Does Deterrence Work?

[pocketfullofshells]

This bombing Clinton did, by chance was it when he bombed the asprin factory killing one custodian the night before Monica was about to testify about the "odd" stain on her blue dress? You know, the bombing that happened without even consulting congress....

Or was it another bombing you are thinking of?

god, please go read or something. if you don't know what I am talking about in this case, maybe you should not be talking here.

 

[Pandora]

god, please go read or something. if you don't know what I am talking about in this case, maybe you should not be talking here.

never mind

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I believe that was in Sudan. The same mission was added to hitting terror training camps in Afghanistan. If I recall correctly that was retaliation for the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

The problem was we took on the approach of "how can we minimize deaths" which only furthered the notion that Americans had no "stomach" for fighting. If you read Bin Laden's declaration of war (the 1996 one) he spells this out. These bombing missions of empty buildings and empty terror camps (even though we did correctly identify the threat) only enhanced the notion that Bin Laden was pushing that Americans are weak and not capable of fighting a prolonged war.

While it is all in hindsight now, I wish Clinton had gone after these targets much more aggressively, but what is done is done.

correct, and while noobama says hit a aspirin family...she of course is ignoring that US Intel showed it was being used as part of a Chemical weapons program . But since she did not even know what bombing of Iraq by Clinton I was talking about, why should I expect her to know anything about the bombings she referenced anyway.

 

[BigRob]

well yes, hence why MAD was dealing with Nation states, not terror groups.

There are some pretty good books written about how MAD really is not a viable option, and really examine the typical assumptions of deterrence during the Cold War.

I know he is on the right, but Keith Payne, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces and Policy (among other things) has written extensively on the subject if you get a chance to check him out.

And I would disagree that he would accept a nuke hitting the holyland ...after all he did not even want US troops there. to know what he was in part responible for millions killed and the homeland nukes....would be a hard sell. also not go well for his promoting his view of Islam.

I would say if you are talking about Mecca or Medina, then I will agree. He will not want those destroyed. But should a weapons detonate in Riyadh, I do not think he would be all that upset about it. He would try to blame it on the US most likely, but I would not dismiss the idea that Bin Laden would condone strikes within Saudi Arabia.

 

[Pandora]

correct, and while noobama says hit a aspirin family...she of course is ignoring that US Intel showed it was being used as part of a Chemical weapons program . But since she did not even know what bombing of Iraq by Clinton I was talking about, why should I expect her to know anything about the bombings she referenced anyway.

It was an asprin Factory not family and a custodian died and they found nothing being done wrong in that factory to provoke bombings but you defend it?

ok, good to know

 

[BigRob]

correct, and while noobama says hit a aspirin family...she of course is ignoring that US Intel showed it was being used as part of a Chemical weapons program . But since she did not even know what bombing of Iraq by Clinton I was talking about, why should I expect her to know anything about the bombings she referenced anyway.

No need to be rude.

Intel did show that this site was involved in producing chemical weapons, however, the United States did end up paying something like $25 million in restitution to the owner of the factory.

If anything, it should show us the problems we have with our intelligence community, and the glaring need for reform, such as better HUMINT.

 

[Pandora]

No need to be rude.

Intel did show that this site was involved in producing chemical weapons, however, the United States did end up paying something like $25 million in restitution to the owner of the factory.

If anything, it should show us the problems we have with our intelligence community, and the glaring need for reform.

Why when the intel was wrong for Bush its Bush lied people died
but when Clinton had bad intel and a custodian died its really silly to even bring it up?

 

[BigRob]

Why when the intel was wrong for Bush its Bush lied people died
but when Clinton had bad intel and a custodian died its really silly to even bring it up?

I don't want to bash the intel people, they really are doing the best job they can with what they have. I just wish certain members of Congress would back off and let them do their jobs instead of breathing over their shoulders all the time.

Here is a story I heard from a buddy serving the Army:
Two soldiers in Iraq were grabbed by a radical group. We had actionable intelligence on where they were and where the group was holding them. The mission to go and rescue them was put on hold for over 12 hours while lawyers were consulted over whether or not the gathering of this intelligence was a violation of FISA (as it was channeled through the US in some way). After getting the go ahead from the lawyers that it was indeed acceptable, they found it was to late, and the soldiers had been beheaded.


Now I have no reason to not believe my buddy on this one, and I do not know if he heard it from someone else, however the notion that this could even occur is sickening to me. As far as I am concerned, I could give a damn if your privacy was invaded in this scenario, we need to act when the window is open to save those soldiers lives.

 

[Pandora]

I don't want to bash the intel people, they really are doing the best job they can with what they have. I just wish certain members of Congress would back off and let them do their jobs instead of breathing over their shoulders all the time.

Here is a story I heard from a buddy serving the Army:
Two soldiers in Iraq were grabbed by a radical group. We had actionable intelligence on where they were and where the group was holding them. The mission to go and rescue them was put on hold for over 12 hours while lawyers were consulted over whether or not the gathering of this intelligence was a violation of FISA (as it was channeled through the US in some way). After getting the go ahead from the lawyers that it was indeed acceptable, they found it was to late, and the soldiers had been beheaded.


Now I have no reason to not believe my buddy on this one, and I do not know if he heard it from someone else, however the notion that this could even occur is sickening to me. As far as I am concerned, I could give a damn if your privacy was invaded in this scenario, we need to act when the window is open to save those soldiers lives.

That is such a sad story.

I dont think we can ever win a war if its run by congress, I think thats why Vietnam was the disaster it was.

I wish we could let our military do what they need to do. Give them a goal and let them go

 

[pocketfullofshells]

No need to be rude.

Intel did show that this site was involved in producing chemical weapons, however, the United States did end up paying something like $25 million in restitution to the owner of the factory.

If anything, it should show us the problems we have with our intelligence community, and the glaring need for reform, such as better HUMINT.

yes, but that could also be it was just better to do that then share Intel resources....I was originally pissed about this action but I am more iffy not given more Intel coming out later.

 

[BigRob]

yes, but that could also be it was just better to do that then share Intel resources....I was originally pissed about this action but I am more iffy not given more Intel coming out later.

I have no problem blowing the site up given the intelligence at the time. I am not sure we would have compromised intel sources by refusing to pay reparations, but I suppose you can make the case.

I think that is a major problem however for the GITMO detainees that will be given trials in United States Court, but we shall see.