Posted on 02/26/2011 7:59:10 AM PST by fight_truth_decay
Why should we do it again? The world is less dangerous with a less activist foreign policy. The USA has been thew world's policeman too long. The nation is drowning in red ink.
I don't support nation building. I don't support politically correct wars. I think Iraq and Afghanastan need to be lessons learned.
However, the Taliban need to be taken out, and Bin Laden needs to be found. Destroy them, don't rebuild, take their opium crops as tribute, and go home.
I took that whole quote as "scapegoatish"....
"Iraq and Afghanistan had become known as “the captains' wars” because “officers of lower and lower rank were put in the position of making decisions of higher and higher degrees of consequence and complexity.”
Then I tried to justify our "training" of the Afghan and Iraqi forces in as they, he meant, their captains were making decisions that were not of their expertise for success..but I admit he didn't say that.
How will a Captain respond to Gates' remark?
What should be said is that we will never invade another country with a large army and attempt nation building. We should go in with a scorched-earth policy. We need to put Muslim counties back to the stone age.
No, when are attacked again, we should attack those who attacked us, not (as in the case of Iraq) a secular dictator who never attacked us. Not a single one of the 9-11 attackers was an Iraqi.
Riase your hand if you’ve actually seen him in person. Guess I’m the only one. I’ve seen him interact with soldiers. He loves and cares for them as if they are his own kids. The same talking points he says in this speech I could find in many comments from fellow Freepers regarding the decision to invade Iraq or Afghanistan in hindsight.
And I do admit this White House is real quick to tell every foreign leader how to run their country which in turns sends a message, often support to friends/enemies [given their distinction at the time].
Every conflict is different which faces us directly.
I am just stuck on the low low "captains' war" remark and when did he have this great revelation? And good-bye, see ya cadets.
If Gates had included this in his comments, I think most would agree American military invlovement overseas (i.e. Iraq and A'stan) can not happen again.
What is he doing then serving a man who willfully undercut the troops when they were in the field?
Good to know, thanks.
I also saw witnessed Bush was around the soldiers, and an impromtu send off and just the courtesy to people in general, when not up there expected to face "the nation".
When the Chiefs of the MSM wouldn't find these times important to really cover.
Not really. The top brass in the military are like the Vicar of Brent...who was twice a Catholic, twice a Protestant and when asked if he had any principles answered, "I have but one principle...to live and die as the Vicar of Brent". The prime principle in the top brass is to retire with 4 stars and full pension. Everything else is secondary.
[”witnessed how Bush was around the soldiers” ..sorry am “low low” in writing skills this am]
Down with Gates, the sooner the better.
Gates has always been a liberal, and his comments here totally disrespect the man who put him in his position. By and large he has done a terrible job.
His comment is ignorant. First, because America needs to be prepared to fight a war anyplace on the globe. Second, there is more than one way to fight a war, and America does NOT have an obligation to rebuild or build anything out of any attacked nation. Both Afghan and Iraq could as easily been fought as “attack, topple, disarm, depart” wars. Third, the entire US Congress approved the war on Afghanistan.
Gates gets no support from me.
Gates is wrong on many levels. Foolishly so.
What we are facing with militant islamonazism is a world wide guerilla war. Not all muslims support Bin Laden and his ilk. Most would prefer to not live in the 7th century. They should be recruited as allies.
I began studying guerilla warfare in 1966. Our efforts in this very long war have been noble, but we must continually improve our strategy and tactics. Our actions should be effective while spending the minimum in blood and treasure. My suggestions:
1. Declare war on islamonazi IDEOLOGY and LEADERS regardless of what they call themselves, what country they live in, and what citizenship they hold. I mean a real Declaration of War by both houses of Congress and signed by Pres. Palin. This allows us to go after the enemy EVERYWHERE. The terrorists know no boundaries and neither should we.
2. Expand our cultural options and do as they do in the Middle East: Employ assassins and spies.
In any guerilla war, the best man to send after the guerilla is a local boy who knows the culture, language, etc. and can blend in. If we can take out Ahmadinejad and 40,000 of his followers at a rally in Tehran with a MOAB...cool. If we send a single mercenary to poison an imam in Saudi Arabia...very cost effective.
Take out the imams (Enemy Leadership) and the people who finance them (Logistics). Let them know there is a price to be paid.
3. Exploit inter-tribal warfare, national rivalries, and local feuds. We have been fairly successful with this strategy so far. We need to enshrine it as a pillar of our strategy.
4. Capture should be preferred over killing the enemy. In accordance with the Geneva Convention, POWs can be held until hostilities are over which, in this war, means NEVER! Jihadis don’t fear death, but they fear a lifetime of cruel incarceration and interrogation. Our enemies must know that when captured, THEY ARE NEVER GOING HOME AGAIN.
I suggest using private contractors who are paid to incarcerate the jihadis and extract intel from them while never disclosing where they are kept. They cannot be freed if no one knows where they are. How about a converted tanker sailing far from sea lanes?
5. When possible, capture the families of jihadis and put them in shelters for abused spouses and children. Once again, DO WHAT THE ENEMY FEARS MOST. Jihadis fear losing religious and ideological control of their women and children. If it strikes fear into their hearts, it is a DETERRENT BETTER THAN DEATH.
6. In the long run we need to bring muslims into the 21st century. The young people are restless. We need to ally ourselves with the leaders (cultural, religious, and political) who want to bring their people out of darkness.
There are alternatives such as genocide. However, even Machiavelli, who had much wisdom to teach, would counsel that it is a bad idea to kill off your allies or sell them out. It ruins your reputation as a country.
Looking back at other wars that went badly in the beginning, e.g., WWII, we need to have vigorous debate over the right course of action in this war. I am all for constructive critique of our past efforts while respecting that our soldiers and leaders, e.g., Rumsfield, did the best they could.
As for the idea that we should not attack those who never attacked us, one might recall that Germany never attacked us in 1941 either.
Have a nice day.
Great idea. Pull up the drawbridge and let the crazies of the world have at. Let every whackjob totalitarian acquire nukes, but we will be safe in our little America as long as we stay uninvolved. I'm sure their conflicts/wars will never reach our shores. Pfft.
Ps. The DOD budget and world aid (which IS a waste) are the least of our economic problems. Entitlements are the problem and the biggest part of our economic deficit.
The US, post-hanging, should have withdrawn immediately and told the Iraqis "the rest is up to you, but if you screw up your choices, "ve'll be bock"" (to paraphrase der Schwarzer/Terminator).
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.