We all know what happened to the 300 Spartan warriors who gave their life in a valiant, yet quasi-illegal move against the Spartan leaders, to defend their nation off from a massive invasion force of the grand Persian empire.
Today, we are sending just 300 men, military advisors to help a nation, Iraq, retrain and reaffirm that they are incompetent enough to win their own full scale civil war. In many ways, this is quite similar in nature to Darth Sidious/Chancellor Palpatine's massive plot to be the ruler of the galaxy. While we don't have massive naval space ships or laser cannons to demolish each other, it is imperative to note that we cannot do anything of real value to help them.
300 advisors cannot and will not do a damn thing to aid them, even if we agree to do targeted bombing from drone strikes--which was highly controversial when we started to drone strike. Secondly, what can we do?
Here are your options:
A) Nothing at all. This option seems like the most "popular" option because we are war weary and cannot move another muscle to do anything.
B) Avoid the possibility of intervention with standard issue placation of blame for anything that could go wrong. We are the most powerful at doing this option until it becomes so much that we just are blamed into action.
C) Send in "advisors" who will amount to the Spartan 300 and will achieve nothing and allow the government of Iraq fall, which "some allies have called for removal of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki" as USA Today wrote in their piece. Is this viable for an Obama Admin? It's hard to say because we can only do so much before it become too late to do any real action that would prevent another all out war.
D) Follow the ancient Rumsfeld Doctrine and reinsert a proportional amount of troops that is relative to the mission with maximum technology and limited boots on the ground. This doctrine, which was primarily used to invade Iraq in the second conflict that precipitated the original invasion for the 2001 attacks created by the Al Qaeda network. Using this option would actually result in the same current crisis from ISIS and other insurgents
E) The Powell Doctrine. This option is very powerful, because it expects that your objective is complete and total dominance over your mission, whether it be incursion into a territory or to occupy and control the entire country. While this is a Cold-War tactic and when we used "military v. military" tactics for a 1.5 war concept. Here, the Powell Doctrine could be used to reassert control and would be quick, it would be an investment of possibly a few years because the deployment of the current Iraqi troops would be reassimilated into the training process, the outcome is as unknown as it was when the Rumsfeld Doctrine was utilized, but it could be said that either way, the outcome could be the same.
While these options aren't the most exhaustive list, and others would or could be an alternative option, these options are probably the most viable options that will be discussed in our current and future cycle of elections.
Today, we are sending just 300 men, military advisors to help a nation, Iraq, retrain and reaffirm that they are incompetent enough to win their own full scale civil war. In many ways, this is quite similar in nature to Darth Sidious/Chancellor Palpatine's massive plot to be the ruler of the galaxy. While we don't have massive naval space ships or laser cannons to demolish each other, it is imperative to note that we cannot do anything of real value to help them.
300 advisors cannot and will not do a damn thing to aid them, even if we agree to do targeted bombing from drone strikes--which was highly controversial when we started to drone strike. Secondly, what can we do?
Here are your options:
A) Nothing at all. This option seems like the most "popular" option because we are war weary and cannot move another muscle to do anything.
B) Avoid the possibility of intervention with standard issue placation of blame for anything that could go wrong. We are the most powerful at doing this option until it becomes so much that we just are blamed into action.
C) Send in "advisors" who will amount to the Spartan 300 and will achieve nothing and allow the government of Iraq fall, which "some allies have called for removal of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki" as USA Today wrote in their piece. Is this viable for an Obama Admin? It's hard to say because we can only do so much before it become too late to do any real action that would prevent another all out war.
D) Follow the ancient Rumsfeld Doctrine and reinsert a proportional amount of troops that is relative to the mission with maximum technology and limited boots on the ground. This doctrine, which was primarily used to invade Iraq in the second conflict that precipitated the original invasion for the 2001 attacks created by the Al Qaeda network. Using this option would actually result in the same current crisis from ISIS and other insurgents
E) The Powell Doctrine. This option is very powerful, because it expects that your objective is complete and total dominance over your mission, whether it be incursion into a territory or to occupy and control the entire country. While this is a Cold-War tactic and when we used "military v. military" tactics for a 1.5 war concept. Here, the Powell Doctrine could be used to reassert control and would be quick, it would be an investment of possibly a few years because the deployment of the current Iraqi troops would be reassimilated into the training process, the outcome is as unknown as it was when the Rumsfeld Doctrine was utilized, but it could be said that either way, the outcome could be the same.
While these options aren't the most exhaustive list, and others would or could be an alternative option, these options are probably the most viable options that will be discussed in our current and future cycle of elections.
No comments:
Post a Comment