Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Chief_Joseph, Oct 24, 2006.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Interesting perspective. Definitely recognizing the need for a new approach.
Intersting Chief, did you get that here:
Also, here is a link to a.pdf file he wrote.:
Nice one Chief
Don't mean to be a stickler for details but this Col. Kraak seems to be a figment of someone's imagination.I seriously doubt he exists.
Prove me wrong? Please?
What's that supposed to mean?
Here's the link Trip posted http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/ksil112.pdf that should be proof that he exists
A very well written,very well thought out paper.Very eloquently puts on paper what I would like to articulate if I could.Only wish we had more people with the colonels mindset (if he exists.)
Ok... I'm pretty sure he exists. (In fact I'm positive)
Anyway, let's focus on the content of it.
More importantly, why is he emailing book authors during a war?
Maybe he's being ghost written?
The man certainly likes to write.
'We have watches, they have time': that phrase alone made it well worth the read.
Thought provoking stuff and those six words get right to the heart of it of the current dilemma.
A much appreciated posting. Thanks Chief.
First of all I can vouch that Col Kraak is not the figment of anyone's imagination but is a real person in a real post in Iraq.
I could have sworn that everyone was now admitting that there was no link even imaginary between Sadam and 9/11. A worrying and seriously destabilising thought if ever I heard one. On the basis of this no lessons have been learnt at all by the good Colonel as to permissive operations and the legal framework to underpin global credibility to ones actions.
Where is the nobility in invading a country because we fabricated the evidence on the back of not liking the leader? Yes, Saddam was a thoroughly unpleasent individual but if anyone bothers to read the ISG report they will see that he was not concerned about posing a threat to the west but was posturing against Iran. Strategically although we hate to admit it, his removal was the key to empowering and emboldening Iran.
A healthy dose of realism in his post here.
Good to see rational thought in dealing with nuclear states. Looks like the redneck creeping out again. Both Iran and N Korea have realised that the gaiining of nuclear capability is the ulimate pawn to securing their future. The possession of these weapons means that the US is hamstrung in what it can and cannot do to them. Without them they face the potental same threat as Saddam's Iraq, with them they face merely political and economic pressure brought to bear through the UN.
Ah, Clausewitzian theory. Good to see some learned underpinings to these ramblings. Realist ? Well at least this paragraph shows some appreciation for the situation. Until the Neo-Cons in Washington realise that you cannot achieve political objectives solely by the use of force we are doomed. The 'Might is Right' school of diplomacy is seriously flawed and it is about time that folks started smacking these lunatics obver the head with Clausewitz and Sun Tzu to get them to appreciate the true strategic impacts of operations. One of the major issues that he fails to address is the economic imperative that doesn't exist. With so many tax dolars being recycled into the hands of companies linked to the regimes in DC there is no startegic imperative to withdraw. The Contractors who are supposed to deliver the recontruction and nation building do not want to kill the Goose that Lays the Golden Egg which is Iraq. The same can be said for a number of the DoS [inc FCO/DfID] personnel living in the IZ and claiming seriously large allowances based upon the percieved threat and danger levels.[
Starts off correctly then heads to the hills with the rest of the red necks. In Iraq they have played at coalition building in a very false manor. This is not a coalition of the willing but a coalition of political cover and those minor nations bribed or coerced by the White House to provide token forces. In come cases the Coalition Partners are doing it because the US is picking up the whole deployment cost + so the nation is maintaining its forces at reduced cost thanks ot the US taxpayer.
Truism, pity he doesn't relfect upon wht CGS said and link it with the TE Lawrence statement about better an Arab does it tolerably than a Westerner does it perfectly. The US have concistently failed to recognise that an Arab solution is required and not a Westernised Liberal democracy. They have sought to impose (9in less than a decade) upon the Iraqis systems of governance that have taken hundreds of years to evolve in London and Washington, they have also made many of the same mistakes with the Iraqi Army which is a charge that falls squarely at the feet of Col Kraak since he is CoS the Iraqi Army Group Transition Team.
So the anthrax that got posted around washington was not an act of terror?
Is Kraak his name or what he smokes?
Interesting that he doesn't think the Germans are worth cultivating as allies. The value for Germany of not going along with the US over Iraq was considerable in domestic political terms as it showed that the new reunited country was finally of age- but with very well equipped armed forces (who can afford to change kit properly in mid stream- vis the new mine protected MARDER) and a real interest in getting involved internationally (lead on the Lebanese naval deployment and some very punchy articles domestically on how they should have led on land...), a country that still thinks it owes the US its freedom might be worth taking on board. And they still want that French security council seat...
Separate names with a comma.