War 101 Logistics

Ok since many here do not feel I understand Politics lets attack the issue from a differant standpoint.

Anyone who has attended any of our service War Collages will tell you that wars are won by logistics, not the actual gun on gun battle. Once you deprive your enemy of the ways to wage war, he no longer can.

Ok, understanding that fact lets look into the current war, the War on Terrorism.

Many trace the initial battle in the war against America by the Radical Fundimental Islamic Idea to the Iran Hostage Incident of 1979. Where a Radical Islamic Movement backed by the Government of Iran, the Ayatollah siezed the US Embassy, and held hostages for 444 days. Since then the movement seeing a lack of resolve in America used a suicide bombing of a Marine Barracks in Lebanon 1983, again with no direct US response, the first World Trade Center bombing, The USS Cole, various Embassy bombing, again all without US direct response. Finally September 11th, and finally America responds. Be aware the Osama BinLaden has on the behalf of Al-Queda declared War, a Holy War on the United States, and under any and all conventions currently in place allows military action by the warring parties, on any front needed to end the war. Also just recently upon his election the new President of Iran announced the beginning of the "New Islamic World Revolution" and guess who the target is, if not directly stated.

Now the Logistic part of this.
Since the inception of terror as a weapon many mid east Nation States have used these factions in proxy wars against the west and primarily America, with plausable denieability. Now since these terror networks are not considered nation states, nor flagged armies of a nation state no current convention of rules of war exsist to combat these terror networks. Other than the tried and true logistics battle.

So in order to combat these terror networks and to eliminate them as a threat first we eliminate thier logistical infastructure. No beans, no bullets, no money, no safe place to hide, equates to an ineffective fighting force unable to project war beyond a relatively small area of local influance.

Afganistans Talliban Regime was a prime location for this terror infastructure, a freindly government with basically the same motive against the west and America, vast areas to conceal training and base facilities, monies made available for weapons and food, and all safe behind the shield of the Taliban Government. So we began that phase of the anti terror operation, and forced the terror network infastructure to relocate, disrupting thier ability to make war.

Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, along with several other Nations in the area also have provided, and still do provide safe haven for terror cells and infastructures. Saddam was more than likely delighted that he could use his proxy army and continue to wage war on America, with no direct link. Now anyone not to believe the Iraq, as well as Saddam did not support any terrorist cells really does not follow the scope of the activity in the area, nor the man himself.

Now, lets look at methods of logistical containment, pretty simple really, we contain the terror organizations in a small area, limit thier logistical support and in doing so limit thier way of projecting thier war. Fighting in Iraq, against a growing number of "foriegn" fighters, not even Iraqi "Insurgents" aligned with terror cells is acomplishing the mission. Ensuring that the war does not spread, limiting the logistical base by draining exsisting support. Wherein after Afganistan, now Iraq, National Leaders with designs of supporting this proxy war on America must think twice before becoming envolved or risk American Paratroopers or Marines knocking on the Palace door. Contrary to belief in Allah, many of these National Leaders like thier lifestyle, and would rather still be in charge of their little kingdom than to risk American Invasion, so thier direct covert support is drying up to the terror organizations. Again one of the purposes to our War in Iraq.

For too long these terror network by whatever name or cause were not considered a State on to which wage war. And those within the terror cells were in all realality "mercenaries" to thier cause, paid by cash, promise, or religious conviction. Up until our intervention in Afganistan, now Iraq, these cells operated with impunity, and felt that we did not have the National will to fight them, and the terror cells influenced the Leaders of local Nation States to support them or feel thier wrathe. Now the tables have turned, the logistical support is drying up, local National Leaders no longer feel they can risk to support the cells, based on impending US response, so Al-Queda, as well as any other Radical Islamic individual with a cause is being forced to fight in order to re-establish support so he can continue thier war, and the place America chose to fight this war is Iraq, and it is better than fighting it here, which was inevitable if we did not respond after 9/11.

Saddam and the Iraqi Government of the time had ample opertunity to conform to the vast numbers of UN Resolutions, and to change its intended path, and Saddam chose the path he is currently on, and if giving peoples freedom from oppression as well as limiting the world Radical Islamic Terror network the ability to project thier terror war, is seen as wrong, when do we see the light, after LA, Chicago, Dallas, etc suffers another suicide attack of more epic proportions than NYC, where the same people who demand we withdraw from the current battle, will blame Bush for not protecting America from the terror threat, that they now refuse to see nor comprehend.

Again war today is fought by logistics, no beans, no bullets, no war.

Whatever happened to all those WMDs?

After all, it is our duty to go around to every country that doesn't agree with us and look for terrorists.

I'm still wondering where all of those WMDs that were threatening our existance are. Wait, I forgot. They're all over in North Korea.

That is a legitimate question, the WMD's. Lets see he used Chemical Weapons on the Northern Kurds in 1992/93 after The First Gulf War, still had stocks of chemical warheads, available then, even though the UN Cease Fire Agreement stated that he must reveal and destroy or turn over his current stocks immediately after ceasation of hostilities, which he did not.

We can not be blind enough to believe that he was not persueing a Nuclear Weapons Program, Biological Program, or Chemical Weapon Program from 1992-2002. We also can not believe that as in the Gulf War to protect his air assest for future use he flew his air force off to Iran, till the war was over and back they came, that a simular probabilty of NBC assests moving to Syria, or another local "freindly", local in order to preserve them for future use after this war (which did not turn out as planned for Saddam)

Chemical weapons exsisted, we have proof and proof of use after the first Gulf War, where is the UN required documentation of its destruction per the 1992 Cease Fire Agreement. No there is no proof and it is still in the area, where is unknown.
Have a freind go hide a BB in your back yard, and then tell you to go find it, it is there, you can't denie it, but where, how long till you find it, if ever...but it is still there. (by the way where is Jimmy Hoffa, he exsisted too, and we still have not found him or his body, and no one will talk to tell us where, but he is here, somewhere, and someone knows exactly where, but will never talk)

And no problem Cedric, we can just wait till the Terrorists come here and bring thier war here, just to satisfy those whose disbelief on their cause and methods leads them to think that if we leave the Mid East, all will be forgotten and we will live in Peace and Understanding.

We are in a War, against an enemy with No Nation State, No Flagged Army, just individuals with the sole intent to do harm to America, by whateve means, and wherever we show weakness. We either bring the fight to them or they will bring it here to us, a choice many Americans refuse to consider in thier blissfull ignorance of mans hostility towards his fellow man.

Linus wrote: Cedric, again, ignroance is not bliss in your case. Don't argue the fact that he had WMD's, he did and most of the (educated) forum agrees. Now where they are now, I don't know.

Wasnt it just revealed that we had every intention to go to war, and that the WMDs were just a made up reason to go in? Or did I make up the downing street memos in my mind?

And bugg, im pretty sure that china has a powerful enough army to take ours on pretty well, not to mention the nukes there and in N Korea.

Hysteria, Don't know where you are getting your info...

Look at OS's post, look at Clarks post.

He had them. Period. Where they are now, I don't know. But he had them.

Gatyr, China has a BIG army, not a good one.

Take Korean war for example. They came streaming accross the yellow river, so we had to retreat. They had a 10:1 ratio. But once we dug in, got our air power up, we just decimated them. They stand no chance in a long drug out war.

That's besides the point,t hey don't want N. Korea to have nukes either.

So, what's your point now?
EDIT: Oh, bye the way, I don't know where you went to school, but it's their, not thier

Edited by mbro

There is no proof he still had them either.