The Politics of ISIS

[zapatos]

Intimidation as a forgien policy is childish. It only creates angry and a desire to become as stronger or stronger than ones enemies whomever they are. America has had the biggest stick for sometime now and it hasnt kept us (USA) out of many conflicts yet.

Intimidation as a foreign policy may be childish in some circumstances but I think it is unreasonable to rule it out in others. Was it childish to use intimidation against the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Was it childish for the Brits to attempt intimidation as they sailed toward the Falklands?

 

Intimidation can just as easily keep you out of war as it can get you in war. And if we are dealing with an enemy who wants to take the fight to us, I am not really very concerned about whether or not it makes him 'angry'.

[Ophiolite]

Intimidation can just as easily keep you out of war as it can get you in war. And if we are dealing with an enemy who wants to take the fight to us, I am not really very concerned about whether or not it makes him 'angry'.

I would welcome an enemy who thought that way. Anger can be channeled by skilled leaders to maximise motivation. Every questionable act carried out by Western governments has acted more effectively than any rabble rousing sermon by an extreme imam in recruiting persons for organisations such as ISIS.

[zapatos]

I would welcome an enemy who thought that way. Anger can be channeled by skilled leaders to maximise motivation. Every questionable act carried out by Western governments has acted more effectively than any rabble rousing sermon by an extreme imam in recruiting persons for organisations such as ISIS.

Everyone in war is angry as someone trying to kill you tends to be irritating. I don't see how we can avoid an enemy being angry short of unconditional surrender. Intimidation is a tool, just like bombs and bullets. The purpose of intimidation is to help you win, not to help the enemy. As with any tool, it can be misused or have unintended consequences.

I wouldn't say the use of bombs in war is childish just because it can make people angry. Why is intimidation any different?

 

While it wasn't very successful, the purpose of 'Shock and Awe' in the Gulf War was in large part to intimidate and possibly result in an early victory.

 

During WWII many in the US argued for a demonstration of the Atomic Bomb in hopes of an early surrender.

Edited August 27, 2014 by zapatos

[Ten oz]

While it wasn't very successful, the purpose of 'Shock and Awe' in the Gulf War was in large part to intimidate and possibly result in an early victory.

 

During WWII many in the US argued for a demonstration of the Atomic Bomb in hopes of an early surrender.

What would victory in Iraq have looked like in 03'. What would it look like today. Shock and Awe did result in a quick taking of Baghdad. A quick demolition of Saddam's regime. Ultimately that did not help the united states in the long run at all.

Intimidation as a foreign policy may be childish in some circumstances but I think it is unreasonable to rule it out in others. Was it childish to use intimidation against the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Kennedy patiently stood his ground while the war hawks beat there chests demanding war. Kennedy's victory was actually in his unwillingness to over play his hand and wave America's big stick too hard.

[zapatos]

What would victory in Iraq have looked like in 03'. What would it look like today. Shock and Awe did result in a quick taking of Baghdad. A quick demolition of Saddam's regime. Ultimately that did not help the united states in the long run at all.

I am not suggesting that the long term result of a victory that involves intimidation is better than the long term result of a victory that does not involve intimidation. I am suggesting that intimidation can help you achieve that victory in the first place.

 

In any case, how does your comment support your assertion that intimidation is childish? If Shock and Awe resulted in a quick taking of Baghdad and Saddam's regime, then I would suggest that Shock and Awe was the proper and militarily professional thing to do.

Kennedy patiently stood his ground while the war hawks beat there chests demanding war. Kennedy's victory was actually in his unwillingness to over play his hand and wave America's big stick too hard.

Frankly I feel as if you are making my point for me. Kennedy didn't resort to a full scale invasion. Instead he went into full scale intimidation mode and it worked beautifully.

 

The next day at 10:00 pm EDT, the United States raised the readiness level of SAC forces to DEFCON 2. For the only confirmed time in US history, while the B-52 bombers went on continuous airborne alert, the B-47 medium bombers were dispersed to various military and civilian airfields, and made ready to take off, fully equipped, on 15 minutes' notice.^{%5B57%5D%5B58%5D} One-eighth of SAC's 1,436 bombers were on airborne alert, some 145 intercontinental ballistic missiles stood on ready alert, while Air Defense Command (ADC) redeployed 161 nuclear-armed interceptors to 16 dispersal fields within nine hours with one-third maintaining 15-minute alert status.^%5B43%5D Twenty-three nuclear-armed B-52s were sent to orbit points within striking distance of the Soviet Union so that the latter might observe that the US was serious.^%5B59%5DJack J. Catton later estimated that about 80% of SAC's planes were ready for launch during the crisis; David A. Burchinal recalled that, by contrast,^%5B60%5D

 

"...the Russians were so thoroughly stood down, and we knew it. They didn't make any move. They did not increase their alert; they did not increase any flights, or their air defense posture. They didn't do a thing, they froze in place. We were never further from nuclear war than at the time of Cuba, never further."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_missile_crisis

[Ten oz]

I am not suggesting that the long term result of a victory that involves intimidation is better than the long term result of a victory that does not involve intimidation. I am suggesting that intimidation can help you achieve that victory in the first place.

 

In any case, how does your comment support your assertion that intimidation is childish? If Shock and Awe resulted in a quick taking of Baghdad and Saddam's regime, then I would suggest that Shock and Awe was the proper and militarily professional thing to do.

It is childish because the logic of it is not followed through to its full conclusion. The example was battles won in Iraq. We did not go into Iraq to win battles. It is about accomplishing goals in the region. Shock and Awe won battles and showed off our muscle and did nothing to accomplish our goals in the region. It is akin to a basketball player who dribbles between his legs, makes a spin move, elevates over three defenders, but then misses the shot. Perhaps just passing the ball would've been the smarter play. Passing may not be as awesome, doesn't make the player seem as dominating, intimidates zero defenders, but is the right thing do all the same.

[zapatos]

It is childish because the logic of it is not followed through to its full conclusion. The example was battles won in Iraq. We did not go into Iraq to win battles. It is about accomplishing goals in the region. Shock and Awe won battles and showed off our muscle and did nothing to accomplish our goals in the region.

Wasn't one of our goals in the region to win battles? Didn't Shock and Awe assist?

 

What is it exactly that you think Shock and Awe was intended to do besides help win battles?

[Ten oz]

Wasn't one of our goals in the region to win battles? Didn't Shock and Awe assist?What is it exactly that you think Shock and Awe was intended to do besides help win battles?

Wars are not waged to win battles.

Assuming you accept the notion that Al Quada never intended to invade and take over the Inited States what do you believe their motive was for 9/11? Was it any more successful or was it less successful than Shock and Awe in your opinion?

I highly recommend Sun Tzu's "the Art of War".

Edited August 27, 2014 by Ten oz

[MigL]

I enjoy our discussions Ten oz, but sometimes your logic escapes me.

 

How do you deal with a bully ?

You stand up to him, show him what you're capable of and that the consequences of his actions outweigh any gain.

Or as Zapatos says, you intimidate him.

 

Why is it wrong to reduce the situation to as simple as possible ( my opinions and approach have been termed simplistic ) in order to effectively deal with them ?

[Ophiolite]

What is it exactly that you think Shock and Awe was intended to do besides help win battles?

Convince a large segment of the US voting population that "We don't take no shit, from nobody!" It played well to the My country, Right or Wrong mentality, much as the asinine and seriously offensive "If you are not with us, you are against us."

[Ten oz]

I enjoy our discussions Ten oz, but sometimes your logic escapes me.

 

How do you deal with a bully ?

You stand up to him, show him what you're capable of and that the consequences of his actions outweigh any gain.

Or as Zapatos says, you intimidate him.

 

Why is it wrong to reduce the situation to as simple as possible ( my opinions and approach have been termed simplistic ) in order to effectively deal with them ?

 

Martin Luther King stood up to bullies during the civil rights movement by allowing himself to be arested, verbally abused, FBI to wire tap his house, and so on. In the South police were able to break up protests, knock people over the head, spray people with water hose, and etc. Strong action by local southern governments meant to intimidated were not successful.It just galvanized the movement.

 

In Iraq Shock and Awe was meant to intimidate. It was meant to show how strong our response could be. Here we are all these years later and it is even worse in Iraq today then it was. Not only are radicals cutting off heads but in the States war fatigue has set in and limits our response.

 

I asked the question early, though not to you. What was the long term goal of Al Quada on 9/11? Was that goal successful or a failure?

[zapatos]

Wars are not waged to win battles.

You didn't answer my question. Let me try again. Wasn't one of our goals in the region to win battles?

 

Assuming you accept the notion that Al Quada never intended to invade and take over the Inited States what do you believe their motive was for 9/11?

I assume the motive for 9/11 was what bin Laden said it was:

In bin Laden's November 2002 "Letter to America",[3][4] he explicitly stated that al-Qaeda's motives for their attacks include: Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia, supporting Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya, supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir, the Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon, the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia,[4][5][6] U.S. support of Israel,[7][8] and sanctions against Iraq.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_attacks

 

Was it any more successful or was it less successful than Shock and Awe in your opinion?

You'll have to be more specific. More or less successful in what respect?

 

Convince a large segment of the US voting population that "We don't take no shit, from nobody!" It played well to the My country, Right or Wrong mentality, much as the asinine and seriously offensive "If you are not with us, you are against us."

Yes, that seems likely. Although you have gone is completely the opposite direction than Ten oz is going with it. He seems to be saying that Shock and Awe should have been part of the strategy to accomplish our overall, strategic level objective in the region.

[Ten oz]

You didn't answer my question. Let me try again. Wasn't one of our goals in the region to win battles?

I answered this question already. Countries don't wage war to win battles. War is waged to accomplish goals in a region.

 

I assume the motive for 9/11 was what bin Laden said it was:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_attacks

You'll have to be more specific. More or less successful in what respect?

You are right. My question was poorly worded. I asked for a motive when what I was actually looking for was their goal, desired outcome? My apologizes.

[zapatos]

I answered this question already. Countries don't wage war to win battles. War is waged to accomplish goals in a region.

Forgive me for being so dense here but just for clarity, you are saying that NO, we did not have as one of our goals in the region the winning of any battles. Correct?