Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Sarge
tw - I originally responded with a blistering post.
|
I did not see anything blistering. But essential for military deployments are some basic and fundamental requirements. Top of the list is a smoking gun. To execute a military conflict on anything less is total disrespect for the American soldier.
He must be deployed for *egregious* reasons. Other requirements also must exist. No smoking gun exists in the Persian Gulf. It remains an event intended for and only addressed by diplomats. That (and not the military) are responsible for solving what does not even constitute a bruise. A smoking gun is always required to justify military action.
Of course, military can be used as part of diplomatic action. Examples are numerous. For example, Clinton successfully averted military tensions between China and Taiwan. By sailing two carrier groups through the Straits of Taiwan. Point was clearly understood by all. Clinton also averted war in the Balkans by using military accordingly. And even got Baby Doc in Haiti to 'surrender' by simply putting a battalion of the 82nd Airborne in the sky.
Obama is currently doing same at the Senkaku Islands. Diplomacy without putting American servicemen at risk.
British Marines did same in Liberia. An event that everyone should know because of how those Marines were used so effectively. Resulting in all parties negotiating rather than use military conflict.
In every case, problems are best solved by diplomats because deploying servicemen without a 'clear and present' danger is, well, the president in that Clancy book also had massive disrespect for servicemen. He had no smoking gun to justify a 'clear and present' danger. He had contempt for servicemen.
They could not shoot down a propeller driven surveillance drone? The point is all but obvious. They want diplomats to start talking.