Invasions S. Korea & Taiwan during distraction? 2) Bin Ladin more typical of Billioniares than of Moslems
Dick Eastman
Korea's Kim Jon Il needed to make their moves against
Taiwan and South Korea, and just what the Establishment
needed to get away with breaking their agreements.
Bin Ladean is also an international billioniare and
his arrogance and his willingness to use his wealth
to reshape the world according to his own interests
and prejudiced into world order acceptable to him,
regardless of how many little people get hurt -- is
pure AngloAmerican billionaire globalist style. Bin
Ladin is much closer to investment bankers of
Wall Street, Frankfurt and the City of London than
his is of the poor masses of Moslems crushed by
debt, hoping to stay fed and obtain a better pair of
shoes than of remaking the world.
In fact that is why when our billionaire drug-money
laundering Big Finance elites and our Afgan-oil-and
pipeline coveting corporate Big Business elites
wanted someone to frame who would be believable
they chose Bin Ladin.
Who really has the capacity to brainwash and control
teams of Islamic Hinkleys and McVeighs but the
people who have hijacked the American mind with a
combination of Madison Avenue and high-tech Pavlov?
Lots of profit and power have been created and shifted
here, all to the investment-bankers, oil companies, war
profiteers, Arab haters, Israeli "Leibenstraum" Nazis
Mossad and the CIA (getting twenty billion dollars
with no strings attached except: "Make the bad terror
monstor go away!"
Get the picture?
Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
Every man is responsible to every other man.
.===========
To: The President of the United States of America
Washington, D.C.
Sir:
We are fast learning new meaning of those words
from our great revolutionary war: "These are the times
that try mens souls." The weight that has been suddenly
been thrown upon you, Mr. President, of unprecedented
terror unleased on our shores reminds not a few citizens
of what Lincoln bore when Fort Sumpter was first fired
upon in 1861. Doubtless, when you can find a moment
in this national emergency to reflect upon the less direct
ramifications of this act, you must feel that further loss
of so much the opportunity, in terms of the necessary time
and energy this crisis absorbs, that could have been used
to attain the many of the great reforms you and your able
administration intended to accomplish. I have three daughters
and a love of all children, and so I too was anticipating
this great good and now feel the loss of it to terror.
Mr. President, I am completely convinced that the Taliban were
not responsible for terrorism that has cost so many American
lives in New York, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania. I am
also convinced that you and the American people are victims
of a frame-up by the powerful international drug cartels who
seek both to destablilze the United States and your Administration
and to destroy the Taliban because of their role in acting upon
moral religious motives to erradicate the opium crops grown by
the drug lords of northern Afganistan that supply
the Chinese triads working through the People's Liberation Army
transnational corporation and drug cartel that furnish the world with
opium and heroin. The Taliban merely got in the way of this great
flow of wealth within the great and perverse international system of
anracho-capitalist free trade. I also am convinced by long study,
that the CIA has many renegade agents whose heads have been
turned by the temptation of the big money available in the two -
trillion-dollar-a-year global drug trade. And finally, I believe that
our great investment banks -- some of the most influential people in
this country -- have become accomplices in this trade through
their laundering of untold billions in drug revenues, most of it then
invested in Communist China in new high-tech factories feed by
cheap Chinese labor -- putting honest businessmen out of business
all around the world.
Mr. President, may I add that I am convinced that your faith in
Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior is genuine. I share that faith
with you, though flawed and falling short in many ways.
Mr. President, believing the Taliban to be an organization that
exists to free a large section of the world for genuine freedom
to worship the one true God of their ancestors and to free their
people from economic hardship resulting from serious flaws
in our modern system of globalization and unregulated international
trade and finance by a few billionaires hostile to Arabic culture
and Islamic morality (which opposes exploitative usury etc.),
and knowing them to be innocent of the terror of which they have
been accused, I have decided to exercise my political freedom
to associate with any political cause or set of ideas I personally
deem just, good and appropriate.
I am announcing to you now, effective immediately, my joining,
as a continuing pacifist and as a patriotic American, this International
group for the curtailment of unjust economic practices and the
systematic persecution of Arabic states and Islamic peoples.
I have no contact with members of the Taliban and I know of
no sympathizers with this organization that I realize is much hated
in this country right now because of the disinformation that blames
the terror done by as yet unidentified others on these poor people
and their just cause.
My purpose, of course, is to be arrested and put in court where I
will have to be tried according to our laws. It is my hope that
my action will become known to the public and that through a
public trial it will become obvious to all that no one in the
United States government has any evidence whatsoever that
will hold up in our courts under our laws.
I do this to help you Mr. President. I do this to get your notice,
even as those around you press you to go to war with all of
the Middle East.
As an internet propagandist for populism and against globalization
I have said many unkind things about you and about people
close to you, occasionally knowingly without sufficient evidence
for such accusations to be responsible. But I confess those sins
now. I beg that you hear the merits of the Taliban case from
soneone other than Richard Perle or Paul Wolfowitz. The
hawks have your ear and so does Mr. Powell, the middle of
the roader, who seeks a war diplomatically conditioned so that
nothing valuable is upset. Mr. President, it is my hope and prayer
that when you have this dove in one of your cages, that you will
hear him too.
I am joining the Taliban, believing it to be an
organization working for justice and good in the Middle East
and I do so not believing that this organization is responsible
for the terror that has horrified the world.
May the our Lord and Savior Jesus Chirst continue to guide
you in your service to the Republic.
And please, for the sake of my family, be apprised that I am
not armed, that I do not believe in violence, and that I will go
with arresting officers peacefully without anger or hatred for
any man.
I am a part-time clerk at Blockbuster Video in Yakima.
I have the honor to remain,
Yours faithfully,
Dick Eastman
223 S. 64th Avenue
Yakima, Washington 98908
==========
La Jornada (May 19, 2001) has implicated the most powerful Establishment
banks in laundering and cultivating 'black money' from drug traffickers and
corrupt government around the world:
"There is a consensus among U.S. Congressional Investigators, former
bankers and international banking experts that U.S. and European banks
launder between $500 billion and $1 trillion of dirty money annually,
half of which is laundered by U.S. banks alone."
Globalization, unregulated international trade and finance generates, breeds
and supports the drug cartels. Soon the two institutions enter a
relationship
of mutualistic symbiosis (see def. below) and together enter a relationship
of parasitic
symbiosis on the rest of mankind -- the WTC/Pentagon hijack-suicide terror
frame-up is a particularly vivid example of this pattern, historical
examples of which
date back at least to the East India Company forcing Indian Opium on China
to extract that country's wealth and health under the direction of merchant
bankers in the City of London.)
symbiosis: living together in intimate association of two dissimilar
organisms, e.g., international investmetn banking and the international drug
cartels
mutualistic symbiosis: symbiosis in which both organisms gain fitness, .eg.,
international investment banking and the international drug cartels
parasitic symbiosis: symbiosis in which one organism gains fitness at some
expense to the other even though the GDP grows at 4 percent during sterile
booms, e.gs., international investment banking and Homo Sapiens (mankind);
international drug trade and Homo Sapiens.
endoksymbiont: a mutualistic symbiont that resides within the cells of its
symbiotic partner, e.g., international investment banking and the
international drug cartels
International investment banking has been coeval (of the same era, epoch),
and coextensive (extending equally in space, time, or scope) since the days
of
the English East India Company forcing Indian opium upon China to extract
that
country's wealth and health (see def. parasitic symbiosis, above) under the
doctrine of " international free trade" being superior to vulgar
nationalism.
<><><><><><><><><><><><>
we now know the US conveyed its full intent to invade Afghanistan
in July of this year...the fix was in.
we certainly know about the opium supply.
we also are aware of the pipeline needed to go through
Afghanistan to bring Caspian oil and gas out.
But we live in an age of deceit and disinformation and ruthless
manipulation by powerful amoral people.
If they kill Bin Laden in a limited action we will
never know if he was responsible or not; we will
never know if the real perpetrator got away with
mass murder, with all short-sell money, and with
whatever was on his agenda checked off.
Ever see an American "western" where the cowboy
outlaws disguise themselves as Indians when they
commit their crimes to drive settlers off their land
so they can buy it up cheap and profit from their
inside information that a railroad is going to be
built there? Gene Autry and the Lone Ranger
were never fooled. How about us?
You know about Afganistan supplying 80 percent
of the world's opium and you know that the Islamic
fundamentalists attempted to erradicate those
crops and you also know that most of the
$2 trillion in drug money is laundered through
the big investment banks that run this country.
Dick Eastman
Government
Are SOF's obsolete? (Page 1)
Raymond
Senior Member posted March 29, 2001 02:55 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Time for me to leap on the grenade. This subject (originally broached by
DB78) deserves to be discussed, but that thread has moved on to other
matters.
Before any of you start calling for my head, remember this: I am not casting
aspersions on anyone's ability, honor, training, or integrity. This is a
question of strategic value.
TERMS:
~ Overt Operation: A matter of public record. Everyone who has television
knows it happened, and who did it, though not perhaps all the details.
~ Covert Operation: Those in the know are aware it happened, and perhaps
how, but may not know who did it. Often subject to public discovery.
~ Clandestine Operation: No one outside the select even know it happened.
This is, by definition, limited to intelligence gathering activities.
~ Conventional Forces: The bulk of the services, performing traditional
missions on land, air and sea. Taking and holding of ground, physical
security, air superiority, maintaining lines of communication. On the
military side, this includes regular and elite formations.
~ Regular Formations: The broad categories of infantry, cavalry/armor,
artillery, combat engineers, etc...
~ Elite Formations: Essentially a Conventional unit, better trained and
equipped than Regulars. Frederick the Great's Grenadiers. Rifleman (as
opposed to Musketmen) in the Napoleonic Wars. Employed for particularly
dangerous or critical assaults, usually just before Regulars. Generally held
to include, but not limited to:
*US Marine Corps
*Royal Marines
*Most parachute or Airborne formations worldwide
*US Army Rangers (maybe, see below)
~ Special Operations Forces: Forces separate from the standard order of
battle, usually under centralized strategic command, operating outside the
normal spectrum or war. Trained and equipped in widely different fashion
than Conventionals. Generally considered to include, but not limited to, the
following formations:
*US Army Special Forces
*US Navy SEAL
*Royal Army 22nd SAS
*Royal Marine SBS
*Germany's Border Security Group 9 (actually a unit of the border police)
*US Marine Force Recon (maybe)
*US Army Rangers (maybe, see above)
Both lists are, for convenience, US-centric.
Special Operations: Rather a grab-bag term, covering a wide variety of
actions outside the normal military spectrum
*SAS operations in North Africa during WWII.
*T. E. Lawrence's Arabian operations during WWI.
*OSS operations in France during WWII.
*DGSE sinking of "Rainbow Warrior" in the 80's.
*MACV-SOG operations in Viet Nam, particularly training of indigenous
populations.
*Israel's hostage rescue at Entebbe.
*Egypt's unit 777 disastrous rescue in Greece
*SAS rescue at Iranian Embassy in London.
Current SOF's, particularly in the US, are trained and equipped at massive
per-capita expense, but it was not always this way. The early SAS, in
cooperation with the LRDG, had disproportionate effect at minimal cost the
British Army.
For convenience, essential categories of modern special operations can be
broken down thus:
1.) Cadre: training local/indig forces, usually in guerilla warfare
2.) Raiding: Disruption/destruction of high-value targets within unfriendly
territory.
3.) Rescue: Often a military operation in the rest of the world, the US
usually considers this a Law Enforcement issue, giving the FBI authority.
This is excepted where hostile foreign powers are involved.
BACKGROUND:
With the notable exception of equipping Afghan guerillas with Stinger
missiles, most US special operations of the past 30 years have been carried
out as a matter of political cover. Our 50 year face-off with the Soviet
Union produced a set of international tensions that required doing things
without it making the papers and embarrassing anyone. MACV-SOG operations in
North Viet Nam are a perfect example: it allowed us to act in the north
while maintaining the legal fiction that we were not "widening the war."
We and the Soviets fought a covert war for decades, crossing back and forth
over the borders between intelligence and military operations, clandestine
and covert. A great majority of it was through proxy, as in Viet Nam,
Afghanistan, Cuba, Iran, and most of South America. For differing reasons,
we both strove to hide our actions from the general public; even while
practically all the world's leaders knew what was happening.
As an example: say that the SAS raids an IRA training camp in Libya. The
Libyans know what happened, the Soviets know what happened, the IRA knows
what happened. All of them can surmise that the brits did it, because of
both the target and op methods. In the end, even that piece of information
doesn't matter, because the UK is a US proxy, acting against a Soviet proxy.
Everything important is already known to everyone who matters. The only
people kept ignorant are the general populations of the nations involved,
thus avoiding the dreaded "International Incident."
QUESTION
So, why continue? The USSR is dead, and "Global Communism" with it, holding
up in such strategically critical places as North Korea and Cuba. With it,
the global incineration standoff is over, and with it most of the need to be
nice to these people. Besides, it was never that effective to begin with,
because terrorists are like Doritos.
There is an alternative: In 1805 Lieutenant Presley O'Bannon lead a group of
US Marines and local mercenaries across 600 miles of desert to seize the
City of Derne, Libya. The US replace the Dey with a more cooperative
relative, in retaliation for piracy against US merchant ships in the
Mediterranean. This solved the local problem for some years, and again, put
a number of people on notice that we were not playing, and would not honor
false flags.
The most effective counter-terrorist action in recent history was Ronald
Reagan's bombing of Tripoli. While it caused a public outcry from the sort
of people unaccustomed to clear thinking, it put national leaders on notice
that they were, in fact, legitimate targets for retribution. Treating
terrorism as an act of war (or piracy) and attacking the only people who
matter: the nations that provide havens and training to the shooters.
Does the US have any further need of these expensive formations, and if so,
for what?
IP: Logged
Greg Detwiler
Senior Member posted March 29, 2001 05:54 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Raymond, why'd you leave out two of the biggest and best special forces?
Russia's Spetsnaz and Osnaz are both elite commando units, under the control
of the military and the KGB (or whatever they're calling it nowadays)
respectively. They even have the same mission, but against different
opponents. Spetsnaz conducts commando operations and terrorist strikes
against foreign enemies, Osnaz against internal ones. Mentioning Osnaz is
quite timely, because judging by the recent news, it looks like they're
blowing up Russian targets while pretending to be Chetchens again, just as
they did last time, in order to whip up public support for another
offensive.
IP: Logged
Raymond
Senior Member posted March 29, 2001 06:38 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
docbrian78
Senior Member posted March 29, 2001 08:41 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Ray: There is alot of emphasis on SpecOps these days and everyone wants a
peice of the budget pie for their own SpecOps. I do agree there is way too
much redundancy with all the branches, and a more common sense approach
could be made toward building viable SpecOp forces.
China, has their own SpecOps folks, that country with a billion plus people
in it that feels it's their destiny to be numero uno... When I was in Japan,
I happened to come across a news show, a Japanese 20/20, and they were doing
an show about Chinese officers school. Their officer candidates have to
maintain a working garden to grow their meals, unlike our spoiled blue-blood
institutions, anyway, at their graduation they don't parade around in neat
little uniforms and throw hats. They demonstrate their new skills. They each
go through and demonstrate and live fire a pistol, an AK47, and machine gun
on targets. From picking up an unloaded weapon to loading to firing, and
it's one event after another. Then the scarey part I watched was when these
guys assualted a mock up town, and how they all became Spidermen and went up
the sides of buildings like it was nothing. No ropes, just using each other
and hand/feet holds. Now keep in mind, these were just the PLA officer
candidates, not their SpecOp types.
We need our SpecOps, because our regular forces are too big and clumsy to
get into tight areas without waking the dead.
I hope you had a chance to watch TBS's Wargames last night. A unit of the
82nd and to assualt and rescue hostages from a town held by enemy forces.
Opfor had only small arms yet inflicted very heavy casualties upon this 82nd
AB unit. A good Seal/Delta platoon would've been alot better for that
mission. But there also lays the redundancy in SpecOps, who gets the call,
who gets the money.
IP: Logged
Lady Liberty
Moderator posted March 30, 2001 08:03 AM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
You know me I have to put my 2 cents in!
SOF are needed but that need has to be redesigned to fit a specific
strategic objective that is outlined with the problems at hand at any given
time.
[Raymond you should be happy I'm thinking of strategy first!]
I would rather see 1 SOF unit utilizing combined forces of our military, and
implimenting the maximum use of force against any and all leaders who have
or are posing a direct threat to our national security or interest.
NB: "our" not the UN's, in short restore restore our undiluted U.S.
sovereignty-this is a key point in having any SOF being effective.
Raymond you mentioned Reagan, and I believe he was not only justified but
acted correctly, in short he had the hootzpa to take the bull by the horns.
I'll use the following as an example to why an SOF Unit is needed:
Despite that bombing of Tripoli in '86 Gadhafi still believes,
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
"the streets of America will run red with blood" and "we consider ourselves
at a state of war due to the provocations of the U.S. 6th Fleet and the
continued actions of American politicians."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Clearly Gadhafi is a threat-he appears to be silent while building,
supplying any group that targets the US. As a result of this, the SOF should
go in [like O'Bannon] and remove him and the current government. And to hell
with public outcry!
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Despite the spread of democracy and capitalism, human nature has not
changed. It is still an unpredictable mixture of good and evil. Our enemies
may be irrational, even outright insane -- driven by nationalism, religion,
ethnicity, or ideology. They do not fear the United States for its
diplomatic skills or the number of automobiles and software programs it
produces. They respect only the firepower of our tanks, planes, and
helicopter gunships. -- President Ronald Reagan, May 15, 1993
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Because this is so true- a specific result oriented SOF Unit is needed -too
bad we don't utilize them!
[This message has been edited by Lady Liberty (edited March 30, 2001).]
IP: Logged
savoy
Senior Member posted March 30, 2001 09:36 AM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
I wish I could share your view that "global communism" is dead! You're
wrong, flat wrong.
I'll leave that for another day on the chance that I misread your posting.
The one aspect of your post that is incorrectis what seems to be your
understanding of the mission of the Russian Spetsnaz forces.
Those forces are still very much intact and considered operational.
This may seem argumentative, those aren't my intentions.
One can get dangerously close to conspiratorial arguments discussing the
Spetsnaz; there has been much written about its presence here "at home".
IP: Logged
mako803
Senior Member posted March 30, 2001 10:20 AM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Originally posted by Raymond:
[B]Elite Formations: Essentially a Conventional unit, better trained and
equipped than Regulars. Frederick the Great's Grenadiers. Rifleman (as
opposed to Musketmen) in the Napoleonic Wars. Employed for particularly
dangerous or critical assaults, usually just before Regulars. Generally held
to include, but not limited to:
*US Marine Corps
*Royal Marines
*Most parachute or Airborne formations worldwide
*US Army Rangers (maybe, see below)
[B]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
I won't pretend to speak for the rest of the services, but the Marines are
NOT better equipped than anybody! We are better trained, better lead, more
disciplined, more aggressive and more proficient at what we do. But we are
by no stretch of the imagination better equipped.
The Marines have consistently made do with what was at hand. Today we fly
helicopters that were designed and built in the 1960s. We will continue to
fly them out until 2020. Our jets (F-18 and AV-8s) are marginally better off
than our helicopters. They are the product of 1970's design and 1980s
manufacturer. Many of our tanks are for the most part "hand me downs", that
were no longer wanted by the Army. We actually had to fight the National
Guard before congress to get them. Our small arms are the same as used by
everyone else. So we are definitely not better equipped.
We are also not to be classified as Special Operations Forces. We are more
appropriately used as "shock troops" to establish forward port and airfield
facilities. Marines do have some limited Special Operations Capabilities as
may be evidenced in a MEU-SOC. But for the most part, the Corps exists to
ensure the U.S. can project power through amphibious insertion. This is a
big distinction from the Army's Rapid Deployment Force in that we can come
ashore with heavy armor and heavy artillery. This force multiplier greatly
enhances our combat punch over that which can currently be projected via air
insertion.
Respectfully
IP: Logged
mako803
Senior Member posted March 30, 2001 10:27 AM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
And more humble. Did I mention that we Marines were more humble too.
IP: Logged
Raymond
Senior Member posted March 30, 2001 11:17 AM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Dear Lady: That's the spirit!
The fact the the PRC or Russians have this or that is irrelevant, that
argument can be used to justify nearly anything. Define specific missions
please.
Mako: I'm well aware of the USMC's situation, but I'm working from the
highest level here, and thus painting with a very broad brush. As factually
correct as you are, I do not want to bog down in those details just yet. We
can argue equipment after we've decided what we want any given force to do.
[This message has been edited by Raymond (edited March 30, 2001).]
IP: Logged
mako803
Senior Member posted March 30, 2001 01:17 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Mako: I'm well aware of the USMC's situation, but I'm working from the
highest level here, and thus painting with a very broad brush. As factually
correct as you are, I do not want to bog down in those details just yet. We
can argue equipment after we've decided what we want any given force to do.
[This message has been edited by Raymond (edited March 30, 2001).][/B]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To what end are you pushing? Are you advocating the unification of all four
branches into a "purple" force? Or are you looking to consolidate the true
SOF's (Delta, Seals, etc.) into a single command?
IP: Logged
Raymond
Senior Member posted March 30, 2001 01:34 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
I'm not ready to go there. Back up and think strategy: What missions do you
want them to accomplish, that would not be better carried out by others.
Then we can draw the org chart.
IP: Logged
Lady Liberty
Moderator posted March 30, 2001 02:55 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Here's 1 specific mission for starters:
Remove Pyongyang!
We have the best of the Navy Seals-Army Spec Ops-Marines ect- they train as
one unit perhaps as a new branch of service.
[removing each branches own SOF]
Their specific duty is to remove any leader[s]who falls into the
classification of rogue-
Their missions are:
Justified via actual harm to Americans or our interests.
Targeted and Surgical if you will
Swift and very covert
finally- they are feared!
IP: Logged
Raymond
Senior Member posted March 30, 2001 03:58 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Neither Kim Jong Il or Khadaffi is a viable target for this sort of thing.
Both are surrounded by 100's of guards, in a country full of suspecious
xenophobes. The mission would be suicide for the shooters, and would have
about a 1% chance of success.
Then comes the fallout. Assassination is a very dangerous tool, and prone to
backfire under the best circumstances. It was banned in the country
primarily for practial reasons. Given that neither country has done anything
to us in quite some to, we would become the rogue state after such a thing.
And assassination is never covert.
Try something else.
[This message has been edited by Raymond (edited March 30, 2001).]
IP: Logged
mako803
Senior Member posted March 30, 2001 04:54 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Originally posted by Raymond:
I'm not ready to go there. Back up and think strategy: What missions do you
want them to accomplish, that would not be better carried out by others.
Then we can draw the org chart.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Peace time mission? War time missions? Or both?
IP: Logged
Raymond
Senior Member posted March 30, 2001 04:56 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
In essence, what is appropriate for the next 10-20 years. For practical
purposes, let's say peacetime, such as it is.
IP: Logged
mako803
Senior Member posted March 30, 2001 07:06 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Originally posted by Raymond:
In essence, what is appropriate for the next 10-20 years. For practical
purposes, let's say peacetime, such as it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Raymond,
In peacetime there is no need for SOF. Zero. Zip. Nada. The only practical
usage for such forces during peacetime operations would be counter terrorist
operations (i.e., hostage rescue). That is a mission best left to law
enforcement agencies. There is a disturbing trend to try and force todays
military to take on 'peace keeping' and law enforcement roles. We should
never confuse the two. I would be very very happy to never again do a drug
interdiction mission. If you want the CIA, FBI or ATF (God forbid) to have
SOF ability that is one thing. It is quite another to want the Delta Force
to go storming onto commercial airliners to free hostages or start raiding
crack houses. That being said, I will then state that SOF are absolutely
necessary because we have no clue when the next 'gun fight' will break out.
Identification of military targets in the next 10-20 years?! We will be
lucky to successfully identify opponents in the next three years. Alliances
around the world are being formed rapidly at this point in history. Nations
are constantly moving to secure new borders and new allegiances. We would be
foolhardy to believe we could identify who will be the political/military
threat of the next decade (but my personal money is on China by 2020). I
believe it was you who earlier posted a response discounting the Russians.
You may want to look at them again. Closely. After careful examination I am
thinking Trojan Horse.
You might want to consider a Moscow - Beijing alliance that coupled Russia's
impressive nuclear arsenal with China's unlimited manpower. What about a
China-India alliance. An Iran-Iraq alliance. A Russian-Pakistan-Iran
alliance. A N. Korea-Iraq alliance. Been keeping up with South America?
Might want to take another peek at that area. Americans have traditionally
ignored our own backyard. With the stroke of a pen we could again facing
cold war level military forces. It is not far fetched at all. In fact, we
now face not the Russian bear but a pack of wolves. Individually the wolves
are not much of a threat. Collectively, the are formidable. We are planning
for multiple regional battles, because the smart money is thinking that once
the U.S. commits to a ground war anywhere, then all bets are off and
everybody will bust loose. Lots of little despots running around out there
waiting for the world's self-appointed policeman to get occupied somewhere
else.
I read with great interest some of your early posts on the unit sizes being
allocated to potential adversaries. It is obvious that you are either well
schooled in the matter or a member of the military. However, I believe you
are using slightly "static" thinking. You are limiting your definition of
power projection to cold war thinking. What if we face an adversary who
refuses to stand up and fight? An adversary who attacks us from within and
at our facilities abroad using terrorist techniques, who assaults our
infrastructure, our commerce, and our computer systems from over seas. An
enemy who doesn't fight by the same rules of power projection that we do
(Bin Laden on steroids or a focused collective of Drug Lords). That would
indeed be a mission for SOF units. Low intensity military targets with
little risk of escalation.
But hey, let me get off this soapbox and give you a chance to respond.
Besides, my fingers are getting tired.
Respectfully,
IP: Logged
arjurg
Senior Member posted March 31, 2001 05:56 AM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Raymond: As usual, an excellent piece - a 'keeper' I think.
You posit the question about what America's strategy should be for the next
20 years. We cannot be in all places at all times (the wizzards during the
Roman Empire tried that 'strategy' and it didn't work).
We need to have a superior Intelligence program in place - I don't think we
do at the present time, do we?
I think that any future altercations will be of a Terrorist nature, it is
imperative that we know what the 'dangerous' nations are up to. By
'dangerous' nations I refer to Islam Fundamentalists. Even though poor by
western standards, the money for their terrorist activities is coming from a
concerted money-raising effort worldwide, probably even in the U.S.
Consider that the Irish Republican Army has received 'aid' from American
Irish - there is no possible way that the insurrection could have gone on
for so long without it. I lived in a town where the local Irish tavern was
raided and where guns bound for Ireland were found (in large numbers)...the
tavern is long gone.
Intelligence is vitally important to our well-being as a nation...we need to
know what we are facing and be prepared with the right kind of defense not
defense for defense sake only.
IP: Logged
Raymond
Senior Member posted March 31, 2001 06:22 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
I refer to actual strategic threats, not the annoyances of terrorism. Ugly
and tragic as the things done may be, they don't amount to a hill of beans.
Beyond that, there are better, more permanant ways, to combat terrorists.
Reagan's bombing of Tripoli is my best example. Terrorists are infinately
replaceable, the rogue states they NEED for support are not. The solution is
to make it un-fun for the national leaders who sponsor them. Khadaffi still
talks big, but has not actually done anything to offend us in quite some
time. Even dumb animals can learn. Bin Ladin has to live somewhere, and
dropping a MEU on him, with CNN coverage, would do far more to discourage
immitators.
As for hostage rescue, you're mostly correct. I think, however, that there
is one role for military personnel to play here: Rescue of prisoners in
non-permissive environments. Does this require a full-time Delta or SEAL
team? Not at all, those overblown battleships cost far more than they are
worth. Something more along the lines of HRT or SWAT, operating within
normal military formations. For this job I nominate both Marine Corps MP's
and the Army's 118th MP Company. This would, I think, be the solution for
the usual Embassy or Tourist Bus scenario.
Intelligence is, of course, key, but that has nothing to do with military
SOF's. Everything to do with CIA, NSA and the rest of the alphabet soup.
Any other uses?
IP: Logged
Lady Liberty
Moderator posted April 01, 2001 12:45 AM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Raymond-
Who said it had to be done in 24 hours? [I'm referring to Pyongyang or any
nation, or terrorist group]
And given the use of and acknowledgement of intelligence - the mission could
be planned well in advance, and all players in place prior to marching
in -so to speak.
You want specifics-and when given, seems you to lack any commitment or even
acknowledgement to them. I'll be honest I'm confused. Since when does an SOF
have to be hindered by the numbers of guards, [albeit taken into careful
consideration but none the less not impossible, and further more if the
objective is to retain/retake national interest who the heck cares what the
rest the of world thinks-after all we are talking hypothetically and above
all and perhaps more importantly with the best interest of our nation-are we
not?]
See- I find it difficult to discuss/debate this topic because too often we
[The USA] place way too much emphasis on what the "world" will think [-btw,
which is why we are no longer feared]. Assassination is, was, and always
will be a key element to protection of sovereignty and national interest.
And who said, [with a well structured thought out plan "we" would be the
ones doing the assassination?] It seems that history has taught us something
to consider:
There will always insiders greatly who want change-who in fact at one time
looked to the US for help
There will always be propaganda
There will always be those who are willing to sacrifice for good
Isn't the purpose of a SOF Unit to establish liberty and security?
I may be way off base, but it appears that you are under the hypnotic trance
of the UN -where the US must answer to them or to the world-sorry I'm not
there, nor will I ever be. If you want to protect America and our interest
then rogue nation we are, [and actually always have been]- for far too long
we have played the game of cat and mouse -and the time has arrived [once
again] for the US to stand tall and say enough!
You said that,
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
The solution is to make it un-fun for the national leaders who sponsor them
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
[referring to terrorist]
then let it be done- and to hell with public out cry! I truly believe the
outcry, of which you seem so preoccupied with, will only be squal lasting a
moment in relation to the longevity of freedom and liberty!
[This message has been edited by Lady Liberty (edited April 01, 2001).]
IP: Logged
GP
Junior Member posted April 01, 2001 12:58 AM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Raymond, there are a lot of little conflicts going on all over the world. It
is not unusual for a servicemen somewhere in the world (Liberia, Haiti,
Straigts of Malaaca, etc. to be shot at/shoot back. SOF is needed just as
much if not more for LIC as the other service components. Who knows we could
have another real war (Sadaam round 2) in a couple years.
IP: Logged
Raymond
Senior Member posted April 01, 2001 05:21 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
RESPONSES
Mako/DB78:
Seems I inadvertantly overlooked you a couple pages back. My apologies.
The PLA's spec ops capacity has nothing to do with it. They believe thay
have a strategic need, and so persue it. What we are deciding here is
whether we have a strategic justification. Imitation is not good enough.
As to the "wolf pack" I think you miss my point. I have no doubt we will be
in a conflict in the future, but no the global standoff that secrecy so
important. Once you're in a shooting war, it is no longer nescessary to hide
your activities. Our enemy knows you did it, and your allies are cheering
you on.
GP:
Personally, I believe that so-called LIC's are what we will spend most of
our time on for the next 10-20 years, but I see no place for SOF's in the
majority of these conflicts. We had discussed, in a since-closed form, Gen
Shinseki's new model army, and it's probable optimization for just this sort
of thing.
Prior to WWII, this is what the US Army and Marines, like the Royal Army,
spent most of their time doing. Rather well actually. With the exception of
training guerillas in someone elses country (occassionally useful) LIC is a
game for large numbers of relatively inexpensive infantry. Throw in some
mortars and observation aircraft, along with intel, civil affairs and
psyops. SOF's can play a periphrial role in some cases, but will not be
terribly to the strategic outcome.
Dear Lady:
I think you have, perhaps, an unrealistic picture of what SOF can do, and
ultimately what violence can accomplish. It's not magic, we cannot act with
impunity, and the number of guards in a place has ALWAYS mattered. A
battalion of Rangers might be able to fight their way thru, but getting them
to Pyongyang in the first place.. As for having the shooters staged ahead of
time, how do you propose to do that? North Korea is a xenophobic country
full of people that don't look like most americans. All of this supposes we
can fix his location well enough in advance to insert the right people,
which is unlikely at best. Dictators are very paranoid people by nature, and
NK is not a third-world playground where we can act with impunity.
Even presuming it works, what do we get for it? We will have committed an
overt act of war against a heavily armed nation, with long-range missiles
and allies nearby. You place inordinate faith in some unnamed resistence
within the NK government, but they would be the first ones executed if this
went down. Dictators, especially unpopular ones, are generally of a type.
That type is the only kind able to achive power in such an environment.
Unless we managed to kill the 100-odd top people, Kim Jong Il's replacement
would not be significantly different from him, and possibly far more
dangerous.
And remember, our political structure is far more vulnerable to this sort of
mischief than theirs.
Truthfully, I share your opinions of UN-style consensus terrorism. What I
refer to is the good opinions of the other civilized nations, and our
opinions of ourselves.
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
When in the course of human events, it becomes nescessary for one people to
dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to
assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal station to
which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect
to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes
which impel them to the seperation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Assassination is an act of war, and North Korea has done nothing to provoke
such a response. Doing such a thing would have us rightly branded as a
bully, the giant gone mad with it's own power. We would lose all moral
authority, becoming increasingly isolated from a world regarding us as a
dangerous lunatic with a knife. We would, quite frankly, be wrong.
Besides which, it's a waste of time. The NK government will come apart
within 20 years, after starving it's population into oblivion. We, and the
ROK will be there to pick up the pieces, a white knight to everyone around.
Strategy is a long-term game.
The purpose of SOF's, like any military or naval formation, is too kill
people and break things. Peace, prosperity and security are a hoped-for side
effect.
GENERAL
Sticking to "peacetime" for the moment, we have one possible mission:
hostage rescue. Normally considered an act of terrorism, the FBI has
jurisdiction under US law. In cases where their particular brand of legal
observance might be a hinderance, or where close coordination with military
forces would be called for, I would nominate the US Army's 118th MP Company
as the lead agency. Give them Delta's facilities (except demolish that
stupid bunker) and some of it's personnel, and let them handle it on an
as-need (not much) basis.
Anything else in "peacetime"??
IP: Logged
GP
Junior Member posted April 01, 2001 10:57 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Raymond, My respect for your knowledge is dropping. (You are still a smart,
ncue guy yada yada, but you seem to lack real world experience.) What is
your service record? Ever spend time in the operations planning section of a
major CINC?
IP: Logged
Lady Liberty
Moderator posted April 02, 2001 10:18 AM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Raymond
Do you want to make SOF Units a thing of the past? What's your solution or
hypothectical answer?
IP: Logged
Raymond
Senior Member posted April 02, 2001 03:32 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
GP: I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours. And what is a "major" CinC?
*Corporal of the Guard and Orderly: Marine Detachment, USS Midway. Sep
1986 - Aug 1988.
*Fire Team Leader: Lima Co/3rd Bn/2nd Mar. Sep 1988 - Jun 1989.
*Adjutant's Assistant: HQ, 2nd Mar. Jun 1989 - Dec 1989.
Dear Lady:
My adgenda is far more ambitious, and thoroughly unrealistic. The total
re-engineering of our armed forces for the actual threats and activities of
the next 20 years, SOF's are just part of the picture. I do not seek their
complete elimination, just paring them back to the roles for which they are
best suited.
What has happened in the last 10 years has been a scrambling for new
missions as the one's everyone held for 40 years ceased to exist. Because
few people, in Congress and the Pentagon, have the imagination to
contemplate missions outside the normal realm, SOF's have managed to hijak
much of the new priorities. "It's not tanks in Europe, so it must be a
special operation." seem to be the operant logic.
Thus we get Marines removed from carriers withe nukes, SEALs and the USCG
doing boardings in the Gulf, and SOF's carrying out tactical missions under
strategic command of their own CinC, rather than the local commander who
should be in control. And don't even get me started on Space Command and
Joint Foreces Command: one normally presumes that a command has forces to,
well... command.
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/almanac/almanac/organization/Combatant_Comma
nds.html
Meanwhile, parts of the army are still dragging their feet on the real NWO,
and refusing to move forward on making it fit the actual mission. And the
navy is insisting the SSN's and CVN's are the ideal platforms for littoral
fighting, while pushing doggedly ahead with DD21, which does nothing
especially well at great expense. The USMC is taking an axe to "non-shooter"
billets, and risks becoming another Army, while trying to assert it's
independence with new cloths. And it looks like we're going to buy more
useless B-2 bombers!!
Make no mistake, there will be more Kosovos and Somalias. The current crop
of Dems and Republicans both believe in intervention. But all this foot
dragging by various services insures that we will go into each new debacle
no better prepared than the last.
IP: Logged
Raymond
Senior Member posted April 03, 2001 06:34 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
GP: Are you there? I eagerly await your next volly.
IP: Logged
GP
Junior Member posted April 03, 2001 11:33 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Raymond, glad to hear we both served.
CINC stands for commander in chief. The Major CINCs are the unified
commanders of the major regional areas. They basically own all the military
forces in their area. I served with the European CINC. In addition, to
Europe, he had all of Africa and had hot sh** going on pretty much
constanlty. As an example, Schwarzkopf was the CINC for Central Command.
I'll show you mine! but we should try to keep this reasonably discreet and
obviously not share any classified info. There are a lot of trolls out
there.
Me: 1984-88 USNA
1988-93 fast attack submarines
1993-present various reserve assignments including in Europe during Kosovo
crisis.
IP: Logged
Raymond
Senior Member posted April 04, 2001 11:16 AM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
GP: I know what a CinC is, it the "major" part that I found odd.
Now that we've established out credentials, what part of my argument do you
find fallacious?
IP: Logged
GP
Junior Member posted April 04, 2001 11:26 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
There were some things you said about carriers that don't cick with me. The
requirements are different in different oceans. You understate the need for
carriers in a Korean War. The 1-2 carriers is a reasonable level for
peacetime in the Pac O. In a war, we would surge forces into theater. That
is common sense.
IP: Logged
Raymond
Senior Member posted April 05, 2001 01:42 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
In the event of war in Korea, we would probably move 1 from the IO to the
Pac, to keep an eye on the PRC, but that's really all that we would likely
need. Two carriers for the penninsula is quite sifficient, given that:
1.) The ROK can take care of itself.
2.) Land based air can do most of the work.
As for land forces, we already have most of what we need in place there. Fly
in another 1 or two brigade to get their gear from POMCUS, and that's all we
should be putting on the ground.
Let's get back to the subject of SpecOps, please. Can anyone propose another
mission?
IP: Logged
mako803
Senior Member posted April 05, 2001 03:03 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Originally posted by Raymond:
In the event of war in Korea, we would probably move 1 from the IO to the
Pac, to keep an eye on the PRC, but that's really all that we would likely
need. Two carriers for the penninsula is quite sifficient, given that:
1.) The ROK can take care of itself.
2.) Land based air can do most of the work.
As for land forces, we already have most of what we need in place there. Fly
in another 1 or two brigade to get their gear from POMCUS, and that's all we
should be putting on the ground.
Let's get back to the subject of SpecOps, please. Can anyone propose another
mission?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Raymond,
The ROKs are not quite as optimistic as you are about being able to take
care of themselves. Of the three standing ROK Armies they fully expect that
two will be destroyed in place just stopping a NK assault. That would leave
them with a single army to engage a heavily fortified and dug in NK. This
remaining ROK army will have been dealing with 40,000 in country NK SOF
forces so I expect the infrastructure and support mechanism to this army
will be in somewhat a state of disrepair. They will also have born the brunt
of any NK chemical skud attacks.
NK is a trap. No army will fare well invading it. It is mountainous to the
extreme. NK troops have been digging tunnels and defensive fortifications
for 40 years. They make the Vietnamese look like kids in a sandbox by
comparison. The ROKs would need us desperately in the event of an invasion.
Land based air will not be able to carry the load alone. The on station time
for F-15E would be pretty dismal after flying in from Japan. Of course there
is aerial refueling, but that is another logistical issue to deal with. In
order to win the ROKs would need on station close air support to sustain
their northern drive, not USAF strike eagles stationed an hour away in
Japan.
IP: Logged
mako803
Senior Member posted April 05, 2001 03:05 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Speaking of SOF forces. What do you make of the estimated 40,000 now living
and working in South Korea?
IP: Logged
Raymond
Senior Member posted April 05, 2001 08:17 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Ask me in the other thread. That's their SOF, not ours.
IP: Logged
mako803
Senior Member posted April 06, 2001 06:56 AM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Originally posted by Raymond:
Ask me in the other thread. That's their SOF, not ours.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Topic: Are SOFs Absolete?
IP: Logged
Raymond
Senior Member posted April 06, 2001 11:05 AM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
The topic header was deliberately inflamatory, to get the widest response.
My intended subject is US use of SOF's. However, due to popular demand, I
will discuss them in brief.
The NK and ROK make use of SOF's both during the truce period and in the
intended open war. Of the two, only the latter has any strategic value,
while the former merely annoys, much like the attackes within the DMZ.
Perhaps they do it as a way of keeping their people sharp, or of testing and
probing. They did similar things during the truce negotiations in the 50's.
The wartime use is quite sensible, part of their overall strategic plan.
Note also that the ROK has plans to inflict similar attentions on them.
Will it matter, ultimately? Not at all. Because their actual army, the
important parts with tanks and artillery, will get the snot kicked out of
them. SOF's can help, but they cannot win the fight. Further, the ROK has
devoted considerable assets to countering the threat, so I believe that the
net effect will be less than the NK hopes for.
While this serves as a useful example of SOF's in wartime, it must be
remembered that the NK has lost the crucial advantage of strategic surprise.
The ROK knows they are comming, is ready for them
Can we replicate this? Doubtful. While we could certainly field this sort of
manpower, we have had dubious success keeping this sort of thing under
wraps. Unless we were to recruit lareg bodies of Korean-decent spec ops
troops, we cannot infiltrate the north, and must rely on the ROK to do it.
This same problem applies anywhere else we might contemplate similar
programs. Americans tend to forget that most of the world is mono-racial,
and that we stand out even in Europe because of our better diet and hygine.
More problematical, SOF's engaged in mass sabotage are highly specialized
units. The Nations frequently pointed to as examples have an advantage of
built in plans, and the ability to dedicate forces to those plans, rather
than shifting them from one crises to another. We, also, could do this, if
we had a single enemy and a monolithic strategic plan for his defeat. We
lost this when the USSR colapsed.
Whatever SOF's we choose to retain, they will have to be far more broadly
applicable, with the attendant loss of operating efficiency.
IP: Logged
Raymond
Senior Member posted April 08, 2001 04:48 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
GP?? Mako? Greg?
IP: Logged
This topic is 3 pages long: 1 2 3
All times are ET (US)
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Hop to: Select a Forum or ArchiveList of Forums:News/Current
EventsPolitics/ElectionsForeign
AffairsBusiness/EconomyEntertainmentGovernmentComputers/InternetCulture/Soci
etyMiscellaneousConspiraciesModerator/Administrator's Forum (Private)List of
Archives:MiscellaneousComputers/InternetNews/Current
EventsCulture/SocietyPolitics/ElectionsForeign
AffairsBusiness/EconomyEntertainmentGovernment/ConstitutionConspiracy
Contact Us | NewsMax.com: America's News Page
© NewsMax.com All Rights Reserved
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a