Re: Article 5

[Shawn Mulock <salamndr@xxxxxxxx>]

Roger Stenning wrote:

> It wouldn't surpeise me to see, in the short term, the US, NATO, or even
> EC,
> declare war on O.B-L. I see this as a logocal step in politically
> justifying sending troops in to wherever they may be required, in
> order to stomp all over the fuckwit (pardon my luggage).

Wherever may be the hill and vale of Afghanistan... nasty ground. If the
Taliban can chase out the Spetznaz, they will at the very least do serious
harm to Western Special Forces Groups. It would be rough, even sending in
the new "Specialist" Mountain Brigades/Regiments (did they ever decide how
that was going to be org'd out?) would see a very large Casualty Rate.
Perhaps mobilize the 1 & 2 Royal Gurkha Rifles and/or convince the French
and Germans to send in their Alpine troops in a variable operations roll?

F**kwit.... very well done Mr. Stenning.

> > Aside from fly overs and intell, what can we, The US,
> > expect?
>
> I'm guessing a closer integration of hard intel on terrorism in
> general, a greater unity of purpose in going after such animals, and,
> in the immediate short term, a hell of a lot of hot air from wet
> liberals of the 'might is not right' leaning. But then I was always
> described as being somewhere to the right of Ghegis Kahn anyhow, so
> stuff it!

As for Intel. The Americans will have to seriously think about improving
their HumInt (Biologics for those so minded). As it stands, they will most
likely be relying on British and French Intel for the bulk of any job that
happens. I would recommend MOSSAD, but they are very... conservative (yes,
that's the word) in respect to sharing Intel.

Ghengis Khan..... I pictured you as more of an Atilla the Hun sort of
bloke.... =)

> > Are we talking the formation of an offical NATO
> > anti-terrorist team, something akin to Rainbow 6, or
> > actual armor and grunts to go in and help dig out the
> > baddies?
>
> I doubt it, although it's an interesting idea. You're more likely to
> se closer cooperation of NATO national specfor, instead, IMHO. No
> nation likes to abrogate its rights over its' own troops, after all. A
> 'joint force', under a NATO approved commander, with a final right of
> approval by nation states whose forces make up the joint specfor,
> would be the most likely manner of organisation that I can see as a
> possible end-result of the idea. Whether it actually comes to the
> light of day is another matter entirely, of course.

It would be more effective as well, as each Special Forces
Group/SOCOM/What-have-you all have differing ways of getting things done and
throwing them all together requires a degree of cross training,
familiarization and chest thumping.... or.... lots of body bags. Don't get
me wrong, they are all very fast learners, but to have the show changed in
mid program can prove to be more dangerous than usual.

S.