CENTCOM, Official posture for 2006 – And it’s all about the terrorism

Long (boring) read people, but CENTCOM has released its official posture for 2006. And it highlights the war on terrorism and the USA’s position.

If you want to know what the official mindset is, here it is, literally spelled out in black and white. All you quote freaks out there have it from the horse’s mouth from now on, no excuse for bad material.

I read portions of it (will read it all later) and it seems well written and concise. It’s nice to see real words by the real people who are making the decisions and doing the work. You can watch Presidential speeches and addresses till your blue in the face, but this document is written by the people who make the day to day decisions and run the program.

From what I have read so far, I have new feelings of competency for our military leaders.

CENTCOM Posture Statement

Here is a bit selected by BlackFive:

...Al Qaida and ideologically-linked groups such as Ansar al Islam, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, al Ittihad al Islami, Jemaah Islamiyah, and Ansar al Sunna represent the main enemy to long-term peace and stability in the CENTCOM AOR, promoting and thriving on instability and violence. They challenge our partners in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. They attack our friends in Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Morocco, Madrid, and London. Although we have not experienced another attack on our homeland, the enemy that brought us 9/11 continues to represent a clear and unambiguous threat to our country.

This enemy seeks to topple local governments, establish a repressive and intolerant regional theocracy, and then extend its violence to the rest of the world. To effect such change, this enemy believes it must evict the United States and our Coalition allies from the region. Masking their true intentions with propaganda, rhetoric, and a sophisticated use of the mass media and the internet, this enemy exploits regional tensions and popular grievances. Al Qaida and its associated movements exhibit strategic patience and are willing to wait decades to achieve their goals.

These extremists defame the religion of Islam by glorifying suicide bombing, by taking and beheading hostages, and by the wanton use of explosive devices that kill innocent people by the score. Their false jihad kills indiscriminately and runs contrary to any standard of moral conduct and behavior. The enemy’s vision of the future would create a region-wide zone that would look like Afghanistan under the Taliban. Music would be banned, women ostracized, basic liberties banished, and soccer stadiums used for public executions. The people of the region do not want the future these extremists desire. The more we talk about this enemy, the more its bankrupt ideology will become known. But more important, the more that regional leaders talk about and act against this enemy, the less attractive it will be. Osama bin Laden and Musab al Zarqawi cannot represent the future of Islam...

That’s a very small snippet, as the document is huge.

Yeah, thanks for that skippy, it was an informative "official" read. Now I wonder what the REAL posture is. Surely, you don't think they are gonna broadcast that, do ya?

Why do we keep saying we have so many allies?

There are under 40,000 foreign troops that are fighting in the war on terrorism. Is that really having allies? There should be an equal amount of foreign troops as there are US troops. We have committed alot of effort into the war, other countries have sent very little.


As far as our plan, I really did'nt see one. It highlights the broad problems but does not say HOW or WHEN they are going to solve any of the problems (besides the obvious saying that they WANT TO). It lists Iran and Syria as the two biggest supporters of terrorism, as well as mentioning Iran's intention to develop WMD's. But there is no mention of Military action against those countries despite being our enemies in the war on terrorism.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by ImplementOfWar]

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Yeah, thanks for that skippy, it was an informative "official" read. Now I wonder what the REAL posture is. Surely, you don't think they are gonna broadcast that, do ya?

Its good enough for me. Official or not its well written and until I see otherswise true and accurate.

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
There are under 40,000 foreign troops that are fighting in the war on terrorism. Is that really having allies? There should be an equal amount of foreign troops as there are US troops. We have committed alot of effort into the war, other countries have sent very little.

That is a pretty dumb statement.
How can you expect countries with a fraction of the USA population to send that many military personal ?

Originally posted by skippytjc
Its good enough for me. Official or not its well written and until I see otherswise true and accurate.

I might agree on the true part, and maybe even the accurate. The one adjective you left out was incomplete. That was a previously classified report, and there are probably several subsections missing.

Actually it reads like what many Americans wants to heard. Like everything the interpretations can vary depending of the goal been achieved.

I agree taking in consideration that the War on terror is solely an American issue created by the present administration is actually our own country the one taking all the responsibility to finance and provided with the man power to fight it.

Other countries are optional.

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
Why do we keep saying we have so many allies?

There are under 40,000 foreign troops that are fighting in the war on terrorism. Is that really having allies?
---[snip]---
We have committed alot of effort into the war, other countries have sent very little.

I wouldn’t quickly cut so short the contributions of other countries in lieu of troops and boots.

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
But there is no mention of Military action against those countries despite being our enemies in the war on terrorism.

One can not expect or allow a paper to the Senate Armed Services Committee from CentCom to outline parameters outside its’ mandated realm or dictate diplomatic policy.

mg

I agree taking in consideration that the War on terror is solely an American issue created by the present administration is actually our own country the one taking all the responsibility to finance and provided with the man power to fight it.

Marge fundamental terrorism and its war against the US has been going on now for the better part of 25 years. The only new thing is that this President, unlike his predecessors, chose to do something about it and chose to confront it.

I disagree with you westpoint, I agree that terrorism has existed for many decades not years.

Bush tagging his crusade war on terror was in order to cover up his agenda to get into Iraq and to sugar coated the unbelievable spending he has this country into.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Marge fundamental terrorism and its war against the US has been going on now for the better part of 25 years. The only new thing is that this President, unlike his predecessors, chose to do something about it and chose to confront it.

:shakes head :

You have a convenient memory while I agree that terrorism has been around for quite a while you seem to overlook the fact that in the Past the US government gave aid to some of its future enemys.
Remember when Saddam was a friend of the US government ?
How many regimes did the US government put in place during the cold war rather then deal with left wing governments that were democratically elected ?

I would be willing to bet money that Pakistan will be considered a rogue regime with in 20 - 30 years.
Dont you think that your point of view is to simple and overlooks history ?


[edit on 16-3-2006 by xpert11]

[edit on 16-3-2006 by xpert11]