Please explain Cut and Run criteria in light of Afghanistan

There will be no war between Israel and Iran. At least not one the Iranians can win. Israel has nukes. Iran can never win any war with Israel unless Israel chose to lose it. And Israel would be expressing perfect military strategy in keeping things that way.The base is intent only on protecting oil should that become necessary. Israel can defend herself without the US lifting a finger.{AbE} As for preventing a terrorist attack? No, you cannot for sure prevent on. But if one is launched you can shut down the possibility of widespread attack. Grounding all planes and taking to the air in F16's on 9/11 is the parallel here. Once an attack comes you clamp down so as to stabilise things. Its the only thing you can do: react to unaccounced attack. And once having clamped down (assuming the attack is not totally devastating (in which case its all for nought) it'l be a case of "Move along now stock market, there is nothing to see here - the Calvary have arrived".It just occurs to me: its the stock market that is being protected in reality. It just happens that the stock markets lives on oil. Where it to live on something else then it is that which would be protected You don't fight this kind of terrorism in Afghanistan. The plotting could be taking place in Ireland for all we know. The world is global Holmes. Which, to refer to topic, is as good a reason to forget Afghanistan as any. Chasing after ghosts isn't profitable. The nature of the beast is wait (intelligently) and respond. We are on the back foot in that respect. It can't be helpedAs for Afghanistan as a base. Look at a map. Some things spring to minda) Afghanistan is land locked (I suppose Iraq is too but there is only a sliver of thankful Kuwait between it and the sea)b) Iraq is positioned in the centre of gravity of oil-land. Afghanisthan is in the middle of nowherec) Iraq divides Iran from Israel, Saudi, Kuwait. Afghanistan doesn'td) Afghanistan borders Russia territory: there is no point in rubbing their noses in it if you are trying to play cards at the geopolitical table. Besides, Russia has built Irans nuclear station. That Russia/Iran geographical front is established. I'm sure the Iranian military is Russian backed. And you want to sit in the middle of it rather than sit with friendly Saudi/Kuwait/Israel/ Europe at your back. As it is it seems very East meets Weste)Have a look at another neighbour bordering Afghanistan: China. One must wonder what the hell the US was doing in that territory in the first place! 9/11 allowed for some short term leeway perhaps but lets get real - Russia and China on your immediate borders - and that a long way from home...I would suggest that simple geography resolves the US withdrawing from Afghanistan... and that Osama didn't pick his base there by accident. Head for the hills and wait it out - very simple when you think of it.f) To get from Afghanistan to the oil fields means driving your vehicles through Iran. From Iraq its a drive through far more friendly territory.I'm sure a strategist could add much more... Could you flesh out the bogus element a little The troops aren't their for oil field protection. They are their to free the Iraqi people from the oppression of Saddam (once the WMD angle got long forgotten). Don't you watch CNN? Are you nuts? Folk might not like Iran but their form is not in the same league as Saddam. Ask the average American what the name of the president of Iran is if you do not believe me. Saddam was a fig leaf - what your suggesting is walking in bollox naked... Hmmm. So you say. You just wait until some threat or other presses the red button and watch. No more "hearts and minds". It is down to business. You might not be thankful that response can be rapid - the stock market will be however. And on the day, if it ever happens (Americas reaction offsetting that possibility) you will watch it all on tv. Then you will go out and fill your car on the forecourt. If and when you do so, remember this: you heard it here first.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

"Russia territory" is not the same as Russian territory. Read it as Russia neck of the woods, Russia sphere of influence, Russia part of the world. And Chinese part of the world.Nice map. It highlights in no uncertain terms whey one could not locate ones base in Afghanistan. You don't go moving your armies into your less-than-friendly neighbours back yard.Iraq on the other hand is at the frontier of the east/west divide. European/US focused Turkey, Israel, Saudi, Kuwait all around you with Europe itself behind those.

You don't honestly mean to tell me you believe public statements do you? That whatever the strategy may be that you should be made aware of it through Fox News? I think it should be obvious enough to anyone who wasn't inclined to rely on public prounouncements for their argument. Looking at situations as they patently are allows one to conclude a I concludeI remind you that basic elements of what I say came many years ago from someone who worked in a Clinton administration think-tank on such strategy development. To his mind it wasn't a question of "if" in terms of moving to stabilise ME oil supply it was "when". All the various potential risks are being constantly evaluted and plans are constantly being made, modified and scrapped in accordance with the lastest situation. In his time the risks were graded in terms of seriousness as follows:1 Pakistan/India to have a nuclear exchange
2.China to invade Taiwan
3.Move required to be made on the Middle East. Right, lets see what you have to say Israel doesn't need the US help to cope with any desire tending towards military retaliation from Iran due to Israel knocking out Irans nuclear industry. But Iran can hardly be expected to say "Oh well - at least we tried". There can be expected to be reaction. Not only from Iran but from the Arab world at large - especially given these fractious times. And what that reaction might entail is why the US is there, I argue. Can Iran use a threat to shut its oil supply to the West as a lever to extract support for UN embargo/ sanctions against Israel (and serious ones at that: demanding Israeli land for peace)? I say the West because Russia and China would likely support such a demand. If Iran can (and they can) then the US needs to be in a position to do something about it - and fast. Securing Irans oil production might be seen as a wild move but on the day Iran turns off the taps we get a mid-east oil crisis. The stock market would have a mickey-fit. And we have seen what happens when those occur. Also could Arab sensitivities be awakened/stoked so as to result in multiple suicide-attacks against various other facilities in the region? In Saudi, Quatar, Kuwait, Iraq. Of course they can: folk are mad enough at Irael during this period of relative restraint on their part (relative to a pre-emptive strike against Iran that is) Imagine for a second taking all the US military: personnel (140,000 or so as I understand it) and equipment out of Iraq and placing it on ships in the Gulf. A monumental task in itself. Now tell your own people and the world why you are sitting there in the Gulf. It wouldn't be acceptable. It would be blatantly obvious what was going on and couldn't be supported on the worlds political stage nor at home. That Iran, China, Russia and me (!) knows what is going on already doesn't matter - the US has a decent hand that can be played as it is being played in the geopolitical game of cards. The US needs to be near and ready. With bases operational and ready to go. Land, sea and air are routes they have available now. A sea base is not enough. I can hardly believe what you are saying Holmes. You seem to want to go chasing ghosts around the mountains of Afghanistan whereas they can set up anywhere. Look north of Afghanistan and what do you see? Muslim countries all over the place. Mujahadeen territory. What is stopping them stepping over the border? All the while the oil fields sit exposed.Your dealing with reasons NOT to set up a base in Afghanistan is weak:Landlocked Afghanistan is really, really landlocked. You have to cross a thousand miles of Pakistan to get to it from the sea. An unwilling Pakistan is a different kettle of fish than minisule friendly Kuwait. Not that it matters what Kuwait think if the ballon went up. Pakistan is another matter altogether. Apply Occams Razor here. The timeframe is instant response to trouble. Central location in the gulf means any area is equidistant from where your base is. Global reach is no use if it is a.s.a.p. local reach you need. Just look at the map and consider the logistical aspects. Good sea access/friendlier territory around you/Europe at your back/close to all critical areas/a good command of the surrouding territory from which to launch off elsewhere. This doesn't give you a firm base. It gives you a toehold. If that is all you want it would be better to settle down somewhere away from the oil fields so as not to be accused of oil grabbing. Protection NOW, this minute, is not the goal - it is putting oneself in a strong position to protect any/all oilfields in the whole region in reponse to a threat from anywhere in the region.But say you had Iraqi oil fields alone as secured, with Saddam presumably still in power. Now Israel/Iran (for example) goes off. You now have to conquer Iraq and set about establishing a base - right in the middle of a crisis. For your toehold is not necessarily in a good strategic position to to deal with the threat. Invading Iraq gave the US access to all the infrastructure required to establish a firm base. They moved at the time they moved and considered it necessary. A patch of sand with some oil well on it far from anywhere is a patch of sand far from anywhere - not something that is ready to be turned into a base. Airports, construction materials, roads, bridges etc are available in Iraq - not on a patch of sand. With Saddam gone who is left against you in the area? Forget Syria and Jordan. There is only Russian-backed Iran. One major foe and one major front (in the case that that front needs to be dealt with) Sitting in Kuwait with Saddam in power means that when/if the balloon goes up you have the distinct possibility of him acting crazy. Better take him out and remove any Iraqi threat. What would stop him lauching missiles at Iran or Israel simply in order to stir things up? He has done both before. You don't leave a mad man in control when the place is a tinder box already. Keep your eye on the oil. Its flow must be protected from any sudden major disturbance. There is no way around that. If you can come up with a better base for instant operations then suggest one. We can rule out Afghanistan at this point I think. And the carrier option too. Unless you would like to develop them a little moreEdited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Add another 140,000 or so to the 12,000 or so that are in Afghanistan - along with all the military equipment involved and see what happens. Would the US let China set up a large military base in Cuba?Oops...look like we don't have to bother with that scenario anymore. Afghanistan was never going to last as a base for the US it seems.

Er...Anglagard. I was looking at Google Earth when I was examining the poor strategy required for using Afghanistan as a base. It has this handy feature which puts the names of the countrys on the country so you know where you are. I am also aware that the former Soviet Union is former. Also my ex-girlfriend and myself planned out a journey she was planning to make to Taskent and the surrounding region. We spent quite a while on maps of the region..."bordering Russia territory" I said - not Russian territory. There is a difference - which is why I left out the 'n'. I'm sure you've heard the expression "sphere of influence" beforeGo on...admit it. You didn't spot the difference - you just leapt on what you thought was a mistake and you are not prepared to back down.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I agree. What 9/11 did was wake the world up to something it hadn't really been seen before: creative terrorism. Terrorism that told us our societies structure was fragile, that you didn't need to hit it with tanks and nukes in order to cause a lot of damage. 9/11 didn't result in damage to our society - it announced to us that a lot of damage could be done to our society by employing relatively unsophisticated means. Means which use the weight and vunerability of the structure to bring the structure down. All you have to do is kick a leg out from underneath it - the structure will do the rest. Just like the twin towers collapsing.Earlier I pointed to how 3 x 10 planes knocked out of the sky over the ocean would cause disaster in the airline and associated industries worldwide. 10 planes out of the sky today. Another 10 next month and another 4 months from now and you shut an industry - that's all it takes.And thats peanuts when it comes to our vunerability regarding oil. Do some serious damage to oil supply and the weight of the worlds economy will do the rest. Like, if you can coordinate knocking 10 planes out of the sky its not that much more to coordinate 10 oil facilities in flames - say the 10 biggest facilities in the world I agree. But neither will trying to win hearts and minds. The minds that want our destruction already exist and are working towards that goal. Heart and minds is an impossible result to achieve in the short or medium (and perhaps even long) term. There is no point in wishing it were so and waiting around until it is so. The game is already on. There is no point in wishing your team to consist of other players. You play as you must now - not as you would want to then.The fight for survival might not be winnable. But that doesn't make it any less a fight for survival. It doesn't mean you sit around and do nothing. You prepare to protect that which makes you vunerable.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

An interesting paper on the subject: Don't you wish we had a hydroeconomy?

Protecting ones way of life takes many forms. Not so long ago it meant going to Vietnam.I haven't claimed that a moral obligation is in any way involved. They are your own words not mine.

You were yearning earlier that a "noise filter" be applied as this "could be an interesting discussion". You might consider applying the filter to yourselfI have not made any comment about the morality of it, nor am I justifying it.

You didn't read what would come with it. What do you think the effect of 10 planes falling out of the sky into the sea would be on the airline business/the aircraft manufacturing (and associated) industrie(s)/tourist industry/international business/banking industry? Do you suppose that a low margin industry which relies on flying people filled planes would continue to fly people filled planes?Or would people vote with their feet? Note that had the first attack involving soft drinks bottle explosives succeeded and the evidence for what caused the downings lay at the bottom of the ocean you would have difficulty figuring where to target your increased security before the next attack. And I'm assuming 3 attacks over say the space of a year in considering the damage to the aforementionedThats creative...Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This is the second time I've explained it and still your not getting it. The IRA attempted to incapacitate through fear: blowing up targets in England. When they paused the campaign or were prevented from carrying it out people went straight back to normal. There were no aftershocks - the incapacitation lasted more or less as long as the terror.The difference here is that there is no "normal" to go back to should a relatively small scale attack succeed. 3 seperate attacks involving 10 planes falling into the sea would paralyse air travel and its associated industries long enough to cause their death (the mechanics of which have been already outlined). And after it dies, who is going to get back into the airline business? What do the holiday centres of the world do when no one is flying to them? Millions upon millions would be put out of work by the collapse of the airline industry. All for 3 or so terrorist strikes. That's what I call a bargain.Small strikes to a complex system (the worlds economy) > massive, long lasting damage. The devastation isn't caused by the strikes themselves - it is the weight of the complex structures, which such strike cause to wobble, which brings those structures down It's the same with oil. A relatively small number of devastating attacks to key oil facilities and we are in real trouble. Have a look at reserves held by most nations in case of severe disruption: 60-90 days and thats it. One recent (clumsy) attempt on one Saudi facility, if it has succeeded in causing cessation of output, would have cut Saudi oil in half. A fire in an oil facility isn't hard to start - and you wouldn't be expecting to put the fire out and have things running in 60-90 days either. Its not like I'm making this up.What if? | The Economist On this point at least, I can't say that I disagree with him..This form of terrorism aims at incapacitation through collapse of heavy structures. It's anything but dumb. Its very, very smart in fact. Brilliantly simple.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Of course there is no difference for you. 9/11 lay in the class of actions which I described the IRA as having done. The world moves swiftly on. But if the foiling of a plot to knock 10 planes out of the sky over the sea doesn't cause to project forward a little - to a time when you won't move swiftly on then you are sticking your head in the sand. That attempt revealed clearly how vunerable our society is to major damage. Such a small investment (by those already bent on destroying Western life) for such massive return would be one that would have the average finanical investor licking his lips.The key word there is "already" There are folk sufficient already to carry out such action - the West has long since given cause for many to hate us. You can wring your hands in anguish about more being added to their number but so what? It's not like you are creating something that doesn't already exist. What is there to lose if you are already in a position of losing.'All' that has happened in recent times is the demonstration of how that existing hate can be channeled effectively and efficiently against Western structures. "Go for the arteries and let your opponants own heart pump the lifes blood out of his body" I don't know about North Korea but I can't imagine Iran is doing anything other than rubbing its hands with glee at the dismantling of their former enemy. Sure they will make as much mileage from it as the can but lets not forget who Iraq was for themEdited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Do you suppose this might work?Peace in Our Time - Wikipedia

This is amusing coming from you. You had it explained to you 2 or 3 times yet you only ever saw the significance of 30 planes falling out of the sky in terms of the numbers flying in those planes (and their close relatives grief perhaps)Like, hallo?