View Single Post
Old 12-28-2009, 09:48 AM   #3 (permalink)
The_Jazz
Asshole
 
The_Jazz's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
Historically, it's interesting to see how the US went from predominantly isolationist to meddling in the course of a generation (the Monroe Doctrine notwithstanding). Our involvement in the Middle East, once the Barbary Wars ended, was nonexistant save tourism until the end of isolationism in the 40's.

I was aware that the US was undergoing a less-than-covert "advisory" buildup in Yemen. I can't say exactly when or where I learned that, but it seems I read something a few months ago in conjuction with some kidnappings there.

I think that the objective is pretty obvious. We've marginalized most of the jihadists in region to a great extent. They're no longer welcome in Saudi Arabia, at least openly. Most of the training grounds for these folks are currently either under our control or under attack by our allies (Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.) or under the direct control of a regional power that sees no benefit in a direct attack (Syria and Iran). It seems that even Sudan is too chaotic for the jihadis to efficiently organize enough to be a direct threat to Americans, although I expect that won't last forever. The Ethopians have a vested interest in a stable Sudan, and the Ethopians are at best neutral towards the US.

I am assuming that the US forces are doing as advertised. I think that any of the hawks in the Pentagon that think that opening a third front in the GWOT will be quickly countered by cooler heads with a more realistic grasp of the capabilities of the Armed Forces (although that doesn't rule out cruise missle strikes, drones, etc.). I can't see the Obama Administration thinking that a third front is nothing more than a military adventure run amuck and ok'ing much more than advisors. The men and materiel just aren't there for such a concept, even with the wind-down in Iraq, which won't be completed for months.

Is it possible in a couple of years, especially with some provocative acts? Yes, certainly, just not in my near-term.

I don't see it as lunacy so much as a poorly-thought-out knee-jerk reaction.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
The_Jazz is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360