Posted on 06/28/2006 7:13:05 AM PDT by kellynla
When General Douglas MacArthur delivered his farewell address to Congress in April of 1951, after President Truman had fired the general during the Korean War, he gave advice that yet can be of value both to President Bush's Democratic Party war critics, and to President Bush and his generals: "[In war], there is no alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision. In war there is no substitute for victory."
At the time, MacArthur was criticizing Truman's decision not to seek victory in what was technically called a United Nations "police action" in Korea. While playing "what if" games with history is destined to be mere speculation, it is worth noting that if victory had been gained over North Korea in the early 1950s, we probably would not be facing a nuclear standoff with North Korea in 2006. Of course, we will never know what price we would have paid in blood and lost life for such a victory back then. And unless and until the nuclear day with North Korea (or the terrorists it sells its nukes to) comes, we will not know the price of not gaining victory in the 1950s. The river of historical consequence runs deep and long.
Today, we are faced with another so far inconclusive war effort, this time in Iraq. On Monday, President Bush continued to articulate the MacArthurian objective in the following language regarding troop levels: "That decision will be made by General Casey, as well as the sovereign government of Iraq, based upon conditions on the ground. And one of the things that General Casey assured me of is that, whatever recommendation he makes, it will be aimed toward achieving victory. And that's what we want."
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
But first you have to decide what means you have and where do they apply and how do you term a victory.
We are not involved in a high tech war between nation states we are fighting a low intensity war to stabilize a nation.
The key word here is stabilize.
What exactly, constitutes victory in the war on terror?
Establishing a world where no one would dare claim to be a Muslim, if he valued his life.
I'll just assume you are not serious.
You assume incorrectly. There are two possible end results of this war, and only two:
- A world in which no man may claim not to be a Muslim, if he wants to live; and
- A world in which no man may claim to be a Muslim, if he wants to live.
I challenge anyone with even a rudimentary education on Islam to posit a plausible additinoal possibility.
What about non-Muslim terrorists?
Non-Muslim terrorists are so rare that they can be handled on a case-by-case basis. If we take care of the Muslim terrorists the problem will be effectively solved. In this war of survival, non-Muslim terrorists don't factor into it as they are not part of a global war ideology and they do not threaten to destroy civilization. "War on Terror" is a misnomer. It should properly be named "War on Islam".
The bottom line is Bush takes the blame or credit for Iraq. For lives both lost and saved. I wonder to what degree he acknowledges this.
Since I know Muslims that do not want to be terrorists, then obviously, we don't agree. I believe it's a war against individuals that happen to be using Islam as a rallying point.
Unless those Muslims also don't want to be Muslims, then they want the same thing as the terrorists do, a global caliphate under Islamic law, where every non-Muslim is dead (including you). An individual Muslim doesn't need to be a terrorist himself to aid the cause. If they claim otherwise, they are either lying (as per the well-established doctrine of taqiyya, or "lying to infidels"), or they are not really Muslims.
Right....I forgot that here on FR we just put the noun of choice in front of INO, and it clears everything up.
You don't have to believe me, feel free to learn about Islam for yourself.
Here's an English version of the Koran. For entertainment try looking up terms like "infidel" to get an idea what these folks have in store for you. Then ask one of your Muslim friends to explain why their holy book says he has to kill you.
http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/
I know enough about Muslims, to understand that, like any other religion, they are full of individuals that interpret writings differently, and do not all believe exactly the same. I have asked them, and surprisingly, they do not want to kill anyone!! Naturally, as an avid freeper, I suggested that they are just MINOs...then we all had a good laugh.
I believe you are under the very understandable but quite unfortunately incorrect assumption that Muslims are just like everybody else. They're not; they don't have the basic Ten Commandments philosophy underlying their culture and life means nothig to them. They will gladly joke and laugh with you up until the moment when jihad calls and your head looks like a ticket to paradise.
Right
Truly, I feel the Dems are losing voters with every cowardly anti-war utterance.
But the Republicans could win more voters with a stronger stance, and do better by our country and our troops. JMO.
Tony, as usual, is tops ... without one false word.
Since the fall of the Soviet union, non-muslim terrorism has practically disapeared (but for one or two places where they are local and poorly funded).
My definition of victory is not as extreme as thoughtomator. The WOT will be won when those inclined to engage in terror and those inclined to support them realize there is very little or nothing to be gained except their own deaths.
Khadaffi has realized this. So did Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq (despite his initial bluster). There will likely be some terrorism going on somewhere all the time. When that terrorism drops below the threshold where it no longer threatens the general peace and stability of the world, the war will be over. It's' not a clean, exact definition, but it's as good as you're likely to find.
On the other hand, the majority of Muslims may be uneducable in this regard. In which case Thoughtomator will be right.
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.