Please explain Cut and Run criteria in light of Afghanistan

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.

Then why was this arbitrary point chosen? Why didn't we do it earlier, and what would have been wrong with waiting till later? You seem to keep missing the point that, even accepting some of your contentious assertions as valid, what you need to explain is why we needed to do what we did when we did it. You are arguing with yourself again. I said I thought such an attack would effect oil supply. I then questioned how our invasion of Iraq would not do the same thing, and our helping attack Iran would not.Other than saying we now have forces in the region, you have not explained how those forces will change the results of any attack on Iran. Nor have you explained how simply taking the oilfields would not have resulted in the same goals you set out... forces in the area and oilfields secured. Why couldn't Iraqi oilfields, or Kuwait/Saudi Arabia been the base? I've never heard of a military strategy using the take over of an entire country, and assuming all the responsibility that entails, as a tactical move to establish a military base of operations.The result of an invasion is a scattering of forces that can be overwhelmed easier as well as being distracted with other duties. It simply makes no sense. Okay, but then I responded efficiently. Whatever they could theoretically do to Syria, is not able to be used to suggest anything regarding Iran. And as it stands it was just shown that Israel does not have the capability your friend suggested. We just increased terrorist capabilities within Iraq. We just gave them a firm base which they did not have before toppling Hussein. If this was about oil, we were better off letting him handle security at the plants. It meant money to him and he protected it against the exact same terrorists that are fighting us.And once again I will point out, that the forces we have now, concentrated on the oilfields would have been much greater protection than trying to take the whole country and defending that. I'm certain some very smart people did just that. I am questioning the wisdom of those that asked that same question and came up with an answer to attack Iraq.Anyone can ask the question. Its developing a credible, practical answer that separates the valuable thinkers from the dangerously inept.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

There's been some debate about how much oil Iraq does or doesn't produce and who controls it.The other important aspect is how this oil is controlled, as well as by whom. Just a few years before the invasion and by some diabolical coincidence, I'm sure, Iraq started selling its oil in euros, not dollars.Now, if all the middle eastern countries started selling their oil in euros, that would potentially be very bad for the US both politically and economically. (here's a quick analysis)..One of the first things the US did after the invasion was to return Iraqi oil sales to dollars and to convert back into dollars all Iraqi foreign currency reserves,So, as well as managing the world's third largest oil supply, the US also sent a message to other countries contemplating such 'follies'.ofcourse, there are loads of other motives for the invasion besides oil, but I haven't got the time to go into it right now.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

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.

Another dodge--you specifically claimed that the US went into Iraq to secure the oil. After I posted the figures showing a steady decline in iraqi oil production you changed tact--saying that we went into Iraq as preparation for our troops--as a war game, but this time for real. You've now dodged it again--moving the picture to, no, not just Iraqi oil, but ME oil.And you know what, I was asking if this was about oil, why haven't we secured the others--which you ignored. Now you are claiming it is about securing ME oil. which is still bull.You have ignored the steadily declinging Iraq oil production--even if it takes 3-5 months to get the equipment there, just how long has it been since we took out saddam? A little over three years--and you're telling me that in three years we can't even manage to get the oil production to increase? Even if it ain't back up at pre-war production, if we were truly there to secure oil for ouselves and the rest of the west, the least we can manage is to increase the production, or better yet, not let it fall--Iraq is not about to run out of oil, you know.We rebuilt Europe in a matter of years--factories and all with just our money. Why not here, for something that is nowhere near as massive an undertaking as the marshall plan was?As to the oil markets--ever hear of China and India? You've got people there chomping at the bit to live our lifestyle--including oil consumption. They want oil, and they want it badly. So there is a secure market over there--and if the figures are right about how much oil Iraq has--we should go in and increase the oil production quickly. why? High gas prices slow down our economy--they force the rising costs of other goods, not to mention the less gas the individual consumer buys (no long trips, etc).And if this was truly about securing oil, why the hell are our troops protecting Bagdahd? Or putting out hotspots elsewhere in Iraq. If we just wanted oil, we wouldn't be constrained by the need to rebuild Iraq--hell, we could have left Saddam in power, and just taken over his oil fields. you shock it Iano, you shock the hell out of it, and you keep on shocking it. Unless you've killed the brain completely, that is.You can prevent this if you ramp up Iraqi oil production--that way, if some nut job decides, okay, all oil wells go down--we've still got oil. Never mind the strategic oil reserves we have, which would help us until we knock out the country that decided to close down the oil wells and we get those back up and running.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

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

Here's where you espose your ignorance of the ME, Iranians (for the most part) are Persians.

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

One tiny correction with your first point--I've got post number 3 in this thread, before your first one in this thread. Other than that, I concede on this specific dodge.The marshall plan was launched as a counter to the USSR--we feared that unless Europe got back up and running, the USSR would be poised to take it all. We even offered aid to the eastern countries controlled by russia--which were forced to refuse that aid by russia. There is about 60 years separating the marshall plan and the iraqi war. where is the difference? we are trying to get them to have a stable government and economy to help them survive without us. A new marshall plan could work wonders. THe only real big difference I can think of is climate, and possibly the populace's opinion of us. But then, money speaks. What if we poured 500 billion dollars into the Iraqi infrastructure instead of on other things?Politics won't disallow such a thing--I seem to remember how europe didn't really back us on the war--and yet bush still went in, virtually alone. He doesn't really give a flip about what the world thinks of us, just that we get to do what we want and others do what we want them to do. we've been there for more than three . . .fucking . . .years. I don't buy it for a moment that we cannot have increased Iraqi oil production in that time if we actually went in there for the oil.As to the final point you make--we're all addicted. You made hte comment about how people aren't going to invest in something that won't exist tomorrow. Well, jee, there's a huge fucking market in india and china--even if the US switches to a hydrogen economy, will the whole world? I don't think so. And they're already addicted--otherwise the oil prices could conceivably go back down to a dollar a gallon (over here, that is). That price range is long gone, not just due to us being ripped off, but by the existence of a very soon to come and coming huge ass market.This war is not about oil, plain and simple. It is about the US going mad with bush at the helm just dying to fix his dad's mistake--the so-called mistake, at any rate. If it was about oil, then we've been using the wrong damn strategy the whole time.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

The "we don't know what they know" garbage was used as an excuse for why we invaded Iraq when the issue was wmds and terrorists. I'm not about to accept that again now that it is oil and terrorists.Also, anyone who needed 9/11 to "wake up" to the fact there were people interested in attacking western interests, as well as having asymmetric warfare capabilities should not have been in charge of the US gov't.As far as your introducing Israel, terrorists, and Iran as reasons to invade Iraq, I am still confused. Iraq has been a mortal enemy of Iran. They don't want to see it with nuclear capabilities any more than Isreal would. Likewise they were enemies of the terrorist orgs we are up against.If Iran and terrorists messing with oil were the concern, then why didn't we just invade Iran? Why invade a nation that we had bottled up militarily and if anything would have helped us with the issues you named, just to scare Iran by letting them know we are capable of invading?By invading Iraq we have stregthened Iran's position in the region, as well as that of the terrorists. As opposed to taking over cities and toppling govt's of sovereign countries? Your arguments are getting more bizarre with time. I offered a less drastic solution to the problem than the one we have engaged in, given the same ends.Also, you did not adequately explain why we couldn't have used Kuwait and Saudi Arabia as bases for action. Are you seriously telling me that we have positioned our troops within cities, and exposed them to maiming and death, for no reason beyond positioning them in the worst place possible to rush to defend our actual objectives? Right, but a firm base helps. We have hurt our own interests by allowing a stronger presence within a nation they previously did not have such a presence in... one located with access to oilfields.Besides which your argument was that we needed the military positioned in Iraq. If it is lone terrorist threats within the entire region, why wouldn't troops in Afghanistan be adequate for the job? Or why not the same in Kuwait or SA? I already outlined some. I mean its not like invading Iraq was domestically or internationally acceptable. It has also proven to negatively effect oil production as well as aid terrorist power structures.If you have a serious address where there are people looking for reasonable alternatives please hand it out. ??? What on earth does that mean?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

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.

I'd love to. Just not at this juncture. (I've got a speech due in a few hours for my writing class). I'm going to also be doing a lot, I mean a lot, of research. and a new thread--we've gotten way off topic here about the whole cut n' run deal. Perhaps even a GD is in store, and we can even have the peanut gallery if you'd like. I'd like to say I can have it ready in a week. I'll try.(note--this is not the sound of cuttin' and runnin'--it's a strategic retreat for a regrouping at a better time and place to win and some unspecified later date )

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.