H&I Fires* 12 AUG 2008

Exactly.

Actually, I'll find the report, but most of them left almost a week before the shooting started.  About 130 remain in country per the front page report this morning.

However, I suspect that we knew Russian troops have been massing for over a month and departed in a timely fashion.  so did Saakashvili.  He knew he was about to be invaded.  I think its kind of humorous how many folks are talking about Saakashvili shouldn't have provoked the Russians.  Seriously, it was more like the Israelis trying to get a jump on the Egyptians.  Sadly, something happened and they didn't make it to the Roki.  I think saakashvili thought he could take that tunnel without blowing it up so he could have it for future commerce..

that was a bad decision.

It's not so much that I am optimistic, but that I do see an opportunity here IF Europe will step up and Bush plays hardball.  Big caveat is that Europe, particularly Old Europe, has to step up.  New Europe largely is, witness the trip by Poland, Ukraine, and other former subject states.  Given that real hope lies in Old Europe, I fear that Georgia is screwed, but hope to be proven wrong. 

Spoke too soon.  Belmont club indicates Russia calling for " partial demilitarization" of Georgian Army with a binding agreement of non-use of force.  So, Russia gets to put troops on Georgian soil but Georgia can't. 

that's just a bunch of political mumbo jumbo that means the Georgia is now Russia's vassal state.  Get it?  Got it?  Not good.

..need to guarantee such a clear line by providing low level "humanitarian support" as an expansion of on-going low level "training and advisory" support....

Georgia to pull out of (Russian) Commonwealth of Independent States and suggests other six countries do the same as show of solidarity. That would include the Ukraine among them. It means they won't trade with Russia under the old agreements. There are hints that Russia might be persona non grata at the next G8. Not everything is about shooting people to get what you want.

They're making faces. Doesn't mean anything. The only way they'll "win", the Georgians, if they have de facto, if not de jure, military support from America or her allies Iraq and Afghanistan.

Air power is going to be de facto block against Soviet armor. But even without US Air Power or Navy in the field, the guerrilla fighting learned by the US and our auxiliary forces will do far more damage to the inexperienced Russian army than what happened to them in Afghanistan.

An experienced military has a huge advantage over a green one. Add in advantages like tech, size, and better local auxiliary forces and it is no contest. It is no contest, except politically, and that's where the Russians and Leftists dominate. Right now, at least, cause bush doesn't have a spine after Iraq and Afghanistan and still wants to make faces and beg for things with hat in hand.

" .. America is hamstrung because America is surrounded by potential enemies, not allies. ..."
 

As it looks right now, besides the current war against AQ and the jihadists, we have at least 4 major potential adversaries, most likely in this order:  1) Iran; 2) Russia; 3) China; 4) the EU, eventually, especially when and if Muslims attain a majority there.

I doubt that these threats will remain static and allow us to address them sequentially. Most likely, some of them will probably ally themselves with each other or with other proxies/allies (like Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, N Korea, Venezuela, etc.)  at various times to continue to keep us busy with their constant pin pricks, hoping to bleed us dry little by little.

Hopefully, we can attempt to resolve issues and crises through "diplomacy" and "sanctions" and other peaceful means.  However, I'm not so optimistic that this will be possible most of the time, because each of us have our own very serious, fundamental interests and goals bringing us into conflict in the first place, and some of these are mutually exclusive.

And hopefully, we can ally ourselves with other like-minded friends (who also have the capacity to help militarily) to assist us when we can, and to continue to use technology to overcome manpower shortages where possible.

However, if we don't currently have the capacity to fight all these small fires with the resources and manpower we currently have in our own military, we will - by necessity - need to inrease it. We will need to abandon the current "minimalist" effort that Bush has had the US on post-9/11, and adopt a more intensive "war" footing and mentality, similar to what we saw in WW2, or at least at the levels we committed during the Cold War.

As John pointed out on another thread, we're too "busy" right now trying to handle just Iraq and Afghanistan to do anything about the Russia/Georgia mess.  I thought post-Cold War US military planning was to be able to conduct 2 low-level, regional conflicts simultaneously.  If we're currently having trouble doing just that in Iraq and Afghanistan, and if we don't have the capacity to deal with Iran - right between them - should that become necessary, then we need to make some serious changes before we can hope to deal with these other threats.

If the problem is Congressional funding, then we need to pressure Congress to spend these monies, and increase taxes if necessary to do this.

If the problem is being able to find enough "volunteers" to adequately staff our military, then we may need to look at draft options, although I believe that we are much better served by professionals who <b>want</b> to serve.

If the problem is political will because we're too divided along partisan lines, then we may be doomed.

heh...   i called it!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,402982,00.html

(btw:  the "R" in "I/R" stands for "refugee")

Nice, pretext. Not sure what the rules of engagement will be, however.

The real problem is one of sustainability. That's a concern with strategy and logistics, rather than short term battles. We have all sorts of problems as Fd listed, but there are also solutions to those problems.

Manpower can be easily solved, in the short term, by using the best Iraqi and Afghanistani units in Georgia, to make it more international and what not.

SInce our diplomatic corps is half way infested with traitors, I don't think you can rely upon them to make the deals. That's one problem you solve by having the right people promoted and the wrong people discharged, fired, or demoted, even promoted out of the direct line of work.

It'd be like giving Petraeus a job to do but having his opponents and strategy opponents make the hiring, firing, promotion, and actual personnel decisions. That'd be a disaster. And it's a diaster in the DoS.

America has too many committments to different bases in the world because these nations can't defend themsevles and won't oftentimes defend themselves when they have a free sugar daddy, the US, to provide our money and treasury and blood for them.

This usually is only a negative thing if you can't combine them together so that you can use them all at once. Numbers mean nothing, geographic control means nothing, unless you can put all those advantages to work in a single tactical situation. And with the DoS as it is and with current American socio-military-political attachments, that's not going to happen. The President could order troop redeployments from any number of areas to supply manpower requirements to Georgia, but he will have to deprioritize certain things like Okinawa, Kosovo, Europe, Italy, Africa, etc. Their logistics have to go to us, which means their logistics get cut, which means they become militarily vulnerable.

But those are still solutions, even if they are not perfect. These are just solutions people won't choose because they want it to have it all. They want to be everywhere, forever, and not actually solve anything.

The military is not supposed to stay around in a semi war zone for too long. Yet that's what we have in Afghanistan and Iraq. But that's fine, that's a necessary correction to enemy tactics that use insurgency and terrorism against us and our allies.

But Russia's a conventional power. There is no point nor need to get into a protracted DMZ look fest with them. But one will develop if you or your allies lose militarily. If the enemy wants something bad enough, they can get it if they are willing to expend the bodies. Russia is willing to expend the bodies, but Putin and his little circle will not expend themselves. And given what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are not likely to try to bluff Bush into finding out whether Bush will take them out or not. They'll probably wait until Obama to test that kind of thing out. Or Mccain.

The danger with these humanitarian pretext missions is that they also attach you to something you don't necessarily have a need for. The only way to solve the humanitarian crisis in a permanent way is as Sherman decided to do. Burn them all out, burn it all down, and then end the war so we can rebuild. Not try to cease hostilities and rebuild at the same time. I thought we had learned this in Iraq by now. That kind of strategy is just endless war and suffering for people. We're still in Korea, for that matter, waiting for North Korea to attack us and kill our troops there.

This kind of strategy will eventually mean America will be spread too thin. Not because she lacks manpower, but because she chose the wrong strategy for the globe.