Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
On Point Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The Islamic State Decides to Fight for Khobane
SYSOP    10/22/2014 9:59:59 PM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
CJH       10/24/2014 10:59:56 AM
This is the good news in the good news - bad news diplex.

The bad news is that while we can balk military Islamic extremism in the short term, the conditions which have given rise to the I.S. seem to persist.

The foundation of a road to success in any endeavor consists of failure learned from. You cannot have excellence unless you are willing to experience failure.

The fear that the West has of its own youth flocking to the IS alone testifies to the truth of the proposition that the I.S. is a kind of rallying point to marginalized and alienated young people. The energy that feeds the I.S. is derived at least in part from Western society.

My point, in summation, is that our Islamic extremist opposition is receiving the best military training possible from us. They are moving up the learning curve. That portends ill for the West as well as it's traditional Middle East allies unless we can overturn the underlying phenomenon.

 
Quote    Reply

Photon       10/24/2014 6:06:24 PM
The US is in a bind: too many military-strategic commitments: (1) The Middle East, (2) Russia, (3) China. In case of Russia and China, the US relies on deterrence. However, in order for deterrence to work, the US must maintain uncommitted force. Meanwhile, increasing military spending is out of the question; the heyday of substantial US economic growth is long gone. Furthermore, in the era of the post-bailout years 2007-2008 economic implosion, the US is going to have a much tougher time borrowing money.
 
Then, the question becomes how should the US prioritize its military-strategic commitments. 
 
Quote    Reply

CJH       10/24/2014 9:37:49 PM
"Then, the question becomes how should the US prioritize its military-strategic commitment"

In the ideal sense or in the practical and realistic sense?

According to the realistic sense, maybe make East Asia first and only with little or no opposition to Russia and little or no anti-terrorist work in the Middle East. This assumes that the best US political leadership we will see from now on is what we have now.

Our inner politics and popular mood are not conducive to the forming and keeping of commitments around the world.

Ideally, I would think that possibly we could work with friends to turn China back from expansion into the Southeast Asia. That way China might turn its eyes to Russia and thereby restrain Russian aggression in Europe.

Ideally, we should, as a second priority, conduct a successful hearts and minds campaign in the Middle East backed up by a solid commitment to the full use of our military for the purpose of controlling environments where needed to that end.

Ideally, we should have strong and effective leaders in Washington to get the public behind the successful execution of their policies.

Of course Putin may make overtures to our East Asian allies before then. He probably sees us as retreating thereby creating a vacuum he can fill.

 
Quote    Reply

CJH       11/1/2014 12:49:25 PM
"Then, the question becomes how should the US prioritize its military-strategic commitment"

In the ideal sense or in the practical and realistic sense?

According to the realistic sense, maybe make East Asia first and only with little or no opposition to Russia and little or no anti-terrorist work in the Middle East. This assumes that the best US political leadership we will see from now on is what we have now.

Our inner politics and popular mood are not conducive to the forming and keeping of commitments around the world.

Ideally, I would think that possibly we could work with friends to turn China back from expansion into the Southeast Asia. That way China might turn its eyes to Russia and thereby restrain Russian aggression in Europe.

Ideally, we should, as a second priority, conduct a successful hearts and minds campaign in the Middle East backed up by a solid commitment to the full use of our military for the purpose of controlling environments where needed to that end.

Ideally, we should have strong and effective leaders in Washington to get the public behind the successful execution of their policies.

Of course Putin may make overtures to our East Asian allies before then. He probably sees us as retreating thereby creating a vacuum he can fill.

 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics