Skip to comments.War cannot be waged 'peacefully'
Posted on 11/26/2006 6:54:29 PM PST by WestNJersey
Want to know why we (meaning the West) won't win the war on terror?
Look at Israel, arguably the toughest, least compromising of the democracies when it comes to combating terrorism. It has been fighting terrorism from the day it became a sovereign state, thanks to the UN.
Yet Israel, after failing to win the brief war with Hezbollah, is back to having to defend itself against rockets from Gaza, where Hamas rules when it isn't feuding with the Palestinian Authority.
The other day, after a rocket attack, Israel announced it was attacking the home of a suspected terrorist leader where explosives were stored. It gave the occupants 30 minutes warning to evacuate before war planes obliterated the house.
So what did the residents do? Well, not only did they not evacuate, but neighbours formed a human shield at the targeted house and, guess what?
The Israel war planes were called off. So now, every time the Israelis give the 30-minute warning which, apparently, is policy, the "human shields" of women and children head for the targeted house, secure in the knowledge that the Israelis won't attack.
This is madness -- no way to fight a war, or terrorists. And this is Israel -- the toughest democracy on the block. And yet Israel hasn't even gotten its kidnapped soldiers back from Hamas and Hezbollah, which provoked Israeli retaliation.
American, British, Canadian and NATO soldiers are even more restrained.
When the Americans had (or thought they had) insurgents in Iraq, mostly confined in Fallujah, a hotbed of enemy activity, rather than obliterate it (as they would have done in WWII) they gave a week's warning for civilians to depart before they attacked.
BAD GUYS DISPERSED
When the assault eventually went in, the bad guys were mostly gone -- dispersed to other areas to continue their slaughter of the innocent.
War cannot easily be waged peacefully. Restraints often mean prolonging the war and increasing its casualties.
Today, humane considerations are paramount. The symbol of peaceful protest is Mahatma Gandhi, the creator of passive resistance that anti-military activists like to cite as a way to thwart authority. Often overlooked, is that Gandhi's formula worked against the British. If he and his followers had lain down in front of Cossacks, the Wehrmacht or the Golden Horde of Genghis Khan, Gandhi would have become an asterisk of history rather than an icon.
A report out of Britain recalls that when American forces first went into Afghanistan, the first Taliban they caught were terrified --apparently convinced by their indoctrination that the American monsters would rip their livers out. Consequently, captives babbled like brooks and told all they knew.
Then they discovered that American soldiers feed you and generally abide by certain rules and ethics unknown to Taliban and al-Qaida.
Thereafter they shut up with no repercussions.
Remember the U.S. bombing of Baghdad prior to the 2003 invasion? Peace activists from the West pompously announced they'd be human shields around prospective targets.
Once the bombing started, these people fled -- outraged that the Americans could be so inhumane, even though none were targeted.
As for Israel, if its government is nuts enough to give warnings of attacks, then it deserves what happens. The next warning should be that if human shields remain, they will quickly become ex-human shields.
One attack should be sufficient to persuade Palestinian human shields to take cover.
It's idiotic to give warning of an attack. Hezbollah and Hamas don't warn intended targets of rocket attacks and suicide bombings.
America lost the Vietnam War because it refused to do what was necessary to win -- a political decision that cost unnecessary lives on both sides, and achieved nothing.
Is that the future of Iraq? It seems so.
Can you site an article showing they are, since that is your orginal claim.
The tragic reality is that it is going to take the loss of a major city and maybe millions of people before anyone in the West is going to evaluate the threat realistically...
Killing me softly...
LOL! Direct hit! See my post 57.
If they're having trouble meeting their quotas, the media should be reporting it all over the place...so your job would certainly be easy. But, here are two stories that indicate the trend:
More than 300 Soldiers reenlist in record breaking ceremony (4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th ID) Note that the 3rd ID had a similar mass reenlistment ceremony last year when soldiers were staying in in droves.
Then there's this line from this story: Although the Army missed its recruitment goals last year, in part because of the Iraq war, retention continues at record levels. [emphasis mine]
Also, the 4th ID was 20% past their reenlistment goal as of the end of March this year, and I believe they were in country at the time.
Then there's this:
Granted, that article's from 2005, but I refuse to buy the idea that we went from "astonishing" to "getting out in droves" in less than a year. It's not as if everything was coming up roses in Iraq last year.
Who are these troops you've been talking to?
Who are these troops you've been talking to?
Marines..one sat in the middle of the desert for a year and never saw any combat. He said they are not utilizing the troops properly and second if they had been given an extra 100,000 men they could of sweep that entire country and been done with it quickly. They had their shot, but blew it.
Me personally, not from any soldier who has said this to me..I see a draft coming that is connected to illegals gaining citzenship. Just my theory.
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.