Posted on 05/15/2008 6:23:16 PM PDT by Barbarian6
To better understand the Quranic basis of jihad as practiced by extremists without sifting through a library of interpretations, you should read one book above all others, says Lt. Col. Joseph Myers.
“The Quranic Concept of War,” by Pakistani Brig. Gen. S.K. Malik in the late 1970s, isn’t much studied in the West.
But it should be, Myers said, if America, and more specifically, the U.S. military, wants to gain a better understanding of the enemy in the war on terrorism...
..."I think the significant strategic shortcoming or failing in the war on terror is that we have not gone through the strategic, doctrinal analysis of the enemy, we haven’t distilled and elaborated his threat doctrine."
Q: If you could speak to the members of Congress or members of the federal government, is there anything they could do about that situation?
(Excerpt) Read more at cqpolitics.com ...
Idiot Neo-Cons like Bush lump in Secular Saddam, Shiite Iran and Atheist Kim Jong Il with SUNNI terrorists (The actual perpetrators of 9-11).
“Axis of Evil” anyone?
bookmark
So Korean missiles in Iraq and Iran are just coincidental?
Call me a simpleton, but I don’t think one needs to read a book to know what they’re all about:
They want power to the point where they can dominate anyone that interferes with their desires.
Only one way to deal with them: kill them wherever they crawl.
Okay, you're a simpleton. Perhaps the oldest and most basic of all military maxims is that one should understand the enemy.
His intentions, his capabilities, his motivations.
The greatest generals always fought the enemy and in particular his leadership, not his weaponry. See R.E. Lee. The surge has worked, to the extent it has, largely because of changes in tactics based on a better understanding of how the enemy operates, not because of increased manpower applied in the same old inefficient way.
9/11 happened because we didn't understand this enemy, and therefore drastically underestimated him.
I hate the term “War On Terror”.
Terror is a tactic.
An honest term would be Global War to Eradicate Islam Before Islam Eradicates Us. World War Four, if you like.
I just saw Reuters headline that said “House blocked Iraq war funding, and makes schedule to bring troops home.” The Appropriations Committe gave Bush funding afterwards, but set June 2009 to change troops from combat to training the Iraqis and support. Now some GOPs added extra spending to the New Funding and it could cause Bush to veto. He’ll have money for about a month for troops according to Reuters article. I just don’t see any FIRE in the GOP this time around, and without being fired up to win look out!
The horses rear-ends won’t even wait for the election.
Nancy Pelosi at the helm of a sinking ship...she thinks she’s President, and isn’t waiting. These dem BUZZHEADS will destroy National Security in America.
Bush can’t even visit Israel without the mad dogs foaming at the mouth to get into control. Obama saying he’ll sit down with Ajminajab in Iran is like trying to make a deal with the devil, and knowing in advance he’s lying through his teeth. What a chaotic disaster this bunch will make.
No this is the last war, and when all nations draw up against Israel you will see Jesus split the eastern sky and it will all over but the bloodshed. Rev 19:9-21
Of course holiness will have been gone since Jesus came as a thief to take home the church, and since we are with him in robes of righteousness and indestructable bodies WE WIN!
Rev 16:15,16
"Secular Saddam" was giving sanctuary to SUnni and Shi'a Muslims who killed your fellow citizens while at the same time paying bounty to jihadists for the heads of Jews and Americans.
“Obama saying he’ll sit down with Ajminajab in Iran..”
They share the same religion and philosophy — why shouldn’t they sit down together? Isn’t that a given?
“An honest term would be Global War to Eradicate Islam Before Islam Eradicates Us.”
Tsk, tsk, tsk, this is not a war against Islam but only against jihadists and they are only the minority. There are 49% jihadists abd 51% who silently approve. Together they make up the ROP.
“Rommel... you magnificent bastard, I read your book! “
This one of the oldest maxims in warfare. One of the reasons that the Pubbies are in such a mess is that the neocons lead Bush into Iraq without any plan for what to do there after the relatively trivial matter of getting Sadam out was done.
Another princpal of war is that it will take a lot longer than you think it will and carries with it the danger of bankrupting the treasury.
Why oh why oh why did the Pubbies go to war without a plan? It destroyed Bush's presidency (he sacrificed all for the power to expend blood and treasure in Iraq) and is destroying the Republican party.
Remember, "It wasn't over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!" Who needs to worry about such minor details as our enemies' characteristics.
You know, like how we wasted all our effort fighting the Germans differently from the Japanese...after all, they were allies, so why didn't we just use the same strategies?!?
</sarc>
I’m sure they had a plan, it just turned out to not be a very good one.
Plans are much more easily concocted a few years after the fact. Numerous books have come out recently with the authors claiming that if only their advice had been followed everything would have been wonderful.
Let’s leave aside the fact that many of their plans directly contradict each other. How can anyone state with assurance that things might not have turned out even worse had these prescriptions been implemented?
Bye Bye!
Bump
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1968908/posts?page=18#18
Hey, Kat: the Dems have been lacing some of the war fundking legislation with additions for illegal aliens amnesty. The MSM will not publicize that fact: a quick look at NumbersUSA.com will give you the details.
I know the Dems tried it earlier today with the AG funding bill.
You just blamed us for 9/11!
</sarc>
Saddam Hussein not only violated the Armistice he signed at the end of Desert Storm, (violating it more than a 1000 times! As he never stopped fighting us) he purchased weaponized smallpox in 1998 from a Russian defector for $2Million. (This was independently verified by two individuals who did not know one another; one Russian, the other Iraqi.)
You can read about it in the book, The Demon in the Freezer (it is about WMD, mainly smallpox). One could say that Bush, after 9/11, was experiencing a case of “controlled panic” at the nightmare scenario he inherited from the Clintons.
1. The art of war is of vital importance to the State.
2. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.
The ambiguity is very very intentional. For many states going to war is the road to ruin through ill-formed plans and wasting the blood and treasure of the state. It is the most serious business in which the ruler of a state engages.
“There is no excuse for going to war with no plan and no clear estimate of the enemy. “
You mean there was no casulty-free plan. No such plan exists in an operation of this magnitude. Regarding ‘clear estimate of the enemy’, the enemy consists of al-qaeda and Iranian backed terrorists from all over the world. Demanding a clear estimate of non-conventional foes is unrealistic.
First, no one asked for or asserted that there should be a casualty free plan. Second, you are an idiot if you think that you go to war without a strategy, a strategy that you have worked over in every way possible to make sure it is viable. A strategy means, first, that you know what victory would look like if you could achieve it, second, you know how you will go about achieving it, and third you have the means to do so, even when it turns out to be 3 times as hard as you originally thought (and all wars turn out to be a lot harder than you thought).
The neo cons had no idea what they were going to do after the easy part of getting Sadam out. Let freedom ring is not a strategy. It is a fantasy.
But bottom line - you bushbots need to contemplate - you never ever ever ever deliberately start a war without a strategy. Sure, the Taliban attacked us, and that war was arguably (arguably) involuntary. Our attacking Iraq was entirely voluntary, at a time and place of our own choosing. There was no clear throughtful deliberation.
“First, no one asked for or asserted that there should be a casualty free plan.”
Sure they did. This is why any and all casualties are contributed to ‘having no plan’, a foolish charged initiated by congressional democrats and repeated by their left-wing lemmings and arm-chair general isolationists.
“Second, you are an idiot if you think that you go to war without a strategy”
No, we went in with a stragegy. Unless you’re attempting to call people like Franks an ‘idiot’. Just because there were casualties doesn’t mean that there was no strategy.
“The neo cons had no idea what they were going to do after the easy part of getting Sadam out.”
I distinctly remember a majority on both sides of the isle authorizing Operation Iraqi Freedom. I wasn’t aware that people like Biden, Clinton, Feinstein, Reid, Schumer, and Daschle were ‘neo cons’.
“Let freedom ring is not a strategy. It is a fantasy.”
It’s too late for this criticism. The Iraqis have already elected a democratic form of govnerment and are allied with the U.S. against al-qaeda and Iranian backed terrorists. This is not fantasy.
“But bottom line - you bushbots need to contemplate - you never ever ever ever deliberately start a war without a strategy”
Actually, we didn’t start the war. Saddam restarted the war by refusing to abide by the terms of the cease fire.
Oh, right! The “neo cons have destroyed the Republican Party”.
Not the least bit hesitant about parading your rabid anti-semitism, I see.
Oh Yeah, it’s a given. It just irritates me that the buzzhead claims to be a christian and doesn’t even know the meaning of the word. BLT claimes Jesus was black, and he was a Jew neither black nor white...it just makes me so mad!
I can’t believe that we have HALF A COUNTRY without a brain!
Whattt!!!????? Where did I say that?
It reminds me of the KoolAid drinker, that Jim Jones crowd, just follow the Leader. I wrote about this on my blog last month, it’s called BOBBLEHEADS at:
http://thefreedomplatform.blogspot.com/
I shouldn’t be amazed at these morons, but somehow it just is beyond reason, at how they faun over this naive muslim/marxist.
Absolute nonsense. Not having a plan is why after we booted Sadam, it took several years of messing around until we finally booted out the neocons, Bremer, Feith, Wolfowitz and their lack of a plan and brought in Petraeus who did actually have a clue as to what had to be done.
No, we went in with a stragegy. Unless you’re attempting to call people like Franks an ‘idiot’.
well then, what was that strategy? Franks is well known as a tactician, not a strategist.
I wasn’t aware that people like Biden, Clinton, Feinstein, Reid, Schumer, and Daschle were ‘neo cons’.
They were not the one's pushing for us to go in, or directing the policy offices that set the direction, or lack of it for the war.
Saddam restarted the war by refusing to abide by the terms of the cease fire.
that was the Causus Belli. we chose the time, manner and place of the first attack and subsequent conduct of operations, until we ran out of plan and started relying on knee jerk reaction, which had been our strategy for several subsequent years untli Petraeus came along with a plan.
Asserting we had a strategy for Iraq when we self-evidently did not is not going to get the pubbies out of a well-deserved lynching at the polls.
War is serious business and not for amateurs, like the one's who got us into Iraq or the one's like you who are trying to defend it.
Strategy - you two don't know the first thing about strategy. Answer one question - what would victory in Iraq look like if we could achieve it?
Oh no...do you mean to say you didn’t know that all the neocons are Jewish? They are former Democrats who left that party because it abandonned a strong pro-National Defense stance.
Truly, neocons had nothing to do with the decision to resume war with Saddam Hussein. The situation with Iraq had degraded to the point that there really wasn’t anything else we could do but uphold the terms of the Armistice. As for the smallpox WMD, it was never located but the U.S. today has a large store of smallpox vaccine set aside for such an emergency, something we did not have prior to 9/11.
As a military history buff (how many 14-year old girls can you name owned most of the classic books on war?) and Navy veteran, I know all about not going to war without a plan. But hey! Nobody is supposed to have a baby without its birth being planned, either. FAT CHANCE!
Somethings are just damned hard to plan for.
Victory would look like Germany or Japan. And we are still there. And those wars weren’t planned either, as you already well know!
First, that is merely a fantasy, not the goal of a well articulated strategy. Second that is not a victory that we can achieve in Iraq, whose social and political conditions are the opposite of Germany or Japan, so we might as well stop right now.
Care to try again with an actually achieveable goal.
BS
Well, first, instead of collecting one you should actually read one. Second, there is a special place in hell for those who deliberately repeat a failed pattern in history, hoping that it will turn out differently.
McArthur and Patton and Eisenhower and Nimitz and Stark and Marshall and Roosevelt and Churchill did not have a strategy? The entire submarine campaign in the Pacific was without a plan or a strategy? Now you really are smoking illegal substances.
“Absolute nonsense. “
Yeah, there’s no way the war critics would politicize casualties.
“Franks is well known as a tactician, not a strategist.”
Well, what would a four star general know about strategy, especially compared to someone who runs around on the internet complaining about ‘bushbots’ and ‘neocons’.
“until we ran out of plan and started relying on knee jerk reaction”
Yeah, the bombs that landed on Zarqari’s safe house were purely coincidental.
Well I am a strong supporter of an effective and strong anti-terror policy and have become a violent critic of the current administration and its senseless expenditure of blood (some) and enormous quantities of treasure in entirely frivolous ways. I am not politicizing casualties. I am arguing about the heartless souless putting lives at risk without due concern for ensuring that all blood expended is for valid well defined strategic goals (planned down to the squad level in each deliberate skirmish, as is the grave responsibility of military commanders).
Putting a bomb on Zarqawi's house is a tactic. It is not a strategic goal. We keep getting back to the fact that we went in without clearly articulated strategic goals, didn't even make them up as we went along, and the defenders of this policy, such as you, don't even know what a [-n achievable] strategic goal would look like
” putting lives at risk without due concern for ensuring that all blood expended is for valid well defined strategic goals “
The strategic goals for Operation Iraqi Freedom are listed within the congressional authorization.
“Putting a bomb on Zarqawi’s house is a tactic. It is not a strategic goal.”
Eliminated threats to the security of an allied, democratic Iraq is a strategic goal. Killing leaders of AQI is part of this strategic goal.
First, you are begging lots of questions in your statement, the resolution of whihc are profoundly important in developing a strategy. Second. like I said, you are clueless as to what a strategy looks like.
BTW large number of experienced 4 stars have also criticized this government for not having a strategy in Iraq, not that I put the opinions of others over my own knowledge, experience and analysis, but for those who are persuaded by opinion - there you are.
Besides all of which, persuading me - which you are not going to do - is competely irrelevant. You need to go convince all the voters who are ready to lynch the Republican party over just these issues. Insulting them, etc. will not make them adherents to your cause.
“BTW large number of experienced 4 stars have also criticized this government for not having a strategy in Iraq”
like who?
“Insulting them, etc.”
Like calling them bushbots, telling them they are clueless, accusing them of being on drugs,ect...Those kind of insults? Our strategic goals are listed within the congressional authorization, which includes removing from power Saddam’s regime and replacing that regime with a democratic government. This has been achived. This is what you refer to as ‘fantasy’. Infuriated at our success in achieving such goals, you spout nonsense.
What strategically important goals have we achieved? Decreased terrorist threat? HAH? Improved access to oil supplies? You've got to be kidding with oil at $127 a barrel? Greater strategic mobility and ability to respond to emerging issues? We are more despised around the world than ever - even the Saudis are now kicking us around. And we are so up to our eyeballs in hock and with a dropping dollar, and a banking system that is teetering on the edge of ruin that it will be a long time before we try another bootless escapade like this one.
We do not have a stable democratic government in power in Iraq, and have severely weakened the power of the US in the process. Which strategic goal did we achieve again?
Them that thunk we did not have a strategy in WWII, yes, those uns are just slightly clueless.
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.