Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Rayc, Jul 29, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Rayc

    Rayc RIP

  2. Rayc

    Rayc RIP

  3. Congratulations on creating the world's tallest post.
    I feel tiny, standing here, looking up.
  4. Ray , before we get banjoed for breach of copyright.......

    Could you provide the url's and author (s) so I can get that to a more manageable size please, and give due accreditation to the author?


  5. Rayc

    Rayc RIP

    Comments pertaining to this report are invited and should be forwarded to: Director, Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 122 Forbes Ave, Carlisle, PA 17013-5244. Copies of this report may be obtained from the Publications Office by calling (717) 245-4133, FAX (717) 245-3820, or by e-mail at SSI_Publishing @

    All Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) monographs are available on the SSI Homepage for electronic dissemination. SSI's Homepage address is: www.

    The Strategic Studies Institute publishes a monthly e-mail newsletter to update the national security community on the research of our analysts, recent and forthcoming publications, and upcoming conferences sponsored by the Institute. Each newsletter also provides a strategic commentary by one of our research analysts. If you are interested in receiving this newsletter, please let us know by e-mail at SSI_Newsletter @ or by calling (717) 245-3133. ISBN 1-58487-187-3

    Also available online at:


    W. ANDREW TERRILL joined the Strategic Studies Institute in October 2001, and is SSI’s Middle East specialist. Prior to his appointment, he served as a Middle East Nonproliferation analyst for the International Assessments Division of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). In 1998-99, Dr. Terrill also served as a Visiting Professor at the U.S. Air War College on assignment from LLNL. He is a former faculty member at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, and has taught adjunct at a variety of other colleges and universities. He is a U.S. Army Reserve lieutenant colonel and
    a Foreign Area Officer (Middle East). Dr. Terrill has published in numerous academic journals on topics including nuclear proliferation, the Iran-Iraq War, Operation DESERT STORM, Middle Eastern chemical weapons, and ballistic missile proliferation, terrorism, and commando operations. Since 1994, at U.S. State Department invitation, Dr. Terrill has participated in the Middle Eastern Regional Security Track 2 talks, which are part of the Middle East Peace Process.

    He holds a B.A. from California State Polytechnic University and an M.A. from the University of California, Riverside, both in Political Science. Dr Terrill also holds a Ph.D. in International Relations from Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, California.
  6. oldbaldy

    oldbaldy LE Moderator Good Egg (charities)
    1. Battlefield Tours

    If I don't read it all will I fail the written exam?
  7. Rayc

    Rayc RIP

    I posted this article in full since there were very educative posts on the Iraq threads and so I thought it would be useful. It covers the equation of all the major players in Iraq.

    And the article covers most of the issues that concern Iraq and its present as also its future.

    More so, because the UK is said to be pulling out and instead would be concentrating its attention on Afghanistan, which is said to be of greater strategic interest to UK.

    The questions that come to minds are:

    1. Will the US be able to handle Iraq on its own.

    2. Going single handed will the US get more aggressive (even if it does not increase the troop level)? What will be its effect in Iraq and on the international scene?

    3. Or given the rather difficult conditions, the US will quit and have a second Vietnam? What will be the effect of US credibility on the international scene and what would be the morale in the US if this comes to pass?

    4. How will the US address the terrorism aspect if it appears that the terrorists can 'defeat' by wearing down the adversaries as in Afghanistan during the Soviet times and now in Iraq?

    5. Will terrorism increase if the US pulls out too?

    6. What will be the future of Iraq, if the US pulls out?
  8. Rayc

    Rayc RIP

    No, but then there is a good chance of one talking at cross purposes and the thread going into irrelevance in content.
  9. Thanks Rayc I for one enjoyed the read.
  10. Rayc

    Rayc RIP

    I know it is a huge bore to read such long posts.

    However, I hope some will read it and give some comments since there are some very good posts on the issue in the other threads and I though if we are on a common denominator, very constructive thoughts and ideas would emerge.

    Agreed that Iraq is a huge confusion, but it has become a Catch 22 for all, be it the Coalition of the Willing, the Arabs or the international community. Except for the US. others have been reluctant players in Iraq.

    If the US also quits, then the terrorists will claim a victory of having defeated two superpowers, albeit by wearing them down and not by military means.

    This would make the world more dangerous. And one would not know where it would end!
  11. That's the bottom line. Full blown civil war in Iraq means disabled infrastructure and much of Iraqi oil production being pumped back into the sand.

    The Empty Quarter and the Ghawar field in particular will become ever more strategic.
    Here's why:
    What needs defending:
    This is the port at Ras Tannura:
  12. Yeah sure, you read all that and inwardly digested it inside 25 minutes. :)
  13. Rayc

    Rayc RIP

    Eating a meal and enjoying a meal does not mean that one has digested the meal instantly.

    Enjoying a meal is tickling the palate and that is almost instant. Likewise is the case of enjoying a read.

    The process of digestion takes time and that digestion is what gives one the energy. Likewise to form an opinion after reading takes time weighing the pros and cons.

    For instance, Alib's input is of import. It has to be mulled over and weighed with the facts known and then only can one give an opinion. Instant opinions on a grave matter tend to be frivolous and glib.

    I am sure you will agree with that.

    I wish the questions I raised was addressed by those who have been active on the Iraq threads since that would give some idea as to what the future holds for us.

    Iraq holds the key to a surge in terrorism that can be expected if one quits prematurely. After all, it will be a great morale boost to the terrorists that they defeated two superpowers! I know that many will not agree, but then one should visit US forums to see the jubilation when a ray of hope is reported from Iraq through the perpetual gloom. If minor successes can give jubilation to the US posters, then just imagine how the terrorists will react at the idea that they have forced the infidels out of Allah's land with the cards stacked against them! They will go berserk with joy.

    Iraq per se thus is not the real issue. It is the terrorists who will get bolder and audacious!

    But given the circumstances, it appears all those countries involved in Iraq are at wits end.
  14. Maybe mr.Terril really believes that the USA unleashed the war only to liberate Iraqis? In his article he hasn't mentioned Saddam's 'WMD'. So is it a serious research or pseudo-scientific atricle (one of many)?

    Some frangments siggest that the article is not worth to read it.
  15. I look forward to reading the original post at length - it will take a day or 2 to get there.

    On the other hand, my experience teaches me that many (most?) supposedly complex issues can best be dealt with by cutting away most of the verbiage, and isolating the real meat under headings of no more than 15 words.

    Then, you wind up with a finite set of competing priorities, which can be dealt with in the round, and on their merits, rather than complexity. Then you have to try and get a handle on the main motives (personal and emotional having as much importance as national and strategic/rational) that drive the players.

    I'll be applying that kind of thinking as I read.

    Be assured it is not the same as the search for fake simplicity of the "Better to fight 'em in Eye-Rack than Tennesee" variety.