Sirius99

If you want the best as far as SA, watch Fox. Not the editorial shows, but the actual news coverage.

Steely, you're usually on the level, but if you don't think CNN has an agenda, you're not looking hard enough . . . Cincy is on the money with the 1 against 5 comment. Fox has an agenda just as CNN, MSNBC, anf the big 3 networks do . . . It's easier for you to spot Fox's agenda, cuz you don't agree with it, just as it's easier for those of us that lean right to see the blatant bias of the other 5 . . . Forget Rachael Ray, who's the chick in your avatar...

Mandy Moore went to visit SnR in Seattle for her birthday.

One could argue quite convincingly that "leaders" are often the biggest of the idiots.

As long as they don't ban Diet Coke, I'm golden.

:)

:)

Not sure what you mean, but there is a big difference between how Fallon favors handling counter-insurgencies and how Petraeus does.

Correct. Joint command billets rotate among services, and no full-time replacement has been named as yet for CENTCOM. This has been portrayed as a political move because of friction between Fallon and Bush/Gates, but I hear it is more due to disagreements between Petraeus and Fallon regarding how to handle counter-insurgencies in Iraq and Afganistan. I guess Petraeus won.

SPLITTERS!!!

I'm registered with the People's Front of Judea.

C'mon Tom, those are obviously exceptions to the rule.

Since he ignored my previous post, I considered trying to provide a more detailed description of the difference between tactics and strategy, but thought better of it when it became clear he doesn't have any genuine interest in the facts. I commend you for trying Chef.

Golly, I just completed 9 graduate-level credit hours in National Security Studies from the USAF's Air University. I guess I should tell them all of their material was wrong because molson golden from TBD said so. They'll be so happy you've pointed out the errors of their ways... And to think I thought DC Tom was an exaggerator.

Intelligence doesn't work that way. It never "proves" anything. Intelligence analysis is an art which purports a "likelihood" or "confidence level" of a conclusion based on the information available at the time, which is always subjective at least in part.

No, terrorism is a strategy, not a tactic. The use of IEDs would be an example of a tactic to support the strategy. The terrorism definition is contained in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d). That statute contains the following definitions: The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country. The term "terrorist group" means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism. The U.S. Government has employed this definition of terrorism for statistical and analytical purposes since 1983. Given all of this information, it should be quite clear that terrorism is virtually never "local", unless you mean the target is the politics of one nation, which it sometimes is.

Interesting point, but I'd have to see the detailed numbers before I could agree or disagree. Well, government spending = wasteful is a tautology, no?

Darin, Darin, where are your math skills? Don't you know it's quite easy to see that blowing up a coutry that provides less than 5% of our crude oil has directly resulted in the increase in oil prices by 250% over the last five years? Maybe you need a refesher course on "new math".

True. We had approximately 60000 troops in the area for Operation Southern Watch et. al., and I've never seen those accounted for in the "cost" of the war. Still expensive no doubt, but it would be nice to see a breakout including estimates of what we would have spent anyway, which is the only way to see what the decision to invade has truly cost.

Maybe, but he could have told things like they are without phrasing it the way he did. To me, if he doesn't understand his own culture of political correctness, then that brings into qustion his ability to understand other cultures re: what to say and what not to say. Straight line? Maybe not, and maybe truly a mole hill. But with his strength in oratory, an unexpected mistake IMO.

Agreed, but I don't believe the average American citizen will ever develop that sort of understanding. I sort of agree, but what international resposibilities do we have due to our diplomatic, economic, and military strength? Certainly a dose of humility would be good especially after this administration's FU attitude, but I believe we have a responsibility to address international issues such as oppression. The question is how to do that without being perceived as imperialists.

Dipsh-t. Hey, you're right, I feel very constructive now!

Well I'm not a big fan of "I know you are but what am I" diplomacy.

Well I can't log in to my Berg account since the "crash", and I haven't bothered trying to figure it out. But I thought I better 'fess up in case you were holding back And by the way, nowadays it usually takes me at least two attempts to get right name when I'm addressing one of my three daughters, so I guess I'll have to just get used to more and more senior moments. Rest assured, though, I don't have any while I'm working on your national security assets. There's too much to type here, but it is certainly true that by the mere fact that we are there, some parts of our culture come with us. I don't think that is forcing culture on them, but I suppose the only ones who can really answer that are the Iraqis, and I suspect you'd get a variety of resposes there too, although it would be interesting to see that data. The problem the US has had IMO has been a complete lack of cultural awareness at the national and strategic policy making level. It's not that they haven't tried, but their efforts have been mostly disatrous. One small example - I read that shortly after Baghdad fell, guards at prisons in Iraq were instructed to put prisoners in sexually humiliating situations because the dopes in charge thought they would be taking advantage of the Muslim attitudes toward sex and it would facilitate intelligence-gathering. Of course it failed miserably, but it is a case of trying to use cultural differences as an advantage but completely missing the mark. So why is there so little cultural understanding? Mostly because the US govt does not employ anthropologists, who are the ones who really understand culture. The vast majority of anthropologists view working for the govt as selling out, and therefore have rejected any attempts by the govt to solicit their input. A sad statement, but unfortunately true. However, it is an issue that is now recognized, so in addition to the experience some are getting by actually being there an interacting with other cultures, there is now an emphasis on other types of cultural training. While that is no substitute for experience, it is at least a start. Finally, there has been much criticism of Rumsfeld for a lack of post-war planning, and some of it is warranted. However, in the run up to 2003, there was NO agency with official responsibility for planning activities related to reconstruction and stabalization. It should have been State, but the Office for Reconstruction and Stabalization within State did not stand up until just prior to the invasion in March 2003. By then, it was way too late. Who's fault is that? Ultimately, the President, and it resulted in completely inaccurate assumptions of the post-conflict enviroment treated as facts. The main assumption was that all the US had to do was topple Sadaam and the rest of the government and military would remain in place, sans the Republican Guard and a few high-level Ba'athists. Ooops! It is tragic to say the least that these lessons were learned in this manner and with this amount of loss of life, but there have been positive outcomes from the perspective of cultural awareness and counter-insurgency operations. Which is why the talk of war with Iran and NK ring hollow to me. Too many people have been burned by this even if they would never admit it in public. You are probably right that reality will trump rhetoric no matter who wins POTUS, but boy wouldn't it be nice to cut through all that prior to Nov?

Actually, I prefer a culturally-sensitive dialog resulting in a mutually beneficial compromise. But I do see how you love to argue, facts nonwithstanding.