Skip to comments.America and Future Wars
Posted on 05/31/2012 6:30:54 AM PDT by Kaslin
On Sunday, Sept. 2, 1945, aboard the battleship USS Missouri at the end of ceremonies marking the unconditional surrender of Japan and the formal end of World War II, Gen. Douglas MacArthur spoke for a world weary of war and hoping for peace: "Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always."
That prayer was not answered as Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and a host of regional and tribal conflicts have preserved war, not peace, as the means by which too many attempt to settle their differences.
With U.S. combat operations in Iraq effectively over and Afghanistan in the process of winding down (for us, if not for the resilient enemy) there will be little rest between wars as Iran now appears to be the next target.
Politicians start wars, generals plan strategy to wage them and soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen (not to mention civilians) die in them. Since the beginning of the human race, people have sought ways to prevent wars, but every attempt at bringing lasting, or even short-term peace, has failed.
At the United States Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., there are some who are now asking the hard questions about America's role in warfare. Elisabeth Bumiller of The New York Times wrote about it in a story with the headline, "West Point Asks if a War Doctrine Was Worth It."
The discussion, even debate, at West Point is first about the effectiveness of counterinsurgency in places like Afghanistan. Col. Gian P. Gentile, director of West Point's military history program, is quoted as saying that counterinsurgency could work in Afghanistan if the United States makes a multi-decade commitment: "I'm talking 70, 80, 90 years," he said. With many countries, including France, pulling out of Afghanistan (in France's case earlier than previously expected due to orders from the country's new president) and with shattered economies in need of rebuilding, including our own, this leads to a larger question: Can America afford to virtually "go it alone" in defense of the liberty of others who are not willing, or able, to bear the burden and pay the price for their own freedom?
I'm not sure there is a satisfactory answer to the question but it is a question that needs to be debated since we always seem to be the ones who pay the highest price. "Is it worth it?" How will we measure worthiness? These are questions at the heart of the debate.
Former President George W. Bush said, "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here." But we are already fighting them here as demonstrated by Sept. 11, 2001, the Ft. Hood shootings and numerous other successful and unsuccessful attacks.
Somewhere between "come home, America," which would lead to isolationism and intervention in every conflict there is a pragmatic approach to war that America should consider. This ought to be an issue in the upcoming election, but it won't be unless journalists ask the right questions and demand answers from those who have, or are seeking, the power to start or join wars and send our sons and daughters to fight and perhaps die in them.
Perhaps a return to the constitutional principle that only Congress has the power to declare war would help. That is what Rep. Ron Paul argued for during the presidential primary. He raised an important issue, one that should be discussed now, before the next war starts and American leaders decide another generation of young people should fight it.
How about making a declaration of war the responsibility of Congress and the off spring of all who vote in favor must be the first to serve in any war?
And every conflict we have had since has been either a "Conditional" surrender, or merely a "Cease of Hostilities". We don't have the spine to fight a war anymore. We fight until the resistance goes down to some level - then wave a flag and declare a 'Victory' and walk away. The noise going on in Iraq, Afghanistan, the crap going on in "our ally" Pakistan would not have been tolerated under any "real" leadership.
How about we beat them, and keep pounding them until they come crawling out of their caves and beg us to stop? We stop only when they surrender without condition, without stipulation and without reservation. Their leaders are forced to humble themselves (as both Germany and Japan were) and sign the Unconditional Surrender in front of our military leaders. That is how you 'win' a war.
We have to sneak into "our ally" Pakistan, peform a raid on a compound that appears to be under Pakistan's protection, find and kill a terrorist responsible for the death of 3,000+ innocent, unarmed American civilians, and the Pakistani sentence a MD to 30 years for helping us?
And, to top it all off, we are giving them in excess of $3 Billion in aide every year, and even more this year.
Libtards haven't learned the lesson most everyone learns by 3rd grade ... "You can't buy friends". Pakistan is "nobody's friend"..
Things will change now with our front-line military loaded with fags, lesbos and pregnant (or soon to be pregnant) women.
Watch the evildoers cower when we unleash our all female crewed submarines on them.
I have advocated that since I came ‘home’ in March of 1969.
Unfortunately, the current “Laws of Land Warfare” seem to boil down to “The United States is not allowed to win the war.”
As to friends, judge by actions and not by protestations.
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.