Americans do pre-emptive strikes well

zoofer

Council Member
Dec 31, 2005
1,274
2
38
Americans do pre-emptive strikes well
It's everything 'post-emptive' that they do wrong, as an exhaustive new book shows
Lorne Gunter
The Edmonton Journal
Sunday, March 19, 2006
There has been a lot of gnashing of teeth since the White House released an updated U.S. national security strategy on Thursday.
The cause of the grinding and griping? With the third anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq fast approaching (March 20), American planners insist pre-
emptive military strikes remain a "sound" option whenever a rogue state threatens the United States with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
"We do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack.
"When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize."
How, the critics have asked, can the Pentagon and White House stick with the doctrine of pre-emption when their pre-emptive strike against Saddam Hussein and Iraq has been so unsuccessful?
The truth is, the Americans do pre-emption very well. Their pre-emptive assault on Iraq was a spectacular success -- just 20 days from beginning to end.
It's "post-emption" they have trouble with.
In a fascinating and exhaustive new book, Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq, Michael Gordon and Gen. Bernard Trainor argue that the White House and Pentagon got nearly everything about the invasion right (except perhaps the reason behind it -- weapons of mass destruction), but have done almost everything since wrong.
Gordon, the New York Times' chief military correspondent, and Trainor, a retired Marine Corps general who has been a media analyst and now teaches at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, point out flaws and glitches in the way the invasion was planned and carried out. But those were mostly minor.
They reserve their most stinging criticism for the inconclusive and ongoing occupation: too little thought to post-war reconstruction, too few soldiers to secure a peaceful occupation, a slow response to looting in Baghdad and a failure to restore civil order, too much confidence in the Iraqi people welcoming coalition forces as liberators, no backup plans when initial expectations proved wrong, naivety about the depth of hatred between Shiites and Sunnis, and not enough emphasis placed on closing Iraq's frontiers against an influx of insurgents and terrorists, principally from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Jordan.
Even before U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki was publicly castigated by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, in the spring of 2003, for recommending "several hundred thousand troops" would be needed to win the war and the ensuing peace (Shinseki called for 380,000), Rumsfeld had decided on sending far fewer. Prior to 9/11, Rumsfeld had largely busied himself with reforming the American military, making it leaner and more capable of rapid reaction. When the war on terror presented itself, he saw an opportunity to put his theories into action.
Just four days after the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, when President George W. Bush's closest war and security advisers convened at Camp David to plan a response, Rumsfeld was already advocating Afghanistan and Iraq as targets, with small forces that could slash into the hearts of each country, win quickly, turn over governance to domestic leaders and withdraw. When Gen. Greg Newbold, then Joint Chiefs of Staff deputy director of operations, explained that a force as large as 500,000 might be needed in Iraq, and for several years, Rumsfeld shot him down, foreshadowing the later attack on Shinseki.
Cobra II is far from a polemic. And on post-war realities, it is a bitter pill for the war's planners and supporters.
But buried among the level-headed critiques is this gem that undermines the case of anti-war types who insist "Bush lied" to get the U.S. into war, that he knew Iraq had no WMDs but maintained it did anyway to justify invasion: "The Iraqi dictator was so secretive and kept information so compartmentalized that his top military leaders were stunned when he told them three months before the war that he had no weapons of mass destruction, and they were demoralized because they had counted on hidden stocks of poison gas or germ weapons for the nation's defence."
Saddam lied about Iraq's WMDs, not Bush.
The White House was clearly wrong about WMDs. It may even have been guilty of hearing only what it wanted to hear from its own intelligence agencies and prematurely dismissing the reservations of a minority of analysts who doubted the weapons claims.
But it wasn't deceitful.
Saddam had fooled nearly everyone, including the men closest to him.
The French, German, British, Russian and Chinese intelligence services all believed Saddam had WMDs, just as the CIA and other U.S. departments did (with a few exceptions, such as former State Department intelligence director Greg Thielmann and former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who have since attracted cult status among the war's opponents).

Gordon and Trainor estimate that far from being a threat to the U.S., Iraq wasn't even a threat to its neighbours. Saddam was maintaining a elaborate WMD ruse only to solidify his domestic grip and frighten away foreign enemies.
But you know what they say about hindsight.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/f...=b18995e0-e562-4a56-8449-b68cacc884de&k=26438
Watchout Iran.
 

Hank C

Electoral Member
Jan 4, 2006
953
0
16
Calgary, AB
makes sense.....now the only dilema is whether or not to use tact nukes. Yea they will get the job done, but then the US has to answer to the rest of the ungrateful world...especially at a time when any action taken by the US be it for the better or worse, will be scrutinized....I say f**k it, Bush has already been tarnished in the rest of the world so if need be there should be a preemptive strike...

should we send in that hans blix fellow again???
 

zoofer

Council Member
Dec 31, 2005
1,274
2
38
There is no need for tactical nukes unless they employ biological and chemical weapons in America.
The USA has conventional bunker busters that will pucker the scrotums all across the Middle East
 

cortezzz

Electoral Member
Apr 8, 2006
663
0
16
america
has failed in iraq
it will fail in iran
it will spend more and more money in futility
going more and more into debt
it will become more oblivious to its reckless stupidity

the world will be more and more convinced of its depravity
the bunker busters
are deilvered from cockpits 1 mile up
they kill with impunity
without even breaking a fingernail

delivered from cockpits by
slimey cowards
pure baby killing cowards of slime
 

annabattler

Electoral Member
Jun 3, 2005
264
2
18
For goodness sakes !!!
The United States itself owns the largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction,of chemical weapons,of "mini" nuclear weapons.
Just which nation provided chemical weapons and the like to Iraq when Iraq and the U.S. had "friendly" relations?
Just which nation provided weapons to the Taleban,during their fight against the Russian invasion?
And just who has given the United States the power to make decisions that affect the whole world,without any collaboration,discussion or thought as to future impacts?
Iraq continues to be an ill-thought out campaign...it is on the verge of civil war(yet another oxymoron),and its' people are worse off(in terms of their daily lives,their lack of infrastructure,their inability to walk their streets safely)than they were under the "evil" Saddam.

The United States has opened a can of worms and now can't get it closed.
 

cortezzz

Electoral Member
Apr 8, 2006
663
0
16
yes--- the slimey right wingers opened a can of worms

yes--The US are the saddamites

yes --the Us are the talebanites

yes- they are incompetent

yes- they are hypocrites
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Re: RE: Americans do pre-emptive strikes well

cortezzz said:
yes--- the slimey right wingers opened a can of worms

yes--The US are the saddamites

yes --the Us are the talebanites

yes- they are incompetent

yes- they are hypocrites

Oh, what BULLSHIT!

The Americans supplied spare parts and munitions to Saddan during the Iran-Iraq war to the tune of less than $20 million total. No chemicals or WMD components.

France Germany and China sold arms to Iraq during the same time worth around $15 BILLION. Most of the chemical weapons stuff came from GERMANY.

The Mujaha'den in Afghanistan were supplied with cash and small arms by the CIA when they were fighting off the Russians. The Russians were so nasty in Afghanistan almost 1/4 of the population fled. The american contribution to the resistance was greatly significant only when they supplied light SAMS (Stingers) to the Afghans, who were being slaughtered by Soviet air. The story here, and the shocker, is how little thanks they got from those they helped.

Incompetent? Well, they certainly are having their problems in Iraq.......but their big problem is they are NOT willing to use the apparatus used by Saddam to keep the peace. If they were as monstrous as you lefties like to claim, Iraq would be a peaceful place. The problem is the US is policing Iraq, not occupying it.This is to their credit. Whether or not they fail remains to be seen.

Hypocritical?

GEEZUZ!

Iraq has stated it WILL attack Israel with nukes.

I suspect a nice mushroom cloud over the only democracy in the Middle East would make the lefties leap with joy.

Who are the hypocrites?
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Only twenty million you say?

Given all the indignant neoconservative "outrage" over the financial misdeeds arising from the UN's socialist oil-for-food program during the 1990s, when the UN embargo was killing untold numbers of Iraqi children, one would think that there would be an equal amount of outrage over a much more disgraceful scandal - the U.S. delivery of weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein during the Reagan administration in the 1980s.
After all, as everyone knows, it was those WMDs that U.S. officials, from President Bush and Vice-President Cheney on down, ultimately used to terrify the American people into supporting the invasion and war of aggression against Iraq, a war that has killed or maimed thousands of innocent people - that is, people who had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington.
In an October 1, 2002, article entitled "Iraq Got Germs for Weapons Program from U.S. in '80s," Associated Press writer Matt Kelly wrote,
"[The] Iraqi bioweapons program that President Bush wants to eradicate got its start with help from Uncle Sam two decades ago, according to government records that are getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war against Iraq. "



link
 

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
42
48
SW Ontario
zoofer said:
There is no need for tactical nukes unless they employ biological and chemical weapons in America.
The USA has conventional bunker busters that will pucker the scrotums all across the Middle East

I suspect Iran has a pretty good idea of the capabilities of bunker busters, which is likely what they're preparing for here:

New satellite imagery indicate Iran has expanded its uranium conversion site at Isfahan and reinforced its Natanz underground uranium enrichment plant against possible military strikes, a U.S. think tank said.

link

Edited to fix link. #juan.......Moderator
 

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
42
48
SW Ontario
#juan said:
...After all, as everyone knows, it was those WMDs that U.S. officials, from President Bush and Vice-President Cheney on down, ultimately used to terrify the American people into supporting the invasion and war of aggression against Iraq

No need to prove or cite what everyone knows, right?
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
I did provide a link. If you didn't read it, I can't help you.
 

cortezzz

Electoral Member
Apr 8, 2006
663
0
16
Re: RE: Americans do pre-emptive strikes well

Colpy said:
cortezzz said:
yes--- the slimey right wingers opened a can of worms

yes--The US are the saddamites

yes --the Us are the talebanites

yes- they are incompetent

yes- they are hypocrites

Oh, what BULLSHIT!

The Americans supplied spare parts and munitions to Saddan during the Iran-Iraq war to the tune of less than $20 million total. No chemicals or WMD components.

France Germany and China sold arms to Iraq during the same time worth around $15 BILLION. Most of the chemical weapons stuff came from GERMANY.

The Mujaha'den in Afghanistan were supplied with cash and small arms by the CIA when they were fighting off the Russians. The Russians were so nasty in Afghanistan almost 1/4 of the population fled. The american contribution to the resistance was greatly significant only when they supplied light SAMS (Stingers) to the Afghans, who were being slaughtered by Soviet air. The story here, and the shocker, is how little thanks they got from those they helped.

Incompetent? Well, they certainly are having their problems in Iraq.......but their big problem is they are NOT willing to use the apparatus used by Saddam to keep the peace. If they were as monstrous as you lefties like to claim, Iraq would be a peaceful place. The problem is the US is policing Iraq, not occupying it.This is to their credit. Whether or not they fail remains to be seen.

Hypocritical?

GEEZUZ!

Iraq has stated it WILL attack Israel with nukes.

I suspect a nice mushroom cloud over the only democracy in the Middle East would make the lefties leap with joy.

Who are the hypocrites?

hypocrites is what the right is on a GOOD day
most of time they are slimey murdering lying vicious psychopathic rapacious war mongering war criminals--
 

Jo Canadian

Council Member
Mar 15, 2005
2,488
1
38
PEI...for now
 

Karlin

Council Member
Jun 27, 2004
1,275
2
38
Re:Wait until we see the whites of their headlights

Ya, this whole pre-emptive strike stuff is bothersome

We should wait until there are enough events to know for sure, and that someone or some nation can clearly be identified as a major threat before going to invade that nation with pre-emptive strikes. Yes, I am saying lets see if another 9-11 happens. The loss of life would be far less that going to war, and thats just the innocent civilian lives, as the Iraq experience has shown us.

We didn't know where it came from. It was actually Saudi Arabia that most of the hijackers came from, not Iraq or Afghanistan. Iraq and Afghanistan are crucial oil real estate "not controlled by OPEC" though. The purpose of going to war was fuzzy enough that it should have been delayed. I would hope that Canada will allways step aside like we did for the Iraq invasion.

Recently PM Harper repeated that kind of sentiment that is needed for doing pre-empt's , telling Canadians over the TV news that terrorism is a real threat to Canadians safety.

Not its not!! Gees, where does he live? I have heard of 1000 deaths in vehicle accidents and another 1000 from gun violence in Canada, but not one terrorist incident. Not EVER!!

[well, there was that East Indian 'retaliation for killings over there', an imported squabble that took down a jet airplane over the ocean, but that wasn't a Canadian issue].

Even in the USA, there has only ever been 9-11 as far as terrorism coming to america, as far as reasons to invade with per-emptive strikes. And that could have been faked [i think it was].

We should at least be waiting until we see the whites of their headlights.

That would eliminate the uncertainty of fullfilling an agenda by warmongers to arrange a need for war, to prepare its citizens by demonising a group of people, and then to put so much FEAR into the people that they will support going to war, even pre-emptive strikes.

Really, though,why would Americans be afraid today?
No attacks since 9-11, nothing. Do they really think that Homeland security, with all its holes, is keeping a big wave of terrorist attacks at bay? Probably, they can be led to believe anything, since polls show that a majority still believe Saddam Hussein has something to do with 9-11. [I saw Bush make that connection, while on TV, again just last month].

I saw where Oregon is crying for coastal border patrol funding, but there is none. Only big contracts for Haliburton to not fill. So its not about security, and America is not under threat of any attack on its mainland.

Bin Laden has allways said he only attacks American targets where they are on Muslim lands.

Karlin

[/url]
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Colpy wrote:
Oh, what BULLSHIT!

The Americans supplied spare parts and munitions to Saddan during the Iran-Iraq war to the tune of less than $20 million total. No chemicals or WMD components.

France Germany and China sold arms to Iraq during the same time worth around $15 BILLION. Most of the chemical weapons stuff came from GERMANY.

The Mujaha'den in Afghanistan were supplied with cash and small arms by the CIA when they were fighting off the Russians. The Russians were so nasty in Afghanistan almost 1/4 of the population fled. The american contribution to the resistance was greatly significant only when they supplied light SAMS (Stingers) to the Afghans, who were being slaughtered by Soviet air. The story here, and the shocker, is how little thanks they got from those they helped.

Incompetent? Well, they certainly are having their problems in Iraq.......but their big problem is they are NOT willing to use the apparatus used by Saddam to keep the peace. If they were as monstrous as you lefties like to claim, Iraq would be a peaceful place. The problem is the US is policing Iraq, not occupying it.This is to their credit. Whether or not they fail remains to be seen.

Hypocritical?

GEEZUZ!

Iraq has stated it WILL attack Israel with nukes.

I suspect a nice mushroom cloud over the only democracy in the Middle East would make the lefties leap with joy.

---------------------------------------------------

The marvelous "liberation" of Iraq, was accomplished with "shock and awe" and God knows how many Iraqi civilians were killed. From the start of the invasion, the Americans and the British have killed upwards of a hundred thousand Iraqis. That is hardly "policing". The Americans were warned that taking out Saddam's forces would create a power vacuum that would result in civil war. Those warnings seem to have been right.

Iraq had no WMD, and the Americans knew it. The Iraqis were not even capable of the enrichment process required to produce an atomic bomb. If, in ten years or so, the Iraqis did come up with a workable nuclear divice, they would probably have to deliver it to target in a railway car or a steamship. They sure as hell could not deliver it to Israel, let alone the U.S.. The same is true of Iran. They don't have the technology produce nuclear bombs that their missiles, or their aircraft will carry.

While my political philosophy is probably center/left, I resent your ridiculous comment that "lefties" would cheer a mushroom cloud over Israel. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
 

Jo Canadian

Council Member
Mar 15, 2005
2,488
1
38
PEI...for now
:roll: For all the good they do, and for the sense it actually makes pre-emptive strikes is akin of me deciding to spank the shit out of my kids because I know they're going to act up later today.

Now If I were to employ that tactic does anyone have an idea on how my children would take it? I'm sure it won't better them.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
RE: Americans do pre-empt

I sometimes wonder if I'm living in the same world as many people on this forum, there is nothing that can stop the American agression aimed at Iran. The region and it's oil must be secured by the US, not to do so changes the geo-political picture and guarentees rapid American decline, the only chance to preserve American predominance is that oil. The boots on the ground military phase is already well under way, targets have been marked, dissedents have been funded exercises have been conducted. What makes anybody here think negotiations with America will change anything, thats smoke, when they won't bend on softwood with friends what makes anyone think they'll bend on oil with mortal enemys.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
A lot of this stuff is old news really. A while back these very things were regarded as conspiracy theories, now they are found to be true.
The whole attack of Iraq was waging agressive war which is illegal under international law. There were no weapons of mass destruction and most of the other information about that country consisted of outright lies from the white house.
The reason Colin Powell left the administration is because they even lied to him. Now for the administration and the born again movement that put Bush in power, the chickens are coming home to roost. This war is going to be the economic ruin of the United States. One could feel sorry for the people, except for the fact that elected George to a second term, which makes the whole mess the fault of the American people. What is that saying
When we practice to deceiive, well you know this is the classic case, the Bush Administration can't even lie properly.