Posted on 02/05/2006 7:16:31 PM PST by ExSoldier
Okay, being a published author myself, I can see your angle here. Florid and maudlin? Well, maybe. However, I don't think that syntax and verbiage are a cover for a weak argument in this case. YOU may not agree with the discourse or the conclusions reached, but that doesn't make them weak anymore than your mere assertion makes you right.
Still, this entire monument to criticism of what we are currently doing vs. what the always-dissatisified would- be generals want is all too recognizable.
As one responder aptly put: "This is entertainment for some people out there"...indeed it is.
No suicide bomber can "stagger" our government....
If you've travelled to Israel before 1994 and then after the 2nd intifada, you understand how random suicide bombings have changed the workings of an entire society.
Yours is an even stronger example.
Ralph Peters, you make me laugh for your lack of research and lack of intelligence.
Self ping to read and think about
This guy is a retired army officer and being a former army captain myself, I'll bet the army got him a master's degree in international relations. That's a safe bet since he's authored 21 books along the same vein. I'll just bet those publishers kept going along with the expense of printing and promoting because they just knew his lack of research wouldn't make them any money! With that in mind....lack of intelligence? Well, it takes one to know one, I guess....
To quibble, those weren't suicide bombers, just bombers. Spain had serious potential for regime change regardless - the effect had less to do with the bombings than with the government's response to the bombings.
The strategic goal was to weaken international support for US ops in Iraq - and they were already pretty weak.
More to the point, Peters argues the suicide bombers are so effective that a modern military cannot cope with them, and therefor a modern military does not need modern military equipment. Fortunately, I believe his views will be about as strategically effective as the suicide bombers - convincing only those who are already convinced.
Peters argues the suicide bombers are so effective that a modern military cannot cope with them, and therefor a modern military does not need modern military equipment.
I don't think Peters is saying any such thing. He makes an astute point that our military senior leadership wants the next sexy weapons system to fight their classic war and that scenario is growing ever more remote....well unless you throw China into the mix and even then it won't be tanks and infantry. Believe me, speaking as a former Armor Officer, that hurt to write!
It is the age of asymmetrical warfare. The most effective force in dealing with this form of terrorist (I refuse to give them the dignity of calling them insurgents) is the SpecOps community. Unfortunately, there aren't very many of them....partly owing to the push for sexy new weapons systems (and the fact that the military establishment HATES special forces). Also, the type of individual who will sacrifice to join and train is a rare breed. So we need to use them more effectively. We also need to get our heads out of our fourth point of contact and admit that what the enemies true objectives are and understand that dealing with those objectives will require some unpleasant self examination.
#1 We have to stop facilitating our own victimization! We have to close our borders and make hiring an illegal worker a worse pain than hiring a wage earner that you have to actually pay the minimum wage!
#2 We have to get free from oil addiction...especially to middle eastern and south American sources. That means either alternative energy or we drill off the coast of Florida/Louisiana/Texas AND up in Alaska and we drill it like a $10 Hooker!!
#3 We have to reach the inescapable conclusion that countries that sponsor terrorists are not our friends and must be handled accordingly. This will be easier if we're not kissing their collective A$$ in buying their oil!
What does this mean to our military? Maintain the heavy divisions but push the SpecOps recruitment and force structure. Put the covert agencies hand in hand with SpecOps and go back to the days of undercover "wet work" against our enemy. I suspect we're already doing this.
Yep
I do not make predictions like this. Any assumption that we will win does damage to our war morale on the homefront. It leads squishies to say things like "we'll win without descending to their level." There is no guarantee that we will win.
We have the ability to win, but now we must win the hearts and minds of the American People. It will take another major attack to mobilize the public in a dramatic way.
I think we are winning. As the leftists become more marginalized the shackles may slowly come off the military and DHS. Unfortunately, when the left becomes more marginalized they themselves will become more violent.
It's going to be a bloody balls-up before it's all over. I don't see any way around it.
Suicide bombers have been around forever, notably in WWII. The reason the enemy is inscrutable is because the diabolical leftists have shackled the intel agencies. We need the new technology, but there is a danger in becoming too fond of it. Peter's point is well taken but he spends way too many pages making that point.
Just for your thoughts, it's occurred to me that if we would have lost 1,000,000 the Japanese would have lost at LEAST 2,000,000. So our Nukes saved millions of Jap lives as well as our own. Not that I care that much about them, but it's good ammunition when the leftists start chirping about what b@st@rds we were in dropping the bombs.
p.s. I DO care about our great Allies the Japanese, but in the context of the time their casualties would have been irrelevant.
I agree with your points as what our country needs to do. Most are not military actions.
You military recommendations are what the QDR is pushing - more spec ops and less emphasis on major war. I don't mind that - and I'm not a huge fan of the F-22. I wish we had cancelled it 15 years ago.
However, we didn't, and now we need some number to continue to deter major combat for the next 30-40 years. We also need to be prepared for proxy fights such as we had with the USSR for many years.
I'm glad we're putting more emphasis on special ops, and wish we would put more emphasis on sustaining legacy aircraft such as the F-16, 15, etc. The USAF will sell its soul for a couple of hubcabs for the F-22. The F-22 is PART of a future viable military, but it cannot do it all. Peters would be right if he argued that, but he wants to cancel programs such as F-22 and...and...hire suicide bombers? Sneak people into the media?
What many people forget is that we don't know our future threat - not 10+ years out. That is what we acquire aircraft, etc for, and it makes it very tough to do it right. We need a mixed capability military.
I've read a number of articles by Peters, which makes it hard for me to be objective about him. In this one, he damn near does a Monica on the suicide bombers. Yes, they impress eastern intellectuals, democrats and spaniards. They MAY intimidate some south seas islands - but they will NOT stop the US from our strategic goals.
At least, not until Kerry, Gore or Co get in office...
Yes, you make a good point.
Since you had such a positive reaction to this article, I went back to take another look, to see if my negative feelings were too hasty.
Upon further review, I'll stand by my negative opinion. I realize I won't change your mind, and that's fine.
To give one example, suicide bombers are not "ultimate precision weapon." With the exception of the 9/11 attack (which was a surprise, one-time event that no other terrorists have been able to duplicate), their military threat to our troops is very small. They aren't "the breakthrough weapon of our time," and they can't "stagger governments."
I mean, just look at his writing about modern suicide bombers, and think about how an author could have written the same thing (and had a much stronger case) about Japanese kamakazi pilots in the 1940's. Now they were a substantial military threat, though not enough of a threat to change the outcome of the war. In contrast, our suicide bomber today doesn't present 1% as much danger.
The author may have a few good points buried in this piece -- like the part about how the media fuels terrorism, and the way that moderate and liberal Americans shirk from the dirty work of fighting terrorists. But for me, his good points are obscured by the weak points of this piece. That's just my $0.02.
Uhhhh nope. I teach world and American History. The Kamikaze threat emerged very late in the war as a last gasp from a dying regime. The Japanese were short on pilots for these missions and many were horrifyingly young. Well they didn't have to worry about landing, right? Sound familiar? Many of the later aircraft used by the Divine Wind were rigged to explode their payloads should the aircraft attempt to land, before completing it's mission. No chickens allowed! The Japanese Empire was on the way down and out. In contrast, Islam is rapidly expanding and growing and drawing new converts daily. The numbers of Jap suicide pilots dwindled very quickly. The numbers of Jihadis seem to grow. They've been at it a heckuva lot longer than WWII lasted. As another poster mentioned, take a look at pre and post intifada Israel and tell me that a government wasn't impacted and a way of life altered. Think it can't happen here? Wait.
But thanks for accepting that I won't change my mind on this. We shall agree to disagree....agreeably.
I think you and I probably agree on far more than what we disagree with, but it's the disagreements that can be fun! Thanks for your thoughtful and articulate comments.
Thanks much great read!
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.