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.
I agree in principle. However, it hasn't taken much to subvert our Constitution to where we are now. All it takes is the aggrieved class (Congressional Black Caucus, CAIR, et al) and their allies in the Democrat party and media (sorry for the redundancy) and appeasement will do the rest. Our government is one of coalition. If you can get others to sign on to your argument, anything is possible.
The danger, again, is in their tactics. The liberals (who, by the way, control Congress) are perfect shills for the Muslims. Time and again they "feel the pain" of the poor oppressed Muslims when fire is simply returned to them. You don't have to look any further than last summer's conflict between Hezbollah and Israel to see a glaring example.
No. No one should be in a position of governance who can't honestly take an oath to support and defend the laws of this land. A true Muslim can't do that.
This sounds good and I have often said this myself. Think about Gen. Wesley Clark and the many like him. The problem is that the military has become too much like other government and civilian bureaucracies. Generals are survivors. Often the ones who have risen to the top are just good at politics. They are afraid of risk and they are hyper-concerned with political correctness.
That's part of it. We've also been brainwashed for a couple of generations to surrender nationalism, accept the dictates of the UN, consider any real discussion of interest politics in bad taste and to put "the environment" (whatever the hell that means) ahead of national survival. I know this is true because my 40-year-old daughter told me so last evening. She informed me that anyone like me who believes in the literal meaning of the Constitution -- a "living document" that reflects changing times -- is a selfish bigot, a fascist, and a real menace to "enlightened" society.
This is why it is imperative that Iraq is a general success.
You forgot to add Rush's next truism, which is that 'we go to war (killing and breaking things) in order to break the will of the enemy and change their behavior.'
Why would you disagree with that?
Not until the wretched baby-boomer hippies drop dead.
The fuel is what enables the barbarian ... his motivation comes from an aggressive and psychotic ideology.
However, just as in Nazi Germany, the number of true psychotics is actually pretty small, and the main mass of the populace pretty much gets pulled along in their wake.
The key to dealing with the barbarian is to deal with the main mass of the populace.
I don't: it addresses the purpose.
Then what is the purpose of war? Israel just concluded a war the Hisbolla in Lebanon. What was accomplished. If Israel had just level the South of Lebanon to cinder, the war would had done what it needed, DESTROYING THE ENEMY. Leaving pieces and parts intact is pure stupidity.
I'm with you. The thing that worries despots the most is losing their own skins. They're so worried about that that they'll expend millions of their countrymen to achieve that singular goal. Show the world that we can vaporize a country's civil infrastructure with pin-point accuracy and you'll (a) scare the sh!t out of the populace, and (b) scare the sh!t out of the despots. No more "boots on the ground" for babysitting duty. Boots on the ground to kill people and break things, period, and then 'hasta la vista'.
you're correct.
we were told to 'go buy stuff' after 9/11. not exactly a real self-sacrafice , is it?
which is why the dims love his "candor" and Gates has "bipartisan support".
BTTT
Was there some other objective of the Gulf War?
Amen. Smite the jihadists wherever they are to be found...
Objectives:
1. Create a battlespace of our choosing, of such a value to the enemy, that they will crawl out of their rat-holes world-wide, and come to Iraq to battle and die, there.
Results:
Terrorists in hiding world-wide come out of hiding and go to Iraq instead of New York, San Diego, Boston, etc. There they die.
There is only winning (lack of terrorist hits in the US), there will not be a "won" for generations.
2. The second objective is to stop the inter-generational continuity of hatred by planting the seeds of the fruits of freedom. Maybe in less than 40 years, this poison the has a foothold in the Islamic community can be marginalized.
Hey, this can happen with any religion, or group. It's just Islam's turn. Nazi and Tojo had their shot.
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.