Posted on 09/24/2012 11:24:09 AM PDT by arthurus
The Nation Building in Iraq and Afghanistan was clearly a mistake. It was clearly in the best interests of the world, especially in the interest of stifling communism in WWII
The victory in WWII was clear and unambiguous
The premise that Iraq/Afghanistan simply needed “stuff” to become a democracy was the error.
Not letting them wallow in their defeat, and not treating them like the enemy they are was also a mistake.
the passage I quoted about Victory was our president commenting about just what sort of victory we would get in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was right about one thing. we did not achieve a victory as we did in WWII.
Unfortunately if victory is not as recognizable as it was in WWII, it’s probably not a victory.
Point is nation building was the endgame. Does it matter that it wasn’t the plan from the get-go? Granted, it wasn’t. Churchill, FDR, etc. were shockingly shortsighted. They ended up with nation building, and therefore that is what the war was fought for.
Victory was recognizable in WWII, certainly. But I think the whole big bloody mess that is modern warfare ought to realize victory isn’t everything. That was the big mistake in the climax of stupidity that was WWI, but also to a lesser degree in the supposedly “good war.”
“But I think the whole big bloody mess that is modern warfare ought to realize victory isn’t everything.”
Victory is at least 50% of any conflict, so you’re right, it isn’t everything.
Sorry, but it makes a WORLD officer difference to the American people. Just remember that correlation does not imply causation.
Nation building was not the end game, it was the end result - two totally different things.
If you are playing a game of football and the other team fires their coach because his team lost does not imply that you were playing to get him fired.
But war is not a game, and it is mott over when the whistle blows. Because there is no whistle. Not to say that what happens thirty years down the road is still part of the last war, but certainly occupation, settlement, demilitarization, installation of new government, etc., are.
Now, you may define terms in such a way as to restrict warfare to physical combat, in which case I must agree nation building came afterwards. But that’s not the way people talk, and anyway it’s not the conversation I want to have. If what comes after major combat operations is not war, let us call it “x” and agree the “x” if WWII was nation building.
“it makes a WORLD of difference to the Amrrican people”
What does? Knowing we won and crushed the Nazi/Hun and made the world safe fir the UN? Naturally. But what does that have to do with what we’re talking about, exactly?
“correlation does not imply causation”
Huh?
Oh, wait, you meant it makes a difference to the People whether it was the plan all along. No, it doesn’t. We only pretend like it does when things end up badly. Ot should I say really obviously badly, since the tragedies that were post-WWI and II got by almost everyone.
Leftists of all varieties always fear the military and feel they must tame it and get it under their immediate control or replace it when they accede to power. This President is even more ambitious in that respect than Clinton was. He is creating or has created a Praetorian Guard, his civilian force that is to be as well funded as the military. There are several parts to that, TSA, ICE, various Federal agencies that have been armed since 2008 and the militarized police departments in the cities.
I think we will find out more about the shape of this Civilian Force after November 6.
I’m sorry, but that IS how people talk. The war ended when arms were put down and the vanquished accept whatever terms of the victor.
Everything AFTER that is not war.
Nation building occurred in correlation with the end results of WWII, but nation building is NOT what CAUSED WWII.
If you think that doesn’t matter, then you are surely mistaken and you can see that in the American response to Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and even more so in the LACK of interest in the “Arab Spring” fighting over the last two years. Americans do NOT want to nation build, and when politicians start to do that, they lose favor with the American public (see George W. Bush as an example).
Nation building occurred in correlation with the end results of WWII, but nation building is NOT what CAUSED WWII.
If you think that doesn’t matter, then you are surely mistaken and you can see that in the American response to Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and even more so in the LACK of interest in the “Arab Spring” fighting over the last two years. Americans do NOT want to nation build, and when politicians start to do that, they lose favor with the American public (see George W. Bush as an example).
Nation building occurred in correlation with the end results of WWII, but nation building is NOT what CAUSED WWII.
If you think that doesn’t matter, then you are surely mistaken and you can see that in the American response to Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and even more so in the LACK of interest in the “Arab Spring” fighting over the last two years. Americans do NOT want to nation build, and when politicians start to do that, they lose favor with the American public (see George W. Bush as an example).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.