Join 3,572 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


21st Century Warfare
September 29, 2001 12:41 AM   Subscribe

21st Century Warfare I've been waiting for the new issue of G2mil The Magazine of Future Warfare to be posted to get Carlton Meyers' line on all things post September 11th and it's an all-you-can-eat buffet chock full o'links from a former Marine Corps officer--an anti-imperialist, anti-military/industrialist contrarian extraordinaire. Check out the special war supplement and assess the military options in Afghanistan before you launch into a by jingo paean to what he refers to as Tom Clancy fantasies about the Rangers. Do some extensive research in the magazine's back issues to read articles like Demobilize The US Army, 21st Century Battleships - the U.S. Navy's greatest need, why China can't invade Taiwan--not to mention the $$$ saving concepts like the B-747 bomber...& his line on National Missile Defense? The irony is that, if a workable NMD system is ever fielded, it only guarantees that a better method of delivery would be used, like a civilian airplane, ship, or truck. Tons of drugs are smuggled into the USA each year, can NMD stop that dangerous cargo? Almost two million people illegally cross America's borders each year with un-inspected luggage, can NMD stop them? Why spend billions of dollars each year on NMD while ignoring the real dangers? That was from July...
posted by y2karl (16 comments total)

 
humble apologies for the above's length--will omit more from now on.
posted by y2karl at 12:55 AM on September 29, 2001


http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/14/afghanistan/index.html

Very very interesting. Sadly, I think this will errupt into a world war if America gives Osama the chance to sway support of the citizens of these countries.
posted by Aikido at 1:25 AM on September 29, 2001


Whoops http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/14/afghanistan/index.html
posted by Aikido at 1:26 AM on September 29, 2001


In other words, turn our part of the world into a garrison state and get the hell out of those areas of the world where we are liked or wanted...and forget about globalization and our need for oil. Good idea. But isn't that called isolationism?
posted by Postroad at 3:40 AM on September 29, 2001


Afghanistan has no real history as a nation, its just a creation of the old British empire....just partition it and the problem is solved with little loss of life.
Admittedly fighting is going to be a tough slog, and may well fail, not to mention the fact that it may cause WW III if it doesn't eventually lose the support of the American people. But many a country has "no real history as a nation," so partitioning the country, while perfectly logical, is not going to be the solution.

As for the article on Taiwan, China doesn't have to invade to intimidate the country & ruin its economy, and so force it to negociate a Hong Kong-like status.
posted by phartizan at 4:26 AM on September 29, 2001


Has there ever been an instance in which partitioning didn't cause more problems than it resolved?
posted by rushmc at 8:15 AM on September 29, 2001


the site is a wash. pure bullshit disinfo. i found about 10 things to contend. marines are usually short on strategic brains.
posted by newnameintown at 8:16 AM on September 29, 2001


Admittely fighting will be a tough slog & cause WW III if it doen't tear the country apart like Viet Nam...The Taliban are an entity created by Pakistan, an unstable regime with no real politcal control over it's own Northwest provinces where the majority population is Pashtun (not to mention nuclear weapons) and given the near total ignorance of Americans about Islam and all matters cultural in the Near East--oh, the potential is very WW III...I don't sign off on Meyers' politics--but the more questions raised, the sooner, the better, imho. Meanwhile consult, quick clickers, this, before sending the boys off.

And so China can destroy the economy of Taiwan, its major investor, thereby destroying its own economy in the process--r-i-ight. Makes sense to me!
posted by y2karl at 8:20 AM on September 29, 2001


I think the idea of stationing military troops along the US border is a good idea. And I agree with Carlton's assessment of the creation of a "Homeland Defense" agency in the President's cabinet. Hell, isn't "homeland defense" exactly what the Department of Defense is for?
posted by davidmsc at 9:09 AM on September 29, 2001


I think it is kind of amusing that a new position must be created to defend our country because the old one is too busy managing "our" economic interests abroad.
posted by ProfLinusPauling at 9:24 AM on September 29, 2001


to quote the thin white duke, "I'm afraid of Americans"
posted by mb01 at 9:47 AM on September 29, 2001


I read the Oct 2001 and May 2001 editorials. This Meyers guy knows the score. I agree with him on most every point, especially the China thing.

“The Navy EP-3 may have done nothing illegal, but then it is not illegal for someone to stand on the sidewalk in front of your house each day with binoculars, a sound amplifier, a video recorder, and a scanner to listen to your phone calls, until you go out and yell at him.”

Word booty. You know the US would send F16s after spy planes patrolling California, but we wouldn’t hear the punditocracy crowing on about the US taking violently unwarranted actions.

Good point about Homeland Defense/Security, david.
posted by raaka at 1:41 PM on September 29, 2001


the site is a wash. pure bullshit disinfo. i found about 10 things to contend. marines are usually short on strategic brains.

Elaborate, please, on any 10 items, O Thucydides...
posted by y2karl at 3:40 PM on September 29, 2001


oky doke, heres a few. the U.S. base next to the Panama invasion...gee, lets land our stuff on a base which has about 30 mortars aimed at it.
2.politicans tend to get out of generals way real quick.
3.pakistan wont have much of a choice then to support northern alliance(they let us use their airspace) 4. there is a vast array of new equipment to deal with mines and guys hiding behind rocks (Ir gear, thermal, etc.) 5. Dien Bein Phu is a bad comparison for any modern deployment scenario based on old siege tactics. 6.Solders are not good peacekeepers(no shit, sherlock but they will still get order) 7. South Korea could be suckerpuched as Seoul is the big target and only miles from the DMZ. 8. The 747 for a cheap bomber is like mass producing station wagon for those who want SUV. ok 8 that are easily contend. I may contend these things. doesnt mean im right, and he may not be right. (he is wrong about panama) that is why we never use GITMO for much.;)
posted by newnameintown at 9:33 AM on September 30, 2001


Newnameintown -
Although I don't have the book handy and can't remember their names off the top of my head, Noam Chomsky's "Rethinking Camelot: JFK, Vietnam and U.S. Political Culture" mentions several highly respected senior military officials that vehemently opposed escalating the Vietnam war as early as the Kennedy years. I don't know how convincing that's going to be to you, but I'm just bringing it up because I think politicians do effect our military actions, and it's rarely pretty.
posted by ProfLinusPauling at 2:32 PM on September 30, 2001


McClelland and lincoln. That bastard (mcClelland)was going to seize the government, i think lincoln made all the difference. Taylor was the big vietnam hawk. Perhaps it was Lamay who wanted a limited war.
posted by newnameintown at 8:20 PM on September 30, 2001


« Older Find A Grave...   |   Stop motion animation using LE... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments