Amir Toumaj at the Long War Journal ("dedicated to providing original and accurate reporting and analysis of the Long War (also known as the Global War on Terror)") marked some long-overdue news.
Money quote(s):
"Known as the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, the law’s Iran section requires the president to extend a terrorism designation pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13224 to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its foreign agents and affiliates by Oct. 30.
The milestone marks the first instance the US will designate the military branch of a foreign country for terrorism."
Read the whole thing here.
"E.O. 13224 is an authority aimed at freezing the assets of terrorists and their supporters, while isolating them from the US financial and commercial systems, according to Treasury."
Why is this long overdue? Here's why (highlighted for emphasis):
"During the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Revolutionary Guard provided material assistance to militants targeting American soldiers and in Iraq directly oversaw attacks."
Showing posts with label Long War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Long War. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 23, 2017
Saturday, July 30, 2011
re: "Obama to give Re-Election speech on A-Stan tonight"
Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") has concerns about our strategy in Afghanistan.
Money quote(s):
"When fighting an enemy that thinks in centuries and millenniums, announcing that you only have the vision and fortitude to manage a year and a half to oppose them is nearly criminal.
Afghanistan and the larger war against Islamist extremists is one we are quite poorly suited to fight. They have a long war mentality and know this is a clash of civilizations"
The Huntington question is one I'm still undecided about.
One of the reasons is that it's difficult, frankly, to credit tribal Afghanis with being part of any civilization to speak of, at least in other than the most broad and general of definitions.
"(E)very weakness that al Qaeda and the rest have properly stated about us; we don't have the will or intestinal fortitude as a nation to fight them as they do to fight us. They don't have to beat us to win; they simply have to outlast us"
The flip side to this is that all we have to do is not lose.
"They were slaughtered in the thousands by the Soviets, and yet they simply cringed away, licked their wounds and returned. They were toppled by us in one of the most amazing uses of Special Operations force multiplication in 2001, and yet they simply cringed away, licked their wounds and returned. Now we have again dealt them crippling blows and even finally killed their head goat-raper, does anyone doubt they will again cringe away, lick their wounds and return? Who will stop them, the kleptocracy of the Karzais, the Afghan Security forces, the international community? Hell no!"
One of the advantages of being part of an only nominally literate culture is that your institutional memory has a very short shelf life. Usually that's a disadvantage, but if keeping up your tribe's will to fight requires that you have a fairly short memory for the times you got your butts kicked, it can work in your favor.
"If we had left in 2002, we could have claimed a victory and then proclaimed that we will bomb the living hell out of any Islamist bastards who pop their heads up. We didn't and in staying we planted a flag in the ground." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)
The "Pottery Barn" rule is so much horseshit. The West, collectively, has forgotten the merits of the punitive raid or action. After all, it's hardly "reconstruction" if you're building something they never had to begin with.
"(W)e did fight them and killed them in bunches, but that was a tactical victory for the prowess of American fighters. This battle in the greater war? That we will watch al Qaeda and their allies claim for a win."
The demographic reality of high birthrate cultures mean our enemies have some advantages in the long run. Doesn't mean they're guaranteed a win in the end, but that's how they're betting at any rate.
Money quote(s):
"When fighting an enemy that thinks in centuries and millenniums, announcing that you only have the vision and fortitude to manage a year and a half to oppose them is nearly criminal.
Afghanistan and the larger war against Islamist extremists is one we are quite poorly suited to fight. They have a long war mentality and know this is a clash of civilizations"
The Huntington question is one I'm still undecided about.
One of the reasons is that it's difficult, frankly, to credit tribal Afghanis with being part of any civilization to speak of, at least in other than the most broad and general of definitions.
"(E)very weakness that al Qaeda and the rest have properly stated about us; we don't have the will or intestinal fortitude as a nation to fight them as they do to fight us. They don't have to beat us to win; they simply have to outlast us"
The flip side to this is that all we have to do is not lose.
"They were slaughtered in the thousands by the Soviets, and yet they simply cringed away, licked their wounds and returned. They were toppled by us in one of the most amazing uses of Special Operations force multiplication in 2001, and yet they simply cringed away, licked their wounds and returned. Now we have again dealt them crippling blows and even finally killed their head goat-raper, does anyone doubt they will again cringe away, lick their wounds and return? Who will stop them, the kleptocracy of the Karzais, the Afghan Security forces, the international community? Hell no!"
One of the advantages of being part of an only nominally literate culture is that your institutional memory has a very short shelf life. Usually that's a disadvantage, but if keeping up your tribe's will to fight requires that you have a fairly short memory for the times you got your butts kicked, it can work in your favor.
"If we had left in 2002, we could have claimed a victory and then proclaimed that we will bomb the living hell out of any Islamist bastards who pop their heads up. We didn't and in staying we planted a flag in the ground." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)
The "Pottery Barn" rule is so much horseshit. The West, collectively, has forgotten the merits of the punitive raid or action. After all, it's hardly "reconstruction" if you're building something they never had to begin with.
"(W)e did fight them and killed them in bunches, but that was a tactical victory for the prowess of American fighters. This battle in the greater war? That we will watch al Qaeda and their allies claim for a win."
The demographic reality of high birthrate cultures mean our enemies have some advantages in the long run. Doesn't mean they're guaranteed a win in the end, but that's how they're betting at any rate.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
re: "GWOT's The Point?"
Lt Col P at OPFOR ("a blog dedicated towards expanding milblogging topics to include foreign policy, wargaming, grand strategy, and hippy bashing") notes that the war hasn't gone anywhere, by whatever name.
Money quote(s):
"I never liked the term, Global War on Terror, or GWOT. I found that it failed singularly to identify the enemy, a fine but crucial point. Words have meaning. Like so many of the previous administration's efforts, it was a game try but only a partial success. ("The Long War" was a much, much better choice.) But at least it identified a global war going on out there."
&
"The first step in solving a problem is to admit that you have one. If you don't square up to the fact that you're in a war, that some other entity is not only wishing harm on you and your interests but is actively pursuing the policy, you're ceding the initiative. No amount of euphemizing will wish away the facts: we are at war. We didn't ask for it, we didn't start it. The previous administration might not have fought the war as well as they should have, but at least they fought it."
Money quote(s):
"I never liked the term, Global War on Terror, or GWOT. I found that it failed singularly to identify the enemy, a fine but crucial point. Words have meaning. Like so many of the previous administration's efforts, it was a game try but only a partial success. ("The Long War" was a much, much better choice.) But at least it identified a global war going on out there."
&
"The first step in solving a problem is to admit that you have one. If you don't square up to the fact that you're in a war, that some other entity is not only wishing harm on you and your interests but is actively pursuing the policy, you're ceding the initiative. No amount of euphemizing will wish away the facts: we are at war. We didn't ask for it, we didn't start it. The previous administration might not have fought the war as well as they should have, but at least they fought it."
Monday, March 30, 2009
re: "A New Term"
Nikolas at The (Ex) Washington Realist ("thoughts on U.S. foreign policy and world affairs--as observed from Newport, RI") has a suggestion.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
re: "Obama Aide Promises End to Don't Ask, Don't Tell; Survey Shows That 10% of the Force Won't Reenlist If He Does"
Ace at Ace of Spades HQ points out the readiness issue.
Money quote(s):
"Yes, indeed, let us lose 10% of our forces during a long war in order to make life marginally easier for the 1% of our forces who are gay, and really want to tell the world about it."
"A great many progressive liberals find fault with this policy and they desire a military that embraces people's various sexual lifestyles in an open, respectful way. Unfortunately, a great many progressive liberals have absolutely no desire to serve in the military -- whether don't ask, don't tell is the law or not -- which means that the military will continue recruiting from a population which does not share the enlightened, humane, pro-homosexuality goo-goo of the progressive liberals.
Don't ask, don't tell makes military service less attractive to gays and progressive liberals. But they, largely, are not inclined to serve in any event. Repealing the code makes service less attractive to traditionalists and, yes, conservatives (as well as blacks and Hispanics) who tend to be liberal on many issues but not particularly progressive about homosexuality) who actually are inclined to serve."
&
"If Gleen Grenwald and other humane, compassionate, forward-thinking liberals announce their intention to sign up in great enough numbers to offset the losses among the current cohort of recruits, fine, we can dispense with the issue of how this policy affects the military's actual purpose -- to fight and win wars. And then we can have the debate solely on the grounds the liberals wish to have it on, on the questions of fairness and dignity and openness to diverse sexual orientations."
Money quote(s):
"Yes, indeed, let us lose 10% of our forces during a long war in order to make life marginally easier for the 1% of our forces who are gay, and really want to tell the world about it."
"A great many progressive liberals find fault with this policy and they desire a military that embraces people's various sexual lifestyles in an open, respectful way. Unfortunately, a great many progressive liberals have absolutely no desire to serve in the military -- whether don't ask, don't tell is the law or not -- which means that the military will continue recruiting from a population which does not share the enlightened, humane, pro-homosexuality goo-goo of the progressive liberals.
Don't ask, don't tell makes military service less attractive to gays and progressive liberals. But they, largely, are not inclined to serve in any event. Repealing the code makes service less attractive to traditionalists and, yes, conservatives (as well as blacks and Hispanics) who tend to be liberal on many issues but not particularly progressive about homosexuality) who actually are inclined to serve."
&
"If Gleen Grenwald and other humane, compassionate, forward-thinking liberals announce their intention to sign up in great enough numbers to offset the losses among the current cohort of recruits, fine, we can dispense with the issue of how this policy affects the military's actual purpose -- to fight and win wars. And then we can have the debate solely on the grounds the liberals wish to have it on, on the questions of fairness and dignity and openness to diverse sexual orientations."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
