"Don't start shit, or we will kill your civilians" (paraphrase)

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

US will have to fight 'dirty' in new wars
From correspondents in Washington
October 25, 2006 07:52am
Article from: ReutersFont size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
THE US could defeat any enemy with overwhelming power but any new conflict would involve more brute force and civilian casualties than in Iraq, the top US general said today.
Asked about any potential threat from North Korea, Marine General Peter Pace, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he did not know the intent of the Pyongyang leadership but the US military could cope with any potential enemy.
"It is true that our units that are here at home are not fully equipped, as they would be if there wasn't a war going on," Gen Pace said at the Pentagon.
"But none of our potential enemies should miscalculate the capacity of this nation to generate overwhelming combat power, tomorrow, to defend our national interests."
Gen Pace said the conflicts in both Iraq and Afghanistan meant some precision weapons and intelligence systems were already in use and could not be immediately be deployed elsewhere.
"It would be more brute force, wherever we might have to go next, than it would be if we weren't already involved in the war we have going on in Iraq or Afghanistan," Gen Pace said.
"You would end up not having all of the precision weapons that you might otherwise have going into a second theatre, wherever it might happen to be, and therefore you would end up using more dumb bombs, so to speak, more brute force, than you would otherwise," he said.
"So you end up with more collateral damage. You end up more like a World War II, Korean War campaign than you would sitting at home waiting with the war not going on."
But he said that would not affect the capacity of the US military to defeat any enemy.
"It would not be as clean as we would like it to be. But it would certainly be sure. And the outcome would not be in doubt," he said.

The United States has said it wants to use diplomacy to resolve its standoff with North Korea, which escalated when the secretive Communist state conducted a first nuclear test on October 9, but will take no option off the table.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,20641712-5005962,00.html#

No more "precision" cluster bombs, bunker busters dropped in residential areas, depeleted uranium, etc.

― R_S (RSLaRue), Thursday, 26 October 2006 12:45 (nineteen years ago)

Boring.
I suppose it's the fault of the United States that the Kim family is fucking looney tunes, then.

― SOME LOW END BRO (TOMBOT), Thursday, 26 October 2006 12:56 (nineteen years ago)

I'm just going to run at you with my fist out, if you get in the way thats not my fault.

― Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Thursday, 26 October 2006 12:57 (nineteen years ago)

10/10 analogy

― benrique (Enrique), Thursday, 26 October 2006 12:58 (nineteen years ago)

I wonder how precise the North Koreans plan to be in their artillery bombardments of Seoul

― SOME LOW END BRO (TOMBOT), Thursday, 26 October 2006 12:59 (nineteen years ago)

5/10 analogy. He said "If we wanted to, we could run at you with our fists out and if you got in the way it wouldn't be our fault."

― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Thursday, 26 October 2006 13:00 (nineteen years ago)

I mean I'm fucking sorry but this is the lamest hippie outrage ever. Dude has the fucking bomb. How the hell does the CJCS saying some things that are unfortunately true even approach threatening to use the fucking bomb? Whatever.

― SOME LOW END BRO (TOMBOT), Thursday, 26 October 2006 13:01 (nineteen years ago)

I kind of agree. It's not really the military's job to equivocate about their capacity for killing people. What do you want them to say, "We'll only kill you a little bit"?

― M. White (Miguelito), Thursday, 26 October 2006 13:03 (nineteen years ago)

It would be dangerous to give the impression that we cannot respond to any threat. For a representative of the military to say we'll just have to smash everything if need be, and that we are perfectly capable of doing it, is not as irresponsible and dangerous as our complete clusterfuck in DC.

I swear to god, it feels like nearly all of our elected leaders are in way over their heads.

We have a very competent military, with an insipid, insane executive branch, and a limp, festering congress. Theres the danger.

― Fleischhutliebe! (Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows), Thursday, 26 October 2006 13:16 (nineteen years ago)

It's kind of Cold War-lite, with one side saying "we can utterly wipe you out if we want" and the other saying "we can wipe out a little bit of one of your allies if we want."

And if it came to it, I'd prefer a nuclear war won by the side that didn't start it.

― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Thursday, 26 October 2006 13:18 (nineteen years ago)

The United States has said it wants to use diplomacy to resolve its standoff with North Korea, which escalated when the secretive Communist state conducted a first nuclear test on October 9

― SOME LOW END BRO (TOMBOT), Thursday, 26 October 2006 13:23 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.boardgamecompany.co.uk/DiplomacyBox.jpg

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 26 October 2006 13:28 (nineteen years ago)

Anyway, TOMBOT and Meathat OTM.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 26 October 2006 13:28 (nineteen years ago)

CLEARLY pace is one of those OLD PENTAGON APPEASERS who is BROADCASTING to the CHINESE that we will TAKE CARE of that REFUGEE PROBLEM for them

― geoff (gcannon), Thursday, 26 October 2006 13:56 (nineteen years ago)

actually i don't even know who i'm parodying anymore

― geoff (gcannon), Thursday, 26 October 2006 13:56 (nineteen years ago)

yeah this tactic works ask russia re: chechnya - all you have to do is kill every man between the ages of 15-70 and totally destroy every scrap of infrastructure. then all you've got to worry abt is suicidal widows!

yeah i know the situation isn't the same - and i understand this as rhetoric. but as an actual plan, it sux. and it's not like kim doesn't know that we'd fuck the shit out of him if he nuked anyone.

even just making such threats is dangerous as it is a form of escalation in itself. also showing a unsurprising lack of creativity and tact - just more oh yeah, well oh yeah. i don't see how we're giving n korea any face saving out here.

likely the general is just doing the bidding of the civilian leadership, but it doesn't seem like the right message for the military to be delivering.

― jhoshea megafauna (scoopsnoodle), Thursday, 26 October 2006 14:03 (nineteen years ago)

Are they true? Seriously, can we enter a grudgematch ground engagement with N Korea without a draft?

i don't see how we're giving n korea any face saving out here.

Considering that senior officials in the administration were reported to be "happy" that N Korea tested the bomb, I don't think face-saving approaches are in their diplomatic toolbox.

― Edward III (edward iii), Thursday, 26 October 2006 14:07 (nineteen years ago)

what pace said doesn't compare with chechnya at all

― geoff (gcannon), Thursday, 26 October 2006 14:16 (nineteen years ago)

Considering what counts with this administration as a legitimate reason to go to war (Bush Doctrine), I don't think it's misplaced outrage.

Kim is pretty crazy, but I don't think it's particularly crazy to want a nuclear weapon to deter US attack.

(Also, TOMBOT, fuck off.)

― R_S (RSLaRue), Thursday, 26 October 2006 15:14 (nineteen years ago)

i think this article is being misread, if not miswritten

journo: how would a war go in NK?
general: oh, we'd do fine. no prob.
journo: o rly? waht abt all the stuff being in iraq
general: nah, no biggie.
journo: ...
general: ok yah most of our cool shit is in iraq. we'd do it with our old stuff, no prob!
journo: ok
general: i guess it'd be pretty rugged, like the old days.

story: PENTAGON PLANS GENOCIDE

― geoff (gcannon), Thursday, 26 October 2006 15:26 (nineteen years ago)

what pace said doesn't compare with chechnya at all

proposing bombing the shit out of a country with no regards to civilian casualties, yeah no similarity there.

― jhoshea megafauna (scoopsnoodle), Thursday, 26 October 2006 15:36 (nineteen years ago)

Ya - it's slim pickings when you're looking for wars where civilians got bombed.

― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Thursday, 26 October 2006 15:38 (nineteen years ago)

yeah the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is just having a causal conversation w/a reporter abt how if we did ever have to throw down w/n korea we'd have to bomb the shit out of their cities. just chit chat, no biggie.

― jhoshea megafauna (scoopsnoodle), Thursday, 26 October 2006 15:39 (nineteen years ago)

Ya - it's slim pickings when you're looking for wars where civilians got bombed.

hmm a recent conflict with a powerful country attacking a dirt poor one conducted w/no regard for civilian casualties. yeah the list is practically endless.

― jhoshea megafauna (scoopsnoodle), Thursday, 26 October 2006 15:42 (nineteen years ago)

people getting self-righteous defending the DPRK is about the most disgusting shit I've seen on this fucking board

― SOME LOW END BRO (TOMBOT), Thursday, 26 October 2006 15:50 (nineteen years ago)

Please, go spend some time in the ROK. I never got to. Get a tiny tiny tiny bit of fucking perspective, for once in your goddamn lives.

― SOME LOW END BRO (TOMBOT), Thursday, 26 October 2006 15:51 (nineteen years ago)

The weather forecast's good for war
Cologne and Frankfurt? Have some more!

― kingfish prætor (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 26 October 2006 15:53 (nineteen years ago)

tombot i'm not sure who you think is defending n korea.

― jhoshea megafauna (scoopsnoodle), Thursday, 26 October 2006 15:54 (nineteen years ago)

Yes, perhaps it is my mistake for reading the article in context instead of looking for another chance to harp on how war is bad 'cause people die in it.

― SOME LOW END BRO (TOMBOT), Thursday, 26 October 2006 15:56 (nineteen years ago)

so war isn't bad cause people die in it? yr just straight realpolitick? the world is yr chessboard?

― jhoshea megafauna (scoopsnoodle), Thursday, 26 October 2006 15:59 (nineteen years ago)

J.M., stop being a putz.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 26 October 2006 15:59 (nineteen years ago)

No the idea that you can fight a war in some kind of "smart" way where people don't die, especially when the hi-tech stuff is not available, is delusional, I think, is the point.

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Thursday, 26 October 2006 16:03 (nineteen years ago)

pace sorta screwed up by saying "tomorrow" instead of "today" though. i wanted him to say "we will blow you up before the intention of striking us first even fully arrives in your conscious mind!"

― ryan (ryan), Thursday, 26 October 2006 16:04 (nineteen years ago)

i thought "don't start shit or we will kill your civilians" was kind of understood to be the bottom line of most international relations. what is supposed to be the news here?

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 26 October 2006 16:07 (nineteen years ago)

ned what?

i think threatening the lives of innocent civilians is a poor strategy in this situation (which is obv what is is, just a maneuver). and i find the wanton killing of people in general to be tragic. and tombot accusing whoever of defending n korea is just absurd.

the idea that you can fight a war in some kind of "smart" way where people don't die, especially when the hi-tech stuff is not available, is delusional, I think, is the point.

the whole point of the dude's statement was to say we're going to fight this war in the dumbest most civilian killin way possible. no one said you could fight a war cleanly - but there's a line between doing what needs to be done and slaughter.

― jhoshea megafauna (scoopsnoodle), Thursday, 26 October 2006 16:10 (nineteen years ago)

journo: Would the U.S. military able to deal with a threat from North Korea?
Marine General Peter Pace, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff: Jesus no. We're fucked.

I mean, c'mon doodz.

― Fleischhutliebe! like a warm, furry meatloaf (Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows), Thursday, 26 October 2006 16:10 (nineteen years ago)

and yeah he said in in a sort of there's nothing i can do, it would be a shame if anything were to happen to yr nice little country and all the nice little people in it sort of way on purpose.

jeez fellas i'm all outs smart bombs...

― jhoshea megafauna (scoopsnoodle), Thursday, 26 October 2006 16:13 (nineteen years ago)

Would you prefer him to lie?

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Thursday, 26 October 2006 16:14 (nineteen years ago)

chairman of the joint chiefs admitting military weakness v chairman of the joint chiefs delivering a thinly veiled threat

― jhoshea megafauna (scoopsnoodle), Thursday, 26 October 2006 16:15 (nineteen years ago)

the point is that the were all out of smart bombs so we'll just have to kill the shit out of you formulation is absurd in the first place - he is lying.

― jhoshea megafauna (scoopsnoodle), Thursday, 26 October 2006 16:16 (nineteen years ago)

the thinly veiled threat is to his own civilian bosses and the american public.

― geoff (gcannon), Thursday, 26 October 2006 16:17 (nineteen years ago)

Actually, it is well known that our military is stretched thin, and that we have a lot of our tech bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. People are asking that question over and over again. If an emergency arises, will we be up to the task? Is the military broken?

I think this is the core part of his answer:

"It is true that our units that are here at home are not fully equipped, as they would be if there wasn't a war going on," Gen Pace said at the Pentagon.

"But none of our potential enemies should miscalculate the capacity of this nation to generate overwhelming combat power, tomorrow, to defend our national interests."

― Fleischhutliebe! like a warm, furry meatloaf (Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows), Thursday, 26 October 2006 16:18 (nineteen years ago)

the whole point of the dude's statement was to say we're going to fight this war in the dumbest most civilian killin way possible.

read the article again, read the part again where he goes ahead and throws the reporter a huge bone and says It would not be as clean as we would like it to be. But... read that all over again and then come back and stop sounding like a yokel.

― SOME LOW END BRO (TOMBOT), Thursday, 26 October 2006 16:18 (nineteen years ago)

Nevermind, xpost, I see there's no hope. sorry to feed the troll.

― SOME LOW END BRO (TOMBOT), Thursday, 26 October 2006 16:19 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, the threat is more along the lines of, "If we have to fight another war tomorrow, it will be even more unpopular than the one we're already in."

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Thursday, 26 October 2006 16:19 (nineteen years ago)

I do want to hear, though, what Sunshine and LaRue and jhoshea really think about how Kim Jong Il would fight a war. Or how straightforward his generals would be talking to the press about the probable collateral damage.

― SOME LOW END BRO (TOMBOT), Thursday, 26 October 2006 16:21 (nineteen years ago)

i'm not saying that it's not true that our military is stretched thin - i'm saying that bombing the shit out of civilians is obv not our only option in the case of a conflict. he goes out of his way to mention ww2 where we purposely bombed cities, killing civilians in order to pressure their governments. i would say a lot of you are missing the subtext, except it doesn't really seem to be so sub.

― jhoshea megafauna (scoopsnoodle), Thursday, 26 October 2006 16:24 (nineteen years ago)

Honest question here: have you ever served or had close family members who did?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 26 October 2006 16:27 (nineteen years ago)

the point is that the were all out of smart bombs so we'll just have to kill the shit out of you formulation is absurd in the first place - he is lying.
-- jhoshea megafauna (totalwizar...), October 26th, 2006 12:16 PM. (scoopsnoodle) (link)

UM, we have a huge military industry, but our supply of materiel is not an infinate resource. We are not producing at a sustainable rate for a third or fourth war.

I'm sure we can ramp up production, but as things stand currently we will be limited in what we bring to another war.

― Fleischhutliebe! like a warm, furry meatloaf (Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows), Thursday, 26 October 2006 16:27 (nineteen years ago)

that is not the subtext. think about it, just a little, why would he make that threat? does Gen. Peter Pace, USMC believe the NK populace is reading washingtonpost.com? does he, or anyone on earth, think that massive civilian death is any kind of deterrent to KJI?

― geoff (gcannon), Thursday, 26 October 2006 16:28 (nineteen years ago)

tombot - i'm sorry i'll start holding our country to n korean standards - surely the recipe for a peaceful world.

besides n korea is bad therefor whatever we say or do is a good idea, wtf is yr point.

xo
yokel troll

― jhoshea megafauna (scoopsnoodle), Thursday, 26 October 2006 16:28 (nineteen years ago)

Also - does Pace have anything to do with diplomacy or intl. relations? Is he in the business of threatening nations, or not threatening them, at all? (You will find the answer is no.) And no one expects him to. This is a question simply of what the army can bring to bear and how. And he answered it. Military chiefs ARE in the business of signalling to their policy-making civilian superiors what they're getting into when THEY make threats etc. and if there is any subtext to this, that's what it is.

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Thursday, 26 October 2006 16:31 (nineteen years ago)

my dad was in the air force - that was way before i was born.

and yeah having his country bombed to hell would be a huge problem for kim and his elite, which exactly who the threat was directed at.

the military shouldn't be in the business of diplomacy or intl. relations. but having the top guy yoked into it certainly isn't unheard of.

― jhoshea megafauna (scoopsnoodle), Thursday, 26 October 2006 16:33 (nineteen years ago)

dude what the hell is YOUR point besides killing civilians is bad and that you are unable to figure out what the general could POSSIBLY mean besides "I love killing civilians and can't wait to start" which he clearly did not?

― SOME LOW END BRO (TOMBOT), Thursday, 26 October 2006 16:33 (nineteen years ago)

i said it was just threat.

and i'm the troll.

― jhoshea megafauna (scoopsnoodle), Thursday, 26 October 2006 16:36 (nineteen years ago)

my dad was in the air force - that was way before i was born.

I'm honestly surprised.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 26 October 2006 16:36 (nineteen years ago)

(a) threat

― jhoshea megafauna (scoopsnoodle), Thursday, 26 October 2006 16:38 (nineteen years ago)

scoops, if I thought, like you, that this guy actually was threatening North Korea with gratuitous civilian carnage, I would be outraged. The world would be outraged.

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Thursday, 26 October 2006 16:40 (nineteen years ago)

The United States has said it wants to use diplomacy to resolve its standoff with North Korea

I think people here are misunderstanding the usefulness in this diplomatic effort of reminding North Korea that the US can still fuck them up.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 26 October 2006 16:42 (nineteen years ago)

I'm honestly surprised.

yeah well it went like: air force > hippy > buddhist - so likely what yr thinking is about right.

but contrary to popular belief i'm not coming at this from a totally passivist perspective. i recognize that war is unavoidable and even just sometimes. and as far as bargaining goes, in this fraught situation, everything should at least appear to be on the table.

but this sort of rhetoric is symptomatic of leadership that is too close-minded to see solutions that avoid war. ie even the domino theory seemed sensible in its day.

― jhoshea megafauna (scoopsnoodle), Thursday, 26 October 2006 16:45 (nineteen years ago)

maybe i am misreading this - but i seriously doubt that a guy in his position references the largest military strikes against civilians without some premeditation. and i wouldn't be surprised to hear more of this sort of thing from bush et al post-election.

anyway got to go - check back later.

― jhoshea megafauna (scoopsnoodle), Thursday, 26 October 2006 16:48 (nineteen years ago)

the largest military strikes (in history)

― jhoshea megafauna (scoopsnoodle), Thursday, 26 October 2006 16:49 (nineteen years ago)

geoff otm regarding KJI caring about his civilians. last time i checked, a bunch of north koreans die of starvation every year, KJI wouldnt miss them a bit.

― t0dd swiss (immobilisme), Thursday, 26 October 2006 16:51 (nineteen years ago)

you are missing the point he is making that tracer already elaborated quite well, and andrew farrell said it again, and fluffy bear, etc etc. it will be a brutish, nasty war with lots of carpet bombing because we have no way of knowing where shit is and not enough cruise missiles left - it will be highly unpopular and play really ugly in the press - we would really rather not get into it but if we have to that's what it'll probably look like, because rumsfeld is a piece of shit and i hate working for him.

― SOME LOW END BRO (TOMBOT), Thursday, 26 October 2006 16:51 (nineteen years ago)

Kim is pretty crazy, but I don't think it's particularly crazy to want a nuclear weapon to deter US attack.

The crazy thing is to think that any US higher up even gave 3 seconds thought to the idea of possibly attacking N. Korea before they starting making noise about how they had nuclear weaponry. 90% of the intelligence community did not give a fuck prior to that, which means 99.99999999999999% of the people in power gave even less of a fuck. Just FYI, dude.

― Allyzay Eisenschefter (allyzay), Thursday, 26 October 2006 17:00 (nineteen years ago)

He's not threateneing NK with 'gratuitous' civilian carnage, he's saying that due to limited high-tech resources there will be more unfortunate civilian casualties. This isn't wantonness. He's saying we have the matériel to take on another campaign but not our top grade stuff.

― M. White (Miguelito), Thursday, 26 October 2006 17:01 (nineteen years ago)

A little background on General Pace:

When UPI's Pam Hess asked about torture by Iraqi authorities, Rumsfeld replied that "obviously, the United States does not have a responsibility" other than to voice disapproval..

But Pace had a different view. "It is the absolute responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene, to stop it," the general said..

Rumsfeld interjected: "I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it; it's to report it.".

But Pace meant what he said. "If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it," he said, firmly.

― Fleischhutliebe! like a warm, furry meatloaf (Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows), Thursday, 26 October 2006 17:02 (nineteen years ago)

Not exactly Rumsfeld's stooge

― Fleischhutliebe! like a warm, furry meatloaf (Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows), Thursday, 26 October 2006 17:04 (nineteen years ago)

Not to mention Seoul being a smoking ruin before the B52s get half way across the pacific.

xpost to Tom

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 26 October 2006 17:07 (nineteen years ago)

Deterence doesn't mean that your enemy can't inflict damage, it's about reminding them that the consequences for doing so will be massive and hopefully (assuming facts not in evidence, that they're rational) unacceptable.

― M. White (Miguelito), Thursday, 26 October 2006 17:14 (nineteen years ago)

before the B52s get half way across the pacific

actually, we have forces based in SK, Japan & thereabouts. My Bush-votin' father was once upon a time drafted to go over there and work on missile systems not too far from the DMZ.

Which DoD/JCS guy was it said a coupla weeks ago that Bush was doing "God's Work"?

― kingfish prætor (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 26 October 2006 17:29 (nineteen years ago)

oops, correction, my navy-vet officemate says that the closest B52-sportin' airbase is the Diego Garcia atoll.

― kingfish prætor (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 26 October 2006 17:32 (nineteen years ago)

or Okinawa, Guam, etc. They's all over the place.

― kingfish prætor (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 26 October 2006 17:46 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.