Posted on 12/21/2009 4:23:40 PM PST by rabscuttle385
If we’d fought these wars to win in 2001-2005, including naming the enemy for what he is, there would be no subject matter for a thread such as this.
When we re-named “Operation: Infinite Justice” in 2001 because it was offensive to mohammedans, I knew we were in deep sh*t.
That’s my kind of anti-war. I don’t mind crushing your enemies, driving them before you or even the lamentation of their women on the nightly news. I am anti-stagnant-war just taking and giving casualties tit-for-tat.
In your case, the army should have been sent marching on Hanoi. Korea has been cited as the reason we did not.
The lesson of Korea was not that a war to win invites intervention but that a war of skirmishes over a border produces far more death than a war of movement, at least for the vastly superior advancing side. 1/3 of American deaths in Korea occured during the North’s invasion, the Chinese counter-attack and retaking the southern half of the peninsula. 2/3 of American deaths happened after the line was stabilized at the 38th parallel because Truman ordered the military to go no further. And if Stalin had wanted to use the nuclear bomb over Korea or Brezhnev or Mao over Vietnam, that should have been left up to them. Would have been the last thing they ever did. The overriding rule should have been “You start it - We finish it.”
In Afghanistan, there needs to be coordination with Pakistan on this simple strategy: No sanctuaries; they drive the Taliban over the border where we annihilate them.
And how did that happen... was it just an accident?
I can boil down several existing problems about the US military.
1) The “Madeleine Albright” approach. As secretary of state, she directed unsupported, small detachments of US military to every corner of the world, to be nothing more than targets. The US currently has forces in 80 countries, but they are only critical in a half dozen places.
2) Having only a limited amount of resources, the US has decided to go for a very limited number of very advanced, and very expensive, systems. But quality must always be balanced with quantity, or the enemy will have the advantage of what they have neglected.
3) The US needs a Foreign Legion, much like the French Foreign Legion. But we need a mercenary corporation, like Xe (Blackwater) stationed outside the US, to provide high quality, light infantry duties for situations where it is just too expensive to use our armed forces. Things like peacekeeping and disaster recovery can get transport and logistical support from the US military, but if done by mercenaries, would only cost a fraction as much. Importantly, their leaders would be ex-US officers.
4) The congress needs to quit playing social engineering experiments on the military. The needs of the military are determined by the mission, not what a professor of “Lesbian Womyn’s Studies” at UC Berkeley thinks. Even more so, they need to quit playing games with the VA.
During the 19th century, all our wars resulted in valuable land acquisition. Since we started fighting Utopian "wars to end all wars," America has gained nothing except high taxes and endless debt, as far as the eye can see. Oh yeah, we also got a lot of "national greatness" too.
I was lucky to get to Korea when the line was stabilized in 52.
If I had been there in 50/51 when the 8th Army was in full retreat except for the 1st Marines of course and entire regiments were nearly destroyed, I probably wouldn't be here today.
I am part of the “Anti-war” right for reasons described in this very article (infact I am more CONSERVATIVE) than some of them on the right- Remember during Clinton when conservatives railed AGAINST: ‘Nation Building’ & ‘Police Action’ by our military: I have returned to this position, and figure if you hamstring our military by “rules of engagement” (and give them a purposes for which they WEREN’T MEANT: NATIONBUILDING) then you’re better off briging them home?!
Whatever happened to the original mission in Afghanistan: ‘Get Bin Laden, and dismantle Alqaeda’? Instead we are battling the middle of an islamic civil war where most participants are stuck in mud huts.
It was forgotten when the previous administration renamed the mission from "Infinite Justice" to "Enduring Freedom."
I agree 100% with your post. Well said.
I would be more in favor of the never ending war if our leaders were more upfront and admit they are “playing the great game” in Asia as was played in the late 19th by other players. It is of strategic importance primarily of hydrocarbon flows, but no all we get our lecures about muslim fanatics (greatly tempered by PC) and democracy.
Mullah Omar hates your health care, and he greatly wants to institute the cap and trade policy to save you and the polar bears.
The GWOT has devolved into a wealth transfer scheme, ex: My tax dollars to Diane Feinstein’s joint bank account. Dhimminitude is the basis of Islam in my reckoning, and since our “elite” makes no mention of it I also reckon they could care less about our impending dhiminitude. But hey the Islomaniacs will get France first, Sophia Loren in a burqua, ha, ha.
They gave up on catching bin Laden long ago, because if they ever caught him it would be a reason for our troops to come home. As it stands, they can keep these billion dollar military contracts, and big government security projects going until they bankrupt us.
Spending what we don't have on overseas wars and nation-building, or spending what we don't have on social programs we can't afford -- take your choice, because so far both Parties are selling the same crap policies with the only difference being where the emphasis is put.
If the author is correct about a change in Republican foreign policy attitudes, it will come not a moment too soon!
And as Ron Paulies work so diligently to further weaken teh GOP so they can fulfill their dream of a libertarian takeover, you remove what little opposition we had.
In the meantime, you embolden our enemies to regroup, retrain and eventually, attack us again.
I wonder why Ron Paulies wish to consider themselves Republicans when everything they do is speak out, oppose and further weaken the party?
I wonder too why they desire the country to fight war here on our streets, conisdering we have been under attack from radical Jihadists for 3 decades.
Three times now on our own soil and Ron Paulies wish everybody to just ignore it all, go back to sleep, don’t worry, the cult of Ron Paul will fix everything.
Sounds an awful lot like what we hear from Obamaites
Plus, I'm tired of the "War on Terror" targeting my fingernail clippers.
Osama bin Laden isn't available to answer that question... he's been one with the rubble since Tora Bora (John Kerry's protestations notwithstanding).
As far as dismantling Al Qaeda, that's a trap we never should have fallen into. Al Qaeda can dismantle itself with a simple name change any time and still live to fight on. They've done it dozens of times before and since 9/11. Hell, American Democrats and media still talk about "Al Qaeda in Iraq" (aka "Al Qaeda of the Two Rivers") like they're a different team playing in a different league in another sport. They're like the San Francisco baseball Giants to the New York football Giants. All they did was add "in Iraq" to their name, and in the eyes of the most powerful political party on earth, the media and most Americans, that makes them an entirely seperate entity. And no matter how many U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians die at their hands, they're not worth fighting because we shouldn't be there anyway (another vicious lie).
"Al Qaeda", or whatever disposable pseudonym the jihadists put on their business cards, isn't the extent of the enemy. Men willing to do violence on behalf of the pedophile prophet are in unlimited supply, and they're fungible. An al Qaeda terrorist can become a Hizballah terrorist who can become a Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami terrorist before dying as an al-Itihaad al-Islamiya terrorists. Along the way, he raises a couple of boys who start planting IEDs in Afghanistan as Lashkar-e-Jhangvi terrorists. Eventually, Al Qaeda goes down the memory hole with the Hartford Whalers and the Houston Oilers... and the mass murder goes on.
We're not at war with a terrorist organization. We're at war with Islam... or at least, it's at war with us. Until we come to terms with that uncomfortable truth and what it really means, we're powerless to stop it.
Bump to that.
It wasn't forgotten. If anything, it was obsessed upon. Bush made the war exclusively about al Qaeda early on. Why? Same reason "Infinite Justice" was scrapped... same reason he attended mosque on 9/14/2001. He had to downplay the Muslim component and attribute the attacks to a single group because he was going to enlist the Muslim world into his fight against terrorism. He was going to help them create an outpost of freedom in the Muslim world. I can give Bush the benefit of the doubt and presume he knows in his heart that Islam is truly a force of evil, evil in the realest sense -- and I can see how and why he chose to go this route, with the belief that free men will ultimately reject Islam. I don't agree with it, but I can work my way through his reasoning and still believe he was a good and decent man trying to do the right thing.
The reason it all fell apart was the Iraq War, where ironicaly, Bush's vision is coming to fruition. They lost the American people because they didn't attack the lies that became coventional wisdom -- the biggest one being that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11. We lost Congress on that lie in 2006 and the bottom caved in. We'll eventually lose the war because of it.
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.