible, but twenty per thousand appears to be target.  during 2007 surge, us had 20k troops in iraq.

will. gotta be willing to commit troops and spend money. US did neither in afghanistan nor iraq and results were predictable.

iran, by the way, is more than three times more populous than iraq were at start of the invasion . 1.6 million US troops is the anticipated baseline for successful post war peacekeeping efforts. am not seeing how the wh could hope to generate the support for a 1.6 million peacekeeping troop investment.

is not terribad, but terricheap. US has recent been unwilling to commit necessary resources to achieve successful nation building. is 'bout will more than skill, and am not seeing how the American people has the will to make such a contribution o' massive capital and literal blood to bring 'bout anything other than another post war disaster. 

again, 1.6 million US troops would be needed for initial post war peace keeping in iran. communicate such info truthful to the US people and am expecting most support for war with iran would evaporate.

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

1 minute ago, Gromnir said:

peacekeeping and nation building effort success is in large part a matter o' will. 

the wh, pre-iraq, were getting estimates that 500,000 troops would be needed to maintain peace in iraq for the first years following successful liberation. 500k.  US knew how costly it would be in terms o' manpower and dollars to rebuild iraq. japan saw 350k us troops. germany, a bit misleading, had  a peak 1.6 million us troops in country. 

history suggests twenty troops per thousand population is threshold needed for initial post liberation peacekeeping. no doubt skill o' occupier will make adjustments possible, but twenty per thousand appears to be target.  during 2007 surge, us had 20k troops in iraq.

will. gotta be willing to commit troops and spend money. US did neither in afghanistan nor iraq and results were predictable.

iran, by the way, is more than three times more populous than iraq were at start of the invasion . 1.6 million US troops is the anticipated baseline for successful post war peacekeeping efforts. am not seeing how the wh could hope to generate the support for a 1.6 million peacekeeping troop investment.

is not terribad, but terricheap. US has recent been unwilling to commit necessary resources to achieve successful nation building. is 'bout will more than skill, and am not seeing how the American people has the will to make such a contribution o' massive capital and literal blood to bring 'bout anything other than another post war disaster. 

again, 1.6 million US troops would be needed for initial post war peace keeping in iran. communicate such info truthful to the US people and am expecting most support for war with iran would evaporate.

HA! Good Fun!

Okay so in summary it will be very difficult to fund this type of massive occupation and I imagine equally difficult to find  enough troops for this initiative...buuuuuuuuut there are several million people you could bring back from retirement...Shady, GD, Gfted1, you boys better start dusting off the old "marine attire ", you may need to serve your country again 

[Gfted1]

Whoa whoa whoa, I was in the Navy and the Marines are a department of the Navy, so they work for us.

And now I think Im too old, unless all hell breaks loose. 

[Chilloutman]

yeah that will teach those Iranians a lesson:

[ShadySands]

11 hours ago, BruceVC said:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alabama-abortion-law-passed-alabama-passes-near-total-abortion-ban-with-no-exceptions-for-rape-or-incest-2019-05-14/

Im very disappointed with this decision from the Alabama senate to pass this severe  anti-abortion  law, I see this going to the Supreme Court 

 

Going to the Supreme Court is maybe the point if some of the talking heads are correct. It's possible they think they have a good chance to overturn or weaken Roe v Wade with the new court and it also allows everyone a chance to see where the new guys will actually stand on this issue.

 

As far as putting together a force of at least 1.6 million, it's not going to happen as it would require a draft or a large multinational peacekeeping force and the will isn't there for either of those options so we'd be left with just more of the same.

Edited May 15, 2019 by ShadySands

[smjjames]

Just in terms of pure numbers, we do have them, just that it would mean moving EVERY active military and most reserves over to Iran, which just shows the enormity of the numbers.

As Gromnir said, it pretty much all comes down to political will.

 

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

I wouldn't worry much about this Iran stuff. Unless they do something stupid like actually attack a US ship nothing will come of it. Just some saber rattling and two rooster strutting on opposite sides of a fence. 

(1) Gulf of Tonkin
(2) USS Maine

Wow, ctrl+enter actually posts the message. That's going to be fun with shift+enter for single spaced carriage return and my fat fingers.

Edited May 15, 2019 by Zoraptor

[Guard Dog]

19 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

(1) Gulf of Tonkin
(2) USS Maine

Wow, ctrl+enter actually posts the message. That's going to be fun with shift+enter for single spaced carriage return and my fat fingers.

Different times, different circumstances. In neither incident was the US already involved in two long term, expensive, destructive, and useless combat zones. I may be wrong but the only thing that leads to a confrontation is an actual attack by Iranian military units on a US vessel or ground unit in Iraq.

[Malcador]

Bolton's hardon for war when he ducked Vietnam really makes him far more reprehensible.

[smjjames]

2 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Different times, different circumstances. In neither incident was the US already involved in two long term, expensive, destructive, and useless combat zones. I may be wrong but the only thing that leads to a confrontation is an actual attack by Iranian military units on a US vessel or ground unit in Iraq.

True, they're different circumstances, but they're still examples of ways that escalation could happen. The Gulf of Tonkin event sounds closer to what happened with the invasion of Iraq in terms of manufactured causus belli, while the USS Maine event is probably better understood as part of a series of events leading up to the Spanish-American war.

Also, is it possible to have it keep the quotes within a post? It removes some context when it does that.

[213374U]

2 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

I may be wrong but the only thing that leads to a confrontation is an actual attack by Iranian military units on a US vessel or ground unit in Iraq.

Israel.

[Zoraptor]

2 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Different times, different circumstances. In neither incident was the US already involved in two long term, expensive, destructive, and useless combat zones.

I agree the specific circumstances are different, but not the general. If we take the fairly recent Gulf War II part of the justification was WMD which was a future threat, and part was that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and thus had 'attacked' the US already (plus other stuff like the purported GHWBush assassination plot). Same for Afghanistan, though with way better justification there. Also the cruise missile attacks on Syria before evidence was out that confirmed who did it- and indeed, apart from 40% of the victims of the first attack being at hospital at impossible times for when the 'bomb' was dropped the second CW attack now has a leaked engineering report (which could be faked, but if so it's several orders of magnitude above typical fakes) stating the cylinders involved were placed, not dropped from helicopters. The old Hermann Goering quote about manufactured consent also still applies; you don't actually have to be being attacked, you just have to tell people they are enough times and they'll believe it.

Quote

I may be wrong but the only thing that leads to a confrontation is an actual attack by Iranian military units on a US vessel or ground unit in Iraq.

If you're really looking for an excuse, you find one, and some people in the administration- and not just chickenhawk Bolton- are definitively looking. If there are interested parties who want to fight Iran to the last american- which includes KSA/ UAE as well as Israel- then to paraphrase the great philosopher Scott Steiner, your chances drastic go up.

Plus Trump's foreign policy has been a mess of ineffective 'maximum pressure' operations and unilateral actions that have not been thought through properly. At some point he's going to decide that maximum pressure has to involve actual force to stop people constantly calling his bluffs.

[smjjames]

@zoraptor: Yea. To quote a great philosopher (no idea who it's attributed to as it's kind of general. edit: Actually, might be Clausewitz or Sun Tzu.), 'Never make a bluff that you can't or are unwilling to back up.' Obviously that's not strictly true as the success of mimicry shows, but it's just the general idea of 'If you're going to bluff, make sure it actually has teeth, or that the target thinks it has teeth'.

Edited May 16, 2019 by smjjames

[ShadySands]

17 hours ago, smjjames said:

2 hours ago, smjjames said:

Just in terms of pure numbers, we do have them, just that it would mean moving EVERY active military and most reserves over to Iran, which just shows the enormity of the numbers.

As Gromnir said, it pretty much all comes down to political will.

 

In pure numbers, sure, but the military doesn't actual function like that.

 

In other news, isidewith.com has been updated

[Gorth]

5 hours ago, ShadySands said:

As far as putting together a force of at least 1.6 million, it's not going to happen as it would require a draft or a large multinational peacekeeping force and the will isn't there for either of those options so we'd be left with just more of the same.

It's not like logic has ever been an obstacle for Trump before. I would fully trust in his incompetence and start a war without any clue on how to deal with the outcome, thinking he can "wing it". If such a thing were to happen, watch Fox News for how it's all Hillary and Obama's fault and Trump's twitter blasting the fake news for spreading misinformation about a completely chaotic situation. He's nothing if not predictable.

[Zoraptor]

The US shouldn't need 1.6 million troops as not even Trump would be stupid enough to try and occupy Iran.

It would be a 'limited' and almost entirely air/ missile attack sold with the anti nuclear/ missile message with the 120k or whatever ground troops being involved in limited things like stopping Saudi being invaded- since the Saudi military would lose to Iranian girl scouts if such a thing existed- and suppressing dissent around the naval base in Bahrain. Maybe grabbing the Hormuz area as well for 'security'. The idea would be that the oppressed masses would throw off their ayatollah overlords and embrace the americans as liberators so occupation would not be necessary; or more realistically, once the anthill has been thoroughly kicked it isn't so much of a 'threat' any more, you can try and split off Kurd, Arab, Baluch and Azeri areas using their own ethnic militia and it doesn't matter if everything goes pear shaped since you can pull a Libya and declare that everything has gone swell no matter how bad the long term situation ends up as.

Said it once recently but I'll say it again; real problem is that the US media has a hard on for war pr0n and the only thing Trump has done to near universal media approval was lob missiles at Syria. That's an awful lesson to give someone like Trump, and awful ammunition to give someone like Bolton to use on Trump.

[Bartimaeus]

lol @ Biden's "sense of humor" being his top-billed trait.

[ShadySands]

On mine, Biden came in 3rd to last behind Johnson and above Kasich and Trump.

[Bartimaeus]

Yeah, going into it, he was my least favorite Democrat in this race *that I know of*, and my results certainly supported that. Also wasn't surprised with my senator Klobuchar being my second least favorite known Democrat (I don't know anything about John Delaney). I went through all of the additional questions (although there were a number of questions that I did not feel comfortable answering due to either disinterest or particularly strong lack of knowledge).

Edited May 16, 2019 by Bartimaeus

[Gromnir]

2 hours ago, Gorth said:

It's not like logic has ever been an obstacle for Trump before. I would fully trust in his incompetence and start a war without any clue on how to deal with the outcome, thinking he can "wing it". If such a thing were to happen, watch Fox News for how it's all Hillary and Obama's fault and Trump's twitter blasting the fake news for spreading misinformation about a completely chaotic situation. He's nothing if not predictable.

is possible trump doesn't care 'bout the outcome. he needs to galvanize his base for 2020. sure, without adequate peacekeeping forces and nation building efforts you end up repeating mistakes bush made in iraq and obama made with arab spring-- the middle east is a rocky place, where the seed o' democracy does not readily find purchase... to paraphrase a line from raising arizona. what is the point o' creating more instability in the mid-east, yes? add a new economic and political crisis to a region where only constant since fall o' ottoman empire is chaos?

does trump care? 

*shrug*

trump may believe that americans will rally 'round the flag during time o' war, and he is doing everything possible to make support o' America and support o' his Presidency synonymous. the reasoning goes as follows: trump needs a win in 2020. is too many investigations from too many corners, and the delay tactics he is employing to hold off Congress, sdny and others is gonna eventual run their course.  there is already enough grounds for impeachment, but is not political practical at this time with republicans largely having committed themselves to defense o' trump. etc.

am hopeful trump ain't so vain he would risk war and the certain bloodshed to follow for no other reason than to protect his own increasing vulnerable kiester, but how many is convinced trump ain't such a narcissist?

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Guard Dog]

I got a guy that isn't even running:

 

 

[Guard Dog]

Following this Alabama abortion mess. This law was, of course, passed to be challenged in court. I really hate that a legislature would pass a law they know is unconstitutional purely for the purpose of changing the constitutionality of the law in court. That is putting the cart before the horse IMO.  I think they are far too optimistic this is going to work.  This is how I see this playing out. Every lower court will rule against the State of Alabama. That is just going to happen. The precedent is clear and the lower courts are bound to it. So that means this will wind up in front of the SCOTUS (if they take it. There s a chance they won't want to touch it). There are five justices chomping at the bit to get this. Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, & Breyer to uphold it (Roe) and Alito to overturn it. Those five already have their minds made up I think. Thomas for sure and Goresuch I think will side with the State of Alabama. Not because they favor abortion but because both are likely to think Roe was decided on a fictional legal construct (right to privacy) and this is a State problem. So that leaves Kavanaugh and Roberts. There is no way to know where Kavanaugh is going to come down on this. He's new to the court and has been somewhat unpredictable. But I can bet you what Roberts will do. If it's 4-4 he is going to rule against Alabama. Roberts will not want this case and will not want to upset the apple cart with any decision that overturns Roe whatever he might think. 

Of course this all depends on exactly what the case ends up looking like. If there is room to do so they will likely prevaricate and come back with a very narrow decision.  I don't think that is going to cut it this time though.   All this is speculation on my part. But that's my wager. Any takers?

[HoonDing]

Alabama being Alabama, I thought they'd only ban the abortion of white babies.