Fighting Under World War II Rules

A Publius Essay | 24 January 2007 | Publius

[abigkahuna]

You know, During the Korean War, HOllywood produced not only heoric "pro-war" propaganda movies, but also the first "anti war" movies. "Retreat Hell" come to mind as an example of the former and "Men at War" and "Bridge at Toko-Ri" of the latter.

After the faitgue of WW2, America did not want to get interupted with another war... Good article Publius...

[Publius]

But why do we need to occupy the country after we wipe it off the map? If a hostile government forms, who cares? We'll just wipe it off the map again.

Please see Post #28. The individual who wrote that post is far more eloquent than I.

[Lurker]

For later.

L

[rmlew]

# Gasoline rationing would be in effect. Money paid to the Saudis for their oil had long trickled into al-Qaeda’s coffers, and the US would become quite choosy as to the sources of its oil. Alaska would be drilled deeply and thoroughly. Posters would appear reminding people that when they drove alone, they were “riding with Osama”. Money devoted to highways would be diverted to public transportation on a massive scale. Amtrak would become trendy. # War is based on credit, and rather than pass tax cuts the government would raise taxes through the roof to cover the costs of war. War bond campaigns would flood the media.

We are not just fighting Al-Qaeda and possibly Iran. This effort will take years. We cannot destroy our economy.
WE are spending about 3% of GDP on this war and another 3% on other military costs. Even if we were spending more realistic amounts like 5% on each, we would not have to significantly raise taxes. The issue is the growth of non-military spending.

Ron
PS. Why not raise the retirement age to 70?

[rmlew]

If Hib'ullah were to attack us, we would have a very good reason to declare war on Iran.
Greater Azerbaijan here we come.

[Robe]

for later

[Neil E. Wright]

self-ping for later

[4woodenboats]

But why do we need to occupy the country after we wipe it off the map? If a hostile government forms, who cares? .

Because we don't want to leave the innocents at the mercy of the islamofascists who would be moving in, slaughtering everyone who collaborated with us, and turning the country into many rivaling WMD factories - ones that came with their own Global Jihad Overnight Express delivery.

This is exactly what the anti America and anti autonomous America crowds are salivating for, that we leave the country in ruins and at the disposal of the terrorists. There is nothing more attractive to the internationalists than to see us leave Iraq defeated, discredited, declawed.

Imagine the cry amongst them then - many of which are in our own congress - to have the United Nations have authority over our President and congress on matters of national defense. Better to finish bringing peace to the 10+% percent of the country still in turmoil, and leave an ally capable of protecting itself and keeping an eye on our enemies in the region in our wake, don't you think?

We'll just wipe it off the map again

Do you honestly believe that statement? I don't. The UNofA wouldn't let us. Venezuela would veto the motion

And the problem was that Bush never made a strong enough case for our involvement in Iraq.

Yes he did, but the press called him a liar and did not openly or in any semblence of accuracy report just what was in all the intelligence & WMD reports.

People really do believe everything they read, and rarely read far past the headline. When the democrats & the press said that the inspectors, UNSCOM, Butler, Duelfer reports, etc, concluded there were NEVER any WMDs in Iraq, people believed them. I can't tell you how many people have called me a liar for posting excerpts of these. Most people have never read any of them, have never looked for them

Don't get me wrong, I support what we did and believe we had every right to do it. But just as in Vietnam, people don't see the necessity of this war. While it was widely agreed that the war against the Taliban was a war of necessity, in hindsight the war in Iraq appears to have been optional

Maybe I'm getting a little cynical, but it's been a very long time since I've seen a statement that started with "Don't get me wrong, I support...." that didn't finish with the reason it was a bad idea.

[jordan8]

World War II Rules permitted a unified approach to war by a cohesive society. It was how America fought and won.

This ain't WW2 and it ain't the nation that fought WW2. The idea that we're going to fight "under WWII rules" is fantasy, it's never going to happen, it's a retreat into a make-believe world that really is more about the domestic situation than how the war is being fought in Iraq.

[4woodenboats]

Outstanding essay Publius! As always.

[AZLiberty]

The notion that the general populace of a great power needs to sacrifice to fight a war effectively is not born out by a longer examination of history ...

Or by a longer examination of the future! Although we are having problems on the ideological front, our long-term military superiority rests on our long-term civilian technology superiority, which comes from allowing the capitalist system to continually exploit the wonders of Moore's and other Laws. If we shut down the civilian economy, we can divert a finite amount of resources to the military for a finite period of time, at the cost of withdrawing from the technology race. In some kinds of crisis this may become necessary, but the current engagement is a multidecade fight against an entrenched ideology. We can't afford to abandon our long-term advantage.

[swmobuffalo]

Bump

[Vicki]

Great article. This should be in all the newspapers, but of course that would never happen today. The MSM doesn't want us to win the war in Iraq.

[JDoutrider]

BTTT

[Centurion2000]

If only we were fighting under these rules.

[L,TOWM]

CBB, You and I had a discussion a couple of years ago on the whole Decleration of War/Use of Force Resolution topic.

This article articulates the arguments I was too inarticulate to express for myself then. I was stumbling around trying to convey to you they important PERCEPTUAL differences and we ended up splitting the legal hairs.

Publius -- Nice Job!

[Steel Wolf]

We have a small, highly professional force that busts the nuts of whoever they are told to confront. Until our frightened Rinos grow a spine and Rats are outed and allow our forces to be triumphant, I fear the author will be proved correct.

Herein lies a good deal of the trouble.

We have leaders that expect a small, highly professional force to succeed in the absence of real support.

The much maligned Rules of Engagement are an extention of our lack of national will. While it's good and reasonable to expect a high standard of professionalism and mercy out of our troops, these rules are different. It's moral cowardice on the part of our leaders.

It basically says, "We're sending you to war. We expect you to win, because winning is imporant enough for you to die for. It's not important enough for me to risk my political standing, though, so don't do anything that might look bad on camera, or I'll throw you to the wolves. And don't count on my support if the going get's rough, either. Popular opinion might change, and I wouldn't want to risk my Senate seat. I worked hard to get here, you know."

Inspiring.

Don't think that everyone from al-Qa'ida to the average American doesn't subconsiously understand what our lack of will to take the gloves off means. Everyone understands, on some level.

Expecting our troops to succeed when our leaders have already failed is a losing strategy.

[Congressman Billybob]

Twice in its history, the US has declared war without naming a nation or nations as the enemy. The first time was two centuries ago, when Congress authorized President Jefferson to use "military force" across "international boundaries" against the Barbary Pirates.

The second time was in 2001 when both Houses of Congress passed a Joint Resolution for President Bush to use military force against the terrorists, and "any nation harboring them." The language is very similar to what Congress said two centuries prior, in dealing with the other Muslim threat.

The point is, it is valid to declare war without naming another nation. It has been done before. But unfortunately, almost no politicians or reporters are aware of the history of the prior event under President Jefferson.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article: "Nathan Hale Died for a Dumb Nation"

[montag813]

If Bush and Rumsfeld had fought Iraq by "WWII rules", we would be having absolutely no problems there right now. We killed 100,000 Tokyo civilians in a single night in May 1945 without even a nuke. We should have killed perhaps 200,000 more Iraqi civilians, brutally, mercilessly, including the complete destruction of Tikrit and Fallujah. But the pussies who pass for leaders these days are more concerned with the "Arab street" than about putting craters into it. The West seems weak beyond repair. It is disgusting to behold. Bush talks tough but is a pussy when it comes to war.

[Jacquerie]

... moral cowardice on the part of our leaders.

Quotable.

IIRC from the sotu speech, President Bush spoke of new ROE. Fine. Therefore, I hope we'll soon hear of massive death to our enemies, in numbers such that the demorat leadership, the old media and all the leftist house organs pi$$ their panties. I grow weary of our fine troops serving as popup targets for muslim barbarians.