The Political Discussion Thread

[Bagpuss]

Turns out that the ability to edit posts is locked out when a thread is locked.

Could be a glitch but I've let the other Mods and Greg/Darren know as it used to be possible.

New posts : don't make any for now and let the guys get sorted .

Thanks all !

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

That's not the point, though. The US may have good intentions on helping the Mexican government, but the Mexicans will see it as an invasion, rightfully so, so NAFTA will be completely undermined, and Europe and Canada will be talking about how the Americans are, again, sticking their noses where they were not asked for. The only way that the US could ever go into Mexico, justifiably, would be if the Mexican Government asked the American Government to help. The Mexican people most likely would not like it, but the US would have a justifiable reason for going in.

I would agree, short of total collapse in Mexico an incursion by U.S troops without permission would be counterproductive. However the worrying thing is that it is no longer implausible that Mexico may ask for U.S aid, or that Mexico could simply collapse. The United States Joint Forces Command has categorised Mexico as at risk from sudden collapse in the next two decades.

If you are tackling the border crossing of a few Mexicans as a soldier issue and not a crime issue and that involves shooting at those Mexican nationals, then yeah, you are committing an act of war against Mexico, aren't you? That's what happens when you use soldiers to do the work of police - you make a war out of it. Of course there's a war in Mexico - who claimed there wasn't? You seem to have a habit of that - making claims out of things no one's claimed. The topic at hand was using soldiers to do the work of police. It's as difficult for Obama as it has been for every US pres, save Polk, who didn't mind the war part. I don't need to "try to grasp the fact", being well aware, but thanks for your condescending concern.

Except it's not a case of a few people moving back and forth. It's a case of thousands moving to escape the violence and Cartel members moving across the border relatively unimpeded. And no shooting Mexican citizens on U.S soil is not an act of war, they have to be on Mexican soil for that to happen.

It is a different situation for Obama, he is facing a war in Mexico, which no other recent President has had to deal with. Even Civil wars spill over and destabilise the region. It is common sense to militarise the border with a war zone, you question everyone moving in and out of it, detain those who are suspicious, have aid programs and refugee camps set up for those escaping the fighting. None of this is happening. And I'm not naive, just like those vehicle check points in Iraq, a militarised border means lots of force which will inevitably result in death, possibly of innocents by mistake. This is an unfortunate fact of life. However it's the border with a warzone, that situation is pretty dire, you are beyond the boundaries of regular law enforcement and into the realms of last resort.

[s09119]

Putting up pictures of soldiers carrying a coffin for emotional effect doesn't change the fact that there's no war really going on in the Middle East. Not that it diminishes the service or deaths of servicemen and women, but still, jmoz does have a point. We haven't been at war with any countries since 2003, and the concept of how we fight our enemies (especially when they're not states) needs to evolve. It might not be a bad idea to take some combat units and retrain them for more domestic issues, perhaps use them in conjunction with the National Guard to pacify the drug wars on the border.

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

Putting up pictures of soldiers carrying a coffin for emotional effect doesn't change the fact that there's no war really going on in the Middle East. Not that it diminishes the service or deaths of servicemen and women, but still, jmoz does have a point. We haven't been at war with any countries since 2003, and the concept of how we fight our enemies (especially when they're not states) needs to evolve. It might not be a bad idea to take some combat units and retrain them for more domestic issues, perhaps use them in conjunction with the National Guard to pacify the drug wars on the border.

But ignoring the casualty figures and troop numbers helps make your point. There is a war going on in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq continued well after 2003, some of the heaviest fighting, such as in Fallujah took place after the invasion and during the occupation. And it took 20,000 troops to oust insurgents from one small city in Iraq.

There are over 130,000 Coalition troops in Afghanistan, not counting the Afghan National Army or Police. And that's not the same 130,000 troops, you have replacements for casualties, reinforcements ready and troops ready to replace them when a tour of duty is over for a unit. That's not including the thousnads of troops at home that are needed to keep the wheels of the warmachine working.

Simply because the war is asymmetrical in nature does not mean there is not a war. There are at least 50,000 Taliban and other insurgents in Afghanistan, and at least the same amount over the border in Pakistan. The war agaisnt the Taliban cannot be considered an internal issue in Afghansitan. It had spilled over both into Pakistan but also as far as Kashmir. The Taliban may not officially be a state actor, however they control enough territory in both Afghanistan and Pakistan to be considered one in all but name and ISAF forces are at war with them.

Fighting an insurgency is means extensive use of troops, a lot of them. And the concept of how we fight out enemies has evolved, hence heavier use of troops and less reliance of technology. You cannot rely on drones and airstrikes to destroy an insurgency, if anything this will simply increase resistance. Groups like the Taliban thrive in impoverished areas, these are their breeding grounds. They are seen to be bringing order to the area and offering opportunity. What has increasingly been successful is a tactic called, clear, hold, build. It involves clearing an area of insurgents, holding it while allowing groups like Provincial reconstruction teams to come in and clean up an area. When an area has jobs, housing, a police force, a government that listens to them then they are willing to reject groups like the Taliban and move on. But this requires thousands of troops, because you need to get troops on the ground to secure the areas and protect reconstruction teams.

And the threat of conventional war remains high. As I mentioned it is likely that the West will fight either North Korea, or Iran, possibly both. North Korea is extremely dangerous, skirmishing happens at the moment. Last November both sides exchanged artillery, killing 10 people and injuring another 20. In March of last year North Korea torpedoed and sank a south Korean warship killing 46.

I think it's ludicrous to suggest that the military is idly sitting by. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have stretched Western Forces to the limit and yet there remain other threats that also require their attention.

As for controlling the Mexican drug war, should U.S troops be deployed, they'd hardly need retraining. the drug war in Mexico is not a police matter, but has rapidly turned into an out of control civil war. Their skills as combat troops would be needed more than ever.

[Giantevilhead]

not in Catholic Charities....the hospitals in the Catholic Health System are top-notch.......if the taxpayers could keep more of their money they could donate enough to Catholic Charities and they'd be able to provide basic health care to the needy at little or no cost

and Catholic Charities has been very successful in helping the needy....if it's one thing us Catholics do well it's charity

Charitable donations are tax deductible.

Catholic Charities have been effective in helping people in poverty but it has not been effective in helping the homeless. This is not an issue of the people who are down on their luck but are eventually able to support themselves. This is an issue of people who need constant supervision of some form to facilitate social interactions and more importantly, to ensure that they take their medications so they don't fall back into a downward spiral. There are at the very least 200,000 such homeless individuals and about an equivalent number of prison inmates who need that kind of care.

[Rudy Pena]

If you are tackling the border crossing of a few Mexicans as a soldier issue and not a crime issue and that involves shooting at those Mexican nationals, then yeah, you are committing an act of war against Mexico, aren't you? That's what happens when you use soldiers to do the work of police - you make a war out of it. Of course there's a war in Mexico - who claimed there wasn't? You seem to have a habit of that - making claims out of things no one's claimed. The topic at hand was using soldiers to do the work of police. It's as difficult for Obama as it has been for every US pres, save Polk, who didn't mind the war part. I don't need to "try to grasp the fact", being well aware, but thanks for your condescending concern.

Like the law enforcement has done a good job. A boarder patrol agent shot and killed a boy while the boy was on Mexican soil and the agent on US soil.

So by your logic its ok for local and government officers to shot and kill people while they are on Mexican soil. But if a US soldier does the same, its a declaration of war on Mexico.

[Col.Foley]

Putting up pictures of soldiers carrying a coffin for emotional effect doesn't change the fact that there's no war really going on in the Middle East. Not that it diminishes the service or deaths of servicemen and women, but still, jmoz does have a point. We haven't been at war with any countries since 2003, and the concept of how we fight our enemies (especially when they're not states) needs to evolve. It might not be a bad idea to take some combat units and retrain them for more domestic issues, perhaps use them in conjunction with the National Guard to pacify the drug wars on the border.

We need to be great in both which is hard for nations to be and I do not think one has been able to do it yet. There is two types of warfare, hard and soft. The United States is the unquestioned masters in Hard warfare but we are much much weaker in soft warfare.

Though we are good in both but the advantage to Soft warfare, especially when we have faced it...in Vietnam and the war on terror... the one distinct advantage our enemies have now, and in the past, is that they do not care about their lives, the lives of their soldiers, or the lives of the collateral. They do not care. It is all a war of attrition for them. And they are all dying for the cause of their religious or ideological reasons.

So if we get really good in soft warfare we should not do it at the expense of hard warfare. Especially since most of our enemies that could threaten us with hardwarfare also think of things in terms of collectovist objectives, and that if 10 million people must die for the greater good, then they must die.

[s09119]

We need to be great in both which is hard for nations to be and I do not think one has been able to do it yet. There is two types of warfare, hard and soft. The United States is the unquestioned masters in Hard warfare but we are much much weaker in soft warfare.

Though we are good in both but the advantage to Soft warfare, especially when we have faced it...in Vietnam and the war on terror... the one distinct advantage our enemies have now, and in the past, is that they do not care about their lives, the lives of their soldiers, or the lives of the collateral. They do not care. It is all a war of attrition for them. And they are all dying for the cause of their religious or ideological reasons.

So if we get really good in soft warfare we should not do it at the expense of hard warfare. Especially since most of our enemies that could threaten us with hardwarfare also think of things in terms of collectovist objectives, and that if 10 million people must die for the greater good, then they must die.

The problem is that the moral high ground that's served America so well in soft power depends on being the top enforcer of things like the Geneva Convention. Never using the full extent of what's available to us in our dominance to show others that we want to rule alongside, not over, the rest of the planet. Breaking those conventions or going against the international (or just allied) community hurts us in that arena. Things like Iraq and Guantanamo really hurt our soft capabilities, and unlike hard power, it's not something you can just build right back up.

[Col.Foley]

The problem is that the moral high ground that's served America so well in soft power depends on being the top enforcer of things like the Geneva Convention. Never using the full extent of what's available to us in our dominance to show others that we want to rule alongside, not over, the rest of the planet. Breaking those conventions or going against the international (or just allied) community hurts us in that arena. Things like Iraq and Guantanamo really hurt our soft capabilities, and unlike hard power, it's not something you can just build right back up.

I am not entirely sure what you are talking about.

I think you are purely talking about the moral implications of things and...in regards to the Geneva Conventions. Which some of them I like and others I roll my eyes at. And you are also talking about the morality of individual wars. Which leaving the moral implicatiosn behind hard and soft warfare has nothing to do with the moral and the justifications going into them.

However though on the other hand you might have a point....but I think that the United States, especially giving our fiscal and domestic and very pressing security concerns here at home we cannot be the World's enforcers. We should not be the world's enforcer.

The United States as a military power can offer our allies and global stability two great advanatges. Our Naval and our Air power is pretty much unrivaled by any other military in the world. The United States needs to move from the dominant point man in any one of the dozens of placesa hot zone could develop, and into a supporting role. If someone attacks our allies we can offer them our naval and air forces, and our special forces, support them, and leave them to do most of the ground warfare.

The one area that really needs to be updated in the future though for American warfare is the Constitution though, but that is a debate for another post.

[s09119]

I am not entirely sure what you are talking about.

I think you are purely talking about the moral implications of things and...in regards to the Geneva Conventions. Which some of them I like and others I roll my eyes at. And you are also talking about the morality of individual wars. Which leaving the moral implicatiosn behind hard and soft warfare has nothing to do with the moral and the justifications going into them.

However though on the other hand you might have a point....but I think that the United States, especially giving our fiscal and domestic and very pressing security concerns here at home we cannot be the World's enforcers. We should not be the world's enforcer.

The United States as a military power can offer our allies and global stability two great advanatges. Our Naval and our Air power is pretty much unrivaled by any other military in the world. The United States needs to move from the dominant point man in any one of the dozens of placesa hot zone could develop, and into a supporting role. If someone attacks our allies we can offer them our naval and air forces, and our special forces, support them, and leave them to do most of the ground warfare.

The one area that really needs to be updated in the future though for American warfare is the Constitution though, but that is a debate for another post.

Soft power depends almost entirely on how others perceive you. If you break the moral codes held by your allies, your ability to mobilize them begins to erode. If you routinely ignore the wishes or codes of the international community at large, your ability to use soft power to promote your agenda likewise erodes. That's all I'm saying.

Call me a regular old Elizabeth Weir

[Col.Foley]

Soft power depends almost entirely on how others perceive you. If you break the moral codes held by your allies, your ability to mobilize them begins to erode. If you routinely ignore the wishes or codes of the international community at large, your ability to use soft power to promote your agenda likewise erodes. That's all I'm saying.

Call me a regular old Elizabeth Weir

I think once again we are thinking of different things and missing our definitions.

First off since it is so much easier lets define hard warfare. hard warfare is generally just two armies and militaries fighting eachother pretty directly and just going out in the open field and flinging the biggest and the best and the most at something and at one another. Like World War 2 and probably the Civil War.

Soft warfare is more about guerilla, and atrition, not hitting someone directly, and infact hitting them indirectly. Like blowing up a shopping center and then blaming it on the good guys or what have you. The enemy, in other words, does not follow the ettiquette of war, and as long as you have people to do it and oyu do not care who dies and how many dies in the process it is truly lethal tactics.

[s09119]

I think once again we are thinking of different things and missing our definitions.

First off since it is so much easier lets define hard warfare. hard warfare is generally just two armies and militaries fighting eachother pretty directly and just going out in the open field and flinging the biggest and the best and the most at something and at one another. Like World War 2 and probably the Civil War.

Soft warfare is more about guerilla, and atrition, not hitting someone directly, and infact hitting them indirectly. Like blowing up a shopping center and then blaming it on the good guys or what have you. The enemy, in other words, does not follow the ettiquette of war, and as long as you have people to do it and oyu do not care who dies and how many dies in the process it is truly lethal tactics.

Oh, see the definitions I'm using are hard power (military force, largely) and soft power (diplomacy, espionage, economics, etc.)... You're talking about symmetrical and asymmetrical warfare, gotcha. Yes, talking past one another can be very difficult haha.

[Col.Foley]

Oh, see the definitions I'm using are hard power (military force, largely) and soft power (diplomacy, espionage, economics, etc.)... You're talking about symmetrical and asymmetrical warfare, gotcha. Yes, talking past one another can be very difficult haha.

This seems to happen often with us. We look at the world differently.

And I heard this definition from Wedge Antillies in one of the New jedi order books.

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

And I heard this definition from Wedge Antillies in one of the New jedi order books.

Oh dear, probably not the best place to go for definitions on warfare. Looking at tactics involved there are numerous descriptors, we have symmetrical and asymmetrical warfare, and conventional (standard armies fighting)and unconventional (guerrillas, terrorism) warfare. However an asymmetrical war is not necessarily an unconventional war, it simply means the two sides are not equal in military power. What complicates matter further is that often wars cannot simply be defined as conventional or unconventional. Sure some are easy, the Gulf war in 91 was a conventional war, the Troubles in Northern Ireland was an unconventional war. Frequently though the boundary gets blurry. In Vietnam for example you had the Vietcong carrying out unconventional Warfare, but the North Vietnamese Army carrying out offensives such as Tet, clearly Conventional Warfare. In Afghanistan it depends on the province. In many the Taliban have been reduced to unconventional warfare, IED's, snipers, suicide bombers and the like. Over the border in Pakistan it's arguably conventional warfare, at one point during a Taliban offensive they were only 60 miles away from the capital, Islamabad. At many times in Afghanistan there has been points when the fighting has been conventional. During 2006-2007 British forces at their base in the town at Sangin found themselves under siege, the Taliban controlled the entire town, launched multiple assaults, blocked them in and the troops in the base could only be resupplied by helicopter. The Taliban in that situation actually outgunned the troops in the base, they had more men and far more artillery.

Wars change in tactics, often at a whim, conventional and unconventional forces can fight side by side.

As for "being the world's enforcer" that's a price that comes with being the global superpower at the moment. Should the U.S wish to retain its place as the major power in the world, it needs to be able to continue to flex its muscles. Obama is already seen as weak on the world stage, countries are turning away from the U.S, and looking to other nations. The U.K recently signed a major defence treaty, not with the U.S, but with France. There are serious concerns within the UK that while we have supported U.S security concerns, we will not receive the same support when it comes to important area of UK security such as the Falkland Islands. Our companies are moving away from the U.S and looking to new markets such as India. A withdrawal by America on the world stage will simply send the signal that it is weak, it's allies will move away (as they already are), and counties such as China and India will take this as a single that they can flex their own muscles.

[s09119]

A withdrawal from world affairs would be bad, yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean we can't scale back our operations in some places. Doing everything, everywhere, just because we think it'll make us look better is a terrible mantra. We need to realize that we have limits, particularly in a global recession.