And now: Syria

[Occhidiangela]

It is a collateral benefit, not an aim in and of itself.

Yep, I gotta agree with you there.

To call the NTC a 'wargme' is like calling a lawsuit a 'discussion.' :)

[--Pete]

Hi,

The flaw in it is that, according to some in the Army, the 1991 War in the Gulf was less difficult than the training they had to do to be prepared.

Perhaps war has become too bloodless. Accidents aside, the purpose of training does not include death or injury. The purpose of war does. And that makes the real thing a bit more critical -- it's for keeps.

--Pete

[Mavfin]

I think I was misunderstood. I was talking of the combat experience as a 'side-effect' benefit and in no way an aim or reason to go to war. But, I'm with Pete. You can bloodlessly train all you want, but real combat with real blood and real bodies and real screams is quite different from your "I'm dead" light flashing. It just allows us to once again to point to the big stick and perhaps not have to actually use it. A little O/T, but has anyone caught that the USS TR's nickname is 'The Stick'??

Again, I'm not glorifying war. Not at all. But if you're going to make war, you'd better be ready for what happens. I'm not even going to get into whether the reasons for going into Iraq were right or wrong. Too late. That's now history, so all the armchair strategists can discuss it ad nauseum, and it won't change a thing. Now, what happens to postwar Iraq is today's news.

And, I'll again state that Syria or any other country in the Middle East being attacked by the US at this time is, in my humble opinion, highly unlikely. Unless, of course, someone does something really stupid. Overt acts of war would be defined as stupid, I think. Words? Nah.

Now, North Korea reprocessing spent fuel rods is interesting, but that's a whole different situation, as that's right on China's borders, and any solution or action involving North Korea, will, by necessity, involve the Chinese in some way. My thought is that Kim Jong Il will get too big for his britches someday and piss off the Chinese. And will regret it. Then again, the Chinese may have him on strings now. I don't know. Last I knew, the Vinson group was cruising the Sea of Japan, so we're showing interest in it, but carrier diplomacy has been used as pressure for years.

[Occhidiangela]

. . . except perhaps in the minds of the 'sliver bullet' crowd. Even the no-fly zone enforcements of the past few years were not bloodless: when the anti missile radar HARM missiles, and sometimtes bombs, came flying inbound, I suspect that a few Iraqi fire control techs lost some pints of blood, if not worse.

I have absolutely no sense of how many Iraqi soldiers died in the past month. I am actually pleased to see that the Pentagon is not indulging in body count math, even when goaded by the media. But the blood is, or at least has been, flowing out there in the desert sands.

When a Tomahawk missile hits a building, the folks in it tend to get hurt, horribly hurt or killed. When an infantry squad engages soldiers shooting RPG's at them, blood flows, bodies get dismembered, people die. When a sniper shoots your platoon sergeant in the head, the red stuff sprays everywhere. War is no more bloodless than it ever was. Maybe it is the image of war that has been a bit 'bleached.' Over a hundred dead, and some five hundred wounded, American soldiers, airmen, Marines, et al are probably very much aware of how bloody modern war is, as are their buddies who have been spilling other's blood.

The 'bloodless' coercive methods, like asset freezes, embargoes and blockades, only go so far in terms of changing anyone's behaviour. Most likely, it is because it is not, as you so succinctly put it Pete, for keeps.

Now, someone will argue that the last two campaigns in Iraq exploited the aim of 'overwhelming the foe so that his will to fight breaks.'

That is not a new idea, it worked very well in may past wars and campaigns. That methodology, when it can be applied, results in more surrenders, fewer casualties, and less aggregate death and destruction. It seems that in some cases, such an approach was successful in Iraq, where large groups of soldiers either surrendered or simply quit, whereas in others it did not work. It still took a lot of stuff, and some people inevitably, blowing up to get the psychic effect to manifest itself.

I am not as eloquent as some theorists regarding the 'psychological breakdown' concept, but to get morale to break, death, destruction, and physical defeat have to be palbable and real, and the feeling that 'there is no way out' has to be induced. Even so, the Brit Wing Commander there at Cent Com pointed out that some Iraqi small unit commanders still practiced auftragstaktik as in: 'OK, I have not heard from higher HQ recently, the enemy is there. Fight's on, consistent with such ordes as I have received to date.'

While any number of folks think that there are bloodless ways, to include psyops and such, to induce 'C & C and will to fight breakdown,' it never reaches one hundred percent. There are always some who choose to fight, who choose to go down swinging, as well as those who choose to go away so that they may fight another day.

Which keeps the blood flowing a bit longer.

[--Pete]

Hi,

But I was addressing the (IMO stupid) notion that the training for the war was harder than the war itself. Maybe it was, in some ways for some people. Maybe those who said that were indulging in some machismo. But, for the dead, I think the actual war might have been harder. Did anyone ask them?

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

*Dedicates a morning to reviewing reading comprehension skills* :)

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

NYTimes article

I had thought that with the amassed military in the Middle East, N. Korea would have been placed in the diplomatic washing machine and put on the "stall" setting. Apparently (to the surprise of no one posting here ;) I was dead wrong.

So! Round Two. Powell's State Dept vs. Rumsfeld's Defense Dept. once again.

Just days before President Bush approved the opening of negotiations with North Korea over its nuclear program, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld circulated to key members of the administration a Pentagon memorandum proposing a radically different approach: the United States, the memo argued, should team up with China to press for the ouster of North Korea's leadership.

(*checks the Wolfowitz policy original draft* Ah. Right. N. Korea was right up there with Iraq in the recipe. I misread about Syria. Syria comes during the same timeframe as Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. My mistake.)

White House officials say a change of government in North Korea is not official administration policy — and some suggest that the secret memorandum was circulated for discussion among high-level officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, and may not represent Mr. Rumsfeld's view. Mr. Rumsfeld's spokeswoman, Victoria Clarke, said today that the defense secretary completely supported the president's diplomatic strategy for disarming North Korea.

(Sure you do, Don... as long as the Strategy is your's...)

Mr. Powell's approach, officials familiar with his thinking say, is to offer North Korea assurances that the United States is not trying to undermine its government, but to make clear that until the nuclear programs are dismantled, the country will get no aid and investment. Mr. Powell received final approval for his approach in a meeting with President Bush last week, a session Mr. Rumsfeld did not attend.

Isn't the first time Powell has pushed for his methodology in a closed doors meeting. I believe it was that Methodology that managed to get Bush to go to the UN re: Iraq back in the Summer/Fall of last year: Powell asked for a private dinner with Bush, Conde Rice and himself. 'Course, that was back before Ms. Rice painted her feathers to Hawk colors.

Interesting times... interesting times, indeed.

[Occhidiangela]

It has been so since about 1953.

My only additional comment is: if anyone attempts to apply a cookie cutter to policies in Asia and the Middle East, they miss the point. The regional security picture in Asia is a different kettle of sushi than the Mid East regional picture.

Each case, in any event, is itself unique, with its own history, itw own character, and its own list of players. Applying the 'WMD/NBC' sticker to it in an attempt to make cookie cutter policy easier is reductionist, and dangerously reductionist. I suspect that is the substance of Secretary Powell's position. Note that South Korea is not in the LEAST bit interested in pre-emptive policies: they gotta live in that neighborhood, and they can't if Seoul is turned into rubble within 48 hours by conventional methods! :) Deep Kimche indeed, and hence a need for a long term and well agreed approach: the risks are different, hence the policies must be tailored to that reality.

OBTW: Two 'not quite simultaneous' Major Regional Contingencies has been a security goal for a long time, (back to Secretary Aspin's 'Bottom Up Review') even if some think that such a posture holds quite a bit of risk as a policy when done 'on the cheap.' It is only viable if each 'contingency' is undertaken with considerable support from allied nations. 'Going it alone' is not a viable policy option. Anyone who pretends that it is simply does not understand the problem.

Edit: Grr, this got left out.

But by midday Friday, American, Japanese and South Korean officials said that when read in the original Korean, the statement said that North Korea was poised to begin producing plutonium, not that it had done so. Today the White House said it was consulting with its allies about whether to go ahead with the talks, scheduled to begin Wednesday.

Consulting is a nice nebulous term. :) My experience tells me that Japan, China, South Korea, among others, are not pushovers! We shall see what the consultation process leads to. :)