[Allan from Fallbrook]

afx: Here’s what I found regarding NATO involvement in Afghanistan:

http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/040628-factsheet.htm

UN Security Council passed Resolution 1510 regarding international involvement in Afghanistan and created the ISAF to implement the Resolution.

I don’t think the US just threw the problem to the UN and took off; it appears that the UNSC sought involvement in Afghanistan and used NATO forces as the muscle for the Resolution.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

afx: Here’s what I found regarding NATO involvement in Afghanistan:

http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/040628-factsheet.htm

UN Security Council passed Resolution 1510 regarding international involvement in Afghanistan and created the ISAF to implement the Resolution.

I don’t think the US just threw the problem to the UN and took off; it appears that the UNSC sought involvement in Afghanistan and used NATO forces as the muscle for the Resolution.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

afx: Here’s what I found regarding NATO involvement in Afghanistan:

http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/040628-factsheet.htm

UN Security Council passed Resolution 1510 regarding international involvement in Afghanistan and created the ISAF to implement the Resolution.

I don’t think the US just threw the problem to the UN and took off; it appears that the UNSC sought involvement in Afghanistan and used NATO forces as the muscle for the Resolution.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

afx: Here’s what I found regarding NATO involvement in Afghanistan:

http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/040628-factsheet.htm

UN Security Council passed Resolution 1510 regarding international involvement in Afghanistan and created the ISAF to implement the Resolution.

I don’t think the US just threw the problem to the UN and took off; it appears that the UNSC sought involvement in Afghanistan and used NATO forces as the muscle for the Resolution.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

afx: I’d like to check on whether or not the NATO handoff resulted in a significant drawdown of US forces. My understanding (and I will confirm that as well) is that we were bowing to international pressure regarding involving the UN and NATO and following a more multilateral approach.

Of course, I also have a very dim view of both the UN and NATO. The UN especially. Their track record regarding interventions is horrible. Between the Dutch forces in the Balkans (Srebrenica massacre), or the UNAMIR deployment in Rwanda in 1994, the UN just sucks, plain and simple.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

afx: I’d like to check on whether or not the NATO handoff resulted in a significant drawdown of US forces. My understanding (and I will confirm that as well) is that we were bowing to international pressure regarding involving the UN and NATO and following a more multilateral approach.

Of course, I also have a very dim view of both the UN and NATO. The UN especially. Their track record regarding interventions is horrible. Between the Dutch forces in the Balkans (Srebrenica massacre), or the UNAMIR deployment in Rwanda in 1994, the UN just sucks, plain and simple.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

afx: I’d like to check on whether or not the NATO handoff resulted in a significant drawdown of US forces. My understanding (and I will confirm that as well) is that we were bowing to international pressure regarding involving the UN and NATO and following a more multilateral approach.

Of course, I also have a very dim view of both the UN and NATO. The UN especially. Their track record regarding interventions is horrible. Between the Dutch forces in the Balkans (Srebrenica massacre), or the UNAMIR deployment in Rwanda in 1994, the UN just sucks, plain and simple.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

afx: I’d like to check on whether or not the NATO handoff resulted in a significant drawdown of US forces. My understanding (and I will confirm that as well) is that we were bowing to international pressure regarding involving the UN and NATO and following a more multilateral approach.

Of course, I also have a very dim view of both the UN and NATO. The UN especially. Their track record regarding interventions is horrible. Between the Dutch forces in the Balkans (Srebrenica massacre), or the UNAMIR deployment in Rwanda in 1994, the UN just sucks, plain and simple.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

afx: I’d like to check on whether or not the NATO handoff resulted in a significant drawdown of US forces. My understanding (and I will confirm that as well) is that we were bowing to international pressure regarding involving the UN and NATO and following a more multilateral approach.

Of course, I also have a very dim view of both the UN and NATO. The UN especially. Their track record regarding interventions is horrible. Between the Dutch forces in the Balkans (Srebrenica massacre), or the UNAMIR deployment in Rwanda in 1994, the UN just sucks, plain and simple.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

afx: Which does beg the obvious question: Which is the best type of diplomacy? For example, the multilateral/UN-centric based approach that Clinton took? Or, more of the unilateral/US First approach employed by Reagan?

I’m not asking to be argumentative; I’m asking out of curiosity.

In my opinion, both Bush AND Clinton made some Godawful bad mistakes. Reagan was somewhat better.

I think we ought to bring Teddy Roosevelt back. We didn’t make any bones about what we were after back then and used the Navy and Marines to drive the point home.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

afx: Which does beg the obvious question: Which is the best type of diplomacy? For example, the multilateral/UN-centric based approach that Clinton took? Or, more of the unilateral/US First approach employed by Reagan?

I’m not asking to be argumentative; I’m asking out of curiosity.

In my opinion, both Bush AND Clinton made some Godawful bad mistakes. Reagan was somewhat better.

I think we ought to bring Teddy Roosevelt back. We didn’t make any bones about what we were after back then and used the Navy and Marines to drive the point home.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

afx: Which does beg the obvious question: Which is the best type of diplomacy? For example, the multilateral/UN-centric based approach that Clinton took? Or, more of the unilateral/US First approach employed by Reagan?

I’m not asking to be argumentative; I’m asking out of curiosity.

In my opinion, both Bush AND Clinton made some Godawful bad mistakes. Reagan was somewhat better.

I think we ought to bring Teddy Roosevelt back. We didn’t make any bones about what we were after back then and used the Navy and Marines to drive the point home.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

afx: Which does beg the obvious question: Which is the best type of diplomacy? For example, the multilateral/UN-centric based approach that Clinton took? Or, more of the unilateral/US First approach employed by Reagan?

I’m not asking to be argumentative; I’m asking out of curiosity.

In my opinion, both Bush AND Clinton made some Godawful bad mistakes. Reagan was somewhat better.

I think we ought to bring Teddy Roosevelt back. We didn’t make any bones about what we were after back then and used the Navy and Marines to drive the point home.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

afx: Which does beg the obvious question: Which is the best type of diplomacy? For example, the multilateral/UN-centric based approach that Clinton took? Or, more of the unilateral/US First approach employed by Reagan?

I’m not asking to be argumentative; I’m asking out of curiosity.

In my opinion, both Bush AND Clinton made some Godawful bad mistakes. Reagan was somewhat better.

I think we ought to bring Teddy Roosevelt back. We didn’t make any bones about what we were after back then and used the Navy and Marines to drive the point home.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Man, I gotta quit working! Miss a day on this thread and you’re toast.

Larry: I’m not going to speak for surveyor, or any of the other more hawkish posters on this site, but from my point of view, I don’t advocate a disengagement when it comes to negotiations. I would say that without any sort of threat, either soft or hard, that negotiations with a country like Iran will go nowhere. The Europeans have been trying a carrot and stick approach, and the results have not been heartening.

As far as the US approach on North Korea, I would agree that we definitely screwed the pooch there. And mainly due to the schizophrenic nature of our approach. Having Colin Powell come out with a clearly defined strategy and then reverse himself literally tne next day doesn’t exactly send the message that we have our proverbial s**t together. I would also point out that Kim Jong-il had run out of rope as far as the bellicosity of his position and, with impending famines in North Korea, went for the money. Clinton’s 1994 Framework Agreement, widely praised as a fine piece of diplomacy and negotiations, was completely circumvented by the North Korean regime.

gandalf: Being involved with both the oil business and DoD, I would agree with your assessment of the industry (oil/gas) at present. Given that your dad has some history here, I would ask his opinion of Gazprom, Lukoil and Rosneft (the big Russian players). The Siberian fields have been experiencing a fairly significant drop off in production and the Russians are looking into Central Asia and the Middle East in terms of acquistions. Their approach is not “Western” in the sense of pure acquisition through money, but also stresses the threat of Russian power (military and otherwise) right next door. The Chinese are also actively seeking energy sources in the same region. That was the reason for my mention of the “Great Game” strategy employed by the British and other colonial powers in the 19th century. It is eerily similar in many ways. Looking at it this way, you get some sense of the importance of having a strong US military presence as a counterweight there. And, no, I am not trying to put lipstick on that particular pig (the Iraq War). To say that the war was anything other than horribly mismanaged would be a lie. I have friends there and in Afghanistan, so I get some pretty unexpurgated commentary.

Speaking of Afghanistan: The US was waging a fairly successful campaign against the Taliban prior to the NATO handover. Post-NATO, the situation has deteriorated markedly. According to a buddy of mine there, much of the problem is the way the NATO commanders are prosecuting the campaign. Among the NATO forces, only the Canadians are really willing to go into the Taliban controlled areas and duke it out. The rest of the NATO forces like to stay close to their bases and the main roads, and have essentially surrendered the initiative to the Taliban.

[Author]

Posts