So, how are we going to address Al Queda in Iraq, anyways?

[Sheepdog]

In all this rhetoric about withdrawal from Iraq, I think both sides have lost sight of the enemy who first defined this "war on terror" for us in the first place. The fact is, whether or not they were there in Iraq under Suddam in great number, they are there now, and they are entrenched.

How is a pull out going to address them? Have the Democrats even thought about that? Do we leave Iraq to Al Queda, Iran, and other organizations which seek to do ill to the US and our allies? Folks on both sides complain about the nation debt and how our children will have to bear that burden. Shall we also leave them to bear the brunt of 21st century, Islamic terrorism?


Personally, I want to just wash our hands of Iraq. I've wanted to for years now. But i don't see how we can do that.

[Chuck Lee]

We can target Al Qaeda while still pulling the bulk of our forces out of Iraq. It may even be easier if we don't have to worry about getting involved in the fighting between the Iraqi factions. It may also be easier going after them in a highly mobile fashion, rather than making our many of troops targets for terrorists.

I'm not a big proponent of pulling out by the way. I'm also not a big proponent of staying. I think Bush got us in a royal mess just by invading Iraq in the first place, and there's no good way out.

[Sheepdog]

I have a hard time seeing us do that. If we keep forces there, but don't deal with the infighting, we'll get sucked back into it one way or another.

Also, signing up with terrorist groups is already a big enough a temptation for civilians. perhaps we cannot win their hearts and minds after all, but would we leave them to Al Qeada and co.?

[Darth Executor]

What I would do is set up a huge surveillance network over all the problem areas. Place as many concealed cameras to cover the biggest area possible, use them to gather information about insurgent troop movements, and once in a while, when we know where a lot of them hide, send in soldiers to take care of them. It's not Al Quaeda specific but they should be caught in the meanwhile just like everyone else.

[Sheepdog]

not sure if that would work. the problem with surveying everything is, you have a lot of information to sift through to find the nuggets that are useful. this is why Intelligence these days is so hit or miss.

[Darth Executor]

not sure if that would work. the problem with surveying everything is, you have a lot of information to sift through to find the nuggets that are useful. this is why Intelligence these days is so hit or miss.

You don't have to go through everything. In fact, you don't really have to go through most of it at all.. Say a terrorist plants an IED at point A. A convoy runs over it and a tank gets disabled. Intelligence can then review the recording for point A (they can just fastforward through it, it'll save time and still catch whoever placed it). Once they find the culprit they can then backtrack his movements on that cameras and other adjacent cameras until they find out he dropped by point B just before he placed the IED. . At that point they send in some troops to check him out, and hopefully get something. If not, backtrack further, etc. Alternatively, they could check cameras to track his movements after he placed the IED, or even better, do both, and they might get lucky and catch two nests of insurgents thanks to one guy. Whenever something bad happens, the army and probably the local media will know about it, so if intelligence is doing their job, they should have people collecting all this information.

[James Peter]

I think it is worth asking whether us being in Iraq is actually doing any meaningful harm to Al Qaeda right now. Because of our presence there they receive funding, recruits and idealogical support on a scale that outweighs the damage we're doing to them. In net terms Al Qaeda benefit from our presence in Iraq, despite our efforts. That means that we have to accept that we are losing and ask whether we actually can win this, or what winning would actually mean.

If there is no military solution then the question is does military presence support or undermine other solutions? Right now it seems to be undermining it. We've been outplayed and outthought - if we stay we give Al Qaeda what they really want and if we go we give Al Qaeda what they say they want and are humiliated.

[Darth Executor]

I think it is worth asking whether us being in Iraq is actually doing any meaningful harm to Al Qaeda right now. Because of our presence there they receive funding, recruits and idealogical support on a scale that outweighs the damage we're doing to them. In net terms Al Qaeda benefit from our presence in Iraq, despite our efforts. That means that we have to accept that we are losing and ask whether we actually can win this, or what winning would actually mean.

If there is no military solution then the question is does military presence support or undermine other solutions? Right now it seems to be undermining it. We've been outplayed and outthought - if we stay we give Al Qaeda what they really want and if we go we give Al Qaeda what they say they want and are humiliated.

And if we leave we admit defeat, drive up Al Quaeda's recruitment through the roof (they're receiving recruits, funding and ideological support because other factions think they're doing a good job, imagine how much more their popularity will grow when they take credit for defeating the Great Satan on the battlefield). I also don't know why people keep saying we're losing. Fighting an insurgency the old fashioned way takes time. A lot of it. It would be nice if we had adaptable generals but we don't. The only way we lose is if people at home decide we lost.

[Durthorin]

I have a hard time seeing us do that. If we keep forces there, but don't deal with the infighting, we'll get sucked back into it one way or another.

Also, signing up with terrorist groups is already a big enough a temptation for civilians. perhaps we cannot win their hearts and minds after all, but would we leave them to Al Qeada and co.?

Al Qeada will support one faction.. we will support another. The faction we will support will deal with Al Qeada in the normal course of soldifying there own power. It will be a blood bath no doubt.

[Durthorin]

What I would do is set up a huge surveillance network over all the problem areas. Place as many concealed cameras to cover the biggest area possible, use them to gather information about insurgent troop movements, and once in a while, when we know where a lot of them hide, send in soldiers to take care of them. It's not Al Quaeda specific but they should be caught in the meanwhile just like everyone else.

Sounds good, but the reality is that we could not set up such a network without it being detected and becoming a target and bait. A camera gets knocked out by a kid with a rock.. we send out a team to repair or replace it and they walk into an ambush or an IED setup..

[Darth Executor]

Sounds good, but the reality is that we could not set up such a network without it being detected and becoming a target and bait.

I disagree, and two points about this:

1. That they become bait would have its own benefits (more on that later).
2. Setting them up and hiding them would be quite easy. Order a curfew one night and shut down all power. I have lived in a small town before and when all the lighs go out, it's DARK, even with a full moon. Engineers with nightvision could easily set them up in a hard to reach place. Having someone actually spot one would be extremely rare, considering the technology available to us. They would be practically invisible. It might cost some money but the US military already has a huge budget, and instead of sending large ammounts of troops to blindly wander around hoping to find some we could send a good chunk of them home and free up funds for the project.

A camera gets knocked out by a kid with a rock.. The camera catches the kid, use recorded data to backtrack his movements to his house then send a squad to ask him a few questions. Bribing the kid with candy would probably be enough to have him reveal who bribed or scared him into knocking down the camera. If he did it of his own free will then he's likely an insurgent supporter and knows were some are anyway.

we send out a team to repair or replace it and they walk into an ambush or an IED setup..We could trap the cameras so they go off and possibly kill everything in a small radius around it. Maybe even time it five minutes after the camera goes off (or have an alert system so the person in charge can set it off rremotely) so after the kid knocks it out and the insurgent engineer shows up to place the IED he ends up looking for his freshly amputated arm.

Another related idea would be to set up plainly visible camera towers and hopefully deter some insurgents from operating in the area.

[Jimmy Higgins]

In all this rhetoric about withdrawal from Iraq, I think both sides have lost sight of the enemy who first defined this "war on terror" for us in the first place. The fact is, whether or not they were there in Iraq under Suddam in great number, they are there now, and they are entrenched.

How is a pull out going to address them?Maybe you should ask, how will staying address them? They weren't there before we invaded. We invaded and now are there in greater numbers. They continue to remain there even though we have over 100,000 troops in Iraq. How does staying deal with al Qaeda?
Have the Democrats even thought about that? Do we leave Iraq to Al Queda, Iran, and other organizations which seek to do ill to the US and our allies? Folks on both sides complain about the nation debt and how our children will have to bear that burden. Shall we also leave them to bear the brunt of 21st century, Islamic terrorism?Unfortunately, islamic terrorism grew because of the Iraq invasion. Bush's childlike understanding of how the world works is what is causing our nation the greatest harm.

[Durthorin]

I disagree, and two points about this:

1. That they become bait would have its own benefits (more on that later).
2. Setting them up and hiding them would be quite easy. Order a curfew one night and shut down all power. I have lived in a small town before and when all the lighs go out, it's DARK, even with a full moon. Engineers with nightvision could easily set them up in a hard to reach place. Having someone actually spot one would be extremely rare, considering the technology available to us. They would be practically invisible. It might cost some money but the US military already has a huge budget, and instead of sending large ammounts of troops to blindly wander around hoping to find some we could send a good chunk of them home and free up funds for the project.


Your placing a camera on their turf and you expect them not to notice the new addition.


The camera catches the kid, use recorded data to backtrack his movements to his house then send a squad to ask him a few questions. Bribing the kid with candy would probably be enough to have him reveal who bribed or scared him into knocking down the camera. If he did it of his own free will then he's likely an insurgent supporter and knows were some are anyway.


Your talking about a surveliance system that has 100% coverage of all public areas, absolute resolution at all ranges and 100% up time. Sorry, such a system exists int he same place that Star Trek sensors do. Want an example of the closest real world example of such a system.. look at England. Don't know what they call theirs but its hardly that good and doesn't have to stand up to a dedicated attack to knock it out. Look at it this way, are you sending video back to base via hardwire or radio.. real time.. or burst transmission? Power requirements? Batery, pull of the grid.. or mix? If its batttery then you keep having to send teams out to replace the batteries. if its off the grid, then you have to deal with their power grid being unrelaiable and the power for it point a big finger ait where the thing is.


We could trap the cameras so they go off and possibly kill everything in a small radius around it. Maybe even time it five minutes after the camera goes off (or have an alert system so the person in charge can set it off rremotely) so after the kid knocks it out and the insurgent engineer shows up to place the IED he ends up looking for his freshly amputated arm.


An 5 ten year olds throw a rock at it and get killed or wounded? If your the bad guys you have a field day with that PR cherry. or you have a sniper pop a bullet into it when a family is walking by and blow up and wound a half dozen people.. cost youa bullet, the Americans an expensive piece of electronics and the the PR bloody nose.


Another related idea would be to set up plainly visible camera towers and hopefully deter some insurgents from operating in the area.


I'd be suprised if in a week after deployment the insurgents didn't know the location of 90% of the system anyway. An knocking them out doesn't have to be violent.. just block their visual arc so they can't see.

[Darth Executor]

Your placing a camera on their turf and you expect them not to notice the new addition.

Yes. As I said, it's not that hard.

Your talking about a surveliance system that has 100% coverage of all public areas, absolute resolution at all ranges and 100% up time. No. The resolution is pretty much irrelevant. It's being used to track insurgent movements, not get microscopic shots of their nose hair. Plus, I'd imagine most of them have their faces covered. It doesn't need to have 100% of everything to be effective anyway, as the insurgents should either not know the cameras are there or if they know about them, not know exactly where they are.

Sorry, such a system exists int he same place that Star Trek sensors do. Want an example of the closest real world example of such a system.. look at England. Don't know what they call theirs but its hardly that good and doesn't have to stand up to a dedicated attack to knock it out. Look at it this way, are you sending video back to base via hardwire or radio.. real time.. or burst transmission? Power requirements? Batery, pull of the grid.. or mix? If its batttery then you keep having to send teams out to replace the batteries. if its off the grid, then you have to deal with their power grid being unrelaiable and the power for it point a big finger ait where the thing is.I haven't thought about transmission, but power supply shouldn't be that difficult. First, I doubt the cameras would actually require much power to begin with. We're just setting up small, cheap cameras. Second, what I would do is either set up rechargable batteries tied to solar pannels or just leech off the grid. In heavy residential areas we could just put it on an apartment building somewhere, and I doubt it will suck more power than a TV.

An 5 ten year olds throw a rock at it and get killed or wounded? If your the bad guys you have a field day with that PR cherry. or you have a sniper pop a bullet into it when a family is walking by and blow up and wound a half dozen people.. cost youa bullet, the Americans an expensive piece of electronics and the the PR bloody nose.I said small radius. IE: it would wound or kill whoever is tampering with it, but people farther away should be safe. The kid wouldn't be hurt, and neither would the family.


I'd be suprised if in a week after deployment the insurgents didn't know the location of 90% of the system anyway. An knocking them out doesn't have to be violent.. just block their visual arc so they can't see.How are they gonna do that? They'd need eagle eyes to spot even a fraction of them. I don't think you realise how easy it is to hide things.s

PS: While typing this I burned my grilled cheese sandwhich. Thanks.

[James Peter]

And if we leave we admit defeat, drive up Al Quaeda's recruitment through the roof (they're receiving recruits, funding and ideological support because other factions think they're doing a good job, imagine how much more their popularity will grow when they take credit for defeating the Great Satan on the battlefield). I also don't know why people keep saying we're losing. Fighting an insurgency the old fashioned way takes time. A lot of it. It would be nice if we had adaptable generals but we don't. The only way we lose is if people at home decide we lost.

In response to the first part of your post... thats exactly why my position is effectively that the situation is lose-lose and so we have to evaluate which of the options is least bad.

As for your blind optimism...I'm curious how a situation that, by almost any measure, goes from bad to worse with no end in sight can be qualified as 'winning'. We may be killing insurgents but for every one we kill three take his place. Considering the casualties being inflicted by both (or rather, all) sides in Iraq the best we can currently hope for is a 'score draw' when nobody is left standing.

[Darth Executor]

In response to the first part of your post... thats exactly why my position is effectively that the situation is lose-lose and so we have to evaluate which of the options is least bad.

Well, the leaked report said it's bad but losing is gonna make it even worse. Apparently some democrats agreed because they accused Bush of cherry picking it.

As for your blind optimism...I'm curious how a situation that, by almost any measure, goes from bad to worse with no end in sight can be qualified as 'winning'. You won't mind if I ask you to explain in detail how it's gone from bad to worse before I agree with you that my optimism is blind.

We may be killing insurgents but for every one we kill three take his place. Considering the casualties being inflicted by both (or rather, all) sides in Iraq the best we can currently hope for is a 'score draw' when nobody is left standing.Or we can work to give most people a reason to live so they no longer have a reason to join the terrorists. Arabs don't usually like outsiders, and Al Quaeda isn't particularly well liked either. If the local population starts getting along somehow, they'll suffer a defeat on the home front and hopefully kill their recruitment drive.

[Durthorin]

Yes. As I said, it's not that hard.


Unfortunatly, think your wrong.. for it to have the observation field you want its location becomes obvious.


No. The resolution is pretty much irrelevant. It's being used to track insurgent movements, not get microscopic shots of their nose hair. Plus, I'd imagine most of them have their faces covered. It doesn't need to have 100% of everything to be effective anyway, as the insurgents should either not know the cameras are there or if they know about them, not know exactly where they are.


Darth, to recognize a face or an individual requires pretty good resolution. To be able to zoom in on an individual in a crowd and pick him out.. the system is pretty useless if it basically has faceless brown and green blob one and two. An coming back to the fact that for a camera to be effective it has to have a certain placement defined by the visual arc you want to cover. So in that case your talking about X number of fixed cameras.. or a single powered camera with rotation and zoom. More cameras makes it easier to find them.. not less (once you find one, you simple define its arc.. then look for the other arcs that need to be covered and point where the camera has to be to cover the arc).. rotational is bigger and easier to spot.


I haven't thought about transmission, but power supply shouldn't be that difficult. First, I doubt the cameras would actually require much power to begin with. We're just setting up small, cheap cameras. Second, what I would do is either set up rechargable batteries tied to solar pannels or just leech off the grid. In heavy residential areas we could just put it on an apartment building somewhere, and I doubt it will suck more power than a TV.


Look at the news on power supply in Bagdad and other cities in Iraq. The power grid is frequently out and unrelaiable in most areas with brown outs & blackouts being frequent. In some areas, there is no power in many of them. Solar panels just destroyed your camera being "hidden" The Americans put the box there and then put a six foot shiny square of solar panels right there.. Then you have the other factor.. panels are fragile.. don't break the camera throw rocks at the panels. Also whenever you plant them.. you have to support and maintance them.. so every trip you take to them for whatever reason points out where they are and what they are.


I said small radius. IE: it would wound or kill whoever is tampering with it, but people farther away should be safe. The kid wouldn't be hurt, and neither would the family.


Small radius for an explcive device is 5 meters on a 40 mm grenade something small enough to hold in the palm of your hand.. anything big enough to go boom and be a threat can and will throw frag even farther. Explosives don't have a magic no kill point where they cease to be dangerous. Put it on a roof top and your wound zone goes up because the frag gets tossed out an gravity pulls it down into the street below.


How are they gonna do that? They'd need eagle eyes to spot even a fraction of them. I don't think you realise how easy it is to hide things.s


Having worked with this kind of device when I was working nuclear weapons security in the Air Force, I think you don't realize what kind f support and size one of them has to be to be useful. Among other things they have to be able to tolerate the elements, protect their internals from heat and dust. Rugged enough for transport and deployment. If they are motorized to allow them to sweep and area they have to have all the support gear for the internal motors. They require maintance and every time you go check on a device you show where it is. If they are hardwired to a data collection system its wiring points to where it is.. if it uses burst transmission or real time wireless every time it sends a signal it screams "Here I am!"

One reason the preditor drones were developed is no one could figure out answers to these questions that work in a combat environment.


PS: While typing this I burned my grilled cheese sandwhich. Thanks.

Sorry.

[Darth Executor]

Unfortunatly, think your wrong.. for it to have the observation field you want its location becomes obvious.

Why? Looking out from my balcony, I could never spot something as small as a camera, especially if someone goes through some trouble to hide it.



Darth, to recognize a face or an individual requires pretty good resolution. To be able to zoom in on an individual in a crowd and pick him out.. the system is pretty useless if it basically has faceless brown and green blob one and two. Nope, and I don't think you understoond how I think they should be used. The faceless brown and green blobs are all you need. Faces are almost useless. What are you going to do with them? The point is to track the movement of "green glob with gun who opened fire in point Y" to point X where he came from or point Z where he went next. You then send in troops to investigate those two locations and if they're lucky, catch some insurgents.

An coming back to the fact that for a camera to be effective it has to have a certain placement defined by the visual arc you want to cover. So in that case your talking about X number of fixed cameras.. or a single powered camera with rotation and zoom. More cameras makes it easier to find them.. not less (once you find one, you simple define its arc.. then look for the other arcs that need to be covered and point where the camera has to be to cover the arc).. rotational is bigger and easier to spot.I also don't think this is going anywhere. I don't think they would be easy to find at all. Insurgents don't have helicopters to easily spot solar panels and they simplyaren't big enough to be easily spotted. At any rate, I think you overestimate their intelligence. I'd be surprised if most of them have the equivalent of a high school education. They're not mathematicians.


Look at the news on power supply in Bagdad and other cities in Iraq. The power grid is frequently out and unrelaiable in most areas with brown outs & blackouts being frequent. In some areas, there is no power in many of them. If they're on most of the time, it shouldn't be that big of a problem. I don't need 100% reliability. Really, even under 50% would be of great help.

Solar panels just destroyed your camera being "hidden" The Americans put the box there and then put a six foot shiny square of solar panels right there.. Then you have the other factor.. panels are fragile.. don't break the camera throw rocks at the panels.Six feet? The camera shouldn't be bigger than a cell phone dude. A few inches is enough.

Also whenever you plant them.. you have to support and maintance them.. so every trip you take to them for whatever reason points out where they are and what they are.Or you could change their location whenever you plant them.

Small radius for an explcive device is 5 meters on a 40 mm grenade something small enough to hold in the palm of your hand.. anything big enough to go boom and be a threat can and will throw frag even farther.Don't need frag. I knew people who blew up their fingers or arms trying to make firecrackers. Something like that is enough.

Explosives don't have a magic no kill point where they cease to be dangerous. The Israelis are developing a missile that does. :wink:

Put it on a roof top and your wound zone goes up because the frag gets tossed out an gravity pulls it down into the street below.I was under the impression that bullets shot in the air coming down and killing people are a myth (for the most part). If there was frag, i'd assume it would be the same.

Having worked with this kind of device when I was working nuclear weapons security in the Air Force, I think you don't realize what kind f support and size one of them has to be to be useful.Well, I need a similar system for my own insidious purposes so hopefully I can test it out this summer. I'll post results if I do.

Among other things they have to be able to tolerate the elements, protect their internals from heat and dust. Rugged enough for transport and deployment.Cell phones. The only real problem I foresee is the lens getting dirty.

If they are motorized to allow them to sweep and area they have to have all the support gear for the internal motors. They require maintance and every time you go check on a device you show where it is. I think making them motorized is overkill. You'd need a lot more power to keep those going 24/7.

If they are hardwired to a data collection system its wiring points to where it is.. if it uses burst transmission or real time wireless every time it sends a signal it screams "Here I am!" With what? We're talking about Iraq. They don't have that kind of sophisticated technology.

One reason the preditor drones were developed is no one could figure out answers to these questions that work in a combat environment.Small repair drones that perform maintenance. Although that would raise the price of the system by quite a bit.

[Durthorin]

Nope, and I don't think you understoond how I think they should be used. The faceless brown and green blobs are all you need. Faces are almost useless. What are you going to do with them? The point is to track the movement of "green glob with gun who opened fire in point Y" to point X where he came from or point Z where he went next. You then send in troops to investigate those two locations and if they're lucky, catch some insurgents.


Green blob fires drops weapon and runs into crowd and vanishes in a sea of other green blobs. Green blob blows himself up.. vid shows he came out of a crowd of other blobs. If you can not ID the hostile, its useless. An nothing the size of a cell phone has the range and resolution.


I also don't think this is going anywhere. I don't think they would be easy to find at all. Insurgents don't have helicopters to easily spot solar panels and they simplyaren't big enough to be easily spotted. At any rate, I think you overestimate their intelligence. I'd be surprised if most of them have the equivalent of a high school education. They're not mathematicians.


<sigh> You are aware that some of these guys are college educated military veterans right?



With what? We're talking about Iraq. They don't have that kind of sophisticated technology.


They have money and borders.. what they don't have they can buy. Second, lets look at the low tech solution. We work with the Iraqi army which the insurgents and factions have riddled.

[Darth Executor]

Green blob fires drops weapon and runs into crowd and vanishes in a sea of other green blobs.

Where the mad green blobs lynch him. At best they'll get out of the way and form a tunnel which your high altitude cameras will easily spot.

Green blob blows himself up.. vid shows he came out of a crowd of other blobs. If you can not ID the hostile, its useless. An nothing the size of a cell phone has the range and resolution.I think you severely underestimate our technology.
http://www.vfmstore.com/btr60.htm
The range of that camera is huge, more than enough for this purpose.




<sigh> You are aware that some of these guys are college educated military veterans right?I don't see how my statemend excludes this.




They have money and borders.. what they don't have they can buy. They have to know what they need to buy.

Second, lets look at the low tech solution. We work with the Iraqi army which the insurgents and factions have riddled.Simple solution: don't tell the Iraqis anything. They're not that big on privacy anyway.

[Sheepdog]

Maybe you should ask, how will staying address them? They weren't there before we invaded. We invaded and now are there in greater numbers. They continue to remain there even though we have over 100,000 troops in Iraq. How does staying deal with al Qaeda?

Fair question. at the very least, we provide some sanity in an insane theater. we pull out and... Iraqis are left to a corrupt government, Iran, and terrorist cells. and there aren't many differences between the three.

Unfortunately, islamic terrorism grew because of the Iraq invasion.

perhaps, perhaps not. either way it doesn't matter. we pull out, Iraq becomes a seething pool for terrorists. it is one now; it would be one even moreso. i don't see how the scenario will be different.

Bush's childlike understanding of how the world works is what is causing our nation the greatest harm.

this debate is so 2003. seriously, it doesn't matter anymore. unless someone plans to impeach Bush, all that matters is that we deal with the situation as is present.

[Sheepdog]

In response to the first part of your post... thats exactly why my position is effectively that the situation is lose-lose and so we have to evaluate which of the options is least bad.

a failed state that exports global terrorism is most definitely not the least bad option. the "insurgance" (i.e. terrorists) are self sustaining already [link (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/world/middleeast/26insurgency.html?ei=5088&en=1bd1f805c30e2ae2&ex=1322197200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print%5D)]

[Durthorin]

Where the mad green blobs lynch him. At best they'll get out of the way and form a tunnel which your high altitude cameras will easily spot.

I think you severely underestimate our technology.
http://www.vfmstore.com/btr60.htm
The range of that camera is huge, more than enough for this purpose.


Thats transmission range...how far it sends the signal. Its range of effective resolution isn't stated. I use Netbotz units 5,000$+ price range monitoring unit and sensor packages and their cameras are good for monitoring a standard computer room. Frankly, I have worked with and still do work daily with the technology your talking about. An what you seem to believe is readily available on the market just simply is not there. Also if I read this thing aright, then its 300,000 pixels resolution.. consider that most cameras you buy quality work are in the 2 to 8 mega pixel range for resolution.. in short this thing has an effective range measured in feet... a very few feet and low detail.

An if whats actually going on is any indicator, many of those blobs are on his team.. not ours.


They have to know what they need to buy.


I refer you back to the fact that some of these guys are college educated military veterans.. that they are not dumb.. if they were this would have been over long ago.. unless your assuming we're just stupid. They are inteligent, motivated and supplied.. with access to resources outside the country.



Simple solution: don't tell the Iraqis anything. They're not that big on privacy anyway.

Remember how you said you'd plant this things initially? How you going to hide that from the Iraqi military?

Finally remmeber what Britian's system is called. CCTV. Suggest you look up what the real world has had to say about the system.. and thats a system deployed in a civiliazed country. Not a war zone.

Britians system is called CCTv and common criminals have learned to do the following against it..


Unless physically protected, CCTV cameras have been found to be vulnerable against a variety of tactics.

Some will deliberately destroy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism) cameras, [14] (http://rtmark.com/cctv) although this method would usually be considered illegal.
Simplying spraying certain substances over the lens will make the image too blurry to be read.
Laser pointers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_pointer) will temporarily blind some cameras, [15] (http://naimark.net/projects/zap/howto.html) and higher powered lasers can damage them. However, since lasers are monochromatic, color filters can reduce the effect of laser pointers.
For wireless networks, broadcasting a signal at the same frequency of the CCTV network is reported to be able to jam it.

[Darth Executor]

Thats transmission range...

:doh: that was stupid of me. I'll get back to you on this later today, I wanna go buy some bagels while they're still warm.

I refer you back to the fact that some of these guys are college educated military veterans.. that they are not dumb.. if they were this would have been over long ago.. unless your assuming we're just stupid. They are inteligent, motivated and supplied.. with access to resources outside the country.I don't think they're dumb, I just don't think they're capable of coming up with sophisticated counters to western technology. I don't think we're stupid but I do think we're extremely infexible and that the insurgents and terrorists seem to adapt to our tactics a lot faster than we do to theirs.

Remember how you said you'd plant this things initially? How you going to hide that from the Iraqi military? I'm not sure what's so difficult about it. Have american teams plant them and don't tell the Iraqis. If their military somehow manages to stumble into one either say "wasn't us" or tell them "yeah, it was us, is there a problem?"

Finally remmeber what Britian's system is called. CCTV. Suggest you look up what the real world has had to say about the system.. and thats a system deployed in a civiliazed country. Not a war zone.

Britians system is called CCTv and common criminals have learned to do the following against it..CCTv isn't hidden. I still don't believe the cameras can be easily found if they are purposefully hidden.

[Durthorin]

I don't think they're dumb, I just don't think they're capable of coming up with sophisticated counters to western technology. I don't think we're stupid but I do think we're extremely infexible and that the insurgents and terrorists seem to adapt to our tactics a lot faster than we do to theirs.


I just don't think the counter to this is as sophisticated as you think. Like I said.. if its using a transmission system any engineering college student can hack together a signal scanner to "hear it". Once you have one.. you make two and then use the same method of RDF and a map to triangulate its position.. or just ignore that and make a device that screams white noise on the same freq when your in an area. Your not decoding the signal.. You just finding the frequency and building a small transmitter that jams that frequency. Thats not sophisticated at all.. you find plans for stuff like that in the Hacker Quarterly that you can make from walkie talkies and FM radios.

As for counters to western tech.. well they use cheap surface to air missles to knock multimillon dollar helicoptors out of the air. They use cell phones to trigger IEDs that they managed to build and modify so they can chew thru armor.


I'm not sure what's so difficult about it. Have american teams plant them and don't tell the Iraqis. If their military somehow manages to stumble into one either say "wasn't us" or tell them "yeah, it was us, is there a problem?"

CCTv isn't hidden. I still don't believe the cameras can be easily found if they are purposefully hidden.


An I think you keep forgetting that to be useful your planting these on peoples houses and businesses. People that watch what you do like a hawk. If I look out my window and see Americans messing around on my neighbors roof.. I ask my neighbor

"What were they doing up there?"
"I don't know.. they were up there?"
"Yea.. Hmm, lets go look they were right around the corner."
A brief climb to the roof.. a puzzled homeowner going "Whats that box...?"
An A. it blows up cause you have it bobbytraped.. or B it does nothing and they go.. Looks like a camera..

"Can we sell it?"
"But its theirs.."
"They dropped mine now.. "

An withina day or two, "Hey Acmed.. you hear about that camera the Americans left on Abdul's roof.. Bet they have them all over..Come to mention.. wern't they messing around your shop?"


Also I'm telling you that to be useful.. they have to be a lot larger than you seem to think.

Simple example.
Hiding it would be easy if you didn't have to use it. You got a market its a rectangle.. so you want to place cameras to cover the widest area with the smallest number of cameras. That means you want to place them at opposite corners.. there are only four. A, B, C & D.. D has a pole that obstructs the view.. so you end up using A & C, you can shift the cameras around but doing that lowers their effective coverage area. An you have to have overlaping fields of view.. cause if you don't you get blind spots..

[Darth Executor]

I can't seem to find any decent resources that give me an idea of a camera's visual range. I'll be (hopefully) testing one this summer. I can also do a crowd test if you want to see how easy it is to pick out an "insurgent" (I think that a high altitude camera can easily do it, but we'll see). Yeah, I know you have more experience me, but "forgive my unbelief" anyway. :wink:

I just don't think the counter to this is as sophisticated as you think. Like I said.. if its using a transmission system any engineering college student can hack together a signal scanner to "hear it". Once you have one.. you make two and then use the same method of RDF and a map to triangulate its position.. or just ignore that and make a device that screams white noise on the same freq when your in an area. Your not decoding the signal.. You just finding the frequency and building a small transmitter that jams that frequency. Thats not sophisticated at all.. you find plans for stuff like that in the Hacker Quarterly that you can make from walkie talkies and FM radios.

Obviously you've never watched Star Trek. In one episode the Enterprise (a ship) encounters an alien race called the Borg whose technology allowed them to adapt to anything. When shooting at them the borg would adapt to the phaser (a laser weapon)'s frequency and become completely immune. Their tractor beam would equally adapt to the Enterprise's shield frequency to try to reel it in. So the crew of the enterprise began to randomize frequencies of both shields and phasers so they had a chance. Now, we can't randomize the camera's transmission frequency because the receiver has to know it, but we can program it to accept a sequence of frequencies and occasionally change from one to the next one. The receiver will know the code and change the frequency it's listening for accordingly. An alternative (or complement for that matter) is to send a team to the area where the camera was jammed, giving you a significant head start as you don't have to wait for reports that the insurgents did something bad before you scramble to the area. Another method to confuse them is to set up fake relays all over the place. Each relay gets a signal from one (or more) cameras and broadcasts it again. When someone comes looking for them, they won't know which one is real and waste time trying to disable them all while a team of pissed off marines is heading their way as soon as the first relay goes down.




An I think you keep forgetting that to be useful your planting these on peoples houses and businesses. People that watch what you do like a hawk. If I look out my window and see Americans messing around on my neighbors roof.. I ask my neighbor :lol: That's why I said plant them at night. People are asleep and they can't see you when there's almost no light.

"What were they doing up there?"
"I don't know.. they were up there?"
"Yea.. Hmm, lets go look they were right around the corner."
A brief climb to the roof.. a puzzled homeowner going "Whats that box...?"
An A. it blows up cause you have it bobbytraped..Write "This device explodes if tempered with" on it. If they still temper with it they'll just earn the Iraqi version of the Darwin Award and people will know not to temper with it anymore.


Also I'm telling you that to be useful.. they have to be a lot larger than you seem to think.How large do you think they'd have to be?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Fair question. at the very least, we provide some sanity in an insane theater. we pull out and... Iraqis are left to a corrupt government, Iran, and terrorist cells. and there aren't many differences between the three.Iran has a vested interest that Iraq doesn't go completely to heck. Right now Iraq is keeping the US occupied, which Iran likes, but all out anarchy in Iraq is nearly as dangerous to Iran as it is to Iraq.

The problem with the pullout scenario is that the right people need to make the choice of how and when to do it. Right now, the Bush Admin, which got an F in Nation Building, is still making the calls. This is so wrong.

perhaps, perhaps not.Are you kidding me? Are you actually claiming that violence in Iraq would have grown had we never invaded?
either way it doesn't matter. we pull out, Iraq becomes a seething pool for terrorists. it is one now; it would be one even moreso. i don't see how the scenario will be different.The difference is, pulling out doesn't have to mean ignoring it. We can still have operations, but not the 150,000 troops.

this debate is so 2003. seriously, it doesn't matter anymore. unless someone plans to impeach Bush, all that matters is that we deal with the situation as is present.I think once Bush bombs Iran, we'll see talks of impeachment... from both sides of the aisle.

[Ryokan]

I think once Bush bombs Iran, we'll see talks of impeachment... from both sides of the aisle.

That depends on how Iran responded. But the risk is why bush won't bomb Iran.

[Durthorin]

I can't seem to find any decent resources that give me an idea of a camera's visual range. I'll be (hopefully) testing one this summer. I can also do a crowd test if you want to see how easy it is to pick out an "insurgent" (I think that a high altitude camera can easily do it, but we'll see). Yeah, I know you have more experience me, but "forgive my unbelief" anyway. :wink:


Not a problem, I work for lawyers I'm used to people not believing a technical explanation. :ahem:



Obviously you've never watched Star Trek. In one episode the Enterprise (a ship) encounters an alien race called the Borg whose technology allowed them to adapt to anything. When shooting at them the borg would adapt to the phaser (a laser weapon)'s frequency and become completely immune. Their tractor beam would equally adapt to the Enterprise's shield frequency to try to reel it in. So the crew of the enterprise began to randomize frequencies of both shields and phasers so they had a chance. Now, we can't randomize the camera's transmission frequency because the receiver has to know it, but we can program it to accept a sequence of frequencies and occasionally change from one to the next one. The receiver will know the code and change the frequency it's listening for accordingly. An alternative (or complement for that matter) is to send a team to the area where the camera was jammed, giving you a significant head start as you don't have to wait for reports that the insurgents did something bad before you scramble to the area. Another method to confuse them is to set up fake relays all over the place. Each relay gets a signal from one (or more) cameras and broadcasts it again. When someone comes looking for them, they won't know which one is real and waste time trying to disable them all while a team of pissed off marines is heading their way as soon as the first relay goes down.


Frequency modulation. Know it well. But its easier to blanket a multitude of frequencies than it is to modulate, sync and transmit.. Thats why most military systems do a burst.. sync, jump and data burst. But if you dismantle one of the units you know its frequencies. with some basic knowledge and tools. At that point you have to pull them, upgrade the firmware and redeploy them.. Square one. Star Trek has about as much to do with real science as Buffy the Vampire Slayer.



:lol: That's why I said plant them at night. People are asleep and they can't see you when there's almost no light.


Not everyone sleeps at night and count on the fact that some people are awake just to watch American patrols and tell other bad people about them.


Write "This device explodes if tempered with" on it. If they still temper with it they'll just earn the Iraqi version of the Darwin Award and people will know not to temper with it anymore.


Hmmm.. so if they heat it up, then cool it rapidly it goes boom.. :blush:



How large do you think they'd have to be?

About the size of a standard CCTV unit + housing to protect it..you need to consider as well is environmentals.. sand.. sand and wind.. sand & wind hitting optical lens.. trashed camera. Operating temp.. it has to be a sealed camera to protect it from mousture..etc..

http://www.2seetv.co.uk/acatalog/Guide_to_CCTV.html

Will give you good idea of what your looking for. The product page will show you a pretty good bullet cameras and camera housings as well.

http://www.2seetv.co.uk/acatalog/CCTV_Cameras__Bullet_and_Night_Vision.html

[Jimmy Higgins]

That depends on how Iran responded. But the risk is why bush won't bomb Iran.I doubt Bush won't bomb Iran. He seems sold on the idea that Iran is the trouble in Iraq, not Iraqis. And worse, we're out their training these militias anything. These groups creatting the sectarian violence are more than certainly having at least a little training from our own army. They are embedded within our own actions. It will be a finding in the end that will make all the arm chair dolts shake their heads saying "Wow... didn't see that coming."

Was Iraq better off with Hussein in power? No. Was the world better off with Hussein in power? Now that is an exercise in philosophy!

[Darth Executor]

I doubt Bush won't bomb Iran. He seems sold on the idea that Iran is the trouble in Iraq, not Iraqis.

Iran is a good chunk of the trouble in Iraq, as well as other parts of the world. Fatah caught them (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21161016-2703,00.html) helping out Hamas. I don't think you have any real reason to think Bush will bomb Iran, other than liberal paranoia.

[Durthorin]

Iran is a good chunk of the trouble in Iraq, as well as other parts of the world. Fatah caught them (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21161016-2703,00.html) helping out Hamas. I don't think you have any real reason to think Bush will bomb Iran, other than liberal paranoia.

Iran already has a certain level of sanctions. We have already caught Iranian employees helping the insurgency. We have already been told that insurgents are training in Iran to come into Iraq. Basically all the ground work is being laid to justify limited "air strikes against known insurgent training areas" An we have done this in the past.

Also given their nuke program that we don't like it would be a justification for bombing it.

[Darth Executor]

Frequency modulation. Know it well. But its easier to blanket a multitude of frequencies than it is to modulate, sync and transmit.. Thats why most military systems do a burst.. sync, jump and data burst. But if you dismantle one of the units you know its frequencies. with some basic knowledge and tools.

Not if you encrypt the information. At any rate, if a terrorist dismantles one of your units it's safe to say that unit is gone and they won't bother to put it back together just for the sake of jamming it (not to mention the fact that the unit will crack, destroy its contents and hopefully take off some fingers since it's trapped). Plus, if your team is fast, as soon as they try to disable the unit a team should be on its way and make a pretty good catch. You could also place dormant tracking devices in the case so you know where the insurgent engineer is if he decides to go back to his hideout to take a better look at it.

At that point you have to pull them, upgrade the firmware and redeploy them.. Square one. Star Trek has about as much to do with real science as Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Or you could upgrade the firmware remotely...

Not everyone sleeps at night and count on the fact that some people are awake just to watch American patrols and tell other bad people about them.Fortunately there is no patrol to see and unless those people hang around on their houses with torches they should not see a couple of people sneaking around.



Hmmm.. so if they heat it up, then cool it rapidly it goes boom.. :blush:
:huh:


About the size of a standard CCTV unit + housing to protect it..you need to consider as well is environmentals.. sand.. sand and wind.. sand & wind hitting optical lens. trashed camera. Cover it with transparent plastic. Cleaning the plastic once in a while is the only real problem I see.

Operating temp.. it has to be a sealed camera to protect it from mousture..etc.. Cooling something that small isn't much of a problem and sealing it doesn't take more space.


http://www.2seetv.co.uk/acatalog/Guide_to_CCTV.html

Will give you good idea of what your looking for. The product page will show you a pretty good bullet cameras and camera housings as well.

http://www.2seetv.co.uk/acatalog/CCTV_Cameras__Bullet_and_Night_Vision.htmlOk, I'll check it out.

[Durthorin]

Originally posted by Darth Executor (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1840373#post1840373)
Write "This device explodes if tempered with" on it. If they still temper with it they'll just earn the Iraqi version of the Darwin Award and people will know not to temper with it anymore. Hmmm.. so if they heat it up, then cool it rapidly it goes boom.. :blush:




Darth.. temper.. vs tamper.:ahem:


tem·per http://img.tfd.com/hm/pron.gif (javascript:play('T0097500')) (thttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ebreve.gifmhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifphttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifr)v. tem·pered, tem·per·ing, tem·pers
v.tr.1. To modify by the addition of a moderating element; moderate: "temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom" Robert H. Jackson. See Synonyms at moderate (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/moderate).
2. To bring to a desired consistency, texture, hardness, or other physical condition by or as if by blending, admixing, or kneading: temper clay; paints that had been tempered with oil.
3. To harden or strengthen (metal or glass) by application of heat or by heating and cooling.
4. To strengthen through experience or hardship; toughen: soldiers who had been tempered by combat.
5. To adjust finely; attune: a portfolio that is tempered to the investor's needs.
6. Music To adjust (the pitch of an instrument) to a temperament.



but now that I've had to explain its not funny anymore.. :sigh:

[Darth Executor]

Iran already has a certain level of sanctions. We have already caught Iranian employees helping the insurgency. We have already been told that insurgents are training in Iran to come into Iraq. Basically all the ground work is being laid to justify limited "air strikes against known insurgent training areas" An we have done this in the past.

Also given their nuke program that we don't like it would be a justification for bombing it.

Except Bush is stupid. Don't get me wrong, I think Iran needs a punch in the face, but I have no reason to believe Bush will do it. To be fair, if we switch to overt hostilities Iran's massive terrorist network is gonna hurt us a lot.

[Darth Executor]

Originally posted by Darth Executor (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1840373#post1840373)
Write "This device explodes if tempered with" on it. If they still temper with it they'll just earn the Iraqi version of the Darwin Award and people will know not to temper with it anymore. Hmmm.. so if they heat it up, then cool it rapidly it goes boom.. :blush:




Darth.. temper.. vs tamper.:ahem:



but now that I've had to explain its not funny anymore.. :sigh:

:doh: I find it funny. :lol:

[Durthorin]

Darth

http://www.militaryandlaw.com.au/page/tricam_1500_triple_sensor_camera.html

[Darth Executor]

Darth

http://www.militaryandlaw.com.au/page/tricam_1500_triple_sensor_camera.html

Cool, but it looks like overkill.

[Durthorin]

Cool, but it looks like overkill.

Depends.. if you have to monitor and check and maintence 20 or 30 small cameras vs mounting one of these on a radio/cell tower that can look down and zoom night or day.. in a 3 klick range with a 570 line resolution.

Even if you have to build towers to give you the coverage, they are out of reach for anything but a concerted attack. Maintaining a pod of 4 N,S,E,W cameras looking over an area is easier and less intrusive than slipping around hiding bunches of little cameras. Easier to hide as well, since the Americans are building a bunch of new cell towers.. would cause less of a raised eyebrow. Also less number of cameras less screens and individual operator has to keep and eye on.

[Darth Executor]

Depends.. if you have to monitor and check and maintence 20 or 30 small cameras vs mounting one of these on a radio/cell tower that can look down and zoom night or day.. in a 3 klick range with a 570 line resolution.

You'd have to zoom in to track specific movement though, leaving other areas uncovered. Of course, we could always do both.

Maintaining a pod of 4 N,S,E,W cameras looking over an area is easier and less intrusive than slipping around hiding bunches of little cameras. Easier to hide as well, since the Americans are building a bunch of new cell towers.. would cause less of a raised eyebrow. Also less number of cameras less screens and individual operator has to keep and eye on.Sounds good.

[Sheepdog]

Except Bush is stupid. Don't get me wrong, I think Iran needs a punch in the face, but I have no reason to believe Bush will do it. To be fair, if we switch to overt hostilities Iran's massive terrorist network is gonna hurt us a lot.

i dunno. he's upping the ante lately. one wonders if it's a bluff.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Iran is a good chunk of the trouble in Iraq,Much like the WMD claim in Iraq, this is highly unsubstantiated. Iran gains little with anarchy in Iraq. Iran wants the US's hands to be full, no more. There are four different threats in Iraq, sectarian, insurgent, foreign, al Qaeda. The sectarian violence has been blooming for the past year or two. Iran isn't the big bad in Iraq, even if it is a bad in Iraq. Iraqis are slaughtering each other right now and until the sheep in the US that follow Bush realize this, there will be no gains in Iraq, only more losses, in a place where more losses may already be the only option anyway. Thanks Bush and his mindless sheep followers... Yeah Hussein was such a threat to everyone. Doubt he'd of killed over 100,000 Iraqi civilians in the past 4 years like the US occupied Iraq has seen.
I don't think you have any real reason to think Bush will bomb Iran, other than liberal paranoia.Paranoia... you just haven't been reading or listening to the news... which is a problem people like you have. Ignorance through the wazoo.

[Darth Executor]

Much like the WMD claim in Iraq, this is highly unsubstantiated.

The WMD claim was not "highly unsubstantiated" seeing how plenty of Democrats thought it was credible. This is also not "highly unsubstantiated". In fact, I thought it was common knowledge until I ran into you.

Iran trains Shia milita through Hezbollah. Iran gives them weapons.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=2688501

And with all due respect *snicker* I'll take the army's word over that of a nobody.

Iran gains little with anarchy in Iraq. Iran wants the US's hands to be full, no more.:lmbo: Read what you just said over and over again and hopefully you'll realise why I think you're as dumb as a rock.

There are four different threats in Iraq, sectarian, insurgent, foreign, al Qaeda.al Quaeda is foreign and insurgents are sectarian.

The sectarian violence has been blooming for the past year or two. Iran isn't the big bad in Iraq, even if it is a bad in Iraq. Iraqis are slaughtering each other right now and until the sheep in the US that follow Bush realize this, there will be no gains in Iraq, only more losses, in a place where more losses may already be the only option anyway. I don't know who you think you're talking to but all the "sheep" that follow bush already know Iraqis are fighting each other, stupid. In fact, this is merely a reflection of your paranoid idea that Bush is gonna bomb Iran.

Thanks Bush and his mindless sheep followers... Yeah Hussein was such a threat to everyone. Doubt he'd of killed over 100,000 Iraqi civilians in the past 4 years like the US occupied Iraq has seen.Thank God there was no bipartisan suppor... oh wait.

Paranoia... you just haven't been reading or listening to the news... which is a problem people like you have. Ignorance through the wazoo.I read and listen to the news all the time. You're paranoid, period. You read so much into that article about Bush allowing soldiers to shoot Iranians who temper in Iraq that it would be almost comical if I didn't know you really are that insane. There's also this little thing about Bush needing the support of congress to bomb Iran, but don't let reality get in the way. :whistle:

[Yankee_Doodle]

I think it is worth asking whether us being in Iraq is actually doing any meaningful harm to Al Qaeda right now. Because of our presence there they receive funding, recruits and idealogical support on a scale that outweighs the damage we're doing to them. In net terms Al Qaeda benefit from our presence in Iraq, despite our efforts. That means that we have to accept that we are losing and ask whether we actually can win this, or what winning would actually mean.

If there is no military solution then the question is does military presence support or undermine other solutions? Right now it seems to be undermining it. We've been outplayed and outthought - if we stay we give Al Qaeda what they really want and if we go we give Al Qaeda what they say they want and are humiliated.

I'm not sure we can pull out at this point without considerable risk. The situation has grown extremely complex & unfortunately IMO we must remain in Iraq for the long haul. I was watching the Charlie Rose show on PBS the other day & he was interviewing a Muslim scholar of some sort (didn't catch the guy's name) and he explained the complexities. If we pull out prematurely in all likelihood Iran will dominate Iraqi politics.

You have to consider that Al Sistani, the chief cleric of the Iraqi Shiites is himself an Iranian born Persian. Iraq & Iran are the Shiite strongholds, Shiites are a small minority in the rest of the Islamic world. Therefore, there's a natural alliance between the now dominant Iraqi Shiites & Iran. That wouldn't be a bad thing except Iran's current leadership is by any account our enemy. They are in all likelihood seeking to develop nuclear weapons with the expressed intention of wiping Israel off the map.

Iraq has the worlds second largest oil supply. To allow Shiites, as they exist today, to control that oil would truly be a total failure. More importantly to allow today's theocratic, bent on destruction, Iran to control it would be disastrous. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Qatar, the UAE, and Kuwait (all ruled by Sunni monarchs) view Iran as their chief enemy. All of these countries have expressed willingness to forge peace with Israel. Moreover, Saudi Arabia has promised to move into Iraq if we pull out, to protect Iraqi Sunni's. The problem here is that would sew the seeds of a regional war, almost without question. It's certainly possible that Iran would seek to avoid war; however, I am convinced that the Saudi's want the Iranian threat dealt with one way or the other (obviously they would love us to do it alone, which I don't believe is fair to us).

In short Iran must be dealt with before we start talking about reducing our troop strength in Iraq. IMO it would behoove the Europeans to join with us. Iran poses a particular threat to continental Europe. Nations like Italy & France have much to protect (since they will be in range of an Iranian nuclear missile). If we could forge an alliance which includes NATO and our Sunni allies in the region, it would be a marvelous victory. I believe Iran is the only real thing that stands in the way of Middle East peace. Al Qaeda is an ancillary issue. If we had peace between the Arabs & Israelis, Iran's government was defeated by a huge combined force that included all the regional Sunni powers (all the countries I mentioned above plus perhaps Pakistan), NATO, and the US, within 10 years Al Qaeda & it's offspring will be a distant memory.

[Yankee_Doodle]

You'd have to zoom in to track specific movement though, leaving other areas uncovered. Of course, we could always do both.

Sounds good.

I'm not sure about the logistics of your camera idea. First, the insurgents would see us installing them (or the people in the areas we install them would notify the insurgents). Secondly, even if they could feed video via an antenna we would either have to install them on light poles (which doesn't exist in many areas) or have batteries. That means we need to run extra missions, putting soldiers in harms way to change the batteries. Frankly, we have satellites that can literally zoom in so close they can identify a face (low orbiting satellites). Why we don't use more satellite intel I don't know. Perhaps we don't have enough satellites to devote to such a mission, or maybe for whatever other reason it isn't feasible.....but it seems to me that if we had a few hundred satellites patrolling convoy routes 24/7 (which we could probably do with a couple thousand civilian intel analysts) we could spot insurgents placing an IED. If we had more resources we could build new roads not amenable to planting IED's (such as thick concrete highways with no asphalt). If we had better rules of engagement a car would never be allowed close enough to a convoy to pose a car bomb risk (like it was in the beginning of the war).

I would hope that Secretary Gates starts thinking about the troops & asks for a few extra billion for such initiatives. I really think we need to really bolster our space assets to gain the edge. I like the fact that the Army is looking to clamp down on Baghdad with the intention of quickly turning it over to the Iraqi Army. I believe this will be done by years end (for the most part).

Then we can focus on the bigger picture, like Iran.

[alkech]

In all this rhetoric about withdrawal from Iraq, I think both sides have lost sight of the enemy who first defined this "war on terror" for us in the first place. The fact is, whether or not they were there in Iraq under Suddam in great number, they are there now, and they are entrenched.

How is a pull out going to address them? Have the Democrats even thought about that? Do we leave Iraq to Al Queda, Iran, and other organizations which seek to do ill to the US and our allies? Folks on both sides complain about the nation debt and how our children will have to bear that burden. Shall we also leave them to bear the brunt of 21st century, Islamic terrorism?


Personally, I want to just wash our hands of Iraq. I've wanted to for years now. But i don't see how we can do that.

Why is there an automatic assumption that Al Qaeda, which per the Iraq Study Group and our Generals in Iraq it's said to be fractional in numbers (about 5% of the insurgency) is going to take over Iraq if we leave?

Why the impression that the largely populated and Government controlled Shiite element is just going to just roll over and give up to a minority Sunni element and even a smaller minority Al Qaeda? It is not by any means forgone conclusions that Al Qaeda will be the beneficiaries of a U.S. pull out.

Moreover, Iran is one the same side as the militias that the Iraq Government has supported, and I'm sure elements of the Shiite Government still supports. Most of the attacks against us are from the Sunni community, with support directly in fighters, arms, and money from the elephant in the room ignored: Saudi Arabia.