My Very Brief Thoughts on Our Current War
I am of the belief that the only way we can loose the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is if we quit. Militarily we would be nearly impossible to defeat in both of these arenas. I think that if we continue to screw around as we are doing now, we will be at it forever. If we do what we were supposed to do in the beginning, bulk up, go over there, and fight a war, than the war would most probably come to a quick close. It is my opinion that our biggest wrong-doing in this entire war was going into it half-ass, which in many respects would fall under the heading of "under-estimating your opponent" or even "not doing your homework before class".
As silly as it sounds I often find myself remembering something my mother told me numerous times as a child. This phrase comes back to me every time I think about our progress in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Stop playing with your food and just eat!"
Food for thought: The new Secretary of Defense used the occasion to state that "failure in Iraq at this juncture would be a calamity that would haunt our nation, impair our credibility and endanger Americans for decades to come." He added that "the next two years will determine whether Iraq, Afghanistan and other nations at a crossroads will pursue paths of gradual progress towards sustainable governments which are allies in the global war on terrorism or whether the forces of extremism and chaos will become ascendant."
Thoughts/Comments?
Click Here
7 comments:
Your opinion applies to actual wars. The war over there is 'guerilla war.' It's not one big army against another army. Massive attacks and assaults will result in huge civilian losses which will generate more resentment against the US (it's already growing). This war, in its current shape and form, is un-winnable.
I agree that this is a very different type of war that we are currently engaged in. This of course, adds a whole new degree of difficulty. Massive attacks will result in huge civilian loses.
All wars end in one of the following ways. 1. Complete and total annihilation of the other person's forces. 2. Surrender 3. Peace talks that both sides agree too.
I don't see anyone surrendering, and I honestly feel that peace talks are out of the question as one side doesn't seem to truly want to work the issue out and compromise, or may not even truly want peace. So that leaves option one. It is unfortunate, and no one with any morals likes it, but all past wars with a definite end and outcome were fought using option one. Currently we are not using option one, and because of this, you are very correct when you say "This war, in its current shape and form, is un-winnable."
On a side-note, the resentment towards the United States already exists with or without the civilian loses, and has for a very long time. I don't see that going away no matter what we do. I will concede that option one will not lessen the resentment.
What's the thing with "winning"? You're NOT THERE TO WIN. Ok?
Both occasions, the aim was to "help" the nations concerned. I think we've "helped" enough.
The warlords are back in power in Afganistan, and Iraq is an unstable wreck.
It's not about winning, whatever president dimwit says.
It is not about the US winning, it's about the people of Iraq and Afganistan having self determination. The Iraqi people don't seem to like being occupied. "We" should go.
Afganistan... it was the USSR's "Vietnam", and it could be another today. How about we make sure there's no arms selling going on, and just leave slowly. It's not our country; let the Afgan people deal with it.
If the only option for "winning" the war is "total annihilation of the other person's forces"... that's awkward, because in Iraq, increasingly that would mean annihilation of most of the population.
Or, as anon says, we can carry on, kill loads of civillians, and make a generation of people hate "The West". Great policy.
"What's the thing with "winning"? You're NOT THERE TO WIN. Ok?
Both occasions, the aim was to "help" the nations concerned. I think we've "helped" enough.
The warlords are back in power in Afganistan, and Iraq is an unstable wreck.
It's not about winning, whatever president dimwit says.
It is not about the US winning, it's about the people of Iraq and Afganistan having self determination. The Iraqi people don't seem to like being occupied. "We" should go."
We have to win in order to be able to fully complete the transition. We can't go now, half of what we set out to do isn't complete. It must be complete. Completion is winning. It also does us no good to take away one evil dictator so another can take his place.
"Afganistan... it was the USSR's "Vietnam", and it could be another today. How about we make sure there's no arms selling going on, and just leave slowly. It's not our country; let the Afgan people deal with it."
We have let them deal with it for years, and it didn't get dealt with. Hence the terrorists setting up shop there and using it as home base to do their best to ruin the western world. I am not going to be the one to say we should let them have it back, and I don't think they have completely taken it back. They are trying though.
"If the only option for "winning" the war is "total annihilation of the other person's forces"... that's awkward, because in Iraq, increasingly that would mean annihilation of most of the population."
I think you are over generalizing with statement just a bit. If that is what you truly believe then I can see where you may be concerned.
"Or, as anon says, we can carry on, kill loads of civillians, and make a generation of people hate "The West". Great policy."
They already hate us and have for years. I don't see that changing no matter what we do at this point.
I commend your thought of all those who are trapped in the middle in both countries. I am also glad you stopped in, as I like the fact that you stand up and disagree when you feel it is necessary, and aren't afraid to do so, as so many are.
There was once an excellent norm of international law, which was "don't interfere with the internal affairs of a sovereign nation".
It was a good norm to have.
Look at the US from your "enemy's" point of view. Based on your actions, they would conclude it's ok to attack the US, on the grounds they don't like your president. That is the lesson the US (/ UK) is teaching the world.
You shouldn't attack a soveriegn country unless it attacks you. Terrorism, I'm sorry, is not enough. You deal with that in a smaller way. War against terrorism is like taking a hammer to try and kill a virus. It won't work, but it'll make a big mess.
Don't think people hated America; there's plenty of evidence that "the man on the street" around the world looked up to America, until the past few years. Current interventionist, pre-emptive policy is breeding hatred that didn't exist.
Imagine your government wasn't powerful enough to control the wayward state of.. Kansas, for example, and people there were training to attack Canada. Would you be OK with France and Scotland sending armies into the US to "attack the terrorists", accepting that meant bombing YOUR country, and compatriots?
We were attacked. On our own soil. It was terrorism, and in was more than enough grounds. We lost a huge national landmark, but more importantly we lost a confirmed 4,167 people, and possibly others. I think that the families of all of those INNOCENT CIVILIANS would disagree with you when they see you say that terrorism is not enough to constitute our actions. Please keep in mind, we wouldn't have begun the global war on terrorism had this not occurred.
As far as Kansas? Well, this country would never let anything go that far. (Shame on you for picking on Kansas.) The people here are happy and are treated well.
Also, remember, there was a time when a portion of the country decided it didn't like being part of the whole. We took care of that then, and if it ever were to happen again, we would take care of it again.
If for some strange reason they went after Canada, and we, as a nation, stood by, watched, harbored, funded, armed and protected them while they conducted this evil, then I am sure that there would be repercussions from other nations, and I would expect no less.
Americans are very good at policing their own though. It won't happen in my life time as I know the mentality of this nation.
As far as a few years ago, and the American's being looked up to? You would be hard pressed to convince me of that with the traveling I did then. Too many of them loathed us even then, but thought at least I wouldn't have noticed.
You shouldn't attack a soveriegn country unless it attacks you. Terrorism, I'm sorry, is not enough.
So I guess that puts you in the "let the Darfur genocide continue" camp as well?
And let the NORK's invade south Korea at will...
And let the Bosnian slaughter's go unanswered...
And don't bother with WWI at all or Germany in WWII.
Think its bad now? Your world would be a pretty frigging scary place in about 5 years.
Post a Comment