TTI Forums

Well, it's done with, and there will probably be more to come. Awesome.

I admire and am indeed glad that DC has at least genuinely attempted real diplomacy with NK and Iran. I commend the foreign policy Realists who manage to stay employed in the the Beltway.

But now we're stuck. The problem is, Iraq and Iran. The stark opposite policy differences between them proved to the entire 3rd world that capitulation or submission to US or international pressure is no longer a guarantee of security. In order to guarantee security, you need to be a threat. They have proven the lowest common denominator will always be some form of the Cold War MAD strategy.

The thinking works like this: If the US actually percieved Iraq as a real
military threat where war would be difficult, bloody, and near-immediate success not guaranteed, the US would never have invaded. Iraq disarmed, as required by treaty and oversight. This fact has been agreed upon by the world intel community waaay before 9/11, before politics made that fact an undesirable fact to buried away in intel reports. But, despite agreeing to UN inspections (of course, they were not nice about it, but it's not like they really had anything to hide, it turns out) they were still invaded. It seems that even if Iraq was completely open about what it did, that would have insufficient.

So, what are countries like Iran and NK to do? Well, puff themselves up and make themselves a REAL threat that we don't really want to invade because, well, those wars would REALLY suck. Isn't that we wanted, right? Real threats?

Iran and North Korea can go along pretty well and know that the US is not going to do anything about them even though they've stepped way beyond the bounds of what Saddam could ever have hoped to achieved. Assuming we were not completely locked into at least 3 more years in Iraq and indefinitely in Afghan (to protect the National Govt of Kabul we installed), maybe the American people would be more down with letting our boys die for the cause. But now, finally, Americans are war weary, when it really matters.

America is, at present, a paper tiger.

Due to geography, the EU has far too much say in the Iran nuclear talks for the US to bully one way or the other without similar Iraq style international abandonment (which, it seems, we actually don't want to happen).

We are unable to really do anything to stop North Korea. We can do sanctions. Big woop. That doesn't fundamentally change anything for North Korea. As a matter of fact, that makes NK's situation better. Korea is a Vietnamese style war, first and foremost. Sure the history is slightly different, but the underlying feelings of the people are startingly similar.

For those Americans who never read about Vietnam outside of public school (and Europeans who never learn this US stuff): Indochina, as it was originally named, was a French colony. It is the breadbasket of southeast Asia, and produces far far more rice than they could ever hope to consume. It's like pre-WWII Ukraine, for the Europeans. As the French were finally being driven out, the leader of the Vietnamese resistance, Ho Chi Mihn, went to US President Truman, asking for his support in building Vietnam up and in the process giving the US an alternate foothold beside Japan. Mihn finally wanted an independent and free Vietnam, because since forever they have ben occupied by another country due to their bountiful resources. Truman refused, on the grounds that, well, you just kicked out our French buddies. Mind you at this time the French and US were very close due to post-WWII relations (pre-De Gaule lunacy). In fact, it turns out, we even offered the French 3 nuclear warheads to use on the Indochinese so they could maintain their colony. Think about that one for a second, the US offering nukes, so that a colony can stay under imperial rule. That's Truman for you.

To sum this up super quick, we wound up supporting the pro-French end of things in the south, Vietnam was divided, and Mihn went to the Chinese for help (minimally, he didn't like the Chinese and refused Chinese troops, wanting to avoid another Korean partition). Mihn and the rest of the Vietnamese really just wanted a unified country and to be left the fuck alone for once. To say we lost the hearts and minds war is an understatement. Finally, between poor war planning and a sentiment in favor of unifying Vietnam and not killing each other (Saigon being one of the few major pro-US outposts), we lost the war. The Vietnamese wanted their own country, not another colonial power, and that's what they've recieved.

Korea's been partitioned for over 50 years now. Koreans, if you did not know, are among the most racist people in Asia. They hate anyone who is not Korean. Think of all the bad ties and connections with family family stuff and other bad cultural stuff that you usually associate with honor-bound Japan. That's not true here anymore really. But it's very true in Korea.

The under-30 types don't want the US there anymore. They see the US as the major barrier to reunification that they cannot control. Of course this is dumb, but this is the general sentiment.

So, when North Korea launches a bunch of missiles towards Japan, the South Koreans 1) Wouldn't mind a few missiles launched at Japan either, they're still pretty steamed over WWII, like the Chinese 2) See it as directed towards the Japan/US military alliance 3) They do not see these provocations aimed against their own security specifically, they fear being victims of circumstance in a game of chess where they are only pawns 4) "we" Koreans are capable of showing the US/Japan a thing or two.

And then the US goes and proves it can truely do nothing and that a Korean one-upped George Bush (not a popular guy there). What can Bush do? Him and his stupid war (their view) has him and his military so busy in Iraq that he can't do anything here.

I promise you we can easily muster the air and sea power to level North Korea within 48 hours. But as Iraq has proved, you don't win the war with bombs in the air but with boots on the ground. So while in Texas they might say "Well, fuck em all, level them and be done with it," Iraq has, once again, proven that a flawed and very dangerous point of view from the US' security standpoint.

So how does it feel to be powerless? Well, that's how the rest of the world often feels when we do stupid shit unilaterially that clearly is just not a good thing to do but FOX is telling everyone on the "homeland" that it's a genius move for America. Now we ge a taste of our own medicine. I don't enjoy it or revel in it, it pisses me off beyond all else, because we shouldn't be able to be powerless.

The worst thing that could happen to the US right now is the destabilization of North Korea or Iran, the idea of just taking them out and letting them rot creates a worse security situation than what we have now, even though it may temporarily stroke and ego and make you feel like the US is da shiznit and in charge. I'm sure Bush would even get a poll bump.

The South Koreans want reunification. We need to give it to them, but on their own terms, not ours. Just as the Iraqi's clearly want self determiniation (national pride is a big deal in Korea as well) we need to give it to Korea. This does not mean sacrificing our own security, but talking tough has clearly done so anyway. We have shown the world what North Korea does works extraordinarily well and should be replicated, in case one day you get on the US/UN's bad side. Just puff yourself up and wait for the US/UN to figure out a way to not invade you because they don't want to put the effort into kicking down every door in your country one by one in order to ineffectively secure it.

North Korea's leadership wants to maintian the status quo long enough to retire to a nice life of opulance and luxury. That probably will not happen, but the correct types of pressure (primarily from South Korea) are more effective than anything the US could ever do. The South Koreans are the only true lifeline North Korea has to survival, for as long as they are willing to put up with the North's antics and keep the money flowing, the status quo will remain. The South Koreans are starting to tire of this however, but this is only recently. If the US removes itself from the situation as much as possible diplomatically and let the South Koreans do the negotiating FINALLY, the North Koreans lose leverage aross the board. If the South Koreans start getting pissed at them, that changes everything, and then suddenly China is in a very bad position to be supporting them, because at least in ASIA, they know that reunification is South Korea's #1 priority, not putting Kim Jong Il and his gang in jail. The cards fall around NK and then we either see them capitulate or we go to war. Either way, not only will it not be the US' fault but it will allow for a peaceful endgame (no matter how implausable).

And with all of this happening in Korea and Iran, apparently DC has its eyes set on Somolia... again. Great.

Yoshokun Shinzuku wrote:The thinking works like this: If the US actually perceived Iraq as a real military threat where war would be difficult, bloody, and near-immediate success not guaranteed, the US would never have invaded.

Ahhh I think you are forgetting two small but very successful campaigns: Dessert Shield and Dessert Storm. In those two conflicts the US army reduced the 5th largest army in the world to a mass of junk metal in about 3 months. Yes Iraq was a neutered tiger this second time around. But you must also remember that a decade of diplomacy had transpired. I thought Bush’s speech to the UN was quite clear and valid prior to the war. Sadam had ejected UN weapons inspectors and did desire to produce WMD’s; He had failed to comply with UN resolutions which he agreed to at the end of G1; He was abusing the minority populations within Iraq; He was engaging in hostilities towards his neighbors by funding Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel. The guy was an ass, and he was given plenty of diplomatic rope before he hung himself.

Little Kim is far more devious. At face value most of the time he says yes, yes, yes – I will do what you say. Then covertly he builds his capacity for threat. When he’s caught and called on it, he rattles the sword a little. The rest of the world buys him off and he behaves for a few years. Then he repeats the process. With the difficulty in building a consensus for war among world leaders, guys like Kim may never get attacked.

The only way NK gets straightened out is if the US and China go in on it together, and that is a long way off.

Yoshokun Shinzuku wrote:Assuming we were not completely locked into at least 3 more years in Iraq and indefinitely in Afghan (to protect the National Govt of Kabul we installed), maybe the American people would be more down with letting our boys die for the cause.

I for one think Afghanistan requires very little support. We have our bases. We stay inside the bases for the most part, we let Karzai build his nation as he sees fit. If the mobs get too large, we launch an offensive and start over. Really very little drain on the resources. I see Iraq in a similar mode in less than a year. Bonus is that these two positions allow the US to build up on either side of Iran. When the day comes they will take it in both ends, just like those decadent pornography movies that those Muslim fundamentalists enjoy so much.

Yoshokun Shinzuku wrote:But now, finally, Americans are war weary, when it really matters.

Not so much war weary, I know the human losses of this war are real but they are very moderate compared to past conflicts. The big issue is cost. It costs a lot to be the world’s police force. It takes the economy a while to absorb these costs, so we have to go slow.

Yoshokun Shinzuku wrote:The under-30 types don't want the US there anymore. They see the US as the major barrier to reunification that they cannot control. Of course this is dumb, but this is the general sentiment.

Yes the Taiwanese have a similar attitude. Well perhaps they need a RL lesson. And they will undoubtedly get it. You’ll notice that every war begins with an act of aggression for justification. Perhaps the South Koreans decided they like the way North Korea runs things and they want to be slaves to Little Kim too. Great no big deal, he can have the whole peninsula is far as I am concerned. But eventually Little Kim will step too far: attack Japan, China or US; or sell a warhead/ missile to some rogue state to achieve same. With China on our side we’ll go in and smoke Korea (unified or not) in about a week.

Yoshokun Shinzuku wrote:If the US removes itself from the situation as much as possible diplomatically and let the South Koreans do the negotiating FINALLY, the North Koreans lose leverage across the board.

I totally agree. And I think the US should reduce its military presence in SK. The trigger is entirely under US control. WHEN we decide it is in our best interest to let the Korean conflict blow up, all we have to do is pull out. Let SK have its unification. If it doesn’t go well let the Koreans fight and die for Korea. Heck if China wants Korea let them have it too, or use Chinas hostile incursion as the justification to fight the real war.

Yes we can take China too, and maybe this nuclear conflict will provide enough justification for the world to end these WMDs. We play diplomacy far too much with this stuff. Truth is NK should have been smacked down 40 years ago, right after the second act of defiance. Israel, Pakistan and India too, but Noooo. We had to follow the measured and ineffective steps of diplomacy.

Desert Shield/Storm were so constrained in mission that it would be impossible for them to fail. Mind that Shield's entire purpose was to defend the Saudi oil fields and Storm was to liberate Kuwait.

I don't like that 5th largest military in the world bit. Keep in mind this was the Iraqi's military pretty shortly after a decade of very ugly war with Iran. So, perhaps numerically they were the 5th largest (highly suspect), but what were their capabilities. Storm and OIF proved their capabilities to be highly limited in conventional warfare.

A desire to gain WMD and an ability are two different things all together. Iran is a problem because it desires them but more importantly it actually has the capability. Iraq has not had the capabilities since shortly after Storm. North Korea also has them and the capabilities (with the quality of their missiles in question).

So, after spending how many billions of dollars on Iraq, given the state of our real enemies, was Iraq ever really worth it? You know, the facts about Iraq, Iran, and NK are not new. I wish the old TTI forums weren't wiped out, I wrote a very long factual post on why the world is in the situation it's in now. Since when was abusing minority populations and messing with neighbors a basis for invading a country? If that was the case, we'd need to reinstate the draft for a lack of troops to deploy to Africa, South America, Southeast Asia....

I'm sorry for the I-told-you-so w/o backup of a previous post, but, I told you so. OIF is a waste of money and personnel.

Afghanistan is a problem, despite what the White House says. Current policy is to garrison the troops and let the Afghan "military" deal with the problems with minor support. Karzai's official title should be Mayor of Kabul because that's about as far as his power goes. Kandahar and the other major cities, while technically under government control, are controlled by local warlords who sit in Karzai's cabinet. So, the semblence of democracy and a unified government is well maintained but in no way realistic. Plus, things with the Taliban (or whoever is really there, like Iran) are getting worse because instead of rooting them out we garrisoned our troops to keep Afghanistan out of the news. Just because it's not in the news doesn't mean it isn't an issue. And whatever happened to that Marshall Plan for Afghanistan anyway? Oh, that's right... Iraq.

The biggest obstical to peace on the Korean Peninsula is not NK but SK. The SKs are damned hippies. I mean that in the most literal form. They're peacenik types to the extreme and think that one magical day the DMZ will simply go away and they'll live in peace and harmony again. The cultural and economic consequences of overnight reunification are unknown to them. SK has no plan for reunification, and has no where near the parity in quality of living or cultural links that East/West Germany had. I highly doubt I'll live to see a completely unified Korea given the slow pace necessary for it not destabilize the South.

It is not in China's best interest for NK to capitulate to the US. NK keeps China very relevant in Asian military affairs. Given the quality of the Chinese military (think Iraq) the only people who really have anything to fear of China are the Taiwanese... and that's from missiles launched over the strait. Taiwan and China will eventually merge. Taiwan had almost zero international support for an independent state back when China was a big scary Communist state. They have even less now that China is an active player in the global economy. China is just biding its time and waiting. I will live to see Taiwan rejoin China as a Hong Kong style SAR.

I see the diplomacy the US has taken over the last 50 years effective overall, given the current state of eastern Europe, China, and Russia. I see the biggest oblistical to the success of US diplomacy in poor choices of where to escalate to war.

Force usually achieves nothing. Force has to have a logical and reasonable conclusion. Defeat Germany > Rebuild Europe. That is a logical and reasonable goal. Given the history of Iraq it is unreasonable to expect overthrowing Saddam would have successfully converted Iraq into Turkey overnight. The problem with that country, that Americans now see (but don't understand) is that there is a fundamental dislike between Sunni and Shiite. Before OIF perhaps things weren't so bad, but after years of fighting, we've managed to radicalize a population that was considered one of the more cultured and western of the mid east against each other. I can't think of a country where Shiites and anyone else are vying for power hasn't resulted in ugly insurgency. Sunni's are a pretty sane bunch, even in India where they're constantly given shit. It takes Hindu pogroms wiping out Muslim villages or burning down mosques to get terrorism out of them like that train bombing. (Please do not associate Bush's GWOT with the history of Pakistan/India)

Force, I believe, is even less effective today. People are very aware of why wars happen, and those reasons are far more complicated. Violence will not fix a core issue why two peoples will not get along with each other well enough to form a coherent and stable government - it will only make the situation worse and kill people in the process.

Yoshokun Shinzuku wrote:I'm sorry for the I-told-you-so w/o backup of a previous post, but, I told you so. OIF is a waste of money and personnel.

I totally concur that OIF is replete with mismanagement and flawed objectives. Heck the primary objective is suspect. I think its flawed to consider that all cultures and traditions can accept liberty and democratic rule. The people of Iraq were oppressed for a very long time, new and better leadership does not just spring up overnight. Sadam actively eliminated any potential opposition. Who's left to take the reins.

Further their religion / culture is a big problem. Can any Muslim nation be described as tolerant of the rights of individuals? I don’t know any. And so we are mired in a nation-building situation. Where the populous can neither build on their own, nor desire to build a free society.

I am beginning to understand the Muslim motive a bit more, and I think they are driven by Sharia doctrine. They are trying to create world (yes that includes your world and my world) that is literally in harmony with the Quran. Of course that book was written a long time ago, so there are dramatic conflicts with the modern world. A simpler archaic life appeals to them. And so being bombed back to the stone-age is not an entirely bad thing for devout Mohammedan, he is closer to his religion.

Yoshokun Shinzuku wrote:Afghanistan is a problem, despite what the White House says. Current policy is to garrison the troops and let the Afghan "military" deal with the problems with minor support. Karzai's official title should be Mayor of Kabul because that's about as far as his power goes. Kandahar and the other major cities, while technically under government control, are controlled by local warlords who sit in Karzai's cabinet.

We have discovered the solution in Afghanistan. There is only a thin presumption of democracy in Afghanistan. The situation, as you've written it, is not bad in my book. Let the warlords build their power. Its what the populous wants. If people that want a different lifestyle can vote with their feet or stage their own revolution. Since these guys desire to life in a Neolithic fashion it will be no trouble to pound down any warlord that gets out of bounds.

I think Iraq will become like Afghanistan very quickly, and it couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of people in my book ! Berka’s and Bedouin camps for everybody! And then it really won’t cost the US much to keep a presence there.

But we will have the all-important staging bases to wage war on Iran.

See you have to recognize the leadership style of George Bush. He won’t say, “I am taking Iraq, so that I have a staging platform to wage war on Iran." No instead he’ll give a fancy name like enduring freedom. Everyone hears the tag line “Enduring Freedom” and says how can you not be for that. It is all very Steven Colbert. Bush did the same thing with education - “No Child Left Behind”. What a bunch of tripe that was. More students drop out now than before the program started. What the name of the program should really say is “break the power of liberal academic unions by privatizing education and awarding the big contracts to the Carlyle Group or Haliberton.”

Yoshokun Shinzuku wrote:Force, I believe, is even less effective today. People are very aware of why wars happen, and those reasons are far more complicated. Violence will not fix a core issue why two peoples will not get along with each other well enough to form a coherent and stable government - it will only make the situation worse and kill people in the process.

I think you are missing the most important point about hegemony; it is not killing for the sake of killing. Rather it is killing until one side submits and moderates their beliefs to be in harmony with the dominant side. I like Elvis Costello’s explanation, "Two little Hitlers will fight it out until one Little Hitler does the other one’s will."