Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Ron Paul vs Romney on Gun Rights
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 1702231" data-attributes="member: 1132"><p>I wish I could agree, but technology has advanced to the point where reacting to a crisis situation is a matter of hours rather than days or weeks. I would postulate that our sustained conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have given too many ideas to rogues. We so thoroughly dominate on an attack and invasion scenario that it would be foolhardy for anyone to test our dominance there. Where we loose ground is sustained occupation. We're not nearly as good at that. We still kick buceaup ass mind you, but our enemies are looking to exploit moral victories against us. Anything that damages US credibility on the world stage is a victory for them, even if they get the crap kicked out of them. </p><p></p><p>I'm not sure that full scale invasions and occupations are the way to go in the future. Protracted entanglements are enormously expensive, expose us to additional risks and aren't necessarily the fastest way to achieve objectives. Rapid "Shock & Awe" strikes, followed by diplomatic resolutions may be far more expeditious and economical. As much as I disagree with our involvement in the Libyan "liberation", that should be a textbook example of how to do it. </p><p></p><p>As for nations, we still hold the top hand at the table. Continuing our expeditionary tactics will only erode that position. American hegemony is a direct threat to many countries. Pulling back to a position of readiness and re-engaging diplomatically is a sound tactic. We've proven all we need to prove militarily. With a less costly military operational tempo, we could redirect resources into intel and tech. If our increased intel presence detected a growing threat, we could quite handily respond with beefed up presence and the diplomatic corps could relay the message that things need to cool off. </p><p></p><p>I don't know for a certainty that this would work, but what we're doing now is putting us in the poor house. We need to look at all areas for cost savings. I happen to think this is one area we could save money and improve foreign relations at the same time.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Glocktogo, post: 1702231, member: 1132"] I wish I could agree, but technology has advanced to the point where reacting to a crisis situation is a matter of hours rather than days or weeks. I would postulate that our sustained conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have given too many ideas to rogues. We so thoroughly dominate on an attack and invasion scenario that it would be foolhardy for anyone to test our dominance there. Where we loose ground is sustained occupation. We're not nearly as good at that. We still kick buceaup ass mind you, but our enemies are looking to exploit moral victories against us. Anything that damages US credibility on the world stage is a victory for them, even if they get the crap kicked out of them. I'm not sure that full scale invasions and occupations are the way to go in the future. Protracted entanglements are enormously expensive, expose us to additional risks and aren't necessarily the fastest way to achieve objectives. Rapid "Shock & Awe" strikes, followed by diplomatic resolutions may be far more expeditious and economical. As much as I disagree with our involvement in the Libyan "liberation", that should be a textbook example of how to do it. As for nations, we still hold the top hand at the table. Continuing our expeditionary tactics will only erode that position. American hegemony is a direct threat to many countries. Pulling back to a position of readiness and re-engaging diplomatically is a sound tactic. We've proven all we need to prove militarily. With a less costly military operational tempo, we could redirect resources into intel and tech. If our increased intel presence detected a growing threat, we could quite handily respond with beefed up presence and the diplomatic corps could relay the message that things need to cool off. I don't know for a certainty that this would work, but what we're doing now is putting us in the poor house. We need to look at all areas for cost savings. I happen to think this is one area we could save money and improve foreign relations at the same time. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Ron Paul vs Romney on Gun Rights
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom