1. different nations focus on different capabilities so as to prevent unnecessary duplication
2. that NATO forces are designed to be integrated with each other . i e France is supposed to ask the UK and Canada for logistical help. its not designed to act entirely independently.
1. Sort of. Most of us all have similar requirements, and you could swap a Dutch infantryman with a Canuck and have the same general skills.
Its arguable that things NATO nations DO do (ie maintain independent nuclear deterrant) is a huge waste of duplicated effort already.
When you know a guy who likes to bash coons and has a cool coon bashing car, why would you buy your own car with coon bashing in mind? You know you'll only go coon bashing with your friend, and you'd rather spend your money on other stuff.
The idea of comparing in isolation a bunch of militaries that have only ever existed in military alliance is just retarded. Its funny the French government can make so much hay over something where they use their allies' gear, but turns out that's what being in a military alliance fucking means.
And another warning for Dominarch's Hope for continuing to troll.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------ My LPs
Dominarch's Hope wrote:Starks the one that mentioned killing coons in such a flippant manner.
Iraq was a fuck up, but would you defend Saddam?
Afghanistan? Bitch more. It was Al qeada's main headquarters and where Osama was located.
We werent there just to kill people brown people for fun and games.
Saddam being a bad man is actually irrelevant to the Iraq invasion. Remember how he used to be an ally? The West will happily deal with bad guys to get what they want. Being a bad guy doesn't give you carte blanche to lie and do what you want.
weemadando wrote:They were against a stupid, wasteful, cretinous and dishonest war in Iraq. As were most people who didn't stand to profit/watch Fox.
So what isn't stupid, wasteful, cretinous, and dishonest about this war?
This is not an unfair initial assessment to make of any western invention either. The West has a history of ambiguous or downright amoral handling of African wars. They better sell this shit well.
Mali asked for help. That alone makes this more legitimate then Iraq.
Iraq was a bit more complicated than that since there actually was Iraqi public support of the intervention up until about March 2004, which is clearly more important than what the dictatorial regime thought about it. (Source) They were however heavily dividing on ethnic and sectarian lines. The WMDs excuse was and is an unforgivable lie, and so the initial American public support for the war is invalid as it was based on that lie.
The thing that turned Iraqi public opinion against the U.S. was not the invasion, but the continued occupation, corruption, abuses of power, and inability to establish security and meet basic public needs. All of that could still happen in Mali if France doesn't play the cards right as an insurgency is likely to begin developing now.
France (since Vietnam and especially since/during Algeria) has learned a lot about managing insurgency and insurrection.
Most of their North African missions are a quick few months of intensive campaigning, with handover to the local govt forces ASAP. Before returning, generally inside of 6mts to their more hands off regional power act.
The violence, hatred and waste of life and resources that typified earlier efforts taught them (militia, govt and society as a whole) some pretty hard lessons.
It's also easier to hand over power quickly when there's an existing government and soon there will be an African peacekeeping force. In Iraq, the government was destroyed in the invasion. Even if the US-led coalition had withdrawn by the first quarter of 2004 (before Fallujah, Abu Ghraib, etc., which significantly changed Iraqi public opinion) there is a good chance things would not have gone well in Iraq because of the power vacuum and the sectarian tension. So, don't get me wrong here: I think France is likely to succeed in Mali and I support it's actions there so far, whereas I never supported the intervention of Iraq from the beginning to the end.
The US de-Ba'ath-ification programs pretty much gutted the exisiting and re-useable gov't structures because of the inherited taint of Saddam. Of course, keeping these structures around, filled with people who are familiar with the local business/politics, infrastructure and human terrain was unthinkable.
On the other hand, would the local population have trusted us more if the ones who enabled and enacted the abuses of the Baath remained in power with American backing? The whole spiel for staying there was "Freeing them from Saddaam a.d friends". Without the debaathification, the local populace might have hated us more.
Or they might not have cared. But its not completely that simple in regards to the politician side of it. The military? Anything to keep an eye on them and keep them occupied and track down the weapon storages would have helped.
You can eliminate high ranking or criminally implicated members of an organisation without COMPLETELY REMOVING THE ENTIRE GOVERNANCE FROM NATIONAL TO LOCAL OF A COUNTRY.
I mean, without going too far down this tangent, not only did removing all the social and governance structures destroy the capacity to quickly recover and rebuild, it also put tens of thousands of people out of work. People who may have only had an in name only loyalty to the regime, but are now properly fucked due to the occupation. So suddenly you've also created the major components of the insurgency.
CONGRATULATIONS, IT'S A BEAUTIFUL BABY CLUSTERFUCK.
