Do our armed forces make us safer?
.
Interesting, I see in a couple of papers today that our beloved Government is now proposing laws to restrict the so called "hate preachers" of the Muslim faith. I suspect that any such law might have to be a little more general than Muslim hate preachers.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I listened to a reasonable piece on radio 4 about this new task force. The case for the mosques was reasonable as was the case against them wrt either spreading a message of hate or turning a blind eye to it.
What interested me was the researcher was quick to point out that in her work she quickly uncovered that those preaching or being unduly effected by such people actually had very little idea what they were talking about, could name few leaders, identify specific foreign policy issues or could put a figure on how many women and children had been killed by whose drones.
It has always confused me why we don't take a very pragmatic approach of engagement with the public, worldwide - not just the extremist or troubled Muslim youth.
Why don't we, as a military or a nation explain via web, TV or other medium that the boys spend a lot of time keeping various Muslim sects from killing each other? Or that actually we are quite inclusive and simply don't care what religion you practise? Why do we see outraged Muslims at parades but no one actually explaining what the boys and girls did...and the stuff their Muslim hosts did to each other? Or indeed in the Balkan model that a significant part of the mission was to protect a largely Muslim bunch from a largely Christian bunch?
The point is that there are people misinformed enough to become extreme. They are fuelled by a twisted version of our foreign policy which is never publically challenged and could be shown quite easily to be in large part false. In some cases the policy is a clear consequence of acts conducted by others and could do with an explanation.
That would be a little more human than the 'Russian method' which probably has tactical benefits rather than strategic ones.
What interested me was the researcher was quick to point out that in her work she quickly uncovered that those preaching or being unduly effected by such people actually had very little idea what they were talking about, could name few leaders, identify specific foreign policy issues or could put a figure on how many women and children had been killed by whose drones.
It has always confused me why we don't take a very pragmatic approach of engagement with the public, worldwide - not just the extremist or troubled Muslim youth.
Why don't we, as a military or a nation explain via web, TV or other medium that the boys spend a lot of time keeping various Muslim sects from killing each other? Or that actually we are quite inclusive and simply don't care what religion you practise? Why do we see outraged Muslims at parades but no one actually explaining what the boys and girls did...and the stuff their Muslim hosts did to each other? Or indeed in the Balkan model that a significant part of the mission was to protect a largely Muslim bunch from a largely Christian bunch?
The point is that there are people misinformed enough to become extreme. They are fuelled by a twisted version of our foreign policy which is never publically challenged and could be shown quite easily to be in large part false. In some cases the policy is a clear consequence of acts conducted by others and could do with an explanation.
That would be a little more human than the 'Russian method' which probably has tactical benefits rather than strategic ones.
SASless,
Either I had forgotten about the Hezbollah/KGB thing back in '86 or had missed it. Either way it's a cracker. Thanks for the link.
Either I had forgotten about the Hezbollah/KGB thing back in '86 or had missed it. Either way it's a cracker. Thanks for the link.
"This is the way the Soviets operate. They do things - they don't talk.
And this is the language the Hezbollah understand."
And this is the language the Hezbollah understand."
Misleading video
The video at Post #16 is somewhat misleading:
Originally Posted by RiaNovosti 18 Feb 2009
MOSCOW, February 18 (RIA Novosti) - The Russian Navy has handed over to Yemen 10 Somali pirates detained several days ago off the Horn of Africa, Capt. 1st Rank Igor Dygalo told RIA Novosti on Wednesday. The Navy spokesman said the Yemeni authorities would decide on any legal action taken against the detainees...
Originally Posted by The Guardian 7 May 2010
Russian forces have released 10 Somali pirates captured during a military operation to free an oil tanker this week, reversing an earlier pledge by President Dmitry Medvedev to punish them "under the full force of naval law". The move highlights the legal and logistical challenges faced by foreign navies targeting the pirate gangs who have turned the waters off Somalia into the most dangerous in the world...
I am a Cold War Warrior....and recall a Briefing I attended by US Naval Intelligence that was a shocker....as it turned the Conventional Wisdom up side down.
The Briefing was done in part by folks dressed in Russian Uniforms appropriate for the Rank they represented. They gave us a briefing on "their" Military which was very effective in putting a Face on the "Bad Guys".
That was about the time we were building our 600 Ship Navy under Reagan and Lehman....something that was very controversial.
The Briefing was being done by some who thought the 600 ship fleet was a huge mistake, too costly, and more importantly did not pay attention to the actual situation we faced with the Soviet Navy.
One of the points made was the American Navy stayed at sea, oft times in the Soviets waters which provoked reactions from them.....while the Soviet Navy tended to stay dockside or very close to home. Admiral Lyons was very much for "in Your Face" Ops.
Our Intel guys were trying to get the message across the Soviet Navy was not the threat some in high places were making it out to be and aggressive fleet ops were actually making the situation worse rather than better.
We later saw the downfall of the Soviet Union which led to the decrease in Russian capability and negated the need for the 600 Ship Fleet (which we could not Man or maintain to begin with).
I see a lesson there.....if we pull back to our homelands, cut our expensive Ops pace, get out of folks' faces, defend our Homeland....can we not do a better job of keeping the threat away and lessen the effect of what goes on now? We can never withdraw completely as there are legitimate needs for some Troops being outside the borders but if they are low key, low vis, and very discrete in what they do...perhaps that is the better path.
If we become Energy independent and no longer care about Middle Eastern Oil and the Straits of Hormuz....align ourselves with South, Central, and North American nations....that also would work to isolate us from those that are so prone to find reason to attack us.
We do not do Nation Building and Conflicts Short of War well. We do deep water Naval Ops and Air Defense quite well. Perhaps that is what we need to get back to doing and avoid that which gets us into very bad situations.
Perhaps our senior military leadership needs to take on a marketing effort with the current occupant in the White House and those that surround him. If they did....they might make us a lot safer than we are today.
The Briefing was done in part by folks dressed in Russian Uniforms appropriate for the Rank they represented. They gave us a briefing on "their" Military which was very effective in putting a Face on the "Bad Guys".
That was about the time we were building our 600 Ship Navy under Reagan and Lehman....something that was very controversial.
The Briefing was being done by some who thought the 600 ship fleet was a huge mistake, too costly, and more importantly did not pay attention to the actual situation we faced with the Soviet Navy.
One of the points made was the American Navy stayed at sea, oft times in the Soviets waters which provoked reactions from them.....while the Soviet Navy tended to stay dockside or very close to home. Admiral Lyons was very much for "in Your Face" Ops.
Our Intel guys were trying to get the message across the Soviet Navy was not the threat some in high places were making it out to be and aggressive fleet ops were actually making the situation worse rather than better.
We later saw the downfall of the Soviet Union which led to the decrease in Russian capability and negated the need for the 600 Ship Fleet (which we could not Man or maintain to begin with).
I see a lesson there.....if we pull back to our homelands, cut our expensive Ops pace, get out of folks' faces, defend our Homeland....can we not do a better job of keeping the threat away and lessen the effect of what goes on now? We can never withdraw completely as there are legitimate needs for some Troops being outside the borders but if they are low key, low vis, and very discrete in what they do...perhaps that is the better path.
If we become Energy independent and no longer care about Middle Eastern Oil and the Straits of Hormuz....align ourselves with South, Central, and North American nations....that also would work to isolate us from those that are so prone to find reason to attack us.
We do not do Nation Building and Conflicts Short of War well. We do deep water Naval Ops and Air Defense quite well. Perhaps that is what we need to get back to doing and avoid that which gets us into very bad situations.
Perhaps our senior military leadership needs to take on a marketing effort with the current occupant in the White House and those that surround him. If they did....they might make us a lot safer than we are today.
