Please explain Cut and Run criteria in light of Afghanistan

Every objective is carried out with a certain efficiency. 100% efficiency is everyones goal but reality fall short of that. For instance:Compressed air is known to be an expensive way of driving mechanisms. A typical air compressor is about 20% efficient. That is: you put in 100% electricity and get out 1/5th of that in equivilent work in the form of compressed airBut electricity generation itself is inefficient. If you are using oil then the efficiency of oil in/electricity out is 50%. Thus using oil > electicity > compressed air is 10% efficient. Yet compressed air is an essential in industry.Geopolitics is no different. A lot of folk have ideas about this that and the other way to approach things (invade all oil producing nations being your own off the wall idea). In fact you act as best you can. If compressed air is the only thing that will do the job though then the efficiency of it isn't really the question.Oil is critical to the world as we know it - factRisks to oil exist - fact. I have given oneRisks must be countered as soon as they threaten - factObjectives currently met:Large military presence on the ground in the affected zone - doneLetting anyone who needs to know know that you mean business - up to and including invasion - doneGearing up your war machine to react swiftly - doneStabilising world fears on oil supply now and were trouble to break out - doneWinning hearts and minds - its the economy stoopid

You obviously were taking a nap on 9/11Google it

Talk about missing the "now" aspect of the point. "Winning hearts and minds" is a vacuous objective if a relative drop in the ocean (those that dissent) is all that is required to cause a a global wobble.Addressing why they hate you (the West) is long term. That they hate you now and are bent on your destruction is the 'now' issue I was trying to highlight. There was an article in the Irish Times (serious/broadsheet) two days ago regarding the the influential muslim theologian, Sheikh Ysaf al-Qaradawi. Folk are wringing their hands as to whether his pronouncement that suicide bombers are a legitimate weapon of war (but only against Israel mind!!) or not could indict his being an extremist or a moderate (they quote his more moderate tones in defence).In a full 1 page piece they never figured to ask him whether suicide bombing of a supporter of Israel (9/11 being an example of this) was a considered by him to be something that wasn't a giant leap from his stated position.If suicide bombings in Israel are acceptable to him the suicide bombings in a supporter of Israel must be acceptable to himTwiddle you fingers while Rome burns all you like NWR.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

You're missing the big picture, K. The "zone" means preparedness for war in the Middle East. A couple of miles hither or thither is not the issue. Nor is Iraqi output. The US there means the oil ain't going away which would be the case if it where otherwise. Lets not forget that one mans loss (Iraqs output) is another mans gain (everyone but Iraq). A bit of argy bargy the world can stand - but not the meltsdown of a ME gone madAre the troops acclimatised? Are they more familiar with how the ME mindset works in terms of achieving their own objectives?Have they experienced what it is to operate in the region technically? Sand plays havoc with equipment afterall..Have they laid links around, in terms of on the ground intelligence? Are they spreading those links out wide. How does one do this from Kentucky?Have the arms industries geared up to be prepared for demand (you bet your bottom dollar they have: they are in cutting edge business not relatively slow moving government)Has anyone with ideas of disturbance in the region been given cause to think twice?What is the set up time for all that is necessary to provide complete local cover for an oil installation anywhere in the region as of now this instant - given an instant call for it now, this instant? Is it far less than if Iraq II had never happened?Whatever the original intention of Iran, do you think they think different now with the US on their doorstep? Like has it any influence at all in their reckoning. Or are they just dumb Arabs? What about anyone else with a tendency to rattle sabres. Disuaded perhaps?Do you think that a change in the US goverment will change the reality from a US perspective? Or do you think that the think-tanks that provide up to the minute, best-estimate-of current-lay-of-the-land will be disbanded by the new administration. I pose the question in the knowledge that such think-tanks are not political institutions but are rather intellectual institutions made up of the best minds in the field who are bent on what is best for the US (and the world by necessary extension). They are not concerned with what is best for the short term US government. Governments in the US don't last that long. These guys are looking at long term careers.Given the worlds addiction to oil (and a world reliant on oil is a large proportion of the total: think the West, China and India and you have 50% of it all before you even get out of bed) how many are seriously going to complain? What is the real (as opposed to posturing oppostion?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

The picture is Middle East oil - not Iraqi oil. The US cannot go in and secure all the oil producing zones in the middle east on the basis potential threat. That would be ramping things up to disproportionate levels. But establishing a base in the middle east was do-able. Iraq is it. When the threats go then they can leave but the threat isn't going to go away. Of course damage could be repaired. But if the worlds economic system has a heart attack there is no guarantee that its heart can be started again and assuming it is started again, what is the level of brain damage that would be sustained by it? A significant blow to numerous installations all at the same time will take time to repair. The delivery time on complex equipment in my plant is 12-15 weeks from order. Suppose the same timescales with oil production equipment. 3-5 months. I can't see how even this would be done. Its a specialised industry and you haven't got teams of specialists who can simultaneously start out repairing multiple installations.I'd make sure that whatever method I was using to cause damage would result in fire (there is plenty of fuel available afterall). Fire cause tremendous damage. And before you even think about repair you have first to put the fire out! This is getting even easier to do. Starting fires in oil producing plants can't be that difficult. Remember 9/11. If the collapse of the WTC wasn't foreseen you can bet someone learnt something from it.And say the timing of this attack coincided with Iran turning off the oil tap as a means to extract world sanction against Israel for a strike against their nuclear industry. Iran turning off the tap alone would cause a shock to the delicate economic structure which yearns for oil stability in supply and price. If a terrorist was considering taking out oil installations then it would be best to wait until things had gotten a little bit ropey elsewhere. Let the world wobble a little in uncertainty. Then strike. Thats how I'd do it.You cannot you simply crank up capacity at other sources - people don't invest in expesive oil extraction equipment just to leave it lying around in case half the worlds oil supply (or whatever it is) disappears overnight. Capacity increases take time. In fact, given that this is a global threat then why not increase the span of attack to include oil production in other countries?And you can be sure that if starvation then the countries with the oil are going to ensure their own strategic needs are met: they will maintain themselves and anyone key to themselves first. Many countries will get a lot less than half normal supply.What happens to oil prices in such a scenario. And what happens to the price of all the products that are made from oil? They go up. And to add to that you have people worried about jobs and futures - the last thing they are going to be doing is buying more expensive products. When folk are uncertain they batten down the hatches. Uncertainly is what you try to sow - it adds untold amount to the size of the actual problem3-5 months with such an interruption to supply would be devastating to the worlds economy. Not a mortal wound perhaps, not even something that could not eventually be recovered from. But devestating all the same. Business that is totally oil dependant collapse if oil is interrupted: how can airlines stay in business if planes can't fly. And if once out of business how do they get back in business? How do you start the heart of a dead corpse? And how do you carry out all the essential business that is carried out by people flying? What happens to international tourism and the economies that rely on tourism.How does a car manufacturer produce cars when he has no plastic dashboards and why would he think of producing them when the last thing folk are going to be buying is carsMy mate has a company that makes plastic bags. He doesn't stockpile the raw material - he buys it on the basis of Just In Time. And all the way down the chain everyone produces things on a Just In Time basis - inventory sitting on the shelves costs money. How long can he stay in business when he has no product to sell? How long will he pay his employees to come in a do nothing? 3 months? And what happens to the banks who now have massive default on mortgage payments? What do realty companies do when no-one but no one is buying or selling houses. Do they keep their employees on the pay roll for three months?How do people get to work when they live 60 miles away. How do the companies who are missing employees stay in business when there is no one to do the work?It'd be a heart attack Kuresu.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Then let me try to deal with your post and see if anything I have said before needs repeating or elaboration Fair enough. It has existed from the moment Iran started building a nuclear power plant. This day was inevitable. Israel won't strike unless it has to - if there is another means they will take that. They know the world doesn't want Iran having nukes any more than they do. But if the world won't resolve it they willIsrael striking Iran wouldn't affect oil supply? The Arab world would go bananas. Israel cannot let Iran have nukes - its not a question of you allowing or disallowing. It is their existance at stake.Invading Iraq establishes a firm base in the Middle East. If the balloon went up then its state of emergency time. The military moves to protect Iraqi oilfields and threatened oil fields in other countries in the region. Iraq is a base - that's all. We're completely hooked on oil Holmes. Don't underestimate what addicts will do for a fix. I think you missed the point I was making. Which is why you might think I am being evasive. I was comparing Israeli (conventional) military power to others conventional military power in that region. I know where Damascus is and I also said Israel would not invade. The purpose of stating them being able to ride straight to Damascus was to underline their conventional might. Conventionally, the balance of power is completely on the Israeli side. The only way to balance it for Iran is to go nuclear. How so? If people are already bent on your destruction then a terrorist threat against oil exists whether you invade or not. I made the point much earlier about the effect of knocking 10 aircraft out of the sky over the ocean with soft-drink bottle explosives. And then repeating it 2 or 3 times around the world. You get the collapse of the air travel/manufacturing industry and much by way of knock on effect into the economy. 30 aircraft knocked down by a combination of soft-drinks bottles + 30 martyrs + ingenious thinkingThe ingenious thinking could not fail to look at oil - invasion or no. I imagine some smart people came to that conclusion after 9/11. "We are very vunerable so simple attack. Now where else are we vunerable?"Edited by iano, : No reason given.

A relatively clumsy affair. Note the figures quoted for oil production had just this one attack succeeded.A couple of small explosive/incendiary devices in the right places and the place goes up like a torch. All you need is:one expert to train others where to place the devicesothers to get jobs in the facilitiesBoom!If thats the effect of one facility being destroyed by fire what effect 10 of the biggest facilities around the world?BBC NEWS | Middle East | Saudis 'foil oil facility attack' This is the reaction of the stock market to news of a failed attack. What kind of reaction if the attack had been successful. What kind of reaction if successful x 10.Meltdown Holmes. MeltdownEdited by iano, : No reason given.

Neither you nor I are privy to all the things that might result in this time and not another. What we might accept is that 9/11 woke people up to:- simple, creative, effective global terrorism.
- people whose aim is the destruction of Western life.Stabilty of oil supply from the ME is a stated foreign policy goal of the US and has long been a stated policy. 9/11 showed that not only must one deal with national level conflict but also creative terrorist threats. Regarding one national level threat we have Israel/Iran. Whilst simmering for years during the development of a nuclear facility this facility is due to (or may have just) received its first shipment of fuel. It is around this point that the danger enters the clear and present zone. That is one reason for the US to take up residence in the gulf. Politically you cannot take up high level residence for a stated threat - that would be seen, politically as sabre rattling. You need an excuse to do so.Then there is the terrorist threat. There is no guarantee that any measure you take will prevent a terrorist attack being carried out. In that sense you sit and wait. But once it has been taken then you need to be able to react swiftly. Grounding all planes after 9/11 was a natural post-act response to prevent further such attacks (if any were in the pipeline). Any terrorist attack that looks as if it has the potential to threaten oil supply from the region can result in the securing of facilities in the region because the machinery in in place to allow that to happen.If one is trying to prepare for these two eventualities then how do you suggest it be done. Iraq might not be pretty. But if the best of the worst then that is as it is. An inefficient action is better than no action at all. Did you notice the question mark? Did I not say the Arab world could be expected to go bananas? You cannot overtly take over oilfields in sovereign countries on the basis of a possible threat. It is politically impossible. When the threat becomes a reality then you step up to that level. You have a good reason to do so and no one is going to complain (except perhaps the sovereign countries but no one cares much about them) Politically you cannot take such action on the basis of a potential threat. You would be sabre rattling. You need an excuse to do this. There is no need to have the forces do anything other than they are doing. Its when the threat becomes a reality that you cary out necessary actions. You up and out from where you are and head to the oil fields. Feck the rest of the country - that was never was your prime objective. 9/11 showed that you don't need a firm base. This kind of terrorism can be planned and trained for anywhere in the world. The delivery is a relatively uncomplex affair. Did you read about how simple it would be to set off a fire in an oil field? One technically minded terrorist gets a job in oil plant - that's itBesides the aim would be to be able to respond to threats anywhere in the region. Saddam in place only looks after Iraq - if even that. He may have been motivated. Whether he was able is another thing. I'd prefer to use disciplined organized personnel for the task myself. And to avail of people capable of assessing the risks and arriving at solutions to those risks given some means of implementing those solutions. Being prepared for a risk in this way is the only way to hope to address the threat becoming reality. Politically acceptable (domestically and internationally) alternatives which deal with real national/terrorist threats that can happen at any moment, anywhere in this region on a postcard to this address please NB: the current action managed to clear the politically acceptable hurdle in its very coming about so your answer only has to meet that criteria. What folk think later is neither here nor there when the action has make it nigh on impossible to develop a politically acceptable exit strategy. There is no Saddam to turn to now.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This quote of mine is prior to you posting anything in this thread. I said region. Not Iraq. This deals with the initial section of your post Note when it was that this plan was initialised. Then take a look at Iraq. Then see the difference. There is such a thing as politics which disallows such blatant action. Doing this to a sovereign state would be unacceptable. You need to have a reason that is at least swallowable (even if folk know what it going on). Freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny fits quite nicely. Now if the threats became real then the US could do as you suggest - for the world would want them to do so. No one gives a hoot about sovereignty if it becomes clear to them that the price of it means their lifestyle will be cramped. "We can't have these crazy Arabs holding us to ransom - do what you must" But why go to all the trouble of risking an economic heart attack if you don't have to? I don't think you understand how the worlds economic system works. Its built on confidence and a severe jolt to that will cause pandemonium. Being told that "2our reserves will keep us going" is not going to stop people wanting to get the hell out of every oil reliant business in the world.Nor do I think you understand the damage that a major fire at an oil facility would cause. You could be three months putting out the fires alone. Way to go. Make the world even more hooked on oil whilst you attempt to deal with the risk of the tap being shut. This is another subject which has little to do with a strategy of securing oil supply

Fair enough. Sorry for not spotting you had posted before.My contention is (and has always been) that Iraq is, in effect, a military base in a particularily strategic area of the world. The global reason for setting up that base, the prime objective, is to ensure stability of oil supply - not just into America - but into the worlds economy: America needs the world economy to function as it does if its own economy is to function correctly. The motto is: keep business going as usual.My other contention is that establishing a base in this region is a response to:- emerging national level threats to stability of oil supply (Israel/Iran being the example chosen to elaborate on this). We also have a general stirring in the Muslim world in terms of its relationship with the West: those relationships becoming more fraught- emerging terrorist threat underlined by 9/11 which revealed a hitherto unrealised vunerability to attack and revealed on our screens intelligent and able people who desire the destruction of the Western way of life.WMD and Freeing Iraq was the reason given for the action taken but this is a smokescreen which allows the true objective to be realised in a way that is politically expedient. The idea that the US could just take control of all the oil fields denies the geopolitical reality. There is no need to make things THAT complex at THIS stage. A healthy application of Occams Razor is being exercised at this juncture of the threat level. I would predict exactly what you suggest should have occurred if any of the existing threats threatens or does explode. That is why the US is where they are - to be able to do as you suggest they should have done should that need arise. When that need arises the politically such action would be geopolitically digestable. The US would be pushing at an open door then. But not until then.I have explained why it is that Israel cannot permit Iran to access nuclear weapons. Their action in 1981 against a similar threat from Iraq is proof positive (if proof were necessary) that I am not making this up. I have also explained how vunerable the oil supply is to creative terrorism of the kind that proved so 'successful' on 9/11 (in a symbolic way) and nearly proved 'successful' in a very damaging way (to the worlds economic system) with the attempt to knock 10 planes out of the sky over the Atlantic ocean. Failing your dismantling of both of these issues (as real issues), the threats to stable oil supply remain clear and present - making some sort of dramatic response from the US a necessity. And it just so happens they have responded in dramatic fashion. If this response is NOT a response to those threats then the US has yet to act on these threats. This I sincerely doubt. The charge of mopping up Daddys Mistakes is easily thrown. But getting it to stick is an altogether different matter.You have raised the issue of a Marshall-style plan. You forget that the Marshall plan was effected post-war whereas this situation does not exist in Iraq. The fighting continues there. You also forget that a Marshall plan for Iraq does nothing to address the threats outlined above both of which exist irrespective of what the US does in Iraq. The Marshall plan in other words sought to strengthen Europe against the might of the USSR. Which mighty empire is witheld by Marshall-planning Iraq. None I suggest (the US is, as it happens, attempting to do something about stabilising Iraq but that is not prime-objective territory. That is a side show)You also raise the issue of oil production in Iraq. This too has nothing at all to do with the prime objective and threats I outline. Stability in oil supply is a different issue than absolute oil output. Oil supply from the Middle East IS stable. That Iraq is underperforming doesn't affect stability - it affects price a few cents here and there. This the worlds economy can easily handle - as is being currently demonstrated by the worlds economy. In fact your own economy isn't doing that badly. Not great growth it might be said but 2.6% is a long way from recession If you want to address the case I am making then you need to address the case I am making - not one of your own making.

Well, then you will accept nothing at all - for you are not privy to US government top-table rational. There is a summary of postion above addressed to Kuresu. We can both speculate as to timing for invading Iraq. I lay a case for the timing above for you. Dismantle it if it pleases you. I sure lots of people with access to intelligence knew of the possibilities. But Joe Public did not. 9/11 enabled the US to do something which was hitherto (geopolitically) impossible. As it was, the world gave in with hardly a whimper. Osama shot his wad a little early with such drama. Iraq with Saddam was a perfect entry point. A case could be made for invading Iraq. Not so Iran. Sure, folk might not like their views but you couldn't really stand up and say they cannot have nuclear weapons and demand inspectors be sent in. They have as much a right as anyone to develop nuclear weapopn. Not so Saddam. Saddam had form. The world would have no problem with his neck in the noose. He was an ideal patsy - ripe for the plucking.Invading Iraq doesn't strenghtn Irans position in any consequential way. Are they going to invade Israel. Or take on the US. No. In what way is their position strengthened bar for hollow sabre rattling?As for the terrorists being strengthed. Well it so happens that they were strong enough already to cause serious damage. Osama should have concentrated on (less spectacular) oil terminals first - not grandstanding announcements of intent. But the threat on oil hasn't diminished. I explained how easy it would be and gave a link to the effects of just one terminal being attacked. Dismantle the threat if you desire to do so. All that matters is whats acceptable to the world. Saddam, as I said above, was ideal. Made for it.Why not Saudi or Kuwait? Geopolitically unacceptable. What made the Cuban missile crisis unacceptable. The intent was obvious is what. There was no other motive than improving first strike capability on show. Iraq achieves all I say of it whilst winning at the table of geopolitical reality. Lets not forget that Russian and China have hands to play. They just got trumped by the US Were there no need to take account of the political game then Saudi or Kuwait would be ideal. But this is not the case and so a price must be paid. I don't see Iraq as a poor base other than that. Your in the middle of the middle east. How closer do you want to be?And lets not forget secondary objectives in Iraq. Yes the country needed to be rid of Saddam and rebuilding does need to occur. Only secondary but worthwhile in itself What 9/11 and the attempt on 10 planes should have thought us is that the attack will be clever and subtle. Not some attempt to ram the gates of an oil refinery with a car packed with explosives (as per my BBC link) That kind of attack could be repelled all day long. The ability for a stealth approach already exists. Did you read the essential elements:a) An expert who knows where best to place a bomb/incendiary device in order to start a nigh on un-put-out-able fireb) getting terrorists jobs in oil installationsAdding more anger to it does could not make it anymore simple. So adding to it should not be a prime concern. Responding to it must be. I'm not saying Iraq is perfect. Its not. But given main objectives it is the best of the options - given the critical objectives. You must keep the critical objectives in mind. And I don't think you are. A serious disruption of Middle East oil means Meltdown. You shouldn't expect to have it ALL your own way Nobody is concerned with Iraq having been invaded anymore. They are concerned with the consequences. Quite a different thing. And like I say (at the risk of sounding like the death and destruction means nothing to me: it does) - you do not make an omelette without breaking eggs.The effect on the world economy from Iraqi oil production reduction hasn't inhibited economic growth. The world is doing fine - operating within the healthy zone of economic growth. I have addressed possible gains for terrorists. It is not a central issue: the ball was already in play. War had already been declared. I mean that whatever genius figured out the way to play it made sure that those who would tend to wring their hands wouldn't have the option of retreating. Saddam gone means bridges back are burnt. Not being able to run away means one might focus on the fightEdited by iano, : No reason given.

glitchEdited by iano, : No reason given.