| Tango01 | 18 Jan 2016 3:13 p.m. PST |
…Recruiting Tool For Local Militants.? "Amid the distractions of the holiday season, The New York Times revealed that the Obama administration is considering a Pentagon proposal to create a "new" and "enduring" system of military bases around the Middle East. Though this is being presented as a response to the rise of the Islamic State and other militant groups, there's remarkably little that's new about the Pentagon plan. For more than 36 years, the US military has been building an unprecedented constellation of bases that stretches from Southern Europe and the Middle East to Africa and Southwest Asia. The record of these bases is disastrous. They have cost tens of billions of dollars and provided support for a long list of undemocratic host regimes, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, and Djibouti. They have enabled a series of US wars and military interventions, including the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which have helped make the Greater Middle East a cauldron of sectarian-tinged power struggles, failed states, and humanitarian catastrophe. And the bases have fueled radicalism, anti-Americanism, and the growth of the very terrorist organizations now targeted by the supposedly new strategy…"
Full article here
link Amicalement
Armand |
Patrick Sexton  | 18 Jan 2016 3:15 p.m. PST |
My, that sounds like a 'not biased at all' article. |
| Mako11 | 18 Jan 2016 4:22 p.m. PST |
The whole "recruiting tool" slogan is a false narrative……. |
 Legion 4  | 18 Jan 2016 4:32 p.m. PST |
Agreed … just like the claim Git'mo is a recruiting tool. Git'mo very rarely comes up in jihadi traffic, according to a number of reports I heard on the news. To say anything we, the US, the West does is a "recruiting tool" … well IMO .. that camel has left the tent long ago. The fact that we are not militant, radicalized, fundamentalist, fanatical, islamo-fascists jihadi moslem terrorists is all the reason they need … We are the Great Satan, the infidels, the Unbelievers, the Crusaders … after all … |
| 15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 18 Jan 2016 5:01 p.m. PST |
The only recruiting tool needed are continued US presence in the region and a good dose of anti-Americanism fueled by radical Islamic clerics, no more and no less. I'm about to watch "13 Hours" right now, an example of such a reaction. |
| 79thPA | 18 Jan 2016 6:29 p.m. PST |
The last time Tango tricked me into answering a question on this board I was Dog Housed so, I think I better pass. |
| USAFpilot | 18 Jan 2016 9:45 p.m. PST |
Kyoteblue's statement makes sense to me. Save the money from building all these bases in countries, some of which have questionable governments, and rebuild our Navy. A U.S. Navy aircraft carrier is a floating base we can park where and when it is needed. |
| zippyfusenet | 19 Jan 2016 6:43 a.m. PST |
Many of those bases are needed to support the USAF's strategic strike role, and the Army's ability to strategically deploy. If we abandon the bases, we'll effectively withdraw the USAF and Army to conUS and restrict them to a hemispheric defense role. Without heavy airlift capacity, our ability to move ground forces will be limited to the speed of sealift. The Navy's aircraft are mostly not deep penetrators. If we withdraw from the world, and clip the USAF's wings, responsibility for strategic strike will have to revert to the ICBMs and the boomers. Our ability to intervene on other continents with ground forces will be very limited. I see this as US withdrawal from the world, back to the western hemisphere. I'm sure the Chinese and the Russians would love it, the Japanese and the Poles perhaps less so. Sound like a plan to you? |
| Legion 4 | 19 Jan 2016 7:07 a.m. PST |
Yes, withdrawing from many locals as zippy points would limit strategic deployability. And with Iran appearing to be on the rise and the US withdrawing to many on the region. Like the Israelis, Saudis, UAE, etc. … some of those have turned to Russia and China for support. Iran with it's new influx of cash is buying some Attack Helos from the Russians. And they just got the cash from the US lifting sanctions. So Iran, one of the biggest supporters of Islamic terrorism grows stronger. And the US appears to be on the decline. Geopolitics/Realpolitik at it's best … or worst … |
| paulgenna | 19 Jan 2016 7:40 a.m. PST |
Every great empire has fallen at some point. With our staggering debt it is only a matter of time. |
| USAFpilot | 19 Jan 2016 8:28 a.m. PST |
"Our ability to intervene on other continents with ground forces will be very limited." And that right there is the root of so many of our problems. We "intervened" in Iraq and Libya and look what a mess they have become, a breeding ground for terrorists. Better to have left Iraq alone; it served as a counter balance to Iran, now it is a puppet of Iran. And Libya was not a threat, they were cooperating with the world community and was not a threat; now it is. The U.S. strategic triad does not need bases around the world. Our bombers can (and have) hit anywhere in the world when launched from home. "Sound like a plan to you?"
Yes, absolutely. Let's stop the arrogance of thinking we can be the world's policeman. |
| Tango01 | 19 Jan 2016 10:39 a.m. PST |
Why a base in Paraguay? (smile) Amicalement
Armand |
| paulgenna | 19 Jan 2016 1:16 p.m. PST |
Can you say party time!!!!!! More likely a retreat for some people if the poop does hit the fan. |
| glenkk | 19 Jan 2016 2:03 p.m. PST |
This beast had two horns like a lamb, but spoke like a dragon. …. terror into them, and as making war with the saints, and ruling over all nations and tongues .lol |
| 79thPA | 19 Jan 2016 3:04 p.m. PST |
Because we need to protect Paraguayan oil from Arentinians? |
| Legion 4 | 19 Jan 2016 3:29 p.m. PST |
The U.S. strategic triad does not need bases around the world. Our bombers can (and have) hit anywhere in the world when launched from home. Yes, no one can rival the US with all that firepower. But you really can't use it on Daesh/AQ/Taliban types … Well … you could … but let's not go their … |
| USAFpilot | 19 Jan 2016 6:50 p.m. PST |
I agree with you guys that overseas bases gives us a much greater tactical and grand tactical advantage for any future military operations. No question from me that having bases around the world gives our forces greater flexibility and reach. I don't question it from a military point of view, but from a political and economic point of view, and how America sees its role in the world. Costs versus benefits and risks? I don't know the answer, just that we have had a long history of foreign policy mistakes. |
| Tango01 | 19 Jan 2016 10:49 p.m. PST |
Protect what???… you are kidding of course my friend!! (smile) Imho it's for their geographic position only… Amicalement
Armand |
| Legion 4 | 20 Jan 2016 9:02 a.m. PST |
I don't know the answer, just that we have had a long history of foreign policy mistakes. Indeed … 1) Supporting the Muj vs. the USSR 2) GWII 3) Releasing Iran from sanctions to build nucs and expand their support of their version of islamic terrorism … 1) and 2) are hindsight … 3) is a very probable, very near future outcome … IMO … |
| Legion 4 | 20 Jan 2016 4:34 p.m. PST |
The market will continue to fall … |
| Legion 4 | 21 Jan 2016 7:55 a.m. PST |
I've got two cousins down there … it's crossed my mind. Of course today it is a balmy 6 degrees with wind chill in NE OH.  But may reach 25 today ! Wow ! I can wear my winter coat and not my parka ! If I even decide to leave the house … |
| Legion 4 | 21 Jan 2016 4:13 p.m. PST |
Yeah by Sunday it may be as "warm" as 40 ! YaY !!!!  |
experiments to find a better way to mount aircraft for wargaming.
