From: Adam Flinton 

John Beckett wrote:
> While I have your attention, I will mention:
>
> * Phil's stream of hyperbole (nazi nazi nazi...) would possibly convince a
> parrot, but little else.
>

No argument from me on that. I always favour cockup & incompetance over
conspiracy.

> * I feel that the "US in Iraq = Evil" position could be argued, but I
> don't recall anything convincing here.

I think if you're going to engage in colonialism/the white man's burden
then at least do it intelligently. As to whether the US should be engaged
in Colonialsm/white man's burden unilaterally.....then you get into your
argument.


> In general, it is true that you
> don't have to offer a better plan before pointing out problems in someone
> else's plan.

1st better plan:

A) Assume that we live in a post colonial era where wandering into someone
elses country in order to cvilize them ain't a good idea. Would you like
the southern cross taken out of your flaq & the top left hand corner
expanded to fill the whole area?

B) Kill the Leaders if taking over from a dictatorship. Why kill the
peasants when you say you want to help em?

Alexander at Gaugamela: Go for Darius.

C) If in charge then the locals are fully competant adults able to run
their own lives. Set up local security forces (police) & pull back to
desert bases way away from population centers & then rely on locals to
call upon you if they need help & not the other way around.


> However it seems to me that the "Evil" position will never be
> convincing until due recognition is given to the practical difficulties of
> combating the 9/11 fanatics.

& they had what to do with the Baathists?

> These fanatics are not going away (look at
> the religious fruit cakes in the US to see what too much leisure time can
> do to those with a certain frame of mind).
>

wrt islam there needs to be a reformation where hard & solid parts of
the Koran which are being purposely overlooked for very earthly reasons
(similar to the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages till Luther et al) e.g.
"There shall be no coercion in religion" are once more center
stage.

WRT religious nutters .....nail em up to bits of wood I say.....

> The US either has to be so nice to everyone that the fanatics learn to
> love them, or the US has to be so nasty that the fanatics decide to go
> elsewhere.

The latter doesn't work. It really doesn't. Not even in a single country
(i.e. US forces acting against US people in the US) let alone in foreign
countries. OK it looks good to the home audience but in the long run it's
counter productive.

You have to dry up the sea in which the guerrilas/terrorists swim i.e. make
the local environment hostile to them not because of M1'es parked at every
intersection but because a school child sees something & tells a local
cops who calls other local cops who then etc.etc.

If blasting away with heavy weaponry is not something you'd like to see in
downtown Sydney then why is it OK in downtown Baghdad or Samara or
etc.etc.?

The aim of the resistance is to turn the minority who support them &
want to get the occupation forces out "by whatever means
necessary" into a majority. In reality the only people who can really
achieve that are the occupation forces themselves.

As such you need to make them as low key as possible & pull them out to
desert bases a fair way from any population centers & in easily
surveilled terrain. The force is there if the locals need it.

What is the predominant thing about a state? It's monopoly on
force/violence. If you want to establish a proper working state then the
locals must have the monopoly on force with the occupation forces as a
backup if needed.

At the moment the locals don't have that & know they don't have that
thus the occupation forces are called into all sorts of situations where
their mere prescence inflames the situation more.

Get em training the police & the internal security. Act to guarantee
the state against external force (e.g. border patrol) & act as the big
stick the local forces can call upon in dire need. Heck from what I can
gather the Oz forces are doing exactly that (in the western Desert).
Equally the UK forces are basically doing that i.e. as cops are trained
& deployed the troops pull back to an "out of town" base.


>I don't expect either of these outcomes anytime soon, so we're
> in for a rough ride. The appeasing noises from our UK friends here will
> only help prolong the mess.
>

I'm not appeasing anyone. I just dislike idiotic actions stemming largely
from a lack of experience putting UK forces at risk. Ozzie & US forces
can take their own risks but having UK forces killed because of some
nutters annoying the locals is not in my national interest.

If the US wants to carry on believing that "force is the answer"
then I think the UK should pull it's forces out of joint ops with the US
forces in both Iraq & Afganistan.

If however there is a mindset change in US mil command (& it's pol
masters) then I think the temporary occupation of Iraq & Afghanistan
can work to the benefit of all (pace the "bad guys").

Also it ain't "appeasing noises" which will prolong the mess it's
rank incompetance & a deep belief that force is the answer which is
doing that.

The US needs to get ready for the idea that the majority of actions it's
troops are likely to be involved in are going to be "small wars"
where getting on with the locals will be the key.


Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5