Deterring Asymmetrical Threats

[Random Variable]

An awful lot of people say that Saddam can be deterred because he's a survivalist and not a suicide bomber. But if he were to hand over a nuclear device or a biological agent to an Islamic terrorist group, how would we know? Heck, we still have not been able to figure who sent (and who weaponized) the anthrax that was sent through the mail last fall.

That's the beauty of asymmetrical warfare--the perpetrator(s) are able to remain anonymous.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Vespasian
An awful lot of people say that Saddam can be deterred because he's a survivalist and not a suicide bomber. But if he were to hand over a nuclear device or a biological agent to an Islamic terrorist group, how would we know? Heck, we still have not been able to figure who who sent (and who weaponized) the anthrax that was sent through the mail last fall.

That's the beauty of asymmetrical warfare--the perpetrator(s) are able to remain anonymous.

sounds like the plot of red rabbit.

 

[Moonbeam]

That's why the real battlefield is in the mind. It's a war of ideas. Do we have any?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
That's why the real battlefield is in the mind. It's a war of ideas. Do we have any?

apparently not. but we have tom clancy. and microprocessors. those were ideas once, right?

 

[Random Variable]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
That's why the real battlefield is in the mind. It's a war of ideas. Do we have any?

I am not even going to pretend that I know what you're talking about (which I'm sure makes you feel superior to me).

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

You could probably avoid the issue all together if you don't go around pissin' on people, their cultures, etc. Now some people are going to hate you . . . just b/c you are you not necessarily b/c you are an arse. In that case you establish a doctrine.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you . . . starting tomorrow.

We would start by pulling troops out of say . . . Saudi Arabia and other questionable regimes. We would match those savings with other revenue to start a Kennedyesque research run to alternative fuels/efficiency. Not only would fewer "allies" and detractors complain about US hegemony but the EU, Russia, and states of the ME will get a taste of life without us. Not to mention everyone having to buy our technology.

We can't live under seige. The notion of deterrence is inherently flawed. What we need is moral superiority sufficient to match our military prowess. Then all just societies will rally to our defense which is de facto deterrence.

 

[Random Variable]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
You could probably avoid the issue all together if you don't go around pissin' on people, their cultures, etc. Now some people are going to hate you . . . just b/c you are you not necessarily b/c you are an arse. In that case you establish a doctrine.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you . . . starting tomorrow.

We would start by pulling troops out of say . . . Saudi Arabia and other questionable regimes. We would match those savings with other revenue to start a Kennedyesque research run to alternative fuels/efficiency. Not only would fewer "allies" and detractors complain about US hegemony but the EU, Russia, and states of the ME will get a taste of life without us. Not to mention everyone having to buy our technology.

We can't live under seige. The notion of deterrence is inherently flawed. What we need is moral superiority sufficient to match our military prowess. Then all just societies will rally to our defense which is de facto deterrence.

If we were to pack our bags and leave, we would strengthen Osama bin Laden's claim that the United States is nothing but a "paper tiger." If you read the translated transcripts of bin Laden's many speechs, he repeatedly refers to Vietnam and Somalia as proof that America always runs away from fights.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I am not even going to pretend that I know what you're talking about (which I'm sure makes you feel superior to me).

I'm hesitant to explore Moonbeam's mind but why not. Our current condition Orange has nothing to do with reality but PERCEIVED threat. Our campaign against Saddam is predicated on what he MIGHT do. We fear what is POSSIBLE in the post 9/11 world.

Reality is that most people around the world are decent and they believe Americans are decent. The vast majority of people that HATE America have NO means of harming us.

When we act consistently on our ideals, most of the world actively supports us. The ideas bring about action. If we had backed our ideals and words in Iraq after the Gulf War Saddam might have been removed. We changed our mind mid-course and left the people of Iraq out to dry. Are we surprised they are hesitant to believe and broadly support US action? Does our inaction and opposition to ANY rebuke of Israel give other nations pause when we trumpet UN resolutions/action against Iraq? I really believe most of our ideas are beneficial to the world and as soon as we show that world concerns receive equal consideration to US concerns we will win the minds of most of the world.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

If we were to pack our bags and leave, we would strengthen Osama bin Laden's claim that the United States is nothing but a "paper tiger." If you read the translated transcripts of bin Laden's many speechs, he repeatedly refers to Vietnam and Somalia as proof that America always runs away from fights.

Saudi Arabia is not under a threat we can defend against. Many people within that country think the royals suck. Is it not the right of the people to rise up against oppressive governments? Last time I checked American troops were not fighting IN Saudi Arabia. If you are going to put troops anywhere have them integrate with Palestinian Authority troops to help establish control in the West Bank and Gaza (along with helping settlers pack their bags).

The Vietnamese did not invite the US to join what began as a French colonial conflict. We overstayed for our own philosophical/geopolitical reasons. Thousands of honorable men and millions of innocent Vietnamese lost their lives over the big ideas of small-minded men (on both sides). Somalia was a conflict with many factions with disparate goals. Unlike Vietnam we had a chance in Somalia to win the people until "mistakes" precipitated our loss of high moral standing amongst the people. Think about it . . . if everybody believes the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" how come NOBODY helped us find Aidid? We were essentially EVERYBODY'S enemy. In that case leaving doesn't make you a paper tiger it makes you reasonable.

We've started in Afghanistan. Nation-building has to be the task b/c our credibility is on the line. It will be extremely expensive, complicated, and time-consuming to cobble a stable, enduring government out of that place. Leaving the Arabian peninsula and building a country WITH the people of Afghanistan will show strength of character (we'll keep the pipeline stuff on the DL). Standing with Israel and Palestinians to support a peaceful future as neighbors will show strength of character.

It won't matter what OBL says (has said) b/c he's speaking history while we are making the future.

 

[Moonbeam]

Vespasian, Bali's ideas are the kind I'm talking about, and also, just as something to consider, imagine being sufficiently self accepting with all my faults, as to be moderately at peace with myself, at least sufficiently so as not to need to go around proving my superiority. Heck, who knows, maybe from such a place I might even on occasions feel this odd and truly unique, but of course only temporary and occasional twinge of a good wish for my fellow man.

 

[ElFenix]

the problem, you see, with most of the rest of the world is that borders were formed without the "nation building" of coninuous wars that europe had gone through... heck, even most of europe didn't go through that... so they're still struggling through it and when that happens you get dictators.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

OK, I don't know what Moonbeam is talking about now.

 

[Random Variable]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
OK, I don't know what Moonbeam is talking about now.

Amen to that.

 

[ElFenix]

edited for clarity:

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Also, imagine being sufficiently accepting [of myself, even] with all my faults, [that I am] moderately at peace with myself. At least sufficiently so as [I do] not to need to go around proving my superiority. Heck, who knows, maybe from such a place I might even, on occasions, feel this odd and truly unique twinge of a good wish for my fellow man.

translation (afaik): we don't like ourselves so we can't like anyone else.

 

[Moonbeam]

ELFenix, what I am talking about surely relates to that magnificent truth you just stated, but here I was simply refering to what Vespasian said to me:

I am not even going to pretend that I know what you're talking about (which I'm sure makes you feel superior to me).

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Funny how Saddam only became a threat after GWB failed to find Osama!

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Actually, that's not true, Newbie. Saddam has been on the hit list since Bush took office. The EMPHASIS is new. No reasonable person doubts Saddam's credentials as a despot. No reasonable person doubts that he's PROBABLY making more naughty weapons . . . as opposed to the good weapons we make. No one really knows what he will do with those weapons but if history is any indication he will use them against civilians and during regional conflicts. Reasonable people disagree on whether he's more likely to use those weapons if attacked versus trying to keep him in his box.

Bush should be commended on forcing the UN to give its resolutions teeth. Arguably we should lead by example by following those resolutions ourselves and INSISTING that our allies (Israel) do the same. Then we can ride high on our moral horse without ducking cabbages. In the meantime, we have to allow some time for the notoriously slow international community to work. Bush's rush for Congressional consent when UN authorization is the law of the world looks sketchy. It appears Bush wants to compel the Security Council by showing he can act without their consent. I think it's better they vote their conscience and be held accountable for it. The talking heads that keep saying "show US solidarity" are mistaken. The US is solidly behind Bush IF the UN consents. If not less than 40% support military action.

If we stick to the truth . . . Saddam POS FOS, France and Russia want to sell goods/get paid their due, bad people need to be watched closely while you carry a big stick; we've got a whole bunch of allies and few detractors. If Bush had real intel' showing Saddam Spring 2003 would be a much greater threat to region and world than Fall 2002 he would have shown the French, Chinese, and Russians and they surely would have stepped in line. Now if he witheld information b/c he didn't want to reveal our capabilities to potential foes . . . well we need to seriously reconsider where our threats lie.

Edit for brain fart . . . if history is any lesson . . .

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Perhaps one of the best ways of deterring threats is to not be so quick to stick our noses in other peoples politics by creating people like Saddam. It would be good to remember that the US under Regan provided the technology and support to allow Saddam to be the horror he is today. Rumsfeld shook Saddams hand on it in fact in December of 1983. Remember the gassing of the Kurds? Well Regan said it was the Iranians, when in fact he knew it was Saddam. We provided the stocks of bacteria and other microbes that Iraq may use on our soldiers. It was us who provided the intelligence, funding, support, and even the helicopters used to gas the Iranian soldiers and Kurds. We supported terror, because it was expedient. Next time I hope we are smarter.

 

[Random Variable]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Perhaps one of the best ways of deterring threats is to not be so quick to stick our noses in other peoples politics by creating people like Saddam. It would be good to remember that the US under Regan provided the technology and support to allow Saddam to be the horror he is today. Rumsfeld shook Saddams hand on it in fact in December of 1983. Remember the gassing of the Kurds? Well Regan said it was the Iranians, when in fact he knew it was Saddam. We provided the stocks of bacteria and other microbes that Iraq may use on our soldiers. It was us who provided the intelligence, funding, support, and even the helicopters used to gas the Iranian soldiers and Kurds. We supported terror, because it was expedient. Next time I hope we are smarter.

Because one U.S. company sold anthrax spores to Iraq (and many other countries around the world) for purposes of research that means we created Saddam's war machine?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Vespasian

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider Perhaps one of the best ways of deterring threats is to not be so quick to stick our noses in other peoples politics by creating people like Saddam. It would be good to remember that the US under Regan provided the technology and support to allow Saddam to be the horror he is today. Rumsfeld shook Saddams hand on it in fact in December of 1983. Remember the gassing of the Kurds? Well Regan said it was the Iranians, when in fact he knew it was Saddam. We provided the stocks of bacteria and other microbes that Iraq may use on our soldiers. It was us who provided the intelligence, funding, support, and even the helicopters used to gas the Iranian soldiers and Kurds. We supported terror, because it was expedient. Next time I hope we are smarter.

Because one U.S. company sold anthrax spores to Iraq (and many other countries around the world) for purposes of research that means we created Saddam's war machine?

If that were true that would be right. Unfortunately that is incorrect. Bacteria/protozoa/fungi were provided to the Iraqi atomic energy comission. I know about research. The organisms provided were of no conceivable use to an AEC.

Helicopters WERE provided by the US, the same kind that were used to spray chemical weapons.

Satellite and other high tech information on Iranian troop movements were provided to Saddam so he could attack Iran.

"Dual use" equipment was allowed to be sold to Iraq

1500 injections of a nerve gas antidote which could be used by attacking Iraqi forces (remember the Kurds were hardly gassing anyone) were almost sold to Iraq by the State Department before the Pentagon found out and nixed the sale.

The USS Stark was struck by an Iraqi Exocet missle, killing 37. Regan acknowleged it was Iraq, did nothing, and blamed the whole thing on Iranian agression.

The list goes on and on. Saddam WAS supported by the US, because he was a tool we could use against Iran, which at the time was the perceived threat. Rumsfield knew he was shaking the hand of a murderous psycho, but that was ok, because at the time he was OUR murderous psycho. Rumsfeld knew that Saddam had people shot on video because they were thinking about ousting him.

We damn well knew what we were unleashing on the world.

 

[Random Variable]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: Vespasian

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider Perhaps one of the best ways of deterring threats is to not be so quick to stick our noses in other peoples politics by creating people like Saddam. It would be good to remember that the US under Regan provided the technology and support to allow Saddam to be the horror he is today. Rumsfeld shook Saddams hand on it in fact in December of 1983. Remember the gassing of the Kurds? Well Regan said it was the Iranians, when in fact he knew it was Saddam. We provided the stocks of bacteria and other microbes that Iraq may use on our soldiers. It was us who provided the intelligence, funding, support, and even the helicopters used to gas the Iranian soldiers and Kurds. We supported terror, because it was expedient. Next time I hope we are smarter.

Because one U.S. company sold anthrax spores to Iraq (and many other countries around the world) for purposes of research that means we created Saddam's war machine?

If that were true that would be right. Unfortunately that is incorrect. Bacteria/protozoa/fungi were provided to the Iraqi atomic energy comission. I know about research. The organisms provided were of no conceivable use to an AEC.

Helicopters WERE provided by the US, the same kind that were used to spray chemical weapons.

Satellite and other high tech information on Iranian troop movements were provided to Saddam so he could attack Iran.

"Dual use" equipment was allowed to be sold to Iraq

1500 injections of a nerve gas antidote which could be used by attacking Iraqi forces (remember the Kurds were hardly gassing anyone) were almost sold to Iraq by the State Department before the Pentagon found out and nixed the sale.

The USS Stark was struck by an Iraqi Exocet missle, killing 37. Regan acknowleged it was Iraq, did nothing, and blamed the whole thing on Iranian agression.

The list goes on and on. Saddam WAS supported by the US, because he was a tool we could use against Iran, which at the time was the perceived threat. Rumsfield knew he was shaking the hand of a murderous psycho, but that was ok, because at the time he was OUR murderous psycho. Rumsfeld knew that Saddam had people shot on video because they were <EM>thinking</EM> about ousting him.

We damn well knew what we were unleashing on the world.

Please back up your claims with sources.

EDIT: Newsweek?
DOUBLE EDIT: Yep, Newsweek.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Vespasian

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: Vespasian

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider Perhaps one of the best ways of deterring threats is to not be so quick to stick our noses in other peoples politics by creating people like Saddam. It would be good to remember that the US under Regan provided the technology and support to allow Saddam to be the horror he is today. Rumsfeld shook Saddams hand on it in fact in December of 1983. Remember the gassing of the Kurds? Well Regan said it was the Iranians, when in fact he knew it was Saddam. We provided the stocks of bacteria and other microbes that Iraq may use on our soldiers. It was us who provided the intelligence, funding, support, and even the helicopters used to gas the Iranian soldiers and Kurds. We supported terror, because it was expedient. Next time I hope we are smarter.

Because one U.S. company sold anthrax spores to Iraq (and many other countries around the world) for purposes of research that means we created Saddam's war machine?

If that were true that would be right. Unfortunately that is incorrect. Bacteria/protozoa/fungi were provided to the Iraqi atomic energy comission. I know about research. The organisms provided were of no conceivable use to an AEC. Helicopters WERE provided by the US, the same kind that were used to spray chemical weapons. Satellite and other high tech information on Iranian troop movements were provided to Saddam so he could attack Iran. "Dual use" equipment was allowed to be sold to Iraq 1500 injections of a nerve gas antidote which could be used by attacking Iraqi forces (remember the Kurds were hardly gassing anyone) were almost sold to Iraq by the State Department before the Pentagon found out and nixed the sale. The USS Stark was struck by an Iraqi Exocet missle, killing 37. Regan acknowleged it was Iraq, did nothing, and blamed the whole thing on Iranian agression. The list goes on and on. Saddam WAS supported by the US, because he was a tool we could use against Iran, which at the time was the perceived threat. Rumsfield knew he was shaking the hand of a murderous psycho, but that was ok, because at the time he was OUR murderous psycho. Rumsfeld knew that Saddam had people shot on video because they were thinking about ousting him. We damn well knew what we were unleashing on the world.

Please back up your claims with sources.

As a start, read the current issue of Newsweek. FYI am old enough to have read the papers of the day. I was there. I remember the "Great Satan" speeches. I remember the "America held hostage- day ###" countdown. I remember Rumsfeld, and my memory serves me well.

 

[Random Variable]

The Iran-Iraq War was a mess because we didn't want either side to be victorious. That's why in 1985 we started selling weapons to Iran. But your contention that we knowingly armed Iraq with biological weapons is false.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
ELFenix, what I am talking about surely relates to that magnificent truth you just stated, but here I was simply refering to what Vespasian said to me:

I am not even going to pretend that I know what you're talking about (which I'm sure makes you feel superior to me).

well whatever

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The Iran-Iraq War was a mess because we didn't want either side to be victorious. That's why in 1985 we started selling weapons to Iran. But your contention that we knowingly armed Iraq with biological weapons is false.

It's inaccurate to say we didn't want either side to victorious. The truth is far more convoluted. We sold weapons (and intel') to Iran b/c they had oil, money, and we hated the Soviets. We just sold more to Iraq.

Long rather interesting account of Iran-Iraq War and oil
Primary responsibility for the eight long years of bloodletting must rest with the governments of the two countries -- the ruthless military regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the ruthless clerical regime of the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. Khomeini was said by some to have a "martyr complex," though, as U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance wryly observed, people with martyr complexes rarely live to be as old as Khomeini. Whatever his complexes, Khomeini had no qualms about sending his followers, including young boys, off to their deaths for his greater glory.

France became the major source of Iraq's high-tech weaponry, in no small part to protect its financial stake in that country.<2> The Soviet Union was Iraq's largest weapon's supplier, while jockeying for influence in both capitals. Israel provided arms to Iran, hoping to bleed the combatants by prolonging the war. And at least ten nations sold arms to both of the warring sides.<3>

I didn't know about Israel. Shrewd but dangerous ploy.

The list of countries engaging in despicable behavior, however, would be incomplete without the United States. The U.S. objective was not profits from the arms trade, but the much more significant aim of controlling to the greatest extent possible the region's oil resources.

In the early 1950s, oil was used as a political weapon for the first time -- _by_ the United States and Britain and _against_ Iran. Iran had nationalized its British-owned oil company which had refused to share its astronomical profits with the host government. In response, Washington and London organized a boycott of Iranian oil which brought Iran's economy to the brink of collapse. The CIA then instigated a coup, entrenching the Shah in power and effectively un-nationalizing the oil company, with U.S. firms getting 40 percent of the formerly 100 percent British-owned company. This was, in the view of the _New York Times_, an "object lesson in the heavy cost that must be paid" when an oil-rich Third World nation "goes berserk with fanatical nationalism."<8>

That'll teach uppity sand ..gg... not to mess with OUR interests.

In 1956 the oil weapon was used again, this time by the United States against Britain and France. After the latter two nations along with Israel invaded Egypt, Washington made clear that U.S. oil would not be sent to Western Europe until Britain and France agreed to a rapid withdrawal schedule.<9> The U.S. was not adverse to overthrowing Nasser -- "Had they done it quickly, we would have accepted it," Eisenhower said later<10> -- but the clumsy Anglo-French military operation threatened U.S. interests in the region.

I always thought the Sinai Campaign was an Israeli tour de Force but their European partners ganged up on Egypt.

When the war first broke out, the Soviet Union turned back its arms ships en route to Iraq, and for the next year and a half, while Iraq was on the offensive, Moscow did not provide weapons to Baghdad.<30> In March 1981, the Iraqi Communist Party, repressed by Saddam Hussein, beamed broadcasts from the Soviet Union calling for an end to the war and the withdrawal of Iraqi troops.<31> That same month U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he saw the possibility of improved ties with Baghdad and approvingly noted that Iraq was concerned by "the behavior of Soviet imperialism in the Middle Eastern area." The U.S. then approved the sale to Iraq of five Boeing jetliners, and sent a deputy assistant secretary of state to Baghdad for talks.<32> The U.S. removed Iraq from its notoriously selective list of nations supporting international terrorism<33> (despite the fact that terrorist Abu Nidal was based in the country)<34> and Washington extended a $400 million credit guarantee for U.S. exports to Iraq.<35> In November 1984, the U.S. and Iraq restored diplomatic relations, which had been ruptured in 1967.<36>

Noooo, not the honorable Ronald Reagan. We don't give support to terrorist states.

U.S. policy with respect to Iran was more complicated, because it followed two tracks at once. On the one hand, U.S. officials saw "a great potential" for a covert program to undermine the government in Teheran;<58> on the other hand, Washington tried to build ties to that same government.

U.S. actions in pursuit of the first track showed quite clearly that Washington's opposition to the Khomeini regime had nothing to do with its lack of democracy, for the groups that the U.S. backed against Khomeini were often supporters of the previous dictator, the Shah.

The Shah was so nice the people cried when he was forced out.

In 1980, under the Carter administration, the United States began clandestine radio broadcasts into Iran from Egypt, at a cost of some $20-30,000 per month. The broadcasts called for Khomeini's overthrow and urged support for Bakhtiar.<61> Other broadcasts contained anti-Soviet material.<62> In 1986, the CIA pirated Iran's national television network frequency to transmit an eleven minute address by the Shah's son over Iranian TV. "I will return," Reza Pahlavi vowed.<63>

Government condoned hacking . . . I like.

Simultaneous with these activities, the U.S. pursued its second track: trying to establish ties with the Iranian mullahs based on the interest they shared with Washington in combating the left. The U.S. purpose, Reagan announced in November 1986, after the Iran-Contra scandal blew open, was "to find an avenue to get Iran back where it once was and that is in the family of democratic nations" -- a good trick, as Mansour Farhang has commented, since pre-1979 Iran was hardly democratic.<64>

Reagan administration officials claimed that their efforts in Iran were designed to build ties to moderates. In fact, however, they were aware that they were dealing with the clerical fanatics. Oliver North told Robert McFarlane and John Poindexter in December 1985 that the anti-tank weapons the U.S. was secretly providing to Iran would probably go to the Revolutionary Guards, the shock troops of the mullahs.<68> In August 1986, the special assistant to the Israeli prime minister briefed George "Out-of-the-Loop" Bush, telling him, "we are dealing with the most radical elements....This is good because we've learned that they can deliver and the moderates can't."<69>

Our policy in the Gulf has been about as Fair and Balanced as the CrapNews that uses the slogan.