Pressure Russians? Do you think a few missiles and a radar station can really make Russians shudder? So what are you threatening them with? Moscow wants control and power which enable them to meddle with their neighbors. The missiles are in their way of doing so. They know well that there is no way that Poles and Lithuanians are going to reestablish their commonwealth in Belarus and Ukraine, and they know that the US security guarantee is also a nonaggression guarantee.

 

And, yes, Mr. Gates did contradict himself 10 months ago. He even said that Lithuania makes better missile sites if Polish deal falls through.

 

Oh, BTW, this just comes in:

www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/0...

 

[quote]

 

Give it up, Yellichink.  DA is only going to debate people who are "adults" in his mind--i.e. those who completely and totally agree with him.  Which is, of course, not a debate at all, but fits in exactly with the policy of the Obama administration.  Something along the lines of "La, la, la, I can't hear you!"

 

Funny thing is, I hope he's right.  I hope Russia does help put the screws on Iran (though China might still veto sanctions, just to be a bunch of meanies about it) and Obama didn't just give away a lot of political capital for nothing.  The glee I might find in telling DA "We told you so" would be rather bitter.

What you say is sad but quite likely true. Only that I doubt Russia will never be able to put one EU-member in its pocket one at a a time. Whatever conflict there might be, it will be within a larger context. I do fantasize about a Scandinavian defence alliance and a view of Gripens on our cities in case of crisis, but slim chance.

 

As for Obama, we'll see. Putting up a diplomatic effort where there's still room for one just means that you guys can hit harder when you really need to.

 

Mikko

The only issues that are ultimately important here are Russia and Israel. I feel that theocracies and monarchies will always have their ways to wage wars with each other. People with low living standards need a rush of religion and a rush of enemies to be able to feel as if they have a purpose. That won't change before hope arises from education and equal opportunities.

 

Russia then. How about just stepping in their shoes and trying them out for a while? Russia is a constant power vacuum with all its landmass and natural resources. They are ok with not being the strongest one, but I believe their concerns are not strictly about USA or EU or even China. What they worry about is the little erosion of influence on their borders.

 

Russia can handle one newly found pride of a post-Soviet AK-land at a time, but not all of them simultaneously. They probably are quite puzzled on why the west wants to create problems where there shouldn't be any. Their economy nor their army can't handle too many Georgian wars. For them, what happens inside the former Soviet bloc is a matter of national survival in the long term.

 

To go back to schoolboy analogies, Russians wonder why the boys from the college next door come to their high school yard and take their girls.  What is a matter of national integrity for them is just an other geopolitical venture for the west. Russia feels ultimately cornered and the sweet memory of a mighty Soviet Union isn't helping.

 

Strategically Russians need buffers. Meddling in their front yard is an act of aggression for them. So what else can they do but use all the leverage they have, all the time? Appearing unpredictable and berserk bullies gives them time to think. Maybe their strategic position is in fact completely intolerabe. Iran means nothing to them. Your average Russian housewife wouldn't even spill her tea if told Tehran was there no more.

 

It is as much the fault of the west to see Russia as The Natural Enemy. It is not just Russians who eagerly push towards cold war -ish tensions. The second cold war is a war with no conflicting interests or ideologies, just a matter of covering up weaknesses and a lack of better ideas. The Russians are really not that different from the "western folk". They are not something we never could have a trusting coexcistence with. Not that I believe seeing one in my lifetime.

 

Oh, one more thing now that it came to me. People here say the Americans are stretched thin and could not afford another conflict. What? The reason these conflicts are so slow and costly is that Americans don't have the national or global mandate to use firepower to the extent they could. Having to worry about media response on collateral damage has crippled the US might in mixed-feeling conflicts. Were there an actual mandate and an actual threat to overcome, no worries then. I'm not saying Iranians are fish in a barrell, but removing a nuclear capability from Iran with a strong global mandate would be fun for American generals safe behind the lines. Boy they'd be puffing their fat cigars.

 

Mikko

- ? I seriously doubt Iran has the capability to do that. The other Way round seems more likely given the nuclear capability of Israel.

No! There are some things that need to be covered here. The bulk of the DoD ground combat power is deployed, is preparing to deploy or just returned from being deployed to the ME/SWA. This component of the DoD has borne the brunt of combat for almost a decade now. The men and equipment are wearing out. It has nothing to do with firepower whatsoever. In fact, applying firepower is exactly the wrong way to fight this conflict. We out number and out gun our current opponent by many orders of magnitude. The issue is that this is an insurgency. The enemy are embedded WITHIN the governments, population and infrastructure we are trying to secure. To get them out is largely an ISR fight backed up with very precise application of force on identified targets. And a lot of that ISR/force has to be conducted on foot. There isn't a quick way to do this nor is firepower the answer. The Russians fought in this same battlespace with many more men with far more liberal ROE and could not win. What wins is not to alienate the population and that means getting our or getting in such that the population views the United States as a safer and better alternative to the Taliban. Raids kill Taliban but what happens when the smoke clears? The locals have to deal with the Taliban response. We have to find a way to ensure that 

It sounds simple but it is terribly complicated. Adding to the difficulty is that large and critical parts of the enemy are inside of Pakistan proper which we cannot afford to destabilize and who also possesses nuclear weapons.

With all of this going on we are very limited with regard to how much force we can use. Granted we can bomb any nation we choose on Earth. But so what? Winning is a lot more complicated than just using airpower. Air Power hurt Saddam since 1991 but it took an invasion in ODS and OIF to force surrender and later capture. In the case of Iran, all we have is the air and sea power options. Over time, we can cause Iran a great deal of pain. Perhaps enough to compel cooperation. But Iran can respond in ways that would compel us to use ground combat power. That's an option we don't have unless we want to commit entirely to the Islamic world. Who's left at that point to deter action in other parts of the world?

So there is a lot more to it than just being able to bomb some country. Bombing starts wars. Being able to follow through with everything up to taking a capital city ends it.

-DA 

PS: something related to our topic !

 

[XXX]ttp://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/108330/eurofighters-intercept-russian-an_72-over-baltic.html

 

German Eurofighters Intercept Russian Antonov Over Baltic

(Source: Alenia Aeronautica; issued September 22, 2009)

Take-off in six minutes and intercept in 15. These are the short times elapsed from the first scramble of the Luftwaffe Eurofighters deployed to Lithuania.

The intercepted intruder was a Russian Antonov AN-72 twin-engine transport, obviously tasked with sounding the reaction of the NATO air defense organization over the Baltic. The AN-72 remained in the area for over 50 minutes, always closely monitored by the Eurofighters which flew equipped with MBDA Iris-T missiles.

The mission was flown by Jagdgeschwader 74, which has recently replaced a Czech Republic unit in the NATO duty of protecting the air space of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The Eurofighters deployed to the Lithuanian base of Siauliai in late August and were declared operational on September 1.

In November they will hand over the duty to JG 71 ?Richthofen? and its old McDonnell Douglas F-4F Phantom, continuing in the rotational logic which since April 2004 has seen 14 NATO countries provide aircraft. The task is likely to continue for several years, until the Baltic air forces can provide their own assets.

Italian Eurofighters perform a similar task for the air defence of Albania, another recent NATO member.
 

Oh, one more thing now that it came to me. People here say the Americans are stretched thin and could not afford another conflict. What? The reason these conflicts are so slow and costly is that Americans don't have the national or global mandate to use firepower to the extent they could. Having to worry about media response on collateral damage has crippled the US might in mixed-feeling conflicts. Were there an actual mandate and an actual threat to overcome, no worries then. I'm not saying Iranians are fish in a barrell, but removing a nuclear capability from Iran with a strong global mandate would be fun for American generals safe behind the lines. Boy they'd be puffing their fat cigars.

 

Mikko

 

a. the population is protected

b. we can provide the coverage to deny the enemy safe heaven

c. prompt and precise use of force that avoids collateral

d. the ability to properly sustain a-c.