Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: US using deniable assets in Iran
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Backgammon
I thought this had a shadowrun ring to it: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/US_outso...ering_0413.html
hyzmarca
QUOTE (Coward)
“We have very strict rules and can’t go consorting with terrorists," the official added. "We did it in Northern Ireland. No more.”


Strict rules against consorting with terrorists, what idiot made those rules?

QUOTE
Rumsfeld was pushing to use them as a military special ops team, but policy infighting between their camp and Condi, but she was able to fight them off for a while,” said the intelligence official.


Which is why civilians shouldn't be involved in military decisions, really. Using the MEK has a special operations force wasn't a bad idea at all. Forcing it to break up may or may not have been a good idea. That will certainly piss some members off and it isn't half as cool.

Really, a terrorist group ran by a brother-sister team should be kept going just for the coolness factor alone. Panache is very important for drumming up public support in these kinds of operations
PBTHHHHT
Ugh. Yeah, we've trained and used outside forces to do our work already in the past, such as Afghanistan in the 80's and the latest using the Northern Alliance forces to push out the Taliban, the use of the Contras, the use of tribes in Vietnam that also operated in other areas like Laos... You're right, why can't we use them as a special forces unit? Especially if it's mainly for gathering intelligence.
Halabis
The problem is quite often we have to go in 20 years later and get rid of those forces again. Those Afgan forces we used? Taliban. Those Iraq people we used way back? Saddam. See the pattern?
mfb
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
Using the MEK has a special operations force wasn't a bad idea at all.

eh. to the extent that going into Iraq was a good idea to begin with, equipping and directing some of the deposed regime's black baggers to continue their activities is directly contrary with what the US is (currently fooling itself into believing they went) there for in the first place. as such, i would say it's pretty clearly a bad idea. not to mention that, like Halabis said, they're just going to be bombing us in twenty years.
Arethusa
QUOTE (PBTHHHHT)
Ugh. Yeah, we've trained and used outside forces to do our work already in the past, such as Afghanistan in the 80's and the latest using the Northern Alliance forces to push out the Taliban, the use of the Contras, the use of tribes in Vietnam that also operated in other areas like Laos... You're right, why can't we use them as a special forces unit? Especially if it's mainly for gathering intelligence.

Yeah, and those turned out really well for everyone.
eidolon
And this surprises anyone why....?
hyzmarca
QUOTE (mfb)
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
Using the MEK has a special operations force wasn't a bad idea at all.

eh. to the extent that going into Iraq was a good idea to begin with, equipping and directing some of the deposed regime's black baggers to continue their activities is directly contrary with what the US is (currently fooling itself into believing they went) there for in the first place. as such, i would say it's pretty clearly a bad idea. not to mention that, like Halabis said, they're just going to be bombing us in twenty years.

Basic Sun Tzu, prosecuting a war takes a lot of resources and doing so over a prolonged period of time will ruin your ecenomy. The only way to offset economic lossess is to place the burden on your enemies by using captured supplies. Since Pentagon doesn't activly support rape and pilliage policies, using turncoat enemy soldiers is the next best thing. They have their own supply lines and their own equipment, for the most part, so we need to provde fewer resurces suplimenting them.

James McMurray
Besides, in 20 years the economy may need another shot in the ass, and a war is a good way to do that. smile.gif
mfb
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
Basic Sun Tzu, prosecuting a war takes a lot of resources and doing so over a prolonged period of time will ruin your ecenomy.

"Sun Tzu said to do it" is a pat response, in this case, that ignores the facts and history behind the current situation. to wit: we've done it before, and it's come back to bite us in the ass more than a lot. what does Sun Tzu have to say about doing the same thing over again, when the results were utterly disasterous the last time you tried it? or about trading short-term gains for long-term trouble? to put in more blunty, today's MEK is going to be tomorrow's next 9/11 event; how is that a good idea?

not that we're going to war with Iran, of course. the gummint said we wasn't!
hyzmarca
Our current problems are caused by the fact that we supported bad people. Rather, they were caused by ending our support for bad people as soon as we no longer needed them.

Certainly, Sadam wouldn't have had such an anti-American stance if we supported Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.


Besides, one can't say for certain that the MEK is at all unreasonable. They are terrorists, yes, but it would be hypocitical for a country that was founded by terrorists to say that there is anything wrong with that.
FanGirl
QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Apr 14 2006, 12:28 AM)

Basic Sun Tzu, prosecuting a war takes a lot of resources and doing so over a prolonged period of time will ruin your ecenomy. The only way to offset economic lossess is to place the burden on your enemies by using captured supplies. Since Pentagon doesn't activly support rape and pilliage policies, using turncoat enemy soldiers is the next best thing. They have their own supply lines and their own equipment, for the most part, so we need to provde fewer resurces suplimenting them.

Oh yeah? Well Machiavelli said that it's dumb to use mercenary and auxiliary forces because they're not loyal to you: they're only looking out for their own interests. But then again, the SR world is so much better for having private security companies enforce the law, right? There's nothing but peace and prosperity in the Sixth World.
mfb
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
Our current problems are caused by the fact that we supported bad people. Rather, they were caused by ending our support for bad people as soon as we no longer needed them.

i don't see any evidence that indicates we're changing that. show of hands--who believes that if Iran stopped being a "threat" tomorrow, that we'd even give the MEK the courtesy of a Dear John letter?

QUOTE (hyzmarca)
Certainly, Sadam wouldn't have had such an anti-American stance if we supported Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

i fail to see how Saddam was a threat. unlike the majority of Americans, i haven't forgotten why we went into Iraq in the first place, and i haven't been made to miss the fact that those reasons were completely artificial. so Saddam didn't like us. what was he gonna do about it, exactly? he didn't have any means of producing WMDs, and he hated the big international terrorist groups like Al-queda. let him hate us.

QUOTE (hyzmarca)
They are terrorists, yes, but it would be hypocitical for a country that was founded by terrorists to say that there is anything wrong with that.

but, uh, isn't the whole (-ly fabricated new) reason we're in Iraq right now that they harbor terrorists?

i suppose this probably isn't the place for this discussion. i wouldn't be so eager to prosecute it except that, well, two years ago, i was on the other side of it. i was all "rah, rah, get Saddam because he's got WMDs!" (yeah, WMDs. remember those?) but then it turned out that he didn't have WMDs. and it turned out that we completely made up the idea that he might have had WMDs. if i were a good person, i might be unsupportive of the Bush administration because i fear for the harm it's going to do to the country and the world. because i'm me, however, the main reason i'm so vocally unsupportive of the Bush administration is because the fuckers made a liar and a fool out of me.
hyzmarca
I never supported the invasions of Iraq. Even if he didt have WMD I don't think anyone should have cared the slightest but about it. After all, he doesn't have any weapons capable of delivering them across continents. And, as a matter of principal, I support unlimited nuclear proliferation. Nuclear proliferation makes the world a safer place by preventing wars. Mutually Assured Destruction is really the only reason why we aren't all typing in Russian now.

However, I also believe that if one is going to fight a war one should do it right. Destroying Sadam's infrastructure and attacking him directly was the stupidest military strategy since The Light Brigade. It all ensured that the United States would have to dump an absurd amount of resources into a rebuilding efforts and allowed a variety of militant groups to gain footholds in Iraq. At that point, they may as well just cut their losses and nuked the country into oblivion but they decided to follow through in the wasteful endeavor. Keeping the MEK intact shows at least some economic sense that is a shining ray of hope coming from the darkest depths of this gigantic clusterfuck. Even if I disagree with the war I still support the use of good strategies.




QUOTE (Fangirl)
Oh yeah? Well Machiavelli said that it's dumb to use mercenary and auxiliary forces because they're not loyal to you: they're only looking out for their own interests. But then again, the SR world is so much better for having private security companies enforce the law, right? There's nothing but peace and prosperity in the Sixth World.


It goes without saying that Machiavelli and Sun Tsu looked at war from completely different perspectives.

In the most technical sense, all forces in a paid volunteer army are mercenary forces. They fight for pay and benefits. However, it may be apt to apply the term exclusivly to forces that you did not train.

Mercenary forces can betray you, of course. But, so can allies. It is important to minimize the potential damage of betrayal but in the end you have to put some trust in something. The point of using mercenaries is the same as the point of using allies, to supliment your forces while offseting the resource drain caused by the war.

Having private security copanies enforce the law in SR has minimal impact on the dystopian nature of the world. They look out for their own interests, yes, but the same can be said for publicly owned police forces. In fact, using contracted security compaines may improve the situation somewhat because you don't have several police departments jocking for limited goverment funding which had absurd and arcane requirements. Of course, it is possible that the corporation uses similar funding polices but it is doubtful considering how wasteful they are.
mfb
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
Even if I disagree with the war I still support the use of good strategies.

it's only a good strategy if they follow up on it. i don't believe they will; therefore, i believe it is just one more bad strategy in a clusterfuck of bad strategies. if you believe they'll follow up on it, then i can see how you'd see it as a good strategy.

QUOTE (hyzmarca)
In the most technical sense, all forces in a paid volunteer army are mercenary forces. They fight for pay and benefits.

this is not really true. the pay and benefits are privileges, at least in the US military, and they can be taken away--pay, more frequently, though benefits can be lost as well (though not, as far as i know, as a punitive measure, the way pay is). moreover, if the military somehow forgets to pay you or provide certain benefits, your legal recourses do not include not participating in military activities. US military personnel fight because they are legally bound to do so. the fact that they get compensated for it is tangential.
nezumi
That said, I don't know of a lot of people who signed up for the military because of the great pay. The benefits, maybe, but those benefits don't generally apply when you turn against the government.
James McMurray
QUOTE
They are terrorists, yes, but it would be hypocitical for a country that was founded by terrorists to say that there is anything wrong with that.


Not quite. It would be hypocritical for a country "using" terrorists to say that there is anything wrong with it. I't no more hypocritical for a country founded by them to say terrorism is wrong than it is for a country founded by slavery to say slavery is wrong.

QUOTE
After all, he doesn't have any weapons capaible of delivering them across continents.


Except boats, planes, and other normal every day items that can carry things from country to country. smile.gif

QUOTE
That said, I don't know of a lot of people who signed up for the military because of the great pay.


I know a couple. The pay doesn't look great until you factor in the free housing, at which point youre making out like a bandit. Nowhere near enough of a bandit for me to get shot at, but some folks are always of the mind that "I won't have to go to war."

Note: None of this post is intended to condone or disown the war in Iraq. I have my own opinions on the subject, but won't go into them unless asked. Or I get bored later and decide to go into them. smile.gif
Brahm
QUOTE (mfb @ Apr 14 2006, 12:56 AM)
not that we're going to war with Iran, of course. the gummint said we wasn't!

To go to war traditionally you need an army, and the US government doesn't really have a spare one available right now. Maybe they could ask to borrow Russia's? wink.gif

I'm half expecting Isreal to fly over to Iran and drop a few ordinance on the place like they did in Iraq. They'd need to do inflight refueling, but they can reach that far can't they?

The two reasons I can think of why they haven't yet. First is risk of a nuclear materials escape. When they bombed that Iraq facility it suppositly didn't have any uranium on site yet. The second even bigger reason is that because the US is controlling Iraq airspace the Whitehouse wouldn't have pausible deniability.
FanGirl
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
QUOTE (Fangirl)
Oh yeah? Well Machiavelli said that it's dumb to use mercenary and auxiliary forces because they're not loyal to you: they're only looking out for their own interests. But then again, the SR world is so much better for having private security companies enforce the law, right? There's nothing but peace and prosperity in the Sixth World.


Mercenary forces can betray you, of course. But, so can allies.

Which is exactly the point I'm making! Remember, I was talking about both mercenary and auxiliary forces, and the forces of one's allies fall within that latter group. This is what Machiavelli has to say about using mercenaries--
QUOTE (Machiavelli)
. . .they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy. The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe. . . .

--and auxiliaries--
QUOTE (Machiavelli)
. . .let him who has no desire to conquer make use of these arms, for they are much more hazardous than mercenaries, because with them the ruin is ready made; they are all united, all yield obedience to others; but with mercenaries, when they have conquered, more time and better opportunities are needed to injure you; they are not all of one community, they are found and paid by you, and a third party, which you have made their head, is not able all at once to assume enough authority to injure you. In conclusion, in mercenaries dastardy is most dangerous; in auxiliaries, valour. The wise prince, therefore, has always avoided these arms and turned to his own; and has been willing rather to lose with them than to conquer with others, not deeming that a real victory which is gained with the arms of others.


Check out the text of The Prince, especially chapters 12 and 13, for more about Machiavelli's views on troop types and other stuff.

QUOTE (hyzmarca)
In fact, using contracted security compaines may improve the situation somewhat because you don't have several police departments jocking for limited goverment funding. . . .

. . . but you do have them jocking against other contracted security companies. Plus, as many people have already pointed out in this thread, most people don't join public forces (military or police) just for the money: they are also fighting for the love of their country or their community.
mfb
QUOTE (Brahm)
To go to war traditionally you need an army, and the US government doesn't really have a spare one available right now.

heh. well, keep in mind, one or more of the plans that the Bush administration is absolutely, positively not considering is a nuclear strike or strikes.

QUOTE (James McMurray)
The pay doesn't look great until you factor in the free housing, at which point youre making out like a bandit.

eh. while it's true that even the lowest-ranked soldier has 18k/year of what amounts to completely disposable income, you have to consider other factors. military room and board is not something you'd pay very much for, in the civilian world, and the work conditions are often poor. and that doesn't even count time spent in the field.
ShadowDragon8685
You still get taxed in the military.

Which blows.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012