Replies

Thanks for taking the time to read it Jeff, and adding your comments. In answer to your:

but I do not agree that the method of warfare we practised in World War II was wrong, if that is the implication.

If, by applying the standard of terror based on the definition above, the intention was to affect the the will of the people politically from the use of nukes, then I think it fits the definition of terror

Was it wrong? There was no way for us to act any differently than we had in the past, and just about every other country up to that time. With the obvious noted exceptions.

The importance of what our people are doing in Iraq right now is that they are finally getting it right. All the elements of progressive war are being displayed. Lightening mechanized attacks (Rommel, Patton), light/mobile objective based missions (Frederick the Great), etc.

In my mind the most important task undertaken by our men and women is the application of compassionate discrimination of targets at the risk of injury and death.

This legacy will bring forward a new generation of free Iraqis who will remember the pains our country went to to free them.

In that respect the time and mistakes of former military planners will be put in perspective.

Ah, but we are not facing a people united against us in Iraq. We are facintg a totally repressed people who are anxious to get out from under their tyrant's thumb.

Not so with most Germans under Hitler, and an even greater percentage of Japanese under the Emperor. They were very gungho and as a people willing to support that tyrant right up to the end (that support wained faster amongst the Germans).

It is this, in my estimation, more than anything else that is allowing us to prosecute the type of "compassionate" or "progressive" war you speak of.

If was not because we were historically bound that we fought as we did in World War II. More than the technology, it was the nature of the enemy and the populations that suported their armies.

Clearly, the newer technology allows us to be more discriminant if that is called for ... but let those millions in Baghdad (or anywhere else) turn against our forces and be gungho in their production and support of thier leader (as they were in World War II) and things change quickly.

Our actions after World War II to the enemies we had just defeated and who had worked so hard to support a regime that was bent on uteerly destroying us ... tells us that we had the compassion then, even as we do now. The major difference, IMHO, was the will of the people whom we were fighting ... and it was a will that had to be broken if we were going to ultimately safe more lives.

Human nature has not changed in the intervening years. We have not faced such a foe (meaning an entire culture or people) in Iraq, or at any time in the last 20+ years. I pray we never do ... but sadly, I believe it is very possible.

Best

Like many, I was not convinced during the long wind-up for Operation Iraqi Freedom. There didn't appear to be compelling evidence for action against Iraq in the name of the War On Terror while the terrorists seemed to be active everywhere but Iraq.

This I understand as it is inline with my conclusions, based on my observations, available facts, and the testimony of our intelligence community and military leaders. I've never bought into the "W knows stuff he can't tell us excuse".

However, my mind was changed when I read Caleb Carr's The Lessons of Terror...

Now I'm confused as I fail to see how taking out the arabs most secular regime is going to stem the tide of muslim terrorism?

This legacy will bring forward a new generation of free Iraqis who will remember the pains our country went to to free them.

WOW!

I fear this is at best wishful thinking. It's not working out in Afganistan or Kosovo.