Protect Assets Strategy

Is Afghanistan Becoming a Vast My Lai Situation?
And are our servicemen being placed in the position of Lt. Calley?

Now that the Taliban know that US trrops are prohibited from firing upon a building that contains civilians, will they ever fire any shot again from any position that does not contain civilians.

Will US trrops be faced with a choice between being non-responsive ducks in a shooting gallery or violating General Stanley McCrystal’s order that no shot can be fired at any position that contains civilians.

All offensive enemy positions will contain civilians. We might as well go home. If we can’t shoot back, then the only function the US troops are serving is being moving targets for target practice.

The enemy is shameless — they are cockroaches — they have the same respect for the law of armed conflict that a cockroach would have, or a shark, or a bug-eyed monster.

Their women and children mean nothing to them except that they are now useful as human shields.

OK Dolphin314etc we get the fact that you don’t like the current setup — so how should the war be done?

A few revisions:

(1) The US mission in Afghanistan cannot possibly be to protect the civilian population — that is a completely crazy idea which leads directly to the My Lai/Lt. Calley situation we are now in.

(2) The only legitimate mission in the vast badlands of Afghanistan is to smash Taliban and Al Qaeda training camps and to smash Taliban and Al Qada safehouses — just training camps and safehouses.

(3) This mission can best be done by Predators. So most of the groundforces can just come home.

(4) We have no role to play clearing territory, holding territory, building hospitals and schools, winning the hearts and minds of the people, or protecting Karzai’s constituents. Those activities are not related in any meaningful way to the national security of USA if we can smash all training camps and all safehouses by other means (Predators).

(5) The manpower required to do the revised mission: (1) 5000 at Bahgram to re-fuel and re-arm Predators (2) 15,000 in the fleet at sea to fly recon and to do support for Delta Force and Baghram forces and (3) 50,000 at NSA, NRO, and Cheyenne Colorado — Battle Mountain to do intelligence analysis and target identification work 24/7/365 in real-time, and (4) 10,000 in the Space Command to keep our Keyhole assets in the most productive positions for target ID support in real time.

Now is the time when twitty ones start with their abusive comments — Why does this guy think he knows better than our leaders? We just follow orders here — we don’t think about policy or strategy or tactics — we just do what we’re told — who does this guy think he is — why doesn’t he take his comments to the Politics section — anything other than just following orders is pure politics — so I’m gonna get 3 or 4 abusive answers like that — it can’t be helped. My choice is to go forward anyway — there are people who are not stupid about this subject, Biden is one, George Will is one, Barry MacCaffrey is one. I’m trying to reach the non-stupid people. Hopefully my title question will provide a bit of narrow-casting, but clowns abound, so one just has to wade through them, pay them no mind.

Not really,no.

First, the LOAC applies to armed conflicts between nations, or between government and opposition forces in a civil war. Taliban and Al Quaida forces have been characterized by the President as "Criminals", so the laws that apply are those of police action, not of military action.

The LOAC requires military forces to perform their actions is such a way as to minimize civilian casualties to the maximum extent compatible with completing the military mission. A certain amount of civilian "collateral damage" is unavoidable in war.
In law enforcement, however, the avoidance of harm to persons other than the criminal takes precedence over preventing the criminal action. As the old saw goes, "Better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent be punished unjustly." In an action being treated, as Obama is treating this one, as a law enforcement matter, it is thus unacceptable to kill a single innocent bystander in the process of killing a whole bunch of Taliban "Criminals".

It’s also worth noting that McCrystal’s order is a foolish reaction anyway – the rocket strike yesterday was NOT fired at a civilian position. It was fired at a strong-point from which the Taliban was shooting at the US troops – they just missed. No-one, especially in combat, "bats 1000". Everyone misses sometimes.

Richard

Is Afghanistan Becoming a Vast My Lai Situation?
And are our servicemen being placed in the position of Lt. Calley?

Now that the Taliban know that US trrops are prohibited from firing upon a building that contains civilians, will they ever fire any shot again from any position that does not contain civilians.

Will US trrops be faced with a choice between being non-responsive ducks in a shooting gallery or violating General Stanley McCrystal’s order that no shot can be fired at any position that contains civilians.

All offensive enemy positions will contain civilians. We might as well go home. If we can’t shoot back, then the only function the US troops are serving is being moving targets for target practice.

The enemy is shameless — they are cockroaches — they have the same respect for the law of armed conflict that a cockroach would have, or a shark, or a bug-eyed monster.

Their women and children mean nothing to them except that they are now useful as human shields.

OK Dolphin314etc we get the fact that you don’t like the current setup — so how should the war be done?

A few revisions:

(1) The US mission in Afghanistan cannot possibly be to protect the civilian population — that is a completely crazy idea which leads directly to the My Lai/Lt. Calley situation we are now in.

(2) The only legitimate mission in the vast badlands of Afghanistan is to smash Taliban and Al Qaeda training camps and to smash Taliban and Al Qada safehouses — just training camps and safehouses.

(3) This mission can best be done by Predators. So most of the groundforces can just come home.

(4) We have no role to play clearing territory, holding territory, building hospitals and schools, winning the hearts and minds of the people, or protecting Karzai’s constituents. Those activities are not related in any meaningful way to the national security of USA if we can smash all training camps and all safehouses by other means (Predators).

(5) The manpower required to do the revised mission: (1) 5000 at Bahgram to re-fuel and re-arm Predators (2) 15,000 in the fleet at sea to fly recon and to do support for Delta Force and Baghram forces and (3) 50,000 at NSA, NRO, and Cheyenne Colorado — Battle Mountain to do intelligence analysis and target identification work 24/7/365 in real-time, and (4) 10,000 in the Space Command to keep our Keyhole assets in the most productive positions for target ID support in real time.

Now is the time when twitty ones start with their abusive comments — Why does this guy think he knows better than our leaders? We just follow orders here — we don’t think about policy or strategy or tactics — we just do what we’re told — who does this guy think he is — why doesn’t he take his comments to the Politics section — anything other than just following orders is pure politics — so I’m gonna get 3 or 4 abusive answers like that — it can’t be helped. My choice is to go forward anyway — there are people who are not stupid about this subject, Biden is one, George Will is one, Barry MacCaffrey is one. I’m trying to reach the non-stupid people. Hopefully my title question will provide a bit of narrow-casting, but clowns abound, so one just has to wade through them, pay them no mind.

Not really,no.

First, the LOAC applies to armed conflicts between nations, or between government and opposition forces in a civil war. Taliban and Al Quaida forces have been characterized by the President as "Criminals", so the laws that apply are those of police action, not of military action.

The LOAC requires military forces to perform their actions is such a way as to minimize civilian casualties to the maximum extent compatible with completing the military mission. A certain amount of civilian "collateral damage" is unavoidable in war.
In law enforcement, however, the avoidance of harm to persons other than the criminal takes precedence over preventing the criminal action. As the old saw goes, "Better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent be punished unjustly." In an action being treated, as Obama is treating this one, as a law enforcement matter, it is thus unacceptable to kill a single innocent bystander in the process of killing a whole bunch of Taliban "Criminals".

It’s also worth noting that McCrystal’s order is a foolish reaction anyway – the rocket strike yesterday was NOT fired at a civilian position. It was fired at a strong-point from which the Taliban was shooting at the US troops – they just missed. No-one, especially in combat, "bats 1000". Everyone misses sometimes.

Richard

Does the Law of Armed Conflict Apply in Afghanistan?
Is Afghanistan Becoming a Vast My Lai Situation?
And are our servicemen being placed in the position of Lt. Calley?

Now that the Taliban know that US trrops are prohibited from firing upon a building that contains civilians, will they ever fire any shot again from any position that does not contain civilians?

Will US trrops be faced with a choice between being non-responsive ducks in a shooting gallery or violating General Stanley McCrystal’s order that no shot can be fired at any position that contains civilians?

All offensive enemy positions will contain civilians. We might as well go home. If we can’t shoot back, then the only function the US troops are serving is being moving targets for target practice.

The enemy is shameless — they are cockroaches — they have the same respect for the law of armed conflict that a cockroach would have, or a shark, or a bug-eyed monster.

Their women and children mean nothing to them except that they are now useful as human shields.

OK Dolphin314etc we get the fact that you don’t like the current setup — so how should the war be done?

A few revisions:

(1) The US mission in Afghanistan cannot possibly be to protect the civilian population — that is a completely crazy idea which leads directly to the My Lai/Lt. Calley situation we are now in.

(2) The only legitimate mission in the vast badlands of Afghanistan is to smash Taliban and Al Qaeda training camps and to smash Taliban and Al Qada safehouses — just training camps and safehouses.

(3) This mission can best be done by Predators. So most of the groundforces can just come home.

(4) We have no role to play clearing territory, holding territory, building hospitals and schools, winning the hearts and minds of the people, or protecting Karzai’s constituents. Those activities are not related in any meaningful way to the national security of USA if we can smash all training camps and all safehouses by other means (Predators).

(5) The manpower required to do the revised mission: (1) 5000 at Bahgram to re-fuel and re-arm Predators (2) 15,000 in the fleet at sea to fly recon and to do support for Delta Force and Baghram forces and (3) 50,000 at NSA, NRO, and Cheyenne Colorado — Battle Mountain to do intelligence analysis and target identification work 24/7/365 in real-time, and (4) 10,000 in the Space Command to keep our Keyhole assets in the most productive positions for target ID support in real time.

Now is the time when twitty ones start with their abusive comments — Why does this guy think he knows better than our leaders? We just follow orders here — we don’t think about policy or strategy or tactics — we just do what we’re told — who does this guy think he is — why doesn’t he take his comments to the Politics section — anything other than just following orders is pure politics — so I’m gonna get 3 or 4 abusive answers like that — it can’t be helped. My choice is to go forward anyway — there are people who are not stupid about this subject, Biden is one, George Will is one, Barry MacCaffrey is one. I’m trying to reach the non-stupid people. Hopefully my title question will provide a bit of narrow-casting, but clowns abound, so one just has to wade through them, pay them no mind.
To nostrada:

Your point is well thought out and it contains a lot of truth.

Here’s some more truth. Waterboarding should have been used on the Christmas Day underpants bomber within minutes of his capture. He should not have been mirandized and given an opportunity to ask for a lawyer. We lost a huge opportunity to break open his secrets and to learn a lot about Al Qaida in Nigeria and in Yemen. I think waterboarding is bordering on torture. In a ticking bomb situation one either sacrifices the lives of innocent fellow citizens or one sacrifices the comfort of an enemy combatant. To me this is not a close call. On Christmas Day 2009 we had no way of knowing about other possible plots that might be in progress. The High Value Detainee Team was ready to go and get the data from the enemy combatant. Instead our new Cream Puff in Chief, said, no get him a lawyer, find him a nice cell and a hot meal, poor dear. Thanks Barack HUSSEIN Obama. You got us so much goodwill in the world.

Having had three direct relatives who served in Viet Nam and Thailand,
2 were SOCOM members 1 was a Thud Pilot, I can recall many a vocal
outburst Re: Robert S, McNamara, Micro Management in Viet Nam
set the stage for its over all failure, Our Military members were pawns
in a very deadly game. Korea was a similar political action (police action),

It seems to me that we had no heart for fighting after the two great world
wars, Not that we lacked in Spirit or individual fortitude, But our Government
and its leaders lost sight and vision over what winning was supposed to be
all about.

I have had three combat tours in the mideastern regions. From the moment
I stepped off the Aircraft at Kabul, I could smell the death not of decaying
carcass but of failure, It was the same smell as described by my Father
and my two uncles. When you go into a fighting mode, Your instincts whirl
from self Preservation to command responsibility, My Mission requirement
in Afghanistan was basically the same I had in Iraq, Supply Host commands
with Military Police units, Train and set up Afghan National Police units,
Contain Combatants for transportation to US holding facility’s. What was
entirely different between the two operations was the lack of government
structure in Afghan and the Illiteracy rate of the Afghan people whom were
being drafted into the various police units, I see no way in hell we can have
have a divided responsibility of Afghan Police and Military before a 10 year
period of time. I am saying 2020 will be a missed target date,

What McCrystal implemented as far as his ground and Air policy are nothing
more than throw backs to the Viet Nam era. Any and all air operations units
have NO TARGET of OPPORTUNITY. Which means if Primary and Secondary
are socked in. You bring the bombs home and dump them in the bomb dump.

Predator Drones should be the action piece of this fight, SOCOM can act as
forward target Intelliegence folks. That MOS is 97z. Remove all combat units
from Afghan and Iraq, and Germany. Leave a cadry in Nato if you want,. But
get everyone else the hell home. Just a thought.

Is this just another chance to lose 5000 men and $5 Trillion, like Iraq?

What could we possibly be thinking with the strategy we have created for ourselves?

Now that the Taliban know that US trrops are prohibited from firing upon a building that contains civilians, will they ever fire any shot again from any position that does not contain civilians?

Will US trrops be faced with a choice between being non-responsive ducks in a shooting gallery or violating General Stanley McCrystal’s order that no shot can be fired at any position that contains civilians?

All offensive enemy positions will contain civilians. We might as well go home. If we can’t shoot back, then the only function the US troops are serving is being moving targets for target practice.

The enemy is shameless — they are cockroaches — they have the same respect for the law of armed conflict that a cockroach would have, or a shark, or a bug-eyed monster.

Their women and children mean nothing to them except that they are now useful as human shields.

OK Dolphin314etc we get the fact that you don’t like the current setup — so how should the war be done?

A few revisions:

(1) The US mission in Afghanistan cannot possibly be to protect the civilian population — that is a completely crazy idea which leads directly to the My Lai/Lt. Calley situation we are now in.

(2) The only legitimate mission in the vast badlands of Afghanistan is to smash Taliban and Al Qaeda training camps and to smash Taliban and Al Qada safehouses — just training camps and safehouses.

(3) This mission can best be done by Predators. So most of the groundforces can just come home.

(4) We have no role to play clearing territory, holding territory, building hospitals and schools, winning the hearts and minds of the people, or protecting Karzai’s constituents. Those activities are not related in any meaningful way to the national security of USA if we can smash all training camps and all safehouses by other means (Predators).

(5) The manpower required to do the revised mission: (1) 5000 at Bahgram to re-fuel and re-arm Predators (2) 15,000 in the fleet at sea to fly recon and to do support for Delta Force and Baghram forces and (3) 50,000 at NSA, NRO, and Cheyenne Colorado — Battle Mountain to do intelligence analysis and target identification work 24/7/365 in real-time, and (4) 10,000 in the Space Command to keep our Keyhole assets in the most productive positions for target ID support in real time.

Now is the time when twitty ones start with their abusive comments — Why does this guy think he knows better than our leaders? We just follow orders here — we don’t think about policy or strategy or tactics — we just do what we’re told — who does this guy think he is — why doesn’t he take his comments to the Politics section — anything other than just following orders is pure politics — so I’m gonna get 3 or 4 abusive answers like that — it can’t be helped. My choice is to go forward anyway — there are people who are not stupid about this subject, Biden is one, George Will is one, Barry MacCaffrey is one. I’m trying to reach the non-stupid people. Hopefully my title question will provide a bit of narrow-casting, but clowns abound, so one just has to wade through them, pay them no mind
To Prays:

Yes, that’s it you have it! Politicians should keep their pigsticking fingers off of military actions in progress. Ideally, they just get to declare war — that’s all. Tell us who needs to be killed and where they are located. We will do the rest, and let you know when the job is done. Actually the U.S. Constitution provides for something pretty close to that. Congress has the power to make rules for the Armed services in terms of military discipline, but not to frame tactics and strategy for warfare. Our first and best President had been a General and had created USA as a separate nation. So the Commander in Chief title and function was entirely reasonable when George Washington held those powers. But Barry Cream Puff Hussein Obama the community organizer from southside Chicago is no George Washington, or Dwight Eisenhower. He is a Politically Correct Mush-mind that channels Jimmy Carter’s feminine side, on a day of universal love and global understanding, oh yes, sweet!

the best way to defeat the muslims is to keep them OUT of civilized countries – no immigration allowed from their hateful countries. Let the filthy, inbred, barbarian TURD balls rot in their own filth and keep them out of civilized societies until they abandon their idiotic religion and get with the program.

There’s a huge difference between saying we should simply leave Afghanistan, and saying that our Counter-Insurgency (hereafter CI)strategy will not work there, and we should use a different strategy to achieve our true military objectives there.

CI is based on two ideas: 1) protect the people (from each other) and 2) assure good governance (resembling USA).

Both of these ideas were tried in Iraq, where Senators Graham, Lieberman, and McCain (see Wall Street Journal, 15 Sept 2009 "Only Decisive Force Can Prevail in Afghanistan") tell us they were wonderfully successful.

Let’s look at that. It’s a little early to predict success in Iraq. We haven’t quite left yet. When we are well and truly gone from that place, I think it will revert to chaos. Everyone bombing everyone all the time.

We did expend 5000 American lives there and Trillions of dollars, so if the place doesn’t fall completely apart after we withdraw 15% of our troops, that not surprizing.

It’s too early to declare "mission accomplished" in Iraq.

And clearly too early to use Iraq as a model for the benefits of CI warfare (which didn’t work in Vietnam, and didn’t work in Iraq).

CI is based on the idea that the common peasants can be recruited by either side. If the Taliban recruit them, we can never kill the Taliban, it always a My Lai situation where the terrorist hide among the local villagers. Gen Petraeus, and now Gen Stanley McChrystal, tell us that winning requires that we bring the peasants to our side so the Taliban has nowhere to hide. The environment becomes friendly to our forces, and unfriendly to the insurgents.

The problem is there’s too many people to be bribed. They are spread out over too large an area. We can’t possibly protect them or pay them. We can’t police every back alley of every village in an country the size of Texas and the topography of Switzerland. The cost in American lives will be too high, and frankly we just don’t have the cash for it.

In Iraq, we took in steamer trunks of $100 bills to buy the affections of those tribal leaders who, for huge wads of cash were willing to mimic being on our side for a few weeks in Anbar Province. Big deal! Money does talk. We knew that — right? So it’s not the Petraeus Miracle — it’s just the way of the world, not a new discovery.

If there is a safer and cheaper alternative that will get the job done, then the CI Strategy is the wrong one, and we should switch over to the safer cheaper strategy — which is called Inside the Wire.

The problem is that the fix is in for CI in Washington. All the suppliers of weapons have set up their political contributions based on the idea that no new strategy would be used — it would be CI right till the end.

Graham, Lieberman, and McCain need to be introduced to a new generation. McCain was one of the Keating Five who cost America $500 Billion in the Savings and Loan scam. Lieberman was the guy who insisted that all Labor Union rules be followed, so it took almost four years to set up the Department of Homeland Security — no deadwood could be fired, no incompetents let go. Graham (along with Henry Hyde) caused about 1/4 of Clinton’s Presidency to be spent explaining what he did with the fat girl behind the copying machine. This grievously harmed the most successful Presidency we’ve had since Eisenhower. Clinton in 8 years created 23 million new jobs. If we could have a month out of that Presidency today our recession would be over and we would be dancing in the streets.

Anyhow, these three morally bankrupt Senators are not just urging that we stay in Afghanistan (which I agree with), but they are also urging that we stick with CI as our strategy, whcih seems to me very dumb.

The mission is to kill 20,000 Al Qaida and 150,000 Taliban in Afghnaistan. This can be done out of Bagram and from the Fleet offshore using Predator and other airborne assets.

The contractor arrangements now in place would be disrupted, of course. New fixes would need to be put in. But the Agencies that could do the job are: 1) Space Command, 2) National Reconaissance Office, and 3) National Security Agency, with a little help from about 24 men in CIA Black Ops to do PIR device placement, which must be done on the ground, and by hand.

So there is a better strategy. It’s just less convenient for the Washington Pols — the morally bankrupt status quo seekers who like the arrangements that are now in place.

The Sheeple are hardly in a position to call for a radical change of strategy — but George Will has done it, and I am doing it.

What do you think?

Invading Iraq was an act of idiocy. After 9/11, America wanted to kick Arabs, and Saddam happened to be home, so on the basis of fictional and doctored evidence, the US kicked the door in and started busting heads and taking names.

Left to his own devices, Saddam would have just carried on oppressing his own people, but more importantly he would have cracked down on any Al-Quaida elements who might have tried to destablise his (secular) regime. His attitude to rebellion and dissent is well known. He wouldn’t have been a friend to the West, but he wouldn’t have been much of a danger either.

After the invasion, every Jihadi with an axe to grind was buying a one-way ticket to Iraq, quite apart from the factional infighting taking place among the Iraqis. The result was hundreds of thousands of dead and injured and a country which probably won’t be stable for many years.

Afghanistan, while more deserving of invasion to deal with the Taliban, was handled badly. Trying to introduce US-style democracy to people who’ve been organised in clans and tribes since long before the US even existed probably isn’t a good move.

Afghans don’t really do democracy, equal rights, or many other social concepts which Americans take for granted. They’re a pragmatic people who have been on the receiving end of a tidal wave of sh*t for decades and will just do what benefits them, their tribe and their kin. Sometimes that will be what the US wants, sometimes not.

COIN probably isn’t the best strategy for Afghanistan, but I’m not sure that playing Nintendo Wars with airstrikes and drone attacks is necessarily the best alternative.

Deal with the narcotics industry for a start; Buying the stuff from the farmers and destroying it will be cheaper than fighting the ‘war on drugs’ at home while making you part of the economy. If you’re financially benefiting them, they’re more likely to stay on side. Then junk the democracy experiment and try to play politics like the Afghans do (and have done for centuries). It isn’t a perfect solution, but probably better than Vietnam With Turbans, which is the way its going now.

There’s a huge difference between saying we should simply leave Afghanistan, and saying that our Counter-Insurgency (hereafter CI)strategy will not work there, and we should use a different strategy to achieve our true military objectives there.

CI is based on two ideas: 1) protect the people (from each other) and 2) assure good governance (resembling USA).

Both of these ideas were tried in Iraq, where Senators Graham, Lieberman, and McCain (see Wall Street Journal, 15 Sept 2009 "Only Decisive Force Can Prevail in Afghanistan") tell us they were wonderfully successful.

Let’s look at that. It’s a little early to predict success in Iraq. We haven’t quite left yet. When we are well and truly gone from that place, I think it will revert to chaos. Everyone bombing everyone all the time.

We did expend 5000 American lives there and Trillions of dollars, so if the place doesn’t fall completely apart after we withdraw 15% of our troops, that not surprizing.

It’s too early to declare "mission accomplished" in Iraq.

And clearly too early to use Iraq as a model for the benefits of CI warfare (which didn’t work in Vietnam, and didn’t work in Iraq).

CI is based on the idea that the common peasants can be recruited by either side. If the Taliban recruit them, we can never kill the Taliban, it always a My Lai situation where the terrorist hide among the local villagers. Gen Petraeus, and now Gen Stanley McChrystal, tell us that winning requires that we bring the peasants to our side so the Taliban has nowhere to hide. The environment becomes friendly to our forces, and unfriendly to the insurgents.

The problem is there’s too many people to be bribed. They are spread out over too large an area. We can’t possibly protect them or pay them. We can’t police every back alley of every village in an country the size of Texas and the topography of Switzerland. The cost in American lives will be too high, and frankly we just don’t have the cash for it.

In Iraq, we took in steamer trunks of $100 bills to buy the affections of those tribal leaders who, for huge wads of cash were willing to mimic being on our side for a few weeks in Anbar Province. Big deal! Money does talk. We knew that — right? So it’s not the Petraeus Miracle — it’s just the way of the world, not a new discovery.

If there is a safer and cheaper alternative that will get the job done, then the CI Strategy is the wrong one, and we should switch over to the safer cheaper strategy — which is called Inside the Wire.

The problem is that the fix is in for CI in Washington. All the suppliers of weapons have set up their political contributions based on the idea that no new strategy would be used — it would be CI right till the end.

Graham, Lieberman, and McCain need to be introduced to a new generation. McCain was one of the Keating Five who cost America $500 Billion in the Savings and Loan scam. Lieberman was the guy who insisted that all Labor Union rules be followed, so it took almost four years to set up the Department of Homeland Security — no deadwood could be fired, no incompetents let go. Graham (along with Henry Hyde) caused about 1/4 of Clinton’s Presidency to be spent explaining what he did with the fat girl behind the copying machine. This grievously harmed the most successful Presidency we’ve had since Eisenhower. Clinton in 8 years created 23 million new jobs. If we could have a month out of that Presidency today our recession would be over and we would be dancing in the streets.

Anyhow, these three morally bankrupt Senators are not just urging that we stay in Afghanistan (which I agree with), but they are also urging that we stick with CI as our strategy, whcih seems to me very dumb.

The mission is to kill 20,000 Al Qaida and 150,000 Taliban in Afghnaistan. This can be done out of Bagram and from the Fleet offshore using Predator and other airborne assets.

The contractor arrangements now in place would be disrupted, of course. New fixes would need to be put in. But the Agencies that could do the job are: 1) Space Command, 2) National Reconaissance Office, and 3) National Security Agency, with a little help from about 24 men in CIA Black Ops to do PIR device placement, which must be done on the ground, and by hand.

So there is a better strategy. It’s just less convenient for the Washington Pols — the morally bankrupt status quo seekers who like the arrangements that are now in place.

The Sheeple are hardly in a position to call for a radical change of strategy — but George Will has done it, and I am doing it.

What do you think?

Invading Iraq was an act of idiocy. After 9/11, America wanted to kick Arabs, and Saddam happened to be home, so on the basis of fictional and doctored evidence, the US kicked the door in and started busting heads and taking names.

Left to his own devices, Saddam would have just carried on oppressing his own people, but more importantly he would have cracked down on any Al-Quaida elements who might have tried to destablise his (secular) regime. His attitude to rebellion and dissent is well known. He wouldn’t have been a friend to the West, but he wouldn’t have been much of a danger either.

After the invasion, every Jihadi with an axe to grind was buying a one-way ticket to Iraq, quite apart from the factional infighting taking place among the Iraqis. The result was hundreds of thousands of dead and injured and a country which probably won’t be stable for many years.

Afghanistan, while more deserving of invasion to deal with the Taliban, was handled badly. Trying to introduce US-style democracy to people who’ve been organised in clans and tribes since long before the US even existed probably isn’t a good move.

Afghans don’t really do democracy, equal rights, or many other social concepts which Americans take for granted. They’re a pragmatic people who have been on the receiving end of a tidal wave of sh*t for decades and will just do what benefits them, their tribe and their kin. Sometimes that will be what the US wants, sometimes not.

COIN probably isn’t the best strategy for Afghanistan, but I’m not sure that playing Nintendo Wars with airstrikes and drone attacks is necessarily the best alternative.

Deal with the narcotics industry for a start; Buying the stuff from the farmers and destroying it will be cheaper than fighting the ‘war on drugs’ at home while making you part of the economy. If you’re financially benefiting them, they’re more likely to stay on side. Then junk the democracy experiment and try to play politics like the Afghans do (and have done for centuries). It isn’t a perfect solution, but probably better than Vietnam With Turbans, which is the way its going now.

Infrastructures of Key Assets.

mother,
Critical infrastructure is anything that our country needs to continue to function. This includes power plants, nuclear plants, power grids, communications platforms, key bridges and roadways, our financial system, water supplies,and so on.
Key assets are those things we need to keep things running smoothly and necessary for the defense of our country. Key assets include our missile system, communications platforms, military bases, power grids, and secure computer connections.

We should be identifying all things that are critical infrastructure and key assets, and enhancing the security at those sites. We should turn to think tanks, Hollywood, and military strategists to envision all possible scenarios for attack, and do our best to prevent those scenarios from happening.

Hope this helps. Good luck!

What is Critical Infrastructure? What is a Key Asset? Identify a strategy for protecting our Critical Infrastructures or Key Assets. Explain whether you believe this strategy will be effective, and the reasons for your opinion.

Critical infrastructure is a term used by governments to describe material assets that are essential for the functioning of a society and economy. Most commonly associated with the term are facilities for:

found in english wikipedia website

Critical Infrastructure and Key asset protection:
This scenario enables public security stakeholders and first responders to protect critical infrastructure and key assets thus reducing their vulnerability to potential threats by providing threat and target related critical infrastructure warning information/ intelligence and linking this information/ intelligence to operation. It encompasses the implementation, execution and evaluation of preventative and protective actions and measures.

found on: http://www50.sap.com/businessmaps/A328E07FE7C54A2C8AF21C4187F1ED86.htm

But now the story ends, I won’t get much credits for such a lousy answer. I’ll help you to the next level, but YOU have to finish your work, it seems to me that you only want to use your
freetime for more pleasant things.

It is complex, it demands a lot of work from you, but when you got the full solution you can be proud of yourself.

bye for know, I wish you the best and good luck and no I’m not a teacher, just your next door A-level hard working student….

If you want to say something personal to me for that answer, do not hesitate mark your email subject as: Yahoo:answers
and write to kyeldon@yahoo.com

Details in the recent correspondence between me and the lawyer –

" I am greatly disturbed, astonished, concerned and disappointed to receive this document reflecting a disproportionate value of assumed charged services from your office. The timesheet – invoice has been altered, embellished and does not reflect a real occurring exchange between us. Their was no written signed or approved client engagement or retainer agreement that was yet determined between each other. Without signed approval or even having a clear direction in the nature of the reasonable value of legal services to be rendered, I recommend you honestly reevaluate and disaffirm this invoice.

Based on our phone correspondence, you requested for me to provide you with relevant facts to describe the circumstances related to the business, my involvement and gather information on the other partner’s position and status around the separation of the verbal business venture and partnership, and to subsequently follow-up with you. With candor I shared with you in very short, explicit and brief phone conversations the relevant facts and circumstances of the business decision that I needed to make with this matter, offering the current status of the business, the assets, vendor debt, clients, lease agreement, role and responsibilities that we had and the existing position with ….. the partner having uncertainty, being ill equipped with the matter and unable to bring a plan of action or resolution. You did not answer any questions nor in return bring me a clear rational exit strategy or substantive legal advise. Entrusting you to help with this matter "my livelihood" – I did not receive any substantial guidance – you did not instruct me in considering my options and to offer me a systematic evaluation of probabilities and consequences. In our meeting I introduced the urgent need to prepare a legal written document to solidify my separation and departure from the company and seek to negotiate concessions as well as to protect me from existing and future liabilities, for which I did not receive such a letter nor advise on what liabilities to be concerned with, instead I was mailed a impersonal embellished invoice from your office. This should be beyond dispute, I have not received adequate services, a clear rational exit strategy communicated to me, nor a legal document that would support this matter to be resolved in a quick and amicable manner for the both of us to agree and sign. I feel you did not provide relevant advise, clear perimeters of your counsel, time, as well as us having agreed on fixed terms for the fees based on actual work completed and or to be provided.

This is not what I anticipated from you or your law firm, at this point, this has cost me valuable time, agony, distress, significant loss of money, loss of any controlling interest in the business " ….." with the result of us separating from each other with no clear written resolve, it’s brought me significant credit card debt, and with the impact of the economic conditions I’ve been unemployed for months. I find it would be difficult for your firm to restore client confidence going forward and assume this matter to be closed. "

Note: He has chosen to disregard the letter and the facts. His office has sent me a invoice with added interest in the past 3 months for 1,900.00 . What further steps can i take or should do ?

What you can do depends partly on where you are. If you believe the law firm has acted irresponsibly or unprofessionally, and you have exhausted all complaints procedures that the law firm itself has, then you could write to the law firm’s supervisory body. Certainly, if you are in England and Wales, there would be a prima facie case against the law firm (the lack of an engagement letter between you and the firm being unprofessional in the first instance).

Ultimately, unless there is a specific law about legal fees in your jurisdiction, it would be up to the law firm to sue you for non-payment of fees. In the absence of a written contract, you would have to pay them a fair price for the services provided. You seem to be arguing that that fair price is nil – and you may be able to get a Court to agree to that. Alternatively, the law firm may be able to get a Court to agree to its position. Whether the law firm has a right to pay interest is down to local law. In the absence of a local law allowing them to charge you interest, and in the absence of an agreement between them and you allowing them to charge you interest, then no interest would be payable.

Details in the recent correspondence between me and the lawyer –

" I am greatly disturbed, astonished, concerned and disappointed to receive this document reflecting a disproportionate value of assumed charged services from your office. The timesheet – invoice has been altered, embellished and does not reflect a real occurring exchange between us. Their was no written signed or approved client engagement or retainer agreement that was yet determined between each other. Without signed approval or even having a clear direction in the nature of the reasonable value of legal services to be rendered, I recommend you honestly reevaluate and disaffirm this invoice.

Based on our phone correspondence, you requested for me to provide you with relevant facts to describe the circumstances related to the business, my involvement and gather information on the other partner’s position and status around the separation of the verbal business venture and partnership, and to subsequently follow-up with you. With candor I shared with you in very short, explicit and brief phone conversations the relevant facts and circumstances of the business decision that I needed to make with this matter, offering the current status of the business, the assets, vendor debt, clients, lease agreement, role and responsibilities that we had and the existing position with ….. the partner having uncertainty, being ill equipped with the matter and unable to bring a plan of action or resolution. You did not answer any questions nor in return bring me a clear rational exit strategy or substantive legal advise. Entrusting you to help with this matter "my livelihood" – I did not receive any substantial guidance – you did not instruct me in considering my options and to offer me a systematic evaluation of probabilities and consequences. In our meeting I introduced the urgent need to prepare a legal written document to solidify my separation and departure from the company and seek to negotiate concessions as well as to protect me from existing and future liabilities, for which I did not receive such a letter nor advise on what liabilities to be concerned with, instead I was mailed a impersonal embellished invoice from your office. This should be beyond dispute, I have not received adequate services, a clear rational exit strategy communicated to me, nor a legal document that would support this matter to be resolved in a quick and amicable manner for the both of us to agree and sign. I feel you did not provide relevant advise, clear perimeters of your counsel, time, as well as us having agreed on fixed terms for the fees based on actual work completed and or to be provided.

This is not what I anticipated from you or your law firm, at this point, this has cost me valuable time, agony, distress, significant loss of money, loss of any controlling interest in the business " ….." with the result of us separating from each other with no clear written resolve, it’s brought me significant credit card debt, and with the impact of the economic conditions I’ve been unemployed for months. I find it would be difficult for your firm to restore client confidence going forward and assume this matter to be closed. "

Note: He has chosen to disregard the letter and the facts. His office has sent me a invoice with added interest in the past 3 months for 1,900.00 . What further steps can i take or should do ?

What you can do depends partly on where you are. If you believe the law firm has acted irresponsibly or unprofessionally, and you have exhausted all complaints procedures that the law firm itself has, then you could write to the law firm’s supervisory body. Certainly, if you are in England and Wales, there would be a prima facie case against the law firm (the lack of an engagement letter between you and the firm being unprofessional in the first instance).

Ultimately, unless there is a specific law about legal fees in your jurisdiction, it would be up to the law firm to sue you for non-payment of fees. In the absence of a written contract, you would have to pay them a fair price for the services provided. You seem to be arguing that that fair price is nil – and you may be able to get a Court to agree to that. Alternatively, the law firm may be able to get a Court to agree to its position. Whether the law firm has a right to pay interest is down to local law. In the absence of a local law allowing them to charge you interest, and in the absence of an agreement between them and you allowing them to charge you interest, then no interest would be payable.