Posted on 12/06/2006 7:25:53 AM PST by presidio9
Popular consensus has it that we are losing the war in Iraq. Robert Gates, the White House nominee to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, stated on Tuesday that the United States was categorically not winning in Iraq. "What we are now doing is not satisfactory," Gates said. Popular consensus also has it that we are losing the war in Afghanistan. "[B]ecause of the Bush administration's inattention and mismanagement," wrote The New York Times editorial board on Tuesday, "even the good war is going wrong."
America has not "won" a major "hot" war since World War II. The Gulf War cannot be considered a full-fledged victory; it returned the situation in the Middle East to the status quo. The aggressor in that war, Saddam Hussein, would remain in power for another dozen years. The Vietnam War was surely a devastating loss. The Korean War ended in stalemate; North Korea, the aggressor in that war, remains militant and dangerous 50 years later.
It has been six decades since we emerged fully victorious from a major "hot" war. This is because the very definition of war has changed. Each modern war is now more of a battle than a war. Tearing out the enemy's motivating ideology by the roots is no longer a nation-centric task. Nazism was located in Germany and Shintoism in Japan. We could defeat both countries and win the war. Fundamentalist Islam, however, spans the globe. Even if we disestablish fundamentalist Islam in Afghanistan and Iraq, we still have not won the war. Afghanistan and Iraq are the equivalents of Okinawa and Utah Beach. Super-national ideologies mean that war is not a local affair, but a global one.
So how do we win a global war? We won the Cold War by waiting out our communist opponents. We could lose the war in Vietnam and still win the broader Cold War. We could stalemate in Korea without losing the fight against communism. Communist ideology was bankrupt, and if we denied them resources (as we did by funding anti-communist forces around the globe and rolling back communism under President Reagan), we would be successful in the long run.
That strategy will not work with fundamentalist Islam. Fundamentalist Islam is not an ideology that will crumble from within. It demands total religious obeisance of its practitioners, regardless of material hardships incurred. And anything but total replacement of fundamentalist Islam by another, friendlier ideology is seen as a victory by the fundamentalists. The Gulf War was not merely a victory squandered; it was a defeat. Denying Iraq oil may have hurt Saddam Hussein, but failing to depose Hussein hurt Western credibility and emboldened Muslims the world over.
Even were fundamentalist Islam internally unsustainable, we could not wait them out. The demographics are not in our favor. As time goes on, there will be more fundamentalist Muslims and fewer liberal Westerners to carry on the fight. Stalemate in Korea and prolonged fighting in Vietnam hurt the cause of communism. Stalemate in Iraq and Afghanistan favors our enemies, who can simply wait (SET ITAL) us (END ITAL) out.
There was one Cold War tactic, however, that remains useful today: suspicion of our enemies. Winning the Cold War relied on anti-infiltration strategy, particularly in Western Europe. Unfortunately, western civilization seems unwilling to acknowledge the growing fifth column in its midst, specifically because recognizing the growing threat would seem "racist." This is a recipe for disaster. If fundamentalist Islam relies on demographics to achieve its ends, ignoring the growing demographic threat in Europe is a crucial error. If fundamentalist Islam relies on proselytizing to spread its views, ignoring that proselytizing in the United States is an unforgivable mistake.
Will America ever win another war? Only if we combine our Cold War vigilance with our World War II ruthlessness. We cannot afford to lose in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and a stalemate is a loss. We cannot ignore demographic trends in the name of multiculturalism -- diversity will only survive in countries that can resist the long-term onslaught of fundamentalist Islam. This will be a long, hard slog, as former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld put it. In today's world, true victory always is.
Rush is wrong, and so are you. The method of war is certainly to do that.
But it would be the pinnacle of evil to believe that killing and breaking was the only purpose of war.
Frankly, as long as either the physical extermination or complete isolation of Islam is ruled out (and it is) our best hope in the long run is a massive Christian revival inside the Muslim peoples. But, we don't control that. The Holy spirit does.
Are we going to love the enemy to death?
I was talking to a friend of mine who is middle level at The Pentagon the other day. He says this is now the thinking. America will not wake up and support the kind of action that must occur, everything form assassinations to scorched earth, until after Saudi Arabia falls and Iran nucs Israel. This is when gas will cost $30 a gallon because we did not drill in ANWAR etc.
Depends a lot on your definition of war...
Next time, think before you post.
Maybe I'm mistaken but I believe we won the war a while ago and now the nation building isn't wrapping up as quickly as people would like it to.
Too many people in this country lack the will for the 1st criteria and sufficient testosterone for the 2nd. Even a few on this forum, though still a minority here.
At this point in our history, I have to regretfully answer, "NO". Ever? That is a whole seperate discussion. Contemplating what it would take for this nation to discover will and ruthlessness again is something no sane person would want to explore, even in the privacy of one's own mind.
So answer the question....
Gates is a disaster in advance. His tone is defeatist.
It depends on the goal. Holding Iraq is fine, punishing Iran and Syria is priceless. We don't have to occupy them, just remove their leadership and do a lot of damage.
Nope.
We are a nation of pu$$ie$.
So self assured in our agnostic post modernism, certain in our uncertainty, which is certainly not worth killing or dying for.
Liberalism is a mental disorder with suicidal ideations.
A country wins wars by having great generals; what is the purpose of a general officer in command of an army or army group? To win. He alone should have complete control over how to do that including selecting the best strategic, operational and tactical strategies and COAs. Since WWII the executive branch has refused to permit this, first just for nuclear matters, but eventually for nearly everything; the civilian leadership makes the strategic decisions, and many of the operational decisions, and even suggests/approves the tactical operations. If you want to win wars, you let generals fight them their way, with their own ROEs and with the full support of the executive branch. If this were the case, the people back home could not influence war plans once congressional approval for declaration of war occurs (another thing that is necessary and omitted from each conflict since WWII).
"The" war started a long time ago. It has no uniform, but is very much the enemy and the main problem of our times. I don't know how it can be defeated, but defeated it must be.
"The" enemy, is, and will be for the foreseeable future, is
Political Correctness. It is slowly destroying this great country.
We need to get LAWYERS out of the foxholes and into the court room for military tribunals.
We should NOT shudder at the thought of tactical nuclear weapons use and we should REALIZE & TEACH our nation that the MISSION of Islamonazis is the TOTAL ERADICATION of Western Civilization.
In short we have to TOTALLY COMMIT as a NATION as we did in WWII, EVERYTIME, we go to war, if we are ever to win THIS or ANY other WAR!!
We won't win if we continue to value PC over liberty. We elected a Muslim to Congress. Muslims do not believe in multicultural melting pots, religious tolerance or free speech. Yet we allow one of their members, who likely wants to see Sharia Law as the law of the land, into our law-writing body.
Freedom of religion doesn't allow cannibals to eat each other in our country and shouldn't allow those who would not uphold the Constitution to take a Taqiyah oath to do so.
As the article pointed out, there will only be PC and multiculturalism until the Muslims take over...
That's a very good observation.
I agree. I thought 911 would wake us up. It did, but then we hit the snooze button.
The spirit was freedom and justice
And it's keepers seem generous and kind
It's leaders were supposed to serve the country
But now they won't pay it no mind
'Cause the people grew fat and got lazy
And now their vote is a meaningless joke
They babble about law and order
But it's all just an echo of what they've been told
Yeah, there's a monster on the loose
It's got our heads into a noose
And it just sits there watchin'
Our cities have turned into jungles
And corruption is stranglin' the land
The police force is watching the people
And the people just can't understand
We don't know how to mind our own business
'Cause the whole worlds got to be just like us
Now we are fighting a war over there
No matter who's the winner
We can't pay the cost
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
It's got our heads into a noose
And it just sits there watching
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.