Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: Military Strategy with Strife  (Read 995 times)

Strife26

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Military Strategy with Strife
« on: June 21, 2009, 01:57:39 am »

Please go to the following link for the main thread about my plan list.
http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=37645.msg612373#msg612373

This thread is for discussing my ideas regarding Iraq and when to invade people.

1)   Fuck Iraq-
Get the United States out of Iraq as quickly as possible. We don’t need to be wasting treasure there. More importantly, Americans should not be dieing unless it is important for the safety of the US. We’ve destroyed Saddam’s dictatorship and (according to my father), we’re really trying to get everything Iraqi run. Let them stand on their own two feet. Nation building is not beneficial to the US.
   Major benefits:
      +Military not in a fucking unwinable war
      +Political Capital (international)
      +Political Capital (home front)

2)   Military strategy-
Nation building must stop. Saddam was an evil dictator type, but (as far as I know) he wasn’t attacking us. Unless America is threatened, we have no business there. If we do have to get involved, it must be for the shortest duration possible. Get in. Smash enemy. Kill/ capture anyone else. Destroy hostile infrastructure. Get the fuck out. No more than a year in most cases. If we topple a dictator great. Let someone else build a provisional government. Give them some weapons if they seem especially democratic (we can blow them up easily enough later if it comes to that).

If the problem lies within a civilized country, alternate steps must be taken. Pakistan for example.

For our simplistic purposes, imagine three square that form a line.
From left to right, we have Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. We control Afghanistan. Pakistan and India hate each other’s guts with a passion (if you want to draw in a circle and label it Kashmir, you can). Draw some little tanks on the Pakistani-Indian border. Add some missiles as well (both countries have nukes). Then on the Pakistani side of the Afghani border, draw some guys with AK-47’s (they should probably by 74’s, but the guns look similar). This is the remnants of the Taliban, and lots of Al Qaeda types. They’re camped out in the Swat Valley. They’re particular friends of the (relatively) nice Pakistani government. Right now, we fly UAV’s into the Swat Valley to smash terrorist stuff (if you want to draw one in, you can).This isn’t enough; Pakistan won’t let troops be on the ground. We (USA) must more or less give an ultimatum to Pakistan. We’ll give them as much support as we can if they’ll take care of the problem (draw arrows from the Pakistan tanks to the terrorists). Or else, we’ll be (regrettably) forced to do it ourselves. (add some helicopters to Afghanistan, then arrow them into the Swat). Neither us, nor the Pakis want that (Pakistan’s government is a constant competition between really mean Muslims and somewhat nice ones. The nicer ones have more control right now).

Basically, our foreign policy must be somewhat pre-emptive (just because Iraq was a fucking hell-hole doesn’t mean that a doctrine of pre-emptive warfare isn’t important). Once terrorists become too emplaced, they must be removed. It the host country takes care of their own parasite (with or without our support), great. If not, we go in (hopefully with their support). If we have to go against the whole country, so be it. No middle east country (except Israel, I guess) can stand up to us in a traditional combat).
« Last Edit: June 21, 2009, 01:59:18 am by Strife26 »
Logged
Even the avatars expire eventually.

Little

  • Bay Watcher
  • IN SOVIET RUSSIA, LITTLE IS YOU!
    • View Profile
Re: Military Strategy with Strife
« Reply #1 on: June 21, 2009, 03:48:05 am »

Well said.

I have gained +1 respect for Strife.
Logged
Blizzard is managed by dark sorcerers, and probably have enough money to bail-out the federal government.

Nilocy

  • Bay Watcher
  • Queen of a Community.
    • View Profile
Re: Military Strategy with Strife
« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2009, 09:10:07 am »

I agree with most of that. But the problems with Iraq was that the lack of a major power in government (saddam) ment that terrorists could just happily move it. They weren't there in the first place, saddam made sure of that, but once the US coalition toppled the government the insurgants started to move in to fill the power vacuum.
Thats where america went wrong. They didn't back up their military assets with civil security either. They went in guns blazing, destroyed the stable nation that was iraq, and left it to rot and crumble by itself. Now the people of Iraq suffered greatly because of this cockup. So your saying that the americans should have left Iraq to its own devices once its military/police/health services had been decimated? How typical of American steryotypes, to shoot first ask questions (years) later? Not the best tactic ever.

It isn't all America's fault i know, but they played the biggest role in the Iraq conflict atm. They made the problem, they should fix it.
Logged

woose1

  • Bay Watcher
  • Yay for bandwagons!
    • View Profile
Re: Military Strategy with Strife
« Reply #3 on: June 22, 2009, 12:44:38 pm »

As a certain great man once said:

"And so America goes into the poor dirt-trodden country, balancing their blazing guns on the end of their massive erections, smashing the government into the ground with one hand and scarfing down apple pie with the other."

And as for giving tons of weapons to Saddam, in hopes of him attacking Iraq (Or Iran, damn names  :P) I honestly fuckin' called it.
Logged

Strife26

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Military Strategy with Strife
« Reply #4 on: June 22, 2009, 01:48:48 pm »

I'd say that it's pretty much America's fault. However, from my perspective, the Iraqis would be better off solving the mess without American help.
Logged
Even the avatars expire eventually.