New US Secretary of Defence: Impacts on Major Projects and Future Acquistions

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
As many of you know Donald Rumsfeld has resigned his post as Sec Def.
The new man for the job is former CIA Director Robert Gates, as most know any new person to the post always brings their personal style and plans for the military, Rumsfeld was known for being for reducing the size of the army and resisted for a long time increasing the size in any way. He had a history of cancelling major projects A-12, the Comanche etc, I don't intend to debate the merits of those decisions, my idea is to speculate and discuss what Mr Gates will bring to the job.
Some details:
Retired Maj. Gen. Mike Davidson, former assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, notes that Gates is respected among military officers. Gates served in the Air Force during the Vietnam era, but does not have extensive military experience.

Webster, the former CIA head, says of Gates: "I know him as a man of exceptional character, someone who headed the Eagle Scouts nationally. He's an educator, bright, with a lot of qualities that will help carry us forward, including the ability to attract consensus and get information."

A native of Kansas, Gates spent nearly 27 years with the Central Intelligence Agency, which he joined in 1966. He is the only career officer in the agency's history to rise from entry-level employee to director.

Gates has served six presidents, of both parties, and spent nearly nine years at the National Security Council.

Since leaving the CIA, Gates has often weighed in on U.S. policy and security. Excerpts from some of his speeches and articles are below:

Gates on U.S. Iran Policy
In 2004, Robert Gates was among a group of foreign-policy experts who advocated a selective engagement with Iran:

"It is not in our interest for Iran to have nuclear weapons," Gates said. "It is not in our interest for Iran to oppose the new governments in Afghanistan and Iraq. And if we can engage them and try and bring some progress in those areas, then our interests have been served. And that's what it's all about."

Gates also said that if the United States were to open lines of communication with Iran, that would not be sending a mixed message.

"Well, are we rewarding bad behavior by talking to the Libyans?" Gates said.

"Are we rewarding bad behavior by talking to the North Koreans? We're trying to figure out how to limit the national security risks to the United States from policies that Iran is following.

"We don't have much of a voice in that effort right now. We're basically sitting on the sidelines," Gates told NPR's Michele Kelemen in July 2004.

The Role of Intelligence
In 1999, Gates discussed the CIA's Cold-War role. Excerpts are below.

"First, you must remember that CIA, like the Presidents it served, was under political attack from both conservatives and liberals from the early 1970s on, and probably long before that. Liberals generally opposed CIA's operational activities and believed it exaggerated the Soviet threat. Conservatives, on the other hand, were critical of CIA's assessments of the Soviet Union which they considered too soft and skewed by CIA's involvement in the arms control process."

"All in all, CIA uniquely among the world's intelligence services, endeavored to conduct its operations according to presidential directive under the rule of law and in every way possible consistent with American values. No one can or will deny that there were lapses and failures and that the Agency paid a high price for them. But in a shadow war that ranged across the globe for nearly five decades, such failures were remarkably few and far between."

"The truth is, I suspect I'm the only CIA officer to have had two Secretaries of State, a Secretary of Defense, and the General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party all try at different times to get me fired. A dubious distinction that would have turned a lesser man's hair gray."

Details Courtesy http://www.npr.org/

So the main premise is to establish ideas on what influence the new SecDef will bring to Acquisistions, Size etc.
 

Big-E

Banned Member
I better go ahead and say my peace before he is sworn in or I won't get to say anything with DoD monitoring the www.

Bob Gates is still in a Cold War mentality. He tried to run CIA with his Cold-War funding levels when at the time it was clearly not necessary. Rummsfeld's vision of a leaner meaner fighting force will get thrown in the crapper with this man's mentality. With men like Jim Webb elected to the Senate to back him up on a 600 ship Navy and the like it is obvious to see where this power transition is going. It is no secret the Pentagon secretly wanted double to tripple the force size in the initial invasion and was only stopped by Rumsfeld's recomendations. With Gates, Hamilton and Baker deciding Iraqi policy recomendations they are going to want to defund the incredible R&D money that has been spent thanks to Rumsfeld on cheaper more manpower intensive solutions. We can kiss DDG-1000 and CG(X) in large numbers good bye with this congress and can expect large numbers of less capable platforms in the future.

While we can expect more F-22s to be ordered JSF will be hitting a brick wall. If you thought it was bad before Bob Gates will be the death-nell of this project. Fortunatly he only has two years to influence policy so the damage should be limited but this congress will be relunctant to spend money on it. Don't be suprised if you see large orders for F-16 block 60 and AESA equipped F-15s.

I think the Army is going to get a kick in the pants with FCS. It will probably be modified with currently integrated platforms and rounded out with the current fiscal approriated projects but that's the end of this transformation. I wouldn't be suprised if Gates suggest a draft to get us up to a 2 million man army!

In short I think this means a Vietnam mentality to be applied to the GWOT. Throw as many men at the problem as you can and expect victory. Well, we all know where that got us. Obviously the opposite that Rumsfeld applied in Iraq hasn't worked either.

What we need to do is clone a WWII hero who will let us go to TOTAL WAR. Without the ability to go to WWII measures the GWOT will never be won.
 

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
Cheers Big E,
Exactly the information I wanted, it will spark some intresting discussion now, I guessed maybe the F-22 would be in for a bump.
Thanks,
Rob
 

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #4
Follown on Article in todays Defensenews.com

New Congress, SecDef, May Shape 2008 Budget

By GOPAL RATNAM

Since World War II, Americans have been the world’s true revolutionaries, expanding the frontiers of human liberty by fighting and winning the cold war. But now that we’re fighting the much more complicated war on terror, many observers wonder if our glory days are behind us.


A new Congress and a new defense secretary could mean a fresh look at the Pentagon’s 2008 budget and a raft of emergency supplements the military services are preparing to send lawmakers in February.
If Congress approves Robert Gates’s nomination before January, as is widely expected, the new defense secretary would have time to mold the spending plans, analysts and observers say.
“Most [budget] decisions are not finalized until late December or even early January, so if he’s confirmed before then, he can certainly make changes, if he wants to,” said Dov Zakheim, former Pentagon comptroller and currently vice president at Booz Allen Hamilton.
Democrats who will head congressional committees in both the Senate and the House starting January would want Gates to get a handle on the Pentagon budget, said Lawrence Korb, analyst at the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank that’s close to the Democratic Party.
The Pentagon faces “terrible budgetary problems,” said Korb, a former Pentagon official in the early 1980s. The Defense Department is making plans to seek “$160 billion in emergency supplements and [Donald] Rumsfeld has let the services make their case directly to the Office of Management and Budget. This is a process getting out of control.”
Korb was referring to the Pentagon’s plans to seek close to $200 billion to pay for war related costs in the next two years, in addition to the regular defense budgets. In recent months the military services have been asked by Rumsfeld to directly make their case with the White House—an approach that many say is a departure from the usual budget process.
An Oct. 25 memo by Gordon England, the U.S. deputy secretary of defense, tells the military services to include all their war-related costs—not just in Iraq and Afghanistan—in their 2007 emergency supplement due to Congress in February.
A spokesman for England said the budget process was going ahead without delays and Gates will only be involved once he’s confirmed by the Senate.
Key Democratic lawmakers already are signaling that the Pentagon’s budget would be subject to closer scrutiny and that some of the priorities could change.
“The first thing you have to do is take care of the troops and take care of their families,” said Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., who’s likely to become chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. “Fancy weapons systems” are nice, but well-trained personnel are essential, he said during a Nov. 8 conference call with reporters.
A Democratic-led Armed Services Committee will consider making permanent the temporary increases of 30,000 troops for the Army and 5,000 for the Marine Corps, Skelton said. That will be the subject of hearings. The matter has not yet been fully explored, he said.
Those troops are now are being paid for with money from emergency wartime supplemental appropriations, but if made permanent would be paid for from the regular annual defense budget.
What the Pentagon will need to pay for military operations in the long term could also be affected by recommendations of the Iraq Study Group led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, analysts said.
The congressionally mandated Baker-Hamilton study is expected to issue its recommendations on U.S. policy in Iraq by early January.
Zakheim and Steve Kosiak, a defense budget specialist at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis, said it would be several months before the proposals are studied and implemented and even longer for them to have an effect on defense spending.
New Faces At The Top?
Gates’s more immediate impact could be felt in the people he brings with him and his view of national security, those who have worked with him and others say.
A consummate bureaucrat and long-time intelligence officer, Gates is unlikely to let ideologies frame national policies, said Robert Baer, a former CIA officer who has worked with him.
“We won’t be hearing about Gates going to the ideologues at the American Enterprise Institute or cafe exiles for advice on the Middle East,” Baer said, referring to former Pentagon officials including Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary Douglas Feith, the former undersecretary for policy and his assistant William Luti, who allegedly used Iraqi exiles to develop the intelligence to invade Iraq.
As a former intelligence officer, Gates is also likely to overhaul the Pentagon’s intelligence apparatus—a lot of which is outsourced to contractors—Baer said.
An overwhelming majority of the U.S. intelligence budget is spent by the Pentagon, mostly on satellites and other technologies. In recent years the Pentagon and other government agencies have outsourced data analysis to private contractors. And that could change under Gates, Baer said.
“The whole idea of outsourcing intelligence has been a catastrophe,” he said. “He could hire more people, train more analysts” and bring back some of the expertise in-house.
Baer and others say Gates would likely replace Steve Cambone, undersecretary of defense for intelligence and Eric Edelman, the undersecretary of defense for policy, in order to directly influence the Pentagon’s decision-making process.
Iraq Focus
Though the Pentagon’s top job presents an array of tough problems—finding the money to pay for new weapons and ongoing operations, allocating scarce dollars on emerging threats, keeping the military’s morale high, and solving the Iraq problem—people say Gates’s two-year tenure will be consumed by the Iraq issue.
“Arguably he has to be focused on Iraq,” one former Rumsfeld adviser said. “With 150,000 U.S. troops on the field, that’s your No. 1 priority. If you read the elections correctly, this is about Iraq, so Gates’s job would be about Iraq.”
Indeed President George W. Bush at a Nov. 8 press conference said replacing Rumsfeld was necessary because “the time is right for new leadership at the Pentagon.”
Those who know him say Gates is a pragmatic problem solver who’s not fixated on ideologies and could work well with lawmakers from both parties. They point to his long career in intelligence and national security affairs as a plus that will improve relations between the Pentagon and other U.S. government agencies that have borne the brunt of Rumsfeld’s wire-brush treatment in the last six years.
“It’s a good appointment,” said Zakheim, the former Pentagon comptroller.” As a cabinet official and friend of the former President George H.W. Bush, he’ll be seen as someone who’s oriented to practical concerns and given the change in Congress this might be welcomed as a reassuring appointment.”
Gates is also likely to listen to his generals in a way that Rumsfeld didn’t, people said.
“He’s a consensus builder,” Baer said. “He’ll get the generals on board. He won’t be sitting in his office and throwing thunderbolts.”
Gates was the CIA’s director between 1991 and 1993, taking over from William Casey. He is no stranger to Iraq, having served as the White House deputy national security adviser during the first Gulf War to repel Saddam Hussein’s forces from Kuwait.
As the head of CIA, he was able to “protect the interests of the agency while he retained the confidence of the White House, which enabled [intelligence analysts] to do their jobs better,” said Barry Blechman, president of DFI International and a member of the Defense Policy Board. “That’s crucial in the new job. The combination of bureaucratic understanding and political skills is essential to the situation given the anger in Congress.”
Some see Gates’s appointment as a return of the realpolitik practiced by the elder President Bush.
If Gates’s appointment is confirmed by the Senate, the top two cabinet positions—Secretary of State and Defense—will be held by former protégés of President George H.W. Bush, said Gordon Adams, a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center and a Clinton administration budget official.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice served as an adviser in the White House National Security Council during then President Bush’s term as did Gates, who is also a personal friend of Bush senior. Both were mentored by Brent Scowcroft, then National Security Adviser and a close confidant of then President Bush.
“This is a revenge of the father, if you will,” Adams said. “Cooler heads are finally prevailing.” •
 

.pt

New Member
Interesting to learn the info on the initial post and BIg-E´s opinion on the man.
I really don´t know much about the person in question, Mr Gates (pls don´t confuse with bill:confused: ). Coming from the CIA might spark some interesting conflicts.
Now that the US Congress and Senate are dominated by a Democratic majority, what might be the direction that US deployment in Iraq might take, in terms of number of soldiers stationed there, and most important in Strategy and tactics to defeat the insurgents and Al- Quaeda? One of the reasons behind this vote was, suposedly the number of US casualties sustained in this Theater of Operations. What can be done to atenuate this, without afecting operationality and efectiveness? Also, it seems that, perhaps in a limited way, US citizens perception on the progress (or lack of) in this war, was guided by an effort by the insurgents in a short preelection period. Sounds like Vietnam style manipulation (tet offensive) to me. Don´t know however enough internal US politics to sustain this, so it´s just a speculation.
Also, regarding a shift in Defense procurement policy, from a low number of enlisted personnel, and low number of platforms, altough very advanced and efective ones, to large numbers of personnel and and less capable platforms, what will be the impact on the budget?
Big E, you forget that the circunstances are not the same than those of WWII, and to choose that path, has several problems to deal with.
Externally, much more distancing from allies, who are not willing to align on a full scale war, not to mention spiking traditional enemys to an even larger extent, without the ability to strike decisevely those enemys.
Internally, the consequences of mobilising the economy to full war footing, plus having a full mobilisation, would be disatrous. I don´t think the US public would want or back this.
In one thing, i agree with Mr. Bush, this will be a very long war, a low level war. Another one is that just leaving Iraq now, would repeat the Vietnam debacle, leaving a mess behind much more difficult to clear.
Hopefully a new aproach will tackle all these problems.
Regards.
.pt
 

contedicavour

New Member
I guess that Gates will try to get Europe and the UN involved in helping out Iraq's government. With a more consensual and multi-lateral approach, with some luck it will become possible to reduce numbers of US armed forces personnel stationed in Iraq, replaced by UN personnel and lots of military police from countries that so far had refused on almost ideological terms to help the US out in bringing peace to that mess.

Besides the very good news this would be to American servicemen's families, this would also help reduce spending on Iraq and reallocate some resources to real defence spending (by real I mean investment) and preserve most of today's procurement programmes. With a 1-man majority at the Senate I don't see Democrats shooting down weapons programmes, that at least should help...

cheers
 

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #7
I think the Democrat Congress will probably add a Infantry Division, most likely light, this was one of Kerry's election plans so it will be probably be treated accordingly. I agree that the CG(X) and espescially the DD(x) will suffer, however strong leadership may prevail with luck.
 

.pt

New Member
BTW Big E, your namesake is departing Lisbon today, heading to US.
Local reports sugest that this time sailors did behave (sort of;) )
.pt
 

contedicavour

New Member
I think the Democrat Congress will probably add a Infantry Division, most likely light, this was one of Kerry's election plans so it will be probably be treated accordingly. I agree that the CG(X) and espescially the DD(x) will suffer, however strong leadership may prevail with luck.
The CG(X) isn't needed for a while yet, so that shouldn't be a problem. Regarding the DD(X) IMHO as long as new Burkes are added every year, the destroyer force in the Navy is large and strong enough.
I would add some F18E/Fs to replace the older F18s, speed up the building of the LCS since the OHPs without SM1s or Harpoons are oversized patrol cutters... simply not up to escorting carrier or amphib task forces anymore.

Regarding the F35, it is key that at least the STOVL variant gets built real fast, otherwise the USMC, the UK, Italy, Spain will have some very serious issues with replacement of AV8B Plus in 10 years' time.

cheers
 

Big-E

Banned Member
BTW Big E, your namesake is departing Lisbon today, heading to US.
Local reports sugest that this time sailors did behave (sort of;) )
.pt
Last time I was in Lisbon was aboard Enterprise... good times, except in lock up... at least I had half the deck crew to keep me company. :D

Another point on Gates... he is a spook. Do you really want a spook running as SECDEF? All he did was analyize data for 20 years. If anybody read Tom Clancy he is alot like the Jack Ryan character execpt alot less proactive and much more reactive. I don't think he knows the meaning of initiative.
 

contedicavour

New Member
Last time I was in Lisbon was aboard Enterprise... good times, except in lock up... at least I had half the deck crew to keep me company. :D

Another point on Gates... he is a spook. Do you really want a spook running as SECDEF? All he did was analyize data for 20 years. If anybody read Tom Clancy he is alot like the Jack Ryan character execpt alot less proactive and much more reactive. I don't think he knows the meaning of initiative.
Clancy's Ryan character is a former Marine and has the tendency to act like a hero ;) Gates is former Air Force pilot isn't he ?
Who would you have selected as SecDef ? A former JCS 4-star general ? At least he's no ordinary politician. In Europe we get all too often politicians ignorant of military affairs as Ministers of Defence. :(

cheers
 

Big-E

Banned Member
Clancy's Ryan character is a former Marine and has the tendency to act like a hero ;) Gates is former Air Force pilot isn't he ?
Who would you have selected as SecDef ? A former JCS 4-star general ? At least he's no ordinary politician. In Europe we get all too often politicians ignorant of military affairs as Ministers of Defence. :(

cheers
He spent two years in NORAD giving Intelligence briefs, it was his way to get out of Korea.

I would suggest "Stormin Norman" to the post. He knew not to get into this war from the begining and by god he knows how to fight it.
 

contedicavour

New Member
He spent two years in NORAD giving Intelligence briefs, it was his way to get out of Korea.

I would suggest "Stormin Norman" to the post. He knew not to get into this war from the begining and by god he knows how to fight it.
You are referring to Schwarzkopf ? If yes, I agree it would have made one great leader for the Pentagon ! Gulf War I was an awesome success also because of him.

cheers
 

.pt

New Member
Lisbon jails have "special" acomodations for " special" guests on a temporary basis:eek:nfloorl:
I trust at least you had a good time on the bars.
As for Gates, being a spook, i have no problem with that, as long as he comes up with a way to make something out of Iraq. But if he, as you say is more reactive than proactive, things can go sour...Just reading data won´t do the trick.
As for Schwarzkopf, ok for a military leader, he did great on GW I.
But this time, it´s not about rolling trough the desert with M1 ´s and guns blazing, or pounding Iraqui targets with bombs. It ´s a dirty insurgent war, coupled to an internal semi civil war, with Al- Quaeda and every muslin radical faction thrown in, just to spice things up...
Very tough and fluid situation. How to sucessfully achieve your aims, and leave a democratic free country behind without slowly bleeding the army? And you just can´t blast the enemy, because much of it is hidden among the civilians.
Perhaps the British, with their work in Oman (?) in 60 ´s can provide some clues to successfull counter insurgency?
.pt
 

Big-E

Banned Member
Lisbon jails have "special" acomodations for " special" guests on a temporary basis:eek:nfloorl:
I trust at least you had a good time on the bars.
As for Gates, being a spook, i have no problem with that, as long as he comes up with a way to make something out of Iraq. But if he, as you say is more reactive than proactive, things can go sour...Just reading data won´t do the trick.
As for Schwarzkopf, ok for a military leader, he did great on GW I.
But this time, it´s not about rolling trough the desert with M1 ´s and guns blazing, or pounding Iraqui targets with bombs. It ´s a dirty insurgent war, coupled to an internal semi civil war, with Al- Quaeda and every muslin radical faction thrown in, just to spice things up...
Very tough and fluid situation. How to sucessfully achieve your aims, and leave a democratic free country behind without slowly bleeding the army? And you just can´t blast the enemy, because much of it is hidden among the civilians.
Perhaps the British, with their work in Oman (?) in 60 ´s can provide some clues to successfull counter insurgency?
.pt
I had a great time...

Schwartzkof is a man who knows how to smash and break things... Geneva convention be damned. Pussy footing around is not how wars of attrition are won and the GWOT is certainly that. The only real weakness we have is our sense of humanity... no one can stand up to the REAL US military... the problem is nations don't know how reserved we are in our operations. If anyone ever decides to use a WMD on American soil I can GAURANTEE you Geneva 2 is out the window and a full burning of the Middle East is in order. The reason the American people initially supported Iraq was not because of WMD claims and what not... they wanted revenge for 9-11 b/c Afghanistan was not enough. Now that we have not been attacked for so long people are healing and are not so angry. All it takes is one more mass attack to bring the GWOT to a war against ALL of Islam.
 

.pt

New Member
Allways a pleasure to entertain our allies..and their $$$$$:cool:
That last post, altough it might reflect the wishes of some parts of the American public, hopefully not everyone..and it ´s a bit inflamatory:flame
My guess is that GWOT will be a Cold war style war, with some lively episodes, and some prolongued guerilla/insurrection conflicts around the Globe, mainly in middle east, and surrounding areas. The first episodes of this War, are, of course the 9/11 , the Afghanistan war, and of late, the ongoing Iraqi insurrection.
But i expect in the years to come many more episodes will develop.
The main differences are that this time, it ´s not the political ideologies of two blocks wich are confronting each other, sometimes with conventional and WMD assets, sometimes with interventions on foreign civil war, directly, or indirectly, but confrontation of cultures and some interpretations of religion, not a religious war, wich is a different thing. Basically the western democratic culture against radical interpretation of islam (not Islam itself).
Also, this time, because of the disproportion of means and assets between both sides, there will be no standoffs, like cuba, but rather a series of atacks trough time, by unconventional means, to gradually force one side to give up.
Saying that, in case of another massive atack in US soil, the Geneva convention goes out the window, and massive retaliation folows,without regard to no one, will simply result in a completely isolated US, and even the US can´t fight the whole world alone...
regards.
.pt
 

contedicavour

New Member
I had a great time...

Schwartzkof is a man who knows how to smash and break things... Geneva convention be damned. Pussy footing around is not how wars of attrition are won and the GWOT is certainly that. The only real weakness we have is our sense of humanity... no one can stand up to the REAL US military... the problem is nations don't know how reserved we are in our operations. If anyone ever decides to use a WMD on American soil I can GAURANTEE you Geneva 2 is out the window and a full burning of the Middle East is in order. The reason the American people initially supported Iraq was not because of WMD claims and what not... they wanted revenge for 9-11 b/c Afghanistan was not enough. Now that we have not been attacked for so long people are healing and are not so angry. All it takes is one more mass attack to bring the GWOT to a war against ALL of Islam.
Unless you end up with a president such as Hillary :D

Jokes apart, pray that won't happen, because with "ALL of Islam" as you say - you end up with a swathe of land from Morocco to Indonesia. The US would have to go back to the draft to recruit enough soldiers and the world economy would take a hit even worse than the Great Depression in the '30s.

What makes me more confident is that so long as Turkey, Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Pakistan remain moderate countries, you can isolate radical regimes and logically even more international radical factions.

Last but not least, the US can blast any country with its firepower. However it is becoming clear that no one can govern a country after you've blasted it. So more multilateralism and consensus is needed otherwise even the mighty US armed forces are only solving half of the problem.

cheers
 
i would have prefered to see someone like chuck hagel replaced rumsfeld. He has alot of credibility with the military but seeing how he has criticize the current policy in iraq and afghanstan there was little chance of him being nominated. also, not sure if he would have wanted the job. he has presidential aspirations. i glad to see rumsfeld and his neocon crowd go.
 

LancerMc

New Member
My problem with Gates appointment, that he is apparently a good friend of President Bush. One reason I believe things have gone so poorly in the control of Iraq, is that Bush surrounded himself with a bunch of "Yes" men. The only people that stood up to Bush were forced out (I.E. Colin Powell). If Gates ends of being another "Yes" man, things might not really change. The expansion of the army is definitely needed, and hopefully Gates will get that done. We also need to replace and retire a lot of hardware, but spending on those replacement has been low. So the military is going to have capability gaps in the mean time. Gates will have a tough time, he'll only be in position for 2 years most likely, before another president gets elected and some one else is appointed. So how much will he be able to get done during that time.? Who knows?

I think Big-E is absolutely correct, if an WMD attack was carried out against the U.S., the public would want revenge so badly, that gloves would come off completely. After such a attack the public would go damn the Geneva convention and the U.N., and a pissed off crazy super power is nothing the world wants to see. Terrorist could even make the situation worse for Muslims if they also attack countries like the U.K., Spain, and Australia. If such an attack was carried out the Western World would unite against Muslims. The thing that worries me, I think we maybe get closer to such an attack, with it being probably with bio-weapons attack or a radiological bomb. They are both cheap and hard to defend from. Terrorist have only being try to escalate the scope of their attacks the past decades.
 

.pt

New Member
Let me clarify my opinion on this.
First, by all muslims, you turn this into a religious war, say christians vs muslims.
That would mean a lot of people, countries, and territory to cover. the consequences of that are already stated in contedicavour post. Not to mention an immediate oil embargo. Also that would alienate moderate muslim (currently Us allies) countries and their people.
Perhaps you should target Radical militant muslim factions and groups, as well as their suporting countries. Would suit better.
In the event of a WMD atack ( i pray this never to materialise), i can fully understand the need for the Us to defend itself, and the immediate cry for revenge that the public would make. The western world would fully suport the US.
However, the response should be pondered, and selective, not indiscriminated.
Such a rash response could backfire. Afterall what would you do? Al-Quaeda and its similar organizations don´t quite have a single open office, or Headquarter country to strike. Would you nuke or just invade all of the muslim world (non Arab included) say Morocco, Algeria, Egypt Lybia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Malaysia, etc etc?
You could efectively make war and destroy known countries wich actively suport terrorist organisations (not all muslim ones), but not in a very short time frame, as you are already overextended with current deployments. You would need some time to build a large army.
As for the Geneva convention thing, for a nation that waged WWII, with tremenduous casualties, but still always tried to fully implement it, even agaisnt enemy that didn´t care about any convention, it would be a regression. Perhaps we should all revert to the middle ages and just do it as they did then..Barbarism at its best!
By then, the idea of US as champion of liberties, rights and enlightment will be very dead indeed...
.pt
 
Top