Posted on 05/01/2006 10:02:43 PM PDT by RWR8189
DING! You NAILED it.
Mecca, Medina, Riyadh, Teheran, Karachi, Cairo, Tripoli, Algiers, and every other major city in the Islamic world would only now be considered "safe" to enter from all the nukes that would have been unleashed on their populations. Ass-ghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan would still be lethally radioactive to this day.
Especially Mecca - I would have plasterd that satanic hellhole like our Cold War battle plans had for Moscow, the reaction of the world press be damned. Future generations would thank us for using a little radiation treatment on Islam's cancer on humanity's soul.
Am I Evil? No - just viciously ruthless when dealing with enemies.
WTF are you talking about?
Marking.
Because we are winning, this way.
LOL I would of thought by now with all the threads on this subject, all the Military on this site both serving and retired, who have spent timer going over why we are fighting the way we are, and how it is enabling us to win the message would finally trickle down but its not.
LOL Civilians you got to love them, they will ask the same question again and again just like a five year old.
The problem was that America decided she was going to defeat the enemy in the field, while the enemy, fighting in the fields was only one part of there strategy, while both sides were fighting a war of attrition the political cadres were getting out there in South Vietnam recruiting the next crop of VC fighters, setting up logistics, gaining local intelligence.
It wasn't always like this USMC initiated a very good Counter Insurgency Operation, copied by the Australian forces out there, of basing the Marines in small units amongst the people, getting to know the locals, building up local intelligence, winning the peoples trust.
General Westmoreland changed the strategy to large scale search and destroy operations.
His rational was America was not in the mood for a long projected war and with modern technology it would be quicker to meet the VC/NVA in the field and annihilate them, a war of attrition which America would win.
South Vietnam and the ARVN was left to its own devices, instead of getting ready to fight and take over, it was allowed to play politics while its junior officers involved them self's in corruption and the black market.
It wasn’t until Nixon started his process of Vietnamisation that you started to look at the ARVN, and started to build the Army that was able to resist the Norths invasion.
But it was too late.
In Iraq we are not making the same mistake, the training of the Iraq Army the building of of a Civilian infrastructure is number one priority as it should of been in South Vietnam.
The best soldiers to defeat a local insurgency is local soldiers.
Nope you are just plain evil.
Although to tell the truth I would bet you are just blowing of steam, and if you were really given the chance to annihilate millions of humans, men women, children, babies the pregnant women you would balk at him, especially if you were a tad worried about what would happen to your immortal soul.
Bump, good job for posting this. I was going to do the same. It's an excellent article.
I don't agree, its a load of rubbish, the Author has no idea about Military tactics or strategy.
He has no idea about how the Second World War was fought the Vietnam or today.
What he calls minimalism is actually good COIN (Counter Insurgency) Tactics.
And after four to five years of fighting the War on Terror, I call it very lazy journalism.
From the article the author is less concerned with winning the war and more interested in getting across a political or philosophical point.
It seems that just as the left is high jacking the war to get across there point so it seems are pundits on the right.
Thankfully they are not being listened to by those fighting this war as they know the reality and are interested in winning, as we all should be.
I totally agree with your analysis. Congress allowed S. Vietnam to fall in 75, well after we were out, just as you stated. I spent several tours there in the mid-late 60s. The "Tet 68 Defeat" myth continues to annoy me to no end.
Yes, but more in a Cold War sense, than a WWII sense.
We didn't give up, the leftists did. And WE ain't THEM!
I believe the complete list is:
1) Congressional Dimocrats '74-'75
2) Congressional Dimocrats '73-'74
3) Congressional Dimocrats '75-'76
4) Congressional Dimocrats '82-'83
5) Congressional Dimocrats '81-'82
6) Congressional Dimocrats '91-'92
7) Congressional Dimocrats '67-'68
8) Congressional Dimocrats '79-'80
9) Backstreet Boys-All Years
10) Congressional Dimocrats '88-'89
11) Congressional Dimocrats '71-'72
Etc...
Excellent essay. Thanks for posting it.
"LOL"
No, I think Steele is onto something, when he points out why there is this restraint. LOL is not a good counter argument.
Say for example that the Iraqi city of Fallujah was wiped out as a response to the killing and desecration of the contracters in '04. Would this administration want to face the onslaught or negative reaction from the left/Establishment, for years to come? This rediculous Abu Ghurayb non-story gets propagated for how long? Imagine killing thousands of Iraqis in Fallujah in one blow?
What this administration cares about is remaining in power, and that means getting elected. In their minds, they measure the cost/benefit of various actions. Would Steele's "white guilt" power structure be used to take away GOP seats in congress? That type of question is asked, even if the members of the admin, like some of you here have said, don't feel this guilt.
What is real is that the leftists will used this mechanism to their advantage. Whether or not you feel guilty has nothing to do with how you wish to control the level of vehement opposition you face in advacing your objectives.
This was *is* a measured one, and not total war by any stretch. Why else, in the age when mutually assured destruction is gone, would this be, unless it's about protecting a political lead? Talking about fighting with one hand tied behind your back.
My advice? Copy and save this article. If you want to understand why the leftists have made the advances they did since the second world war, it's best to return to Steele's arguments. To go "pppffft" is to ignore how those people work, and to miss an opportunity to figure out how to counter them effectively.
If we'd fought WW2 like we're fighting the "war on terror", the hooked cross would still be flying over Berlin and our GI's would still be about 20 miles outside of Paris.
We no longer have the stomach for collateral damage. Not as a Nation. We have become "too civilized".
Because America is run by the MSM/DNC/UN/BBC Party, and have been for over 40 years.
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.