Thread: USA - World Police

I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately, with no small amount of inspiration from Pong's comments. The USA military is basically this massive body of soldiers who've trained and trained and trained for a war that's never coming. In some ways I'm sure Iraq and Afghanistan may kind of seem to fill that role, but it's not going to leave anyone satisfied. (Even if we win.) Certainly there are shots being fired, and casualties on both sides, but this is not this is not going to be another new WWII or Korea, that veterans so proudly recount stories from. It's a war, but not the one they've trained so hard to fight in.

When this one is over, they'll need another, and another, and another, but the process will still never arrive at WWII situation, where everybody agrees that no expense need be spared, no sacrifice withheld, no politically motivated operational limits imposed. The day that war arrives, a true battle for survival against an overwhelming evil force, there will probably be mushroom clouds over every major city on Earth.

MADD that guarantees our survival, and it's mostly an automated process. What we use soldiers for is basically law enforcement, or bullying third world countries into doing things we think they should. (Not that we're necessarily wrong about what we want them to do.) I think our soldiers are going to have to get used to the idea that their role is to be nothing more than a police force. Either they have to accept that role, and do it effectively, or we have to be rid of them by cutting their funding until there's nothing left. Everyone keeps whining that there are too many political limitations imposed on how they fight. And..... that's pretty much how police work is.

What are they for ? Nothing good ! I mean I think the USA has 700 overseas bases - 700 for f*** sake !!!

USA wants control over certain resources.
Politicans use war to scare the public and it gives them power.
Military-Industrial complex needs wars.

Fifteen Countries
There are currently fifteen African countries involved in war, or are experiencing post-war conflict and tension. In West Africa, the countries include Cote d'Ivoire, Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and Togo. In East Africa, the countries include Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan, Uganda. In Central Africa, the countries include Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda. In North Africa, the country is Algeria and in South Africa, the countries include Angola and Zimbabwe.

http://www.africasunnews.com/wars.html

Additionally, more than one Government (Country) wishes Israel to be liquidated from the Middle East, India and Pakistan are at odds, on many fronts, Iran and Korea wish to acquire Nuclear Weapons (Why?), Hugo Chavez would like to see Capitalism shut down worldwide, more than a few Governments would like to see Western Culture stopped in its track and there are no telling how many would like to see the US in some way, fail.

If there is never another World War, it will have to come from pre-emptive action, or some agreement with whatever are the major powers in that time. Currently this would be the US, China and Russia, which would include there allies and/or member Nations under some treaty.


Yes in number, the US is second only to China in manpower and yes we are spread out the most and spend more on defense than all. We do have 820 Installations worldwide, currently in 39 Countries, all considered strategic to National Security or the Security of those we are obligated to protect, around the World. We also have at least one diplomatic Embassy in most all the 190 or so Nations on the planet and are home to the UN and an embassy from most those 190 Nations.

As of March 31, 2008, U.S. armed forces were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 39 countries.[18] Some of the largest contingents are the 142,000 military personnel in Iraq, the 56,200 in Germany (see list), the 33,122 in Japan (USFJ), 28,500 in Republic of Korea (USFK), 31,100 in Afghanistan and approximately 9,700 each in Italy and the United Kingdom. These numbers change frequently due to the regular recall and deployment of units.

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

USA wants control over certain resources.

I would agree, the US will protect the World Economy from intimidation, bribery or collusion from Nations, with the resources, but not the the US wishes any control. Frankly there are not any vital resources that can't be found in the US or in friendly Nations...

rideforever;

[Quote] Politicians use war to scare the public and it gives them power. [Quote]

As many things I'd love to say are problems from US politics, war is the least likely issue.

[quote] Military-Industrial complex needs wars. [Quote]

Not really, most factories are set up to produce products for the general public and have been adapted in part to produce need of war items. Sure there will always be a few that benefit from war's around the world, but few and far between.


kojax; As I recall, you were involved in a thread or two on Africa, where the US has not really got involved in "policing", leaving what there is to the United Nations, a small amount from NATO and an increasing influence from Russia and 'rideforever' there are plenty of unexplored "Natural Resources" in Africa. Would you accept a little more interest from the US, in Africa???

Originally Posted by jackson33

If there is never another World War, it will have to come from pre-emptive action, or some agreement with whatever are the major powers in that time. Currently this would be the US, China and Russia, which would include there allies and/or member Nations under some treaty.

Effectively, the USA, Russia, China, and maybe the EU are the world's true government. Whenever these 4 powers agree on a rule, it is law.
The UN is more of a figure head.

kojax; As I recall, you were involved in a thread or two on Africa, where the US has not really got involved in "policing", leaving what there is to the United Nations, a small amount from NATO and an increasing influence from Russia and 'rideforever' there are plenty of unexplored "Natural Resources" in Africa. Would you accept a little more interest from the US, in Africa???

I don't object to using them as police. I just think it's horribly pretentious of us to call it something else. A lot of people say they don't think the USA should be the world's police force, but I think if we don't, our alternative would be to disband most of our military forces. We don't need them for security, at least not in a traditional sense, like the WWII kind of sense where some foreign power is going to invade us, drop soldiers on our shores and subject us to martial law. Nobody will ever attempt that.

Terrorists are just a new (and very dangerous) kind of criminal. It takes a special kind of police to stop them.

Effectively, the USA, Russia, China, and maybe the EU are the world's true government. Whenever these 4 powers agree on a rule, it is law.
The UN is more of a figure head.

First off, I'm not sure why the EU is a maybe when it has more power than either of the other 3. The only problem they face is all agreeing on a course of action.
Germany, France, Sweden, Holland, UK, Norway, Spain, Italy or any combination of the above have huge amounts of political power. Referring to them simply as 'US allies' is understating their importance and your reliance upon them.

In regards to the OP, I think you're misguided in regards to the wars in Afghan and Iraq. This is the war they've trained for, and their attitudes generally do not match what you're saying (they want another WWII? not at all).
The US forces are not the worlds police force, they are invading countries to protect the homeland. That is what they're doing and what an army is supposed to do. There is nothing about these actions that dignify being referred to as a 'world police force'.
As jackson said, you did not get involved in Africa because there was no benefit to you. Policing implies combatting atrocities of all kinds, not only those that affect you directly.

Without being intentionally offensive, I do feel that it is commonplace for Americans to exaggerate their importance in world affairs. This, IMO, is a result of an upbringing in a generally very patriotic country.
For example, this is wrong:

Yes in number, the US is second only to China in manpower

Where did you come by this? Nobody challenged you either.

United States:3,385,400
Vietnam:10,564,000
South Korea:5,210,000
Russia:3,796,100
North Korea:5,995,000
India:3,862,300

Also you seem to judge Russia and China to have the most power in the world after yourselves. As you say in this thread, wars are no longer fought how they used to be, numbers count for little. Europe has a number of incredibly influential and powerful countries which you pay little notice to because they are not so loud.

Once again, I don't want to cause offense but I do find Americans (generalising here) to exaggerate their role in world affairs, and to understate the importance of other nations who do not carry the same air of arrogance as yourselves, Russia or China. Put simply, they do not show off, yet they have power.
Referring to the USA as the world police is simply glorifying the actions they have taken to defend themselves.

Incidentally, which war did the USA enter without the British forces alongside them? I suppose the Brits are also the world police by your logic, or do they simply class as 'US allies'?

Originally Posted by Olly

Effectively, the USA, Russia, China, and maybe the EU are the world's true government. Whenever these 4 powers agree on a rule, it is law.
The UN is more of a figure head.

First off, I'm not sure why the EU is a maybe when it has more power than either of the other 3. The only problem they face is all agreeing on a course of action.
Germany, France, Sweden, Holland, UK, Norway, Spain, Italy or any combination of the above have huge amounts of political power. Referring to them simply as 'US allies' is understating their importance and your reliance upon them.

That lack of unity is a sound reason to discount them, though. If the countries that make up the EU were to fully surrender their autonomy to a central government of some kind, then you're probably right: they'd become a power that totally dwarfed the other 3. ....... that's "if" .......

In regards to the OP, I think you're misguided in regards to the wars in Afghan and Iraq. This is the war they've trained for, and their attitudes generally do not match what you're saying (they want another WWII? not at all).

When I say they want another WWII, I clearly don't mean that they want the Nazis to rise again. They'd like the unconditional public support that WWII had, and the near total lack of restriction on what means they can employ. Maybe they might also like the enemy to start wearing uniforms so they can tell who they are.

Most commonly, I just hear soldiers complain about the politics that restrict exactly how they have to fight, who they can shoot, what their motives have to be, what evidence they have to have observed before taking action, and knowing they might get court martial-ed if they make the wrong call. The primary focus of a civilian police officer's training is on knowing that stuff. The tactical aspect is secondary. Why aren't our soldiers being trained the way civilian law enforcement is trained? It seems like it would make their lives a lot easier.

Incidentally, which war did the USA enter without the British forces alongside them? I suppose the Brits are also the world police by your logic, or do they simply class as 'US allies'?

Yeah, I guess they count as police too. Of course, the USA is usually the one that picks the target.

Originally Posted by kojax

We don't need them for security, at least not in a traditional sense, like the WWII kind of sense where some foreign power is going to invade us, drop soldiers on our shores and subject us to martial law. Nobody will ever attempt that.

The boring reality. Though just as recently as Reagan era Americans entertained fantasies of occupation by USSR and Cuba, and the dream lives on.

I've sometimes heard the US military defends Canada from invasion. Because, true, Canadian forces are really just sufficient to scrape by on peacekeeping duties. Logistic reality though is Canada's immune to invasion, except by the 'States. We're about as likely to get invaded as we're likely to launch surprise attack on Portugal. Plus we wield the most potent deterrent imaginable: we have no enemies. However the details of this world dominating defence technology are kept secret from the US, lest they stockpile it to have even less enemies than Canada.

I see what you mean about the changing role of forces. It's even true at sea where you're more likely combing for pirates or enforcing sanctions.

Originally Posted by kojax

Why aren't our soldiers being trained the way civilian law enforcement is trained? It seems like it would make their lives a lot easier.

What do you mean by that? They don't have the right to arrest in foreign countries.

The rules of engagement are the best possible way to avoid civilian casualties. The way to improve on them would be to make them more situational. For example if they could prove they were taliban without being shot at, they should be able to engage them.
Difficult to achieve though, from a political standpoint. A slightly unfair analogy (that gets my point across) would be to compare this war to WWII trench warfare with civilians crowding no mans land.

Originally Posted by Olly

Originally Posted by kojax

Why aren't our soldiers being trained the way civilian law enforcement is trained? It seems like it would make their lives a lot easier.

What do you mean by that? They don't have the right to arrest in foreign countries.

The rules of engagement are the best possible way to avoid civilian casualties. The way to improve on them would be to make them more situational. For example if they could prove they were taliban without being shot at, they should be able to engage them.
Difficult to achieve though, from a political standpoint. A slightly unfair analogy (that gets my point across) would be to compare this war to WWII trench warfare with civilians crowding no mans land.

When they take a suspected terrorist into custody, how is that different from an arrest? Try not to get hung up over what things are called. Instead, look at what they are. The oldest political trick in the book is to invent a new name for something that's already familiar to us under another name. It creates the illusion that the new thing is somehow different from the old.

Alright, unless you've got very fast internet, this will be no fun to try and watch, but if you start at minute 34:00, and continue until minute 37:30 then you will know exactly what I mean, especially the part right at the end. It's footage of Green Beret in Afghanistan taking someone into custody.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9sOgjpmd4c

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by Olly

Originally Posted by kojax

Why aren't our soldiers being trained the way civilian law enforcement is trained? It seems like it would make their lives a lot easier.

What do you mean by that? They don't have the right to arrest in foreign countries.

The rules of engagement are the best possible way to avoid civilian casualties. The way to improve on them would be to make them more situational. For example if they could prove they were taliban without being shot at, they should be able to engage them.
Difficult to achieve though, from a political standpoint. A slightly unfair analogy (that gets my point across) would be to compare this war to WWII trench warfare with civilians crowding no mans land.

When they take a suspected terrorist into custody, how is that different from an arrest? Try not to get hung up over what things are called. Instead, look at what they are. The oldest political trick in the book is to invent a new name for something that's already familiar to us under another name. It creates the illusion that the new thing is somehow different from the old.

Alright, unless you've got very fast internet, this will be no fun to try and watch, but if you start at minute 34:00, and continue until minute 37:30 then you will know exactly what I mean, especially the part right at the end. It's footage of Green Beret in Afghanistan taking someone into custody.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9sOgjpmd4c

This is an arrest and is only possible because he is accompanied by the Afghan national police (or Afghan army, not sure which).

So, without the Afghan police officer, their only option would be to wait for the guy to shoot at them, and then kill him if he does? This seems to make the soldiers' situation just seem more and more obtuse.

Why not deploy them officially as police officers? Instead of setting up a Bull$hit government in Kabul, we should simply set up an American government, and swear in the soldiers as deputy sheriffs. Then they'd probably be about twice as effective as they are now.

Originally Posted by kojax

Instead of setting up a Bull$hit government in Kabul, we should simply set up an American government, and swear in the soldiers as deputy sheriffs.

Nice. Cutting down to the core problem. I thing you're right.

Though that solution also is practically unworkable. And antithetical to the basis of international law as well as the United Nations.

I need to review the possible mandates of peacekeepers, and see how they could be expanded.

Your US soldiers aren't subject to international law now. This US position of impunity annoys a lot of countries and frustrates multilateral efforts. Basically, it's hard to justify international law when a major player simultaneously invokes an international law and claims immunity. The US formulation of international law is essentially illegal bullying: "I make the law. Then I punish offenders." This undermines real international law, I'll outline below:

Contrary to what most Americans believe, international law is in all ways voluntary: parties only become subject to it when they've signed on (an international treaty), which also grants the legal right and responsibility to uphold it among the peer signatories. So these are contracts not imposed rules. Most states actually oblige themselves by their own laws, at the highest level, to honour their international agreements. If you look, you will see that Article 6 of your US constitution places international laws ("Treaties") on a ...please sit down and take a deep breath: equal authority with the Constitution itself, in a single clause declaring both "supreme law of the land". The reality though is Americans including high ranking politicians openly flout this element of their constitution, and foreign parties got wise a long time ago.

So on a fundamental level the US won't operate police with a legal leg to stand on. But I guess you could fake it, since no one's going to call the bluff. De facto police. Sure. And I agree training soldiers more like police really suits many situations better, as far as doing their jobs.

Originally Posted by kojax

The USA military is basically this massive body of soldiers who've trained and trained and trained for a war that's never coming. In some ways I'm sure Iraq and Afghanistan may kind of seem to fill that role, but it's not going to leave anyone satisfied. (Even if we win.) Certainly there are shots being fired, and casualties on both sides, but this is not this is not going to be another new WWII or Korea, that veterans so proudly recount stories from. It's a war, but not the one they've trained so hard to fight in.

When this one is over, they'll need another, and another, and another, but the process will still never arrive at WWII situation, where everybody agrees that no expense need be spared, no sacrifice withheld, no politically motivated operational limits imposed. The day that war arrives, a true battle for survival against an overwhelming evil force, there will probably be mushroom clouds over every major city on Earth.

Kojax, you have failed to indicate any understanding of war or warriors, yet you persistantly make offensive, stereotypical generalizations about what motivates US military men. They don't do what they do for the same reasons, and certainly not to instigate World War III.

And why would you think the US military hasn't trained specifically for the current conflict?

I'm sure the the slight was inadvertent. Kojax is a fountain of unconventional ideas. He's also a dedicated patriot as far as I can tell. Which makes his occasional cynicism seem more likely Machiavellian than unpatriotic.


Why would someone think the US military hasn't trained specifically for the current conflict? Well, it's manifestly impossible to train specifically for a particular conflict, unless premeditated. I'm sure you're not suggesting this current situation was premeditated.

Kojax observed that the conflict has evolved to demand more police-like tactics. You think that's so? I'd like to read your opinions.

we should simply set up an American government, and swear in the soldiers as deputy sheriffs. Then they'd probably be about twice as effective as they are now.

Why not just put a flag there and claim it while you're at it?

Originally Posted by Pong

Why would someone think the US military hasn't trained specifically for the current conflict? Well, it's manifestly impossible to train specifically for a particular conflict, unless premeditated. I'm sure you're not suggesting this current situation was premeditated.

Kojax observed that the conflict has evolved to demand more police-like tactics. You think that's so? I'd like to read your opinions.

The kind of warfare the troops are facing is pretty much exactly what they're trained for. This is not because wars in the middle east were predicted per se, but simply because that is how you would expect any fanatical/underdog opponent to behave.

Could you expand on what you mean by police-like tactics? The army is essentially the step above the police force in law keeping and use intelligence in the same manner.

For example I think it fair to say the conflict in Vietnam turned out to be less conventional than most had hoped. Or the Iraq insurgents were an enemy the US had not expected to fight. I think whenever you hear generals say "asymmetrical" they're acknowledging... well, an asymmetry what else?

I image change is slowest of all where ships are involved.

Originally Posted by Kukhri

And why would you think the US military hasn't trained specifically for the current conflict?

The fall of Baghdad took what, maybe a week or two? That shows me we're highly skilled in the area of rapidly mobilizing a massive amount of fire power and bringing it to bear on an enemy force before they can respond. Basically, a variation on the blitzkrieg.

Of course, the enemy isn't foolish enough to play our game, knowing they would lose, so they get us to play theirs, and.... it very clearly is their game we are playing right now, not ours. We've been over 8 years fighting it now, compared to a few weeks for the initial overthrow of Sadaam. That should tell you something about our own skill set.

The enemy's objective isn't to militarily hold their ground, just frustrate our efforts at setting up a new government by making the population feel too jaded and/or apathetic to want to participate in it. Our soldiers have only very limited skill in the area of presenting themselves as the face of a government force that people are going to want to entrust their future's to, and those of their children.

Civilian police work is all about credibility, and dealing with complicated, politically motivated, patterns of proceedure. It's more about getting people to respect your uniform than it is about being a good aim with your gun, or catching every criminal. Once the public is on your side, they do most of the work for you. Then you don't actually need to be Superman or Chuck Norris. A fat guy who eats donuts is just as effective. (Now, if you've spent your whole life training to be Chuck Norris, I'm sure you don't want to hear that.)

Originally Posted by Pong

I'm sure the the slight was inadvertent. Kojax is a fountain of unconventional ideas. He's also a dedicated patriot as far as I can tell. Which makes his occasional cynicism seem more likely Machiavellian than unpatriotic.

Thanks! :-) I like to hope I don't only just annoy people on here. I know sometimes I post too often, and too long of comments. I'm working on that. :?

And, of course I want the USA to win. There's a big difference between believing they won't, and hoping they won't.

US world police

I had heard of secret wire taps, detention without trial, torture, body scanners, rendition, secret prisons, etc, but I had no idea wholesale slaughter of marriage reception guests with missiles lauched from predator drones was customary police force practice in this new post-911 orwellian police-state-US, I better cross it off as a vacation destination then.

Originally Posted by Pong

Why would someone think the US military hasn't trained specifically for the current conflict? Well, it's manifestly impossible to train specifically for a particular conflict, unless premeditated. I'm sure you're not suggesting this current situation was premeditated.

You're speaking of the pre-Afghanistan War situation, 8 years ago. The U.S. Department of Defense now recognizes "asymmetric warfare" as the new standard and this is primarily what the U.S. military trains to fight against.

Originally Posted by Pong

Kojax observed that the conflict has evolved to demand more police-like tactics. You think that's so? I'd like to read your opinions.

I wouldn't call coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq police, though their work might bear some similarities. They actively search for and detain suspects while generally keeping the peace but this is not at all a new facet of war. To say that the U.S.'s role is solely to act a police force, is incorrect. Conventional battles are far from over. The Battle of 73 Easting during the Gulf War was one of the largest armored engagements in history. The more recent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were examples of excellent conventional maneuvering. I don't think it suitable to call a combat patrol in Baghdad, police work.

Originally Posted by kojax

It's more about getting people to respect your uniform than it is about being a good aim with your gun, or catching every criminal. Once the public is on your side, they do most of the work for you. Then you don't actually need to be Superman or Chuck Norris. A fat guy who eats donuts is just as effective.

A fat guy who eats doughnuts is not going to stop insurgents from bombing markets. That's what Iraqi's and Afghani's want, not just a friendly face.

Originally Posted by kojax

it very clearly is their game we are playing right now, not ours.

That is why the U.S. is trying to work inside their decision cycle, acting in an offensive role against terrorists hiding in Pakistan. Attacking leadership and training camps, disrupting travel and freezing bank accounts all force the enemy to react, rather than be reactive to the enemy. This is something the U.S. is getting better at.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

US world police

I had heard of secret wire taps, detention without trial, torture, body scanners, rendition, secret prisons, etc, but I had no idea wholesale slaughter of marriage reception guests with missiles lauched from predator drones was customary police force practice in this new post-911 orwellian police-state-US, I better cross it off as a vacation destination then.

Off topic. And airport body scanners really bother you so much that you would add it to this list alongside torture?

Originally Posted by Kukhri

Originally Posted by Pong

Kojax observed that the conflict has evolved to demand more police-like tactics. You think that's so? I'd like to read your opinions.

I wouldn't call coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq police, though their work might bear some similarities. They actively search for and detain suspects while generally keeping the peace but this is not at all a new facet of war. To say that the U.S.'s role is solely to act a police force, is incorrect. Conventional battles are far from over. The Battle of 73 Easting during the Gulf War was one of the largest armored engagements in history. The more recent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were examples of excellent conventional maneuvering. I don't think it suitable to call a combat patrol in Baghdad, police work.

I'm suggesting the US's role should be changed. It should be primarily to act as a police force. We should be choosing that role for ourselves instead of the one we're choosing. It's exactly what the locals want and are not getting. The government we've set up looks like a sham to them exactly because it can't keep the peace.

If it can't protect them or keep them safe, then what's it good for? Right now, the common peasant farmer's only safety in making sure the insurgents don't see them as a threat.

Originally Posted by kojax

It's more about getting people to respect your uniform than it is about being a good aim with your gun, or catching every criminal. Once the public is on your side, they do most of the work for you. Then you don't actually need to be Superman or Chuck Norris. A fat guy who eats donuts is just as effective.

A fat guy who eats doughnuts is not going to stop insurgents from bombing markets. That's what Iraqi's and Afghani's want, not just a friendly face.

This is the core of where we disagree. Mobilize the population and we would have assets at our disposal that we could never have brought to bear on our own. The best way to stop a bombing in a local market is for some ordinary citizen who saw something suspicious to come and tell you. Of course, the only way that's ever going to happen is if they trust you on a personal level, and believe you're really dedicated to looking out for their interests. That's the connection that enables a doughnut eating fat cop to get the job done.

And airport body scanners really bother you so much that you would add it to this list alongside torture?

Its more of an icing on the cake :wink: a symbolic touch, a pinch of spice on a dish to make it just perfect (If there werent the rest it woulnd matter of course)
Imagine if in the 60s or 80s the USSR had body scanners, wouldnt the freedom loving people in the US have a field day with this?

The body scanner is symbolic because people can, like drug smugglers do with drugs, hide explosives inside their body for starters, that is if they'd really really want to target an airplane, and then whats the point of having a link in the chain that is titanium solid if the link next to it is a worn string?(chain as good as its weakest link)... A real terrorist(as opposed to a CIA/MI6/Mossad controlled patsy) would have to be retarded to pick an airplane as target when its much easier to make a carnage just about everywhere else.

(BTW although I have an opposite view many topics I always am interested your point of view, and find that from another perspective they are valid)

When a superior military force invades a country on another continent, its convenient to label the people who resist the invasion with virtually no means "terrorists" and "insurgents" to conceal the fact that you are an invading force thats not in its country and that the others are defending their own land against overwelming odds.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

When a superior military force invades a country on another continent, its convenient to label the people who resist the invasion with virtually no means "terrorists" and "insurgents" to conceal the fact that you are an invading force thats not in its country and that the others are defending their own land against overwelming odds.

Regardless of overwhelming force, we could call enemies "criminals" if we act legally. For example the annihilation of that Waco claim to sovereignty was traditionally legal (national law), and the liberation of Kuwait was supremely legal (international law). So it's not a question of power balance. But one can't rightly claim to police laws made up unilaterally, or even multilaterally imposed on hated parties. The US wants to play fast & loose with all its enemies, and for the most part third parties do accept de facto law since we struggle to work with its consequences. For example the de facto ownership of Iraq and Afghanistan, or the off-hand overnight "regime changes" imposed on pathetic states like Haiti. But the community of nations is not ready yet to accept every international condition imposed by whim of Americans. So while we seldom bother to point out the essential illegality of much US behaviour, we're not going to call all its enemies "criminal" either.

Claim to "police" would often be valid only within the USA's own legal universe.

The term "terrorist" works tolerably because this is understood in general usage as codeword for "Enemy of US, inspiring US illegal action". To be charitable I reason that because Americans feel so terrified (e.g. nightmares of raving Ayatollah brandishing WMD) their illegal actions (thwarting Iran's nuclear development) are somewhat excusable, as Americans say "forced our hand," as involuntary reflexes. It is ironic that Americans of all people feel so terrorized, but so they proclaim. This goes way beyond the traditional concept of existential threat to sovereignty.

Another way of looking at this could be to say that, the Taliban never surrendered, and are therefore still the official government of the country. This isn't like Japan or Germany, because their governments surrendered in a fully official declaration of surrender. Basically, we're trying to start a second government. The Taliban's actions are legal according to their laws, but illegal according to the second government's laws. The second government's actions are probably illegal according to the Taliban's laws. There's not going to be an official vote over which government the people want to follow. The USA has determined that they don't have the right to follow the first government anymore because it committed an act of war against us.

We live in a really screwed up time. One country just declared war on another (Afghanistan declared war on us.), and refuses to surrender despite having been totally defeated on the battlefield. We can't attack the civilian population, so rather than defend their women and children, they hide behind them.

My answer to the problem: We make some laws that are opposed to the Taliban's laws, and then start imposing those new laws on the civilian population against their will. It's the ultimate declaration of sovereignty and one that the Taliban has absolutely no choice but to answer. They have to meet us on the battlefield or they will lose face. We've been looking for voluntary cooperation from the villagers. We shouldn't. We should be imposing our will. Even if they all gather into an army together, it will be an army that fights us instead of hiding out.

It could be as simple as collecting taxes. It would be wonderfully unpopular. I think when the Taliban is unable to put a stop to it, they will lose a lot of credibility.

Kojax ive been reading your posts and you have a worryingly over simplified view of the current situation and the allied involvement in the middle east. Some of your comments are bordering on warmongering. You are also badly misinformed. you have made so many mistakes i dont know where to start, so i think ill just pick one.

" One country just declared war on another (Afghanistan declared war on us.), and refuses to surrender despite having been totally defeated on the battlefield."

Afghanistan did not declare was on the U.S.
The U.S. did not invade aghanistan.
Afghanistan is not 'refusing to surrender'
The Taliban are very far from defeated

The U.N. passed a resolution for combined U.S. led military action against the taliban who were allowing extremist training camps to operate in afghanistan.
Afghanistan cannot 'surrender' their is no-one to surrender, the war is against an enemy that is not specific to any state or border and is made up of more than one enemy. that is a fundamental point. The taliban had only regional aspirations until the invasion, but since then it has become more of a guerella style organisation like al-quieda (but not the same). Then their is the resistance of the existing population and also opportunists from elsewhere. yet you label the whole lot as 'insurgents' which is just a soundbite for americans.

If by 'declaring war' you are referring to september 11th, most of the hijackers were from saudi arabia, an american ally. Im not sure any of them were actually from afghanistan. In any case it just illustrates further that the enemy is not state specific, you cant put your finger on a map and say 'there they are'.

It was also 9 years since we went to afghanistan, im not sure that warrants use of the words "just declared", this war has now gone on longer then either world war.

Just one example of several badly misinformed assumptions you have made, and these appear to have skewed your opinions.

The below comments would be laughable if they werent so worrying:

"We make some laws that are opposed to the Taliban's laws, and then start imposing those new laws on the civilian population against their will"

"Instead of setting up a Bull$hit government in Kabul, we should simply set up an American government, and swear in the soldiers as deputy sheriffs."

this does not include several other times you have shown next to no background knowledge on the topic or have made clear that your country somehow has the moral right to impose itself anywhere and anyhow it likes.

I hope this isnt reflective of the majority opinon in your country Kojax.[/i]

Originally Posted by harvestein

" One country just declared war on another (Afghanistan declared war on us.), and refuses to surrender despite having been totally defeated on the battlefield."

It's a question of perspective. We could argue that every country on Earth has the moral obligation to have a government in place that is sufficiently powerful to be able to control its citizens, in a way so that they can't easily make politically motivated attacks against other countries. In that view, failure to accomplish this would be an outright act of war. It would be like one of the stories of King Arthur, at the battle of Salisbury, when his army and the other were facing off, and one soldier drew his sword to kill a snake, effectively ending all diplomacy.

In order to have any diplomatic standing whatsoever, a government must have the ability to guarantee that its people will abide by its treaties. It's bull$hit to say that the democratic will of the people, or the right to self determination outweighs this obligation. It doesn't. If any nation fails this test, then the other nations have the right to forcibly impose a government that will pass this test, rather than put up with a diplomatic wild card. And.... I'm pretty sure that squares with the US's reason for being in Afghanistan.

The below comments would be laughable if they werent so worrying:

"We make some laws that are opposed to the Taliban's laws, and then start imposing those new laws on the civilian population against their will"

"Instead of setting up a Bull$hit government in Kabul, we should simply set up an American government, and swear in the soldiers as deputy sheriffs."

this does not include several other times you have shown next to no background knowledge on the topic or have made clear that your country somehow has the moral right to impose itself anywhere and anyhow it likes.

I hope this isnt reflective of the majority opinon in your country Kojax.[/i]

Right now, I think the problem is that the Taliban effectively holds territorial control over a lot of the common village people of Afghanistan, who supply them and sometimes assist them more directly. I think the fastest way to make them unpopular is to show how impotent they are. Show that the fact a village is affiliated with the Taliban doesn't mean US soldiers can't just walk into your village and make everyone sign up for the census, or pay a state tax.

A lot of people talk about what would count as the "severed head of the emperor." in this war, the military accomplishment that would be universally acknowledged among the people as meaning they've lost. Basically, the point of surrender is the point at which the people feel too humiliated to go on fighting. That tells us where the enemy's vital organs are located. For the Japanese, the surrender of the emperor was that humiliation (following the grievous humiliation of seeing two cities nuked). For the Germans, it was the fall of Berlin.

I guess every nation is different. Afghans really value their independence. Maybe taking that away would get us to that point, or at least force them to go on the aggressive.

Originally Posted by kojax

It's a question of perspective. .

That's true. You appear to be arguing from the perspective of a brain dead gecko with a vitamin deficiency.

We could argue that every country on Earth has the moral obligation to have a government in place that is sufficiently powerful to be able to control its citizens, in a way so that they can't easily make politically motivated attacks against other countries.

If you wanted to be foolish to the point of lunacy and ignore every practical reality of world culture and civilisation you could argue this way. You could also make this case if you were a ten year old child with a limited education. Perhaps you have arrived at this approach by a different route.

Originally Posted by kojax

It would be like one of the stories of King Arthur, at the battle of Salisbury, when his army and the other were facing off, and one soldier drew his sword to kill a snake, effectively ending all diplomacy. .

That's right. It would be like a story: a work of fiction.

Originally Posted by kojax

In order to have any diplomatic standing whatsoever, a government must have the ability to guarantee that its people will abide by its treaties. It's bull$hit to say that the democratic will of the people, or the right to self determination outweighs this obligation. It doesn't. If any nation fails this test, then the other nations have the right to forcibly impose a government that will pass this test, rather than put up with a diplomatic wild card. And.... I'm pretty sure that squares with the US's reason for being in Afghanistan.

.

You are obviously labouring under the misapprehension that Afghanistan is a country in the same way that Malyasia or France are countries. Afghanistan consists of Kabul and various tribal areas. It is the tribal leaders you have a disagreement with, so go ahead, put your sherrif's deputies into each tribal enclave.

One of the worst, one of the few, defeats the British Army ever suffered was in Afghanistan. Frankly, going beyond the Khyber pass is about as sensible as invading Russia in the winter, but your proposals would simply make matters worse.

Originally Posted by kojax

I think the fastest way to make them unpopular is to show how impotent they are. Show that the fact a village is affiliated with the Taliban doesn't mean US soldiers can't just walk into your village and make everyone sign up for the census, or pay a state tax. .

Brilliant. Unfortunately they can't just walk in and take a census, or collect taxes. (Boy you really know how to win the hearts and minds don't you?) Why not? Because my fine friend the Taliban are not impotent in the tribal areas. Indeed, to a large extent they are the tribal areas.

Originally Posted by kojax

Afghans really value their independence. Maybe taking that away would get us to that point, or at least force them to go on the aggressive.

I have a new progression.
Dumb, dumber, dumbest, Kojax.

Harsh? Probably, but really. As Harvestein said

They feel that by being in the country we already have taken their independence away. That is why they are fighting.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by kojax

In order to have any diplomatic standing whatsoever, a government must have the ability to guarantee that its people will abide by its treaties. It's bull$hit to say that the democratic will of the people, or the right to self determination outweighs this obligation. It doesn't. If any nation fails this test, then the other nations have the right to forcibly impose a government that will pass this test, rather than put up with a diplomatic wild card. And.... I'm pretty sure that squares with the US's reason for being in Afghanistan.

.

You are obviously labouring under the misapprehension that Afghanistan is a country in the same way that Malyasia or France are countries. Afghanistan consists of Kabul and various tribal areas. It is the tribal leaders you have a disagreement with, so go ahead, put your sherrif's deputies into each tribal enclave.

If Afghanistan is not a country, then its land should be up for grabs.

Everyone else on planet Earth has to accept that their land belongs primarily to a sovereign power of some kind, and secondarily to them. Why not the Afghans? What makes them special?

One of the worst, one of the few, defeats the British Army ever suffered was in Afghanistan. Frankly, going beyond the Khyber pass is about as sensible as invading Russia in the winter, but your proposals would simply make matters worse.

Originally Posted by kojax

I think the fastest way to make them unpopular is to show how impotent they are. Show that the fact a village is affiliated with the Taliban doesn't mean US soldiers can't just walk into your village and make everyone sign up for the census, or pay a state tax. .

Brilliant. Unfortunately they can't just walk in and take a census, or collect taxes. (Boy you really know how to win the hearts and minds don't you?) Why not? Because my fine friend the Taliban are not impotent in the tribal areas. Indeed, to a large extent they are the tribal areas.

This is right on point. You can't appease people who are being threatened at gun point. There is an absolute perfect zero chance we shall succeed in that endeavor. If we go that route, then who's banging their head against a wall?

Originally Posted by kojax

Afghans really value their independence. Maybe taking that away would get us to that point, or at least force them to go on the aggressive.

I have a new progression.
Dumb, dumber, dumbest, Kojax.

Harsh? Probably, but really. As Harvestein said

They feel that by being in the country we already have taken their independence away. That is why they are fighting.

The problem I want to solve is for us to be able to choose our battles, instead of always letting them choose. If we start aggravating the situation, then we can choose where the worst points of aggravation will be. Those will be the places and times where they have virtually no choice but to fight us for the sake of their own dignity.

Once we're choosing the battles, they no longer have the option to continually hide out when their supplies or troops get low. As it stands, the Taliban has the common sense to stop attacking whenever we have the upper hand. If we can force them to start reacting instead of acting, then their anger will increase at a cost to their intelligence. They can't out think us if they're not thinking rationally.

If Afghanistan is not a country, then its land should be up for grabs.

He did not say it wasnt a country, he was trying to explain to you in simple terms that it does not have a democratic, well structured government like our ones do. The geography, local politics and hundreds of years of culture have made it what it is. You have a over simplified view of what a country is, youve been watching to much FOX news.

You keep looking for a state target for all of this, drill it into your head, it has been a hundred years of backstabbing and meddling in the middle east by us that has created a general hatred of the west in that hemisphere, a small amount of those people join these 'jihads', indeed some of them are even within our own countries. I dont know what it is you dont understand about this.
Next you will be saying al-quieda have packed their bags and moved to iran!

Bombing or terrorising afghanistan into total desolation would require a rediculous amount of troops and equipment which no-one is willing to provide, as well as the fact that it would serve no purpose whatsoever except to create more enemies.

I have friends, and family of friends who are fighting in afghanistan and iraq in the scottish regiments, and I know people who have lost family members. these soldiers are real people, and you talk about tactics like your playing cannon fodder or command and conquer!

Originally Posted by kojax

Everyone else on planet Earth has to accept that their land belongs primarily to a sovereign power of some kind, and secondarily to them. Why not the Afghans? What makes them special?

When you can come back and explain, using at least three real world examples, why the emboldened words are wrong I shall be prepared to continue this discussion. Otherwise it is a waste of my time. I shall not argue with gross ignorance.

[quote="Ophiolite"]

Originally Posted by harvestein

If Afghanistan is not a country, then its land should be up for grabs.

He did not say it wasnt a country, he was trying to explain to you in simple terms that it does not have a democratic, well structured government like our ones do. The geography, local politics and hundreds of years of culture have made it what it is. You have a over simplified view of what a country is, youve been watching to much FOX news.

And what I'm saying is that no country has the right to exist in that state. All countries must have, at minimum, the ability to make diplomatic guarantees to their neighbors, on behalf of their citizens, and enforce those guarantees. I'm saying that there are some situations where people must act as groups, and cannot be granted the right to act as individuals.

MADD pretty much fails if you can't rely on treaties, or collective diplomacy. If you're counting on human ingenuity to be sufficiently limited that WMD's never enter the picture in these kinds of situations in the future, then you're either incredibly pessimistic about human potential, or incredibly optimistic about human nature.

So, basically, granting people the right to live in anarchy if they want it, while it may seem sensible in a very abstract or moralistic sense, it doesn't square very well with practical necessity. My perspective may seem even less practical in the short run, forcing a unified government on a nation that doesn't want one, but it's a precedent that simply must be set. If MADD gets destabilized, the whole human race could be wiped out... everything. How do you expect to avoid that happening if we don't do this?

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by kojax

Everyone else on planet Earth has to accept that their land belongs primarily to a sovereign power of some kind, and secondarily to them. Why not the Afghans? What makes them special?

When you can come back and explain, using at least three real world examples, why the emboldened words are wrong I shall be prepared to continue this discussion. Otherwise it is a waste of my time. I shall not argue with gross ignorance.

In which country of the world could a person living on the border declare the land they live on to be part of another nation's territory? If you really were the primary owner of the land you supposedly own, I think you would be able to do that, don't you? I can declare my car to be property of the Mexican government, if I want. I can even donate my money, or my Nintendo Wii, or the computer I'm typing on. But, even if I owned a great deal of property on the Southern border of Arizona, I couldn't rewrite the USA's territorial borders.

So I have to ask: who really owns my land?

Originally Posted by kojax

So I have to ask: who really owns my land?

You are, only if you accept the laws about ownership of territory, of the country in whose territory is entitled those lands. All the territory within the national territory, belongs to the country. When you buy the land, you accept this terms, therefore you can do with the land whatever you wish, but according to what the national interest allows you to do so. If you intend to give those lands to a foreign country, the country to which those lands are entitled, can take them away from you legally, because you decided to not respect the laws of the country, the principle by which you accept to respect in the first place, when you took ownership of the land.

(post edited):
Saying it in other words. If you own a piece of land, that a part of it lies within the USA, that land is ruled under the laws of the USA. If you own the neighboring land that lies within Mexico, the part that is in Mexico is ruled by the laws of Mexico. You could be the owner of both territories but each one is part of its countries rightful owner, and you can`t do whatever you wish, unless you respect the laws of the country to which it is entitled.

I think you just described way better than I could the sense in which I think Afghans are getting a pretty sweet deal by living in an anarchy. If Afghanistan doesn't have a central government capable of making and actually imposing any laws about land use, then I've got to wonder : Who exactly is asserting the Afghan people's territorial rights for them?

It looks to me like all the surrounding countries are bending over backwards trying to keep an artificial territorial boundary in place when they should be doing what the USA did to the original indigenous inhabitants of our land (except perhaps a bit more ethically): buying the land from the individual owners, and then co-opting it into their own country's territory.

With no central government, Afghanistan has no diplomatic basis to go to the UN and complain about it. The only worry I see is if the neighbors can't agree about how to divide it up. China already has kind of a political black eye for co-opting Tibet, so they might want to stay out of it.

Originally Posted by Pong

The US wants to play fast & loose with all its enemies, and for the most part third parties do accept de facto law since we struggle to work with its consequences. For example the de facto ownership of Iraq and Afghanistan, or the off-hand overnight "regime changes" imposed on pathetic states like Haiti.

Overnight regime change in Haiti? Explain your meaning in detail. I thought this was an operation the US military would finally be supported for but conspiracy theorists call it some sort of hostile take-over. In fact, along with your reply, why don't you let us know why the US government would want control of Haiti, and responsibility for that financial sinkhole. What does Haiti have that the US wants? Why don't you tally up the billions being spent in the country's reconstruction, then detail what sort of miraculous substance or asset America might extract that would outweigh the costs.

I'll not allow this sort of off-the-cuff rubbish here without a challenge. Sorry for the necro-post. I haven't been around to defend against this nonsense as I have spent the last couple months imposing an "overnight regime change" in Haiti.

Kukhri; Thanks for your help, in the Haiti Relief efforts...welcome back.

Not speaking to Pong's post, since I'm not sure he actually understands, they changed administrations, from an election, held long before the Quake, and it's a little out of his/her character. BUT, Chavez (Venezuela), others inferring and the Hard Left Blogs on the Internet, have been playing that story line, from the first day our Government started helping. It's not really something new and regardless what goes on, they will blame Government for whatever felt are injustices.

I am concerned, your work and most all that is/was being attempted, will be in long term vain at least to a large degree. Relief and change are two different entities and I don't see any change happening there or do I expect any...

Originally Posted by jackson33

I am concerned, your work and most all that is/was being attempted, will be in long term vain at least to a large degree. Relief and change are two different entities and I don't see any change happening there or do I expect any...

The primary mission after the quake was to restore the country to pre-earthquake conditions; a goal that was achieved about two weeks after the event in the Port-Au-Prince area. Beyond this, I saw no indication of change. The weak Haitian government offered almost no assurance to it's people in the days following the disaster, instead speaking only to foreign news agencies. This government insists on taxing relief organizations and runs the country as if it is a profit driven organization. Without political change, it seems a waste for foreign governments to intervene, though it is inspiring to see the global reaction.

Dispensing food seems fruitless at this point. Locals became dependent on international food distribution, moving by the thousands to already overcrowded shanty-towns that received frequent food drops. What Haiti needs is an industrial infrastructure that would create jobs and bring in foreign currency.

In my oppinion if American troops were not out doing some bull shit war at a time they would lose there quality and world defense would majorly be downgraded.

I can not say im against or for it lol because i know there are consequences either path you take (i think it is only evident when you come to the conclusion there is a cross roads in your path... That deciding what way to take is not the problem nor the solution (because either way you take you will just end up at another cross road and another and another etc.. ) lol so the most logical thing to do is just not to continue the process but start working hard making a new path that is undebatable and not filled with decisions that will put you between a rock and a hard place. So start cutting your own path with no cross roads that takes you straight to the path of enlightenment and the best profit for all people (lol my jumbled metaphor means lets stop what were doing and fix other things up first like sort out more alliances and wage peaceful rebellion in dictator controlled country's (but when the moment comes dont be scared to pull out the iron rod) America need's to learn how to not be such a mockery but to be both feared and loved because the combination of the two provide respect and order.

What Haiti needs is an industrial infrastructure that would create jobs and bring in foreign currency.

Kukrhi; There are a few discussions, I've been involved with on this, one here as I recall. The problems however is any Corporate Entity would have to work with that government you properly have described.

Yes, I agree continuing free food distribution seems a fruitless effort, but what can be done, other than letting the innocents die off from what surely will come SOON, during the rainy season, if not worse with a major hurricane this summer. Think about it, even here in the States, we have created a dependent society and it's difficult for me to blame folks for accepting free stuff.


A i l;

America need's to learn how to not be such a mockery but to be both feared and loved because the combination of the two provide respect and order.

The US Government, must work with in some guidelines under International Law and the guidelines of her Constitution. One principle, not only for sovereign Nations, but between US States are the required agreements between heads of State. This said, the US simply can't dictate everything it wants or impose itself on that sovereignty. Respect is earned, in these cases by both a Government or their people, hopefully at some point by both and order is or should not be an American goal anyplace. As for being feared and loved, that's just not possible, contempt is bread by fear and never loved.

you can love and fear your father can you not, regardless your other gestures are valid

The combination of fear and love is the cornerstone of successful politics. People must both fear to do wrong, and be assured of benefiting if they do right. That's probably one reason that military occupations are difficult. A foreign military force can't assure you of benefiting if you do right.


Taliban forces may threaten to kill villagers who show support for US soldiers, but also promise an increased social status (tangible or intangible doesn't really matter much) if those same villagers work with them.

Help out the US military, and you'll be lucky if they even remember your name. And, you'll still always just be a haj to them. Historically, I think this is one of the reasons that colonization was sometimes used as a means of securing foreign conquests. Once some of your fellow countrymen become permanent residents, friendly locals are more assured of being remembered when they act supportively.