Nonsense. A defensive strategy is one in which the defensive is the primary mode of engagement, not the only one. The more likely result, as is happening with the current US offensive strategy is that you exhaust yourself while everyone else gets stronger on the sidelines.

In the case of the US you are perfectly built for a defensive strategy, and poorly built for an offensive one. You have a fickle population, unused to sacrifice, or dicipline, or unquestioning loyalty, and are seperated geographically and socially from your enemies. Meanwhile you have strong alliances and strong trading partners.

I still think that you are wrong in your estimation of the threat from Russians, Chineese and Islamists joining to nuke and take over your country.

“At a minimum, failure to achieve a situation where Iraq is stable and allied with the US in the global war on terrorism will mean the end of the US as a major power.”

If this is true then you’re over as a major power because it is not going to happen.

I don’t trust my elected leaders much either. The problem with only a defensive strategy is you never gain any ground. The enemy who is constantly playing offense will eventually defeat you. So a defensive only strategy will eventually lead to the defeat of the US. If the US is defeated, Western Europe would likely not be far behind.

Frankly the US and the West face an existential threat. To allow Al Qaeda, Iran or some combination of them to gain control of Iraq would place United States survival in grave danger. At a minimum, failure to achieve a situation where Iraq is stable and allied with the US in the global war on terrorism will mean the end of the US as a major power. It will in all likelyhood place the survival of the country in grave danger. As the survival of the US is placed in grave danger, so is the survival of Western civilization. A country and a civilization simply cannot survive by constantly appeasing its enemies. We should have learned this after WWII. With all of this said, a purely defensive strategy may be the only one we can implement. This would mean stalling for time and pray for the best. Hopefully we can somehow survive.

As for Alberto Gonzales, it appears he lied. He should step down or be removed from his office, however, this will not change the fact that the US faces an existential threat from Al Qaeda and its allies. The US faced an existential threat from Al Qaeda long before Gonzales became the AG and the US will face an existential threat after he leaves office. Unfortunately we have allowed us to become distracted.

The US and Western civilization face an existential threat and they should begin to conduct themselves accordingly. As it is, the last I heard we have been unable to get NATO members to honor their committments to Afghanistan. Western civilization is fundamentally unserious. Eventually we will get serious but it may be too late.

Well, obviously we see the world differently. I see no hints whatsoever that the Russians are planning a first strike nuclear war. I see no reason for them to want to do so, and your piece only covered that as far as “This would accomplish their goal of being the world’s sole power.”

Frankly this is dangerously paranoid thinking because, based on your certainty that the Russians are willing to risk all out nuclear war in order to be top dog, you seem to be advocating total war against Afghanistan, Iran and Syria which would inevitably lead to more regionalised and even globalised war.

In addition, the idea that the Russians are funding the Chechens is beyond absurd, akin to 911-truthers paranoia.

You say that we don’t appreciate the risks, I say that your imagination is running away with you and that it is pushing you towards advocating absurdly risky actions that you have no need to perform.

It strikes me that merely upping your readiness levels and hardening your command and control would be a better move than invading Iran and Syria.

Still, you’re right, this thread isn’t about this, it is about Mr.Gonzales, a man who is pretty obviously yet another liar in a position of trust. Given the general uselessness of your elected leaders, I wouldn’t trust them with anything but a defensive strategy to be honest.

I don’t plan to watch “24″. Don’t have time. TV is for largely unserious folks. Actually, from Rick’s summaries of the show, it seems to me that the producers of the show do not grasp the gravity of the threat that Islamic extremists pose to the US.

If you support the nations of Iran and Syria who support the Islamists this is the same as supporting the terrorists they support. Russia actively supports every major enemy of the US. Also, the Islamists seem to largely ignore Chechnya, at least those in Iran and Syria do. The Communists and the Islamists are drawn together becuase of mutual enemies. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” seems to be the philosphy. The notion that the Islamists and the Russians hate one another does not seem to be accurate. At least their actions seem to indicate that they are close friends. Russia has the best intellegence agency on earth. I find it highly implausible that these guys can’t track down Chechen terrorists. I suspect the Russians may be arming the Chechens and using them as an excuse to establish a police state. It also serves as a good excuse for them to mobilize their formidable military machine. Russian defector Alexander Litvenenko tried to warn of things like this. He was assainated.

How would they occupy you? As I stated they could inflict enough damage to make in the initial attack to make resistance all but impossible. Their invasion would not be with the use of precision weapons, in an attempt to minimize civilian casualties, the way the US and its allies have done in Afghanistan and Iraq. Due to the lax readiness of the US nuclear arsenal, an American response would be problematic at best.

Why would they occupy you? I’m not sure they would. They could reduce much of the country, if not all of it, to an uninhabitable radioactive zone. This would accomplish their goal of being the world’s sole power. Russia already is the most powerful country in the world, however, China is gaining on them. With the US out of the way they would have no rival for the foreseeable future. Since the Americans thought the Cold War ended, the readiness and the effectiveness of the nuclear deterrent has been allowed to erode. In contrast, Russia has been testing their nuclear arsenal and has made significant upgrades to it. Russia now has the most advanced nuclear arsenal in the world.

The US has no plans to occupy Russia. Even if it wanted to its military is inadequate to perform that task.

I don’t think MAD is applicable here. A Russian invasion would not come by ships. It would likely come by nuclear weapons launched by submarines and by land based ICBM silos. The US would have only minutes to respond. Due to the poor nature of US human intellegence and the low level of readiness that the US currently has it is highly questionable whether the US would have time to respond. The ships might come later, should the Russians choose to occupy the country. Obviously an occupying force would need bio protection suits. I suspect that if there is a covert force in the US they probably already have these suits.

The problem with the command and control structures of the US is they are not sufficiently protected to withstand even a suit case nuclear attack, much less an all out attack from a major power like Russia or China. The Russians and the Chinese have worked to harden their command and control structures in recent years. The US and Western Europe lag behind the Russians and Chinese in these efforts.

“What do you mean by win?” What I mean by winning is eliminating the ability of the Islamic terrorists and their Communist allies to pose an existential threat to the US. Currently these groups pose a survival threat to America. This cannot be allowed to continue. If they did succeed in taking out the US, Western Europe and anyone else who was even remotely allied with the US probably would not be far behind. That is unless they surrendered.

I should point out that George W. Bush’s idea of victory seems to be a little different than mine. He seems to want to establish “democracy” throughout the Middle East. Unfortunately the policies of the Bush Administration have been horribly inconsistent. I have already said I think Bush is the worst President in US history.

The effort will ultimately require extreme sacrifice. I would suggest a mobilization for war simillar to the one that was undertaken by the US and its Western European allies for WWII. Ultimately I expect the Americans and the Western Europeans to fight vigorously. Unfortunately by the time they wake up it may be to late. Western civilization is in a fight for its survival. It is time for Americans and Western Europeans to conduct themselves accordingly.

“How is fighting in Iraq helping you defeat the Islamists sleeper army in the US or the invading Russians?” In my previous post, I don’t recall taking a stance for or against the Iraq war. In any event the way the Bush Administration and America’s allies are fighting the war it is not helping, in fact, it seems to be making things worse, however, it could help us, if fought properly.

The lift cost per barrel of Iraqi oil is less than the lift cost per barrel of Russian, Saudi, or Iranian oil. If we could bring stability to the country, we could flood the market with Iraqi oil. This would cut into the revenue of Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. This would go a long way toward neutralizing their ability to harm American interests. It would also hamper their ability to support terrorists. In addition to this, establishing security would go a long toward giving representative democracy the space it needs to give it a chance to work. If we could get a democratic ally out of Iraq the benefits to us and Western Europe would be fabulous. Even if it is not a demcocray a secure allied Iraq would be of enormous benefit to us and Western Europe.

With that said a plan no matter how good it may be on paper has to be one that can be implemented. The kind of commitment that it would take to achieve the above mentioned outcome requires more of a committment than the American people, Congress, America’s allied, or even the Bush Administration are willing to make. Given that current realities make it impossible to achieve many of the goals mentioned above, it would be best to try another approach. It would probably have been better to have not invaded Iraq at all. I had my doubts going in.

As for an Iraq strategy going forward, I would suggest pulling Allied troops back to Kurdish areas and only intervene in the Iraqi Civil War to halt the spread of Al Qaeda or Iranian influence within the country. The primary goals for Iraq should be: 1.)Annihalte Al Qaeda in Iraq. 2.)Contain the influence of Iran within Iraq.

The above mentioned strategy may not work but it has the benefit of being something we can actually implement. What I would like to see done is a full mobilization for war. Then we would take out the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as the terrorist supporting governments of Iran and Syria. While doing this, we will need to be on guard for the Russians and Chinese. Ultimately this will be the only way to win but we cannot implement this policy right now. For now all we can do is stall for time until we can. When we finally wake up I pray it will not be to late.

This thread was supposed to be about Alberto Gonzales. The point I’m trying to make with this is as follows, so far, George W. Bush has been a horrible president. I think he has been the worst president in US history. He may even be despicable person. He may even be evil. His entire administration may be the most evil and corrupt in American history, however, regardless of what he or his advisors are this will not change the fact that the US is in a fight for its survival. The enemies we currently fight in places like Afghanistan and Al Qaeda in Iraq, as well as their allies, posed an existential threat to the US before Bush came to power and even if he were impeached tonight they would still pose an existential threat to the US.

No matter what we think of President Bush we cannot allow ourselves to become distracted. The US and Western Civilization face an existential threat. The sooner they begin to conduct themsleves accordingly the better.

Another non-story meant to bring down a president.

Oh, you should, it would be right up your alley. Great show.

“While the Russians are engaged in a war with Chechnya, they actively support Iran, Syria, and other Islamic terrorist supporting nations.”

Like I said, they play the game with nations but not with Islamist terrorists. They hate the Islamists and the Islamists hate them.

“Vladimir Putin has stated that Russia is the best friend of Islam.”

Yeah, and Maggie Thatcher was the best friend of Sinn Fein.

Being a friend to Islam is not the same as payrolling a covert Islamic army in the US. It just means “We need to wrap up these guys in trade deals and freeze the West out”

“The Russians could occupy the US. The idea would be to inflict as much damage as possible as possible during the initial attack. We would expect the Americans to respond vigorously but it may be too late.”

(a) How would they occupy you?

(b) Why would they occupy you?

Just imagine for five minutes, invading and occupying Russia. Does that sound like fun? Something that would be to your benefit? Something that would actually work?

“MAD is not applicable here because due to the extremely poor state of US human intellegence assets the US would likely not have a chance to respond to the attack.”

Huh? You’re saying that when Convoys of Russian ships are coming over to invade your country in repeated waves, you wouldn’t have time to nuke them?

Or that enough nuclear weapons could be detonated to completely remove your command and control before you retaliated?

“We can win but it will require a supreme effort and likely supreme sacrifice.”

What do you mean by win? How is fighting in Iraq helping you defeat the Islamist sleeper army in the US, or the invading Russians?

“Is that right?” Thats pretty close, however, the Russians may attack first. They seem to be using the Islamists as proxies.

I’ve actually never watched “24.” Occasionally I read Rick’s summaries. I don’t watch much tv.

While the Russians are engaged in a war with Chechnya, they actively support Iran, Syria, and other Islamic terrorist supporting nations. Vladimir Putin has stated that Russia is the best friend of Islam. The Russians could occupy the US. The idea would be to inflict as much damage as possible as possible during the initial attack. We would expect the Americans to respond vigorously but it may be too late.

Actually the world’s largest and most advanced nuclear arsenal belongs to Russia not to the United States. MAD is not applicable here because due to the extremely poor state of US human intellegence assets the US would likely not have a chance to respond to the attack.

The US is in a fight for its survival. It should conduct itself in this manner. Underestimating one’s enemies hs the potential to be suicidal. This is not a time for fear. It is a time to approach the situation with steadfast determination and resolve. We can win but it will require a supreme effort and likely supreme sacrifice. I hope and pray we get our act together here before it is to late.

So let me get this straight. The plan is for the Islamists to nuke America a bit, for China and Russia to ally with them in order to directly attack both America and Europe, while a concealed sleeper army of Islamists in the US continuously attacks evetually imposing Sharia law.

Is that right?

Honestly, way too much 24. Great show that it is, if it were true then this level of paranoia might be understandable but…

You’ve forgotten a few little facts. The Russians hate the Islamists. Sure, countries are fine in their eyes, but Islamic nutcases keep killing their kids and they keep leveling their cities. The Chinese aren’t anything like as inscrutable as you seem to think. There is no Russian funded sleeper Islamic army hiding in the US. Neither is there a batallion of Spetsnatz in your fridge. The Russians wouldn’t have a hope in hell of occupying the US, neither would the Chinese or the “Islamists”.

And probably most notable, if there were evidence of Russian or Chinese involvement in nuclear attacks on the US then you have the world’s largest nuclear arsenal at your disposal and justification to use it.

What happened that meant that MAD wasn’t applicable anymore? Where’s the percentage in it for the Russians or the Chinese anyway?