[chasio649]

"We realise that almost in all circumstances others will be able to do the job less expensively than we can because we tend to have a very cost-intensive force".

-------

Outsourcing the WOT?

Where's the Mexicans when you need them?

[Cornpone]

Ping...

This is a low volume ping list. Freepmail me if you want on or off this list.

[peyton randolph]

chairperson of the United States joint chiefs of staff

Chairperson?

[G.Mason]

There must be some great air filters in the offices of the Mail&Guardian to keep the stench, that is So. Africa, away from their nostrils while they type.

[tonycavanagh]

Interesting evolution is the use of the Military.

Of course as in the Cold War this is fraught with difficulties and will todays potential allies be tomorrows potential enemies.

Questions raised are :

Will the regional allies be Democratic or dictatorships.

Will American troops find them self's shoring up unstable or dictatorial governments.

And will surgical strikes be enough will there be a need for more boots on the ground on a semi permanent occupation.

Is this the permanent war as envisaged by George Orwell in Big Brother.

[patriciaruth]

FYI ping.

[EBH]

The plan rests heavily on a much higher level of cooperation and integration with Britain and other Nato allies, and the increased recruitment of regional governments through the use of economic, political, military and security means. It calls on allies to build their capacity "to share the risks and responsibilities of today's complex challenges".

That is a mighty tall order on its face, as we watch "allies" barter with Iran and Hamas now. This is going to require that internally the international diplomacy is better supported. Which means, that the Al Gore's of the US, sit down and shut up for they do not know who the enemy is.

I notice no mention of the UN, but of regional/local forces and allies. In some cases being considered better 'equipped' to deal with the challanges of the area? So what does that mean in conflicts like Darfur?

How will conflicts be determined? Which will call upon the US to interfere?

And what is to be done with our own divided nation? The hearts and minds of the American people must be won too. Perhaps there should be more cartoons, as that seems to one of the few things that moved them out of the comfortable left leaning home for a bit.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

The reference to TE Lawrence's role in the attack on Aqaba. It is told in his book "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom," and the movie "Lawrence of Arabia."

I remember a key scene in the movie when crossing the Nafu desert Lawrence went back to same a young boy that was missing. Omar Sharif told him, "It is written" he is dead. Lawrence went back for him, found him and saved him, and then said to Sharif "Nothing is written." This scene explains a lot about the difference in the Arab and Western cultures. Arab cultures are much more fatalistic, while we believe in free will. I liked in Saudi Arabia for 5 years and it was very common for Arabs to say that something happened because Allah willed it. They actually believe that someone could be murdered and that was Allah's will. What this means is that Arabs will go with the flow if they think it is predetermined.
This does not mean that Arabs are in sync with each other. The other scene in "Lawrence of Arabia" that is memorable is after Lawrence and his Arabs have taken Damascus and they are all gathered around a huge table trying to agree on who is responsible for what. Tribal differences prevail and the city collapses, so the British have to take over and run the city. Arabs are very family and tribal oriented, and it is hard to get them to agree.

[siunevada]

"The Long War"

Almost 1400 years now.

[mdittmar]

towards a rapid deployment of highly mobile, often covert, counter-terrorist forces.

Iran is toast,it just doesn't know it yet.

[prairiebreeze]

The report exposes the sheer ambition of the US attempt to mastermind global security. "

Indeed, because we are the only ones who can.

PING!

[bikepacker67]

The emphasis switches from large-scale, conventional military operations, such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq, towards a rapid deployment of highly mobile, often covert, counter-terrorist forces.

And hopefully lots and lots of cruise missiles.

[prairiebreeze]

the conversion of submarine-launched Trident nuclear missiles for use in conventional strikes

I can't figure out of they mean converting the missiles to non-nuclear, or something else.

Regardless, the Trident subs are very cool.

[Savage Beast]

"The report exposes the sheer ambition of the US attempt to mastermind global security"

And reveals the importance of responsible, intelligent, focused leadership (note tagline)--in contrast to the confused, unrealistic, intellectually dishonest foolishness offered by the U.S. Democrat Party and the European Left.

[Supernatural]

At this point in my life, I am resigned to the fact that there will be a major world war between "the forces of light and the forces of darkness". China and Russia are aiding our enemies, in this case muslims, as they have always done.

The longer we wait before we strike, the stronger our enemies become.

The longer we wait before we strike, the more risk we take of our enemies striking us first.

The only brightness I see in the future is the brightness coming from nuclear blasts.

The clash is inevitable.

[Fishrrman]

Briefing reporters in Washington, Ryan Henry, a Pentagon policy official, said: "When we refer to the long war, that is the war against terrorist extremists and the ideology that feeds it, and that is something that we do see going on for decades."

Why not call a spade a spade, and call this war what it is: The War Against Islam.

"The Long War" describes a period of time that the conflict will last, and artfully dodges the nature of what the war is _about_ and with whom it is waged.

But at least it's one small politically non-correct step away from the euphemism of "War Against Terror".

And, at least a little credit to Mr. Henry for including that the war is being fought against an "ideology that feeds it" (terrorism). But again, he dodges his aim as to what the "ideology" _is_.

So long as we are unwilling to even recognize and acknowledge the enemy with whom we are engaged, we may wound it here and there, but we cannot DEFEAT it.

- John

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

In the coming global conflict, Islam is only the first wave of the foreign enemies.

Our domestic enemies are far more dangerous than the hosts alligned against us.

[jpsb]

"The report exposes the sheer ambition of the US attempt to mastermind global security"

I wonder if this is not a "Bridge to Far", but I suppose we have no choice since we have grown so dependent on global producers to supply us with the necessities of life. Another bonus of free trade? "continuous, global war?"

[jordan8]

We face a ruthless enemy intent on destroying our way of life and an uncertain future.

Unfortunately that enemy is internal. There is no clash of civilizations because Islamic nations are not strong enough to confront the West, nor is neither the West or Islam united. The threat to the West is internationalism, the internal aspect of which is multiculturalism and immigration, and those are policies of the Western elite, not Islam.

[Wiseghy]

This simply replaces the notion of permanent peace which was at the root of the foreign policies of GB-I and Clinton. It was a naive notion, that ignored the development of WMD's as a threat to civilization.

The struggle of civilization against the forces of barbarism is a very old one, dating to the first cities 5000 years ago. Military technology, leadership and preparedness usually dictated the victor over the millenia.