This Nearly Was Mine
United We Stand, Alex LillyLike an actor on a movie screen,
living out someone else's dream.
Living out a total misconception,
reality, a false perception.
--Cliches of the World, the Kinks
Living out a total misconception,
reality, a false perception.
--Cliches of the World, the Kinks
Now, now I'm alone, still dreaming of paradise,
Still saying that paradise once nearly was mine
--This Nearly Was Mine, South Pacific
__________
Before turning off the Charlie Rose Show featuring the chameleon Wesley Clark recently, Clark got in the requisite, "We're the most powerful nation on earth" schtick.
In that belief, Clark mirrors the attitude of many. But the U.S. is only the most powerful country willing to attack other nations without provocation. This proclivity, however, does not make us the sole world superpower.
Ranger has a few questions:
In that belief, Clark mirrors the attitude of many. But the U.S. is only the most powerful country willing to attack other nations without provocation. This proclivity, however, does not make us the sole world superpower.
Ranger has a few questions:
[1] Where would the oil come from to lubricate a full-scale war?
[2] Where would the personnel come from to fill these services?
[3] Where would a world conflict army train?
[4] What industrial base would support a large-scale war?
[5] From where would the money come?
[6] Has Wesley Clark noticed that the U.S. military is stretched to the breaking point fighting opponents often killed or captured wearing shower shoes?
[7] What if India and/or China united versus the U.S.?
[8] What if Russia attacked the U.S.?
[9] What if China attacked the U.S.?
[10] Any combination of the above.
A realistic assessment of U.S. capabilities is sorely needed. As it stand, we are glutted with too many cliches.
Labels: charlie rose, Iraq, wesley clark, world superpower questions
posted by rangeragainstwar at 11:16 PM
5 Comments:
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say we're the most powerful nation because we have the largest and (probably) the most effective nuclear arsenal?
You do make some good points, re: Clark. I have liked him for a long time, based solely upon one incident that I no longer have the citation for. While he was the NATO SAC he was escorting some body part ambassador and one of the tracks in the convoy slid off the trail on a mountainous road, and went down the side of the hill, about 40 feet, IIRC. Clark was the first man rapelling down the side of the hill to the track.
Say what you will about him now. Troops don't forget loyalty like that.
lurch,
I used to like Gen. Clark, too. Per your story, perhaps he had not yet learned the skill of politesse--which he wields so well now--and just wanted to escape the stuffed shirts and cleanse himself
with a little p.t.
Of course, the objections put forth relate to the concept expressed, and not the man. Mr. Clark is one of many.
As to what defines powerful, nuclear arsenals are one measure. But it is the braggadocio behind that arsenal which is disturbing.
Obviously, we're not going to be lighting our nukes anytime soon, but we are draining our national treasure, in a robust manner.
lurch,
Ranger sending:
It's a fine line between bullshit and charisma. Some could call it grandstanding and not allowing the junior leaders a chance to excel.
Seems like overkill to a cynical ranger.
i still would not worry about any sort of conventional nation-state style conflicts. india and china could unite, maybe even pull off one or two attacks. maybe. where we get bogged down is constantly having to fight those bastards wearing the shower shoes. they never do a straight ahead fight because that would simply be stupid, a suicide without higher meaning. they go into asymetrical or guerilla ops from the jump. using system disruption and denial of service attacks much in the same manner as hackers and other internet hooligans. they only hope, as do all guerillas, that they can achieve that golden status of "being more trouble than they are worth." it's hard to win that designation when you're sitting on top of a shitload of oil, or, like the vietnamese were, on top of a delta growing 2/3 of the world's rice supply and sitting bestride major shipping lanes. but, it can be done.
the army is stretched thin fighting the guys in shower shoes because that is not the mission or the fight where they can ever achieve any kind of success. that kind of tussle can only be won indirectly. pick a side, support and train them, but have THEM do it.
that was never an option in iraq because the most natural proxy for us to have used against saddam was the kurds. even though we had made it possible for them to carve out a decently autonomous zone, they could never declare for a state because that would have pissed off both the turks and the mullahs in iran. still would for that matter. so, arming them was not something that was much on the table. the shia of basra and the swamps already hated us and mistrusted us deeply because of the way g.h.w.bush lead them down the primrose path after gulf 1. "rise up and we will stand with you." bastard said that. they rose up. saddam dropped the big damdam all over them and we stood there watching. shit, i wouldn't much like or trust us either after that whole clusterfuck.
afghanistan was well on the way toward being a pretty decent example of how to conduct a covert/special ops campaign before the regulars got all jealous and demanding in on the fun. the beauty of an operation like that is that you are dealing with people that live there. you are not an occupier but truly an advisor and benefactor. they decide where the targets that matter are, you show them how it can be achieved and bring them the goods they need to do it. then, you shake hands, kiss both cheeks, salute and go the fuck home.
this has been a total mess from the beginning. it was doomed from the first moment cheney started whupping off about saddam. cheney was still holding a grudge from the first bush war where he was forced by scowcroft, powell, and schwartzkof to stop the slaughter on the "highway of death" and not go into bagdhad after saddam. he never ceased calling that a mistake and blaming that for the failure of bushdaddy to win a second term.
clark lost a lot of my support and a lot of my respect when i found out his connections to the notorious school of the americas. still, he's a fine soldier who can plan, supply and execute an intricate plan under extreme circumstance. if he was commanding i would have no problem saddling up and taking a place in his line.
Minstrel Boy,
Your analysis is good and direct, and generally spot on. I'll not accept Afghanistan as the good fight, though the methodology you outline (advise and leave) is the best one.
The only reason Clark made it was support from Clinton; I'm not so sure the army hierarchy was fond of him. If they were, why did he die on the vine after NATO? Usually NATO leads to higher status as d/cs army.
Ditto Schwartzkopf and Franks.
If they were so good, why weren't they promoted in fact, if not in stars. There is a clear progression of 010 status.
The aim of all guerrillas should be success, which implies moving up on the spectrum of conflict, thereby moving towards their goal, whatever that may be. If they simply want to be a pain in the ass, they can morph into hemorrhoids.
Post a Comment
<< Home