Posted on 06/27/2007 2:01:15 PM PDT by kronos77
Surely there's a difference of degree, but notice, that difference is unimportant to ReignOfError's definition of victory. Which is (therefore) a silly definition. Which was my point.
Hopefully, the progression of horrible diplomats sent to Belgrade, from Zimmerman to Polt will stop, and decent person will represent American interests.
With Polt, relations have hit rock bottom.
What’s your definition of victory that does not include the war being over?
It's a joke. A blending of rocket science and brain surgery.
When we're talking about a war to oust an enemy government (which is what, I remind you, the purpose of "The Iraq War" was), and in the course of the war in question our military has succesfully invaded the other country, decimated or scattered their military into nonexistence, occupied their capital city, destroyed their ruling regime, captured their former dictator who has since been executed, and engineered the creation and ratification of a new constitutional government, then I consider that the war is over.
Scattered (and strategically pointless, if not utterly nihilistic) postwar violence during the reconstruction/counterinsurgency phase doesn't add up to "the war isn't over" in my book. It adds up to us being in a (particularly messy) reconstruction/counterinsurgency. Different ball of wax. At the very least I wish we could acknowledge that (if it's a "war") it's a different war than the 2003 war against the Hussein government of Iraq, for crying out loud.
The problem with rejecting what I've just stated above (as I am sure you will) is that otherwise you can never really say ANY war is "over". Any the-war-is-over verdict can be instantaneously overturned by someone in the location in question being randomly violent. And that's silly.
To try to bring it back to the original topic: Is the Serbia war "over"? By the standards people seem to apply to "The Iraq War", I have to say the answer is no. There is still sectarian/ethnic violence in Serbia after all. (Isn't there? Has ALL ethnic violence in Serbia ceased? forever?) So who says that war is "over"? If you're consistent, you can't. But if you're consistent, you almost can't call any war "over" - as long as someone, somewhere in the country in question, is being violent. Which is indication of nothing if not having a bizarre, silly standard for when a war is "over", or "won". Which most people in the West now do, it seems.
When you engage in a debate with 15-year-old high school students in Belgrade and lose, it’s time to go home, IMHO.
When we're talking about a war to oust an enemy government (which is what, I remind you, the purpose of "The Iraq War" was), and in the course of the war in question our military has succesfully invaded the other country, decimated or scattered their military into nonexistence, occupied their capital city, destroyed their ruling regime, captured their former dictator who has since been executed, and engineered the creation and ratification of a new constitutional government, then I consider that the war is over.
The problem is that the Iraqi military wasn't "decimated ... or scattered into non-existence." It was scattered into a decentralized guerilla army. We're not talking about a stand-up war followed by isolated attacks -- we're talking about a concerted effort at asymmetrical warfare that began before the tanks reached Baghdad, before the statue was pulled down, and has continued unabated without pause -- in fact, has accelerated -- since.
What you're trying to do, in the 27th inning, is claim that the game ended in the 9th and we're playing another game now. There was no instrument of surrender, no pause in the fighting, in either Iraq or Afghanistan. This is not your father's kind of war, when we used to go to war with entities we recognized as states, and sometimes even declared it.
The problem with rejecting what I've just stated above (as I am sure you will) is that otherwise you can never really say ANY war is "over". Any the-war-is-over verdict can be instantaneously overturned by someone in the location in question being randomly violent. And that's silly.
Isolated acts of violence do not constitute a continued state of war. Yankees and black folks have been killed somewhere in the South every week, if not every day, since 1865; that does not constitute an ongoing Civil War. Ongoing and escalating violence does.
Some members of the Iraqi military have done this (you don't know what percentage). Some members of the Japanese military hid out on islands after 1945 and waited for further orders. In neither case does this fact mean "we didn't win".
It's also a mistake to equate/ascribe the entirety of the postwar insurgency as coming from the former Iraqi military/establishment. Al Qaeda has something to do with it. Former infiltrators have something to do with it. And militias such as Sadr's have something to do with it.
Like I said: not the same war. It's not even the same enemy for pete's sake. Are you really trying to say that it is?
There was no instrument of surrender, no pause in the fighting, in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
No. Instead, "all" we did was to unseat and destroy the extant governments against whom these wars were fought, and then proceed to occupy the countries in question at will, where we have stayed in large numbers for 4+ years in each case.
In 99% of human history this would have been recognized as victory for us and defeat for them. It's certainly bizarre, by historical standards, that many Americans think we have somehow lost "The Iraq War". Do Iraqi troops occupy Washington DC? Was the American government destroyed and a new one engineered by Iraq? Was George Bush captured and killed? Or were these things the other way around?
Most people plucked from history and looking at the situation objectively would have recognized the result for what it is. For some reason (I blame Hollywood movies, basically), we are unable to.
This is not your father's kind of war, when we used to go to war with entities we recognized as states, and sometimes even declared it.
Indeed. Precisely why it's silly to have the same expectations regarding what victory must look like (parades, smooches, "and they all lived happily ever after", the credits roll, etc.)
Isolated acts of violence do not constitute a continued state of war.
Where can you draw this line, objectively? What's "isolated" and what's not? There is no objective way to say.
Yankees and black folks have been killed somewhere in the South every week, if not every day, since 1865; that does not constitute an ongoing Civil War. Ongoing and escalating violence does.
If ongoing and escalating violence constitutes an ongoing Civil War, then why hasn't the Civil War continued (at the very least, off and on) since 1865? Surely the violence is "ongoing" (it's not? you just got through saying it is, in the previous sentence). And surely there have been periods when it was in escalation (look at any graph, of anything quasi-random, and you will see peaks and valleys. Well, the peaks are escalations.)
Just to be clear, I don't think the Civil War never ended, of course. But I don't see how one can necessarily declare it "over" if one uses the same standards we all now apply to "The Iraq War".
28 June 2007 | 11:02 -> 15:44 | Source: FoNet, Beta
BELGRADE -- Vojislav Koštunica says that a battle for Kosovo between Serbia and U.S. is on display for the whole world to see.
The Serbian prime minister said that on one side of this "battle" was the foreign authority of a world power, and on the other was Serbia, which insists on its legal rights. Koštunica added that the battle was "between power and justice."
He said that Kosovo cannot become independent unless the Serbian Constitution states that it is no longer Serbian territory.
Koštunica also said that Belgrade had firm faith that Russia will not allow the United Nations Security Council "to steal a sovereign country's territory."
“This is why it would be extremely important for the countries who are ignoring Serbia's right to maintain its territory to refrain from trying to undermine the authority of the UN Security Council."
"The solution for the Kosovo status issue must be found within the UN Security Council in accordance with the UN Charter and the Serbian Constitution,” Koštunica told daily Politika, adding that this would mean a “victory of justice over force.”
Polt: No battle
U.S. Ambassador to Serbia Michael Polt said Thursday the United States was a friend of Serbia and had no intention of engaging in any kind of battle with Serbia or its citizens.
“There is no battle, fight or anger between the two countries, there are simply differences of opinion over some issues,” Polt said in reaction to Koštunica’s Vidovdan statement.
Polt added there were many areas that Serbia and the U.S. agreed on, “such as the promotion of winners in the best business plan competition”, an event he attended this morning.
“The United States aims to help all the citizens of Serbia achieve their dreams. It takes two to battle, and in this case there’s only one side, since we are your friends, not your enemies,” Polt concluded.
Comments (38) | Send your comment
Think that I found the context for this “suggestion”. Svetlana Novko mentioned it in this editorial: http://byzantinesacredart.com/blog/2007/06/polt-gone.html
How embarrassing for Polt, considering his penchant for lying his next assignment should be running Hillary's campaign as this would better align with his skill set.
Polt has been "making a complete ass out of himself" as long as he has been in Serbia, but his final line was a doozy -- and Djuric was smart enough to capitalize on it. Yes.
Today is Viodovdan! I will be celebrating it on Sunday with my Serbian Orthodox community.
Not all Americans support Polt and his approach to “diplomacy” and “friendship” (?).
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.