Posted on 09/06/2003 5:57:12 PM PDT by blam
Yes, and I think it is based on a deep-seated mistrust of all things Anglo Saxon. And I am not in favor of fighting a proxy war on behalf of the Hindus. Moreover, I think that attacking Iraq first and eliminating its ability to strike at our flanks or at Israel was wise.
I just find myself waiting for the next blow to fall on our enemies, and it increasingly appears that our leadership is afraid to face the worst of the situation.
I had two things in mind when I said that: first, the Iraq war is not done yet, and I think we should have waited to declare victory. Second, compared to what has to be done, it may not seem like it was so difficult, and yet we seem to be resting on our laurels. With Korea and Pakistan, there are real nuclear threats to manage. We may have to accept a great deal of risk to eliminate our enemies. I think Americans were prepared for that in the spring of 2003, but our focus has been diminished by the PR campaign.
Give the Prez credit on the fact that he is looking at the situation now and not historically, and using what he can of Pakistan's help. It's a balancing act, to not turn them agains tus and thereby turn Pakistan into a nuclear-armed safe haven for terrorists . . .
I've been saying exactly the same thing for two years. It's now almost 9/11/2003. I'm still waiting to see the promises of crossing any border, crushing any and all terrorists, and making their protectors pay. The roadmap is a complete farce in that respect. It's been a waste of precious Israeli life, and a humiliation for all of us. Those responsible for it in this administration must be asked to resign, or else we have to ask what other doubts we should be having?
A long fight.
That's what we said at the beginning of the Cold War. It's what CFR (Council for Foreign Relations) told us about the Soviet union in the middle of the Vietnam war. It's what Carter believed. And after defeating the Soviet union and soundly trouncing Iraq, Clinton was afraid to challenge North Korea. Reagan proved that we could win the Cold War if we had faith, and were willing to sacrifice. And we could win it in a decade, not a series of lifetimes. Can't we also do better now? All of America, centrist Democrats, conservative Democrats, Republicans, and many Libertarians are behind a sweep to victory. Why haven't we used that consensus to really take this war to a level that corresponds to the 9/11 attacks? I sense a timidity on the part of the administration: keep the casualty count down, restrain the military, appease the home front that appears devided due to the cacaphony on the far left. Meanwhile the Taliban regroups, the Iranians fashion their bombs, and Pakistan loses moderate political control, or maybe never had it. We can do better. I just want GW to know that we actually expect it. He has our support because we believed he would do what he said. I'm waiting.
Their government was chased from power, and their fighters were dispersed.
Defeated means that they are broken and are amenable to our will.
That is not true in Afgahnistan, and it is not true in Iraq.
Actually a government being forced from power by opposing military force is an excellent example of being defeated. And that fact that both the current governments of Afphanistan and Iraq are working with us and supporting our efforts would indicate that they are pretty amenable to our will.
There are degrees of victory and defeat. It is ok to say that the enemy had been defeated on the battlefield without implying that the war is over. As this clearly is the case. I think that we need to be very care not to come up with an all or nothing standard for victory (not accusing you of that).
Hmmm. The US did in 3 mos. what the Soviets couldnt do in 10 years..
The three months is misleading in that sense, though. The Taliban weren't supported by another superpower. But the Afghanistan conflict in the '80s was really a hot point in the wider Cold War. The Soviet "local" best was against our covert/remote best. Unfortunately, the Taliban started believing that because they were able to drive out the Soviets with our help, they could do anything.
The Taliban are sexually confused, goat-herding drug lords with a penchant for SUVs and highway robbery. But Pakistan has nukes, and I don't believe for a minute that Pakistan is under strict control of moderates. We may wake up one day and find that Pakistan has had another junta, and by the way their nukes are all scattered over the mideast and are ready to fire unless Israel agrees to pack up and leave, America departs from the entire region, and India leaves Kashmir.
Fire ants bite, it is their nature to do so, and like these sorry suicidal Rags there are millions of them waiting their turn.
I know politically disengaged Muslims who sound more like leftist Democrats or Michael Moore fans than religious zealots. One mentions the Reformation, and points that that Islam hasn't had one yet. I'd rather not turn these people against us with official hate language, even if we all have our doubts, especially Homeland Security. What we say to the world doesn't have to be what we use to tailor our security profiling efforts.
Fire ants bite, it is their nature to do so, and like these sorry suicidal Rags there are millions of them awaiting their turn.
Oh, but I am guilty, whether you accuse me or not.
War is a fascinating study. It has laws that it follows, almost like astrophysics. There are reasons man likes it so much, principally because it renders decisions that mere politicians are incapable of.
Victory in war is, by definition, all or nothing. The victors get to dictate terms to the losers, not because the losers now like the victors, or because the victors now can get a favorable UN resolution.
The victors power is such that they can seize the losers' treasure, rape their women, occupy their land, and treat them like slaves, to the extent that they desire.
That is victory.
And that is what is missing from our "victories" in the "war" on terrorism, and from Israel's war against the Arabs.
Now, you may say, such a victory is not necessary to accomplish our political ends. We shall see.
Allowing an undefeated enemy to exist at all, when they have articulated the desire, and demonstrated the capability, to kill our women and children, is not civilized-it is effete to the point of suicidality.
There is every reason to still fear our enemies-and that's not victory, by any definition.
Boy, your Hindu frinds are smart!
Pakistan is like Mordor, where armies of orcs are being prepared to storm our cities.
There is no substitute for victory.
Islam must be confronted and completely discredited for the aggressive psychosis it is, or we have done nothing but play a little kid's war game.
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.