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.
Yes, their career depends upon being hyper-sensitive and this is precisely what they are trained to be. The selection and tailoring process starts early; they are trained to be politicians as much as great military leaders-- it is easily seen in the academic curriculum at the advanced leadership service schools. IMHO, some really great ones manage to still get through this process, BUT (1) their hands are tied behind their backs in combat operations so they can never command as effectively as they are capable of, and (2) a considerable fraction of the time that could have been spent on mastering operational art and command training during peacetime is spent on political grooming and PC training so that they never realize their true potential.
Also unfortunately, it's been hard to get people to wake up and realize that the war is against the Islamoradicals and the "moderates" who support them. I don't see a 100% victory in my lifetime given that we've been fighting this for over a millennium, but we could be doing a lot more. Half the country doesn't even think we have an enemy.
War has many purposes, obviously, depending on who wages it.
Hitler had his purposes for invading Poland; we had our purposes for defeating him. The "killing and breaking" were the means by which both sides attempted to impose their purposes.
In WWII, our purpose was to deal with German militarism, which had been increasingly troublesome over the course of decades. A primary goal was a Germany which no longer posed a military threat to its neighbors. The main lesson of WWI was that the Allies' failure to deal with post-war chaos in Germany led to a far more dangerous foe in WWII.
In part, that's where we are with respect to Iraq. We cannot claim to have "won" anything unless post-war Iraq is both stable and fundamentally non-aggressive. There's also the larger strategic issue, though: part of our purpose was to place ourselves next to Iran, and disrupt their position.
I don't think it will be back (regrettably).
- John
In this war we can't seem to bring ourselves to identify islam as the enemy and because of that we'll continue to lose. It's my belief that we're wasting our time trying to win their hearts and minds. To them we are infidels and they do not tolerate infidels for long regardless of how nice those infidels might be. Their conflicts with Israel, Russia, India, African Christians and animists, China, Thailand, and many others should serve as evidence of this. What we need to do is defeat them utterly on the battlefield and then wipe their religion off the face of the earth.
Rush's rule is actually, "The purpose of the military is to kill people and break stuff."
Now, r9etb, is Rush wrong about that? If so, what is the purpose of the military?
We are more apt to win it with the Dems, in fact, in charge. They will be totally in charge after 08 and will pull back from everywhere and and beef up Homeland Security and turn its focus entirely toward Christians and Conservatives and gunowners. The mohos will successfully hit us with a 9-11XXXX, perhaps a nuke and the administration will sic the FBI on them to scrape up the atoms of the suicides and Bring Them To Justice. Then it will happen again. And again. Each will be bigger and finally the Democrat-In-Charge will understand that the mohos are not really his allies in the war against rich nonDemocrats and will be exasperated and enraged at the "stab-in-the-back" from the Democrats' erstwhile proteges. In his panic he(or she, as it were) will launch against Islam and take over the American economy, what's left of it after the moho strikes, and dissolve the Constitution. America will win it in the end but the destruction will be immense, materially and to America as America.
With the Republicans in charge we are faced with endless pussyfooting as they tailor every action to show the Democrats that Republicans really are nice, compassionate even. That too will lead to strikes on the homeland- but will keep them away longer- and measured responses that do not convince the saracens that Allah does not will them to prevail. Ultimately the Democrat scenario is probably the one more likely to ensure that the West survives without a Caliphate but it won't be much better.
Not until we decide "treason" is a meaningful word and apply it to the media, members of Congress and other prominent individuals.
Not until we care more about our troops that about the "feelings" of our enemies.
It is not 3 different wars. It is campaigns in the Islamic War and we do win the first slashing attacks but then are worn down by constant ambushes and attacks from the MSM and the left that drain the victory right out of our wins.
Not as long as the politicians are allowed to run the war!
Perhaps America's resolve might be reawakened, but it will take a significant direct attack on US soil to do it. If the Islamic fascists perpetrate another 9-11 size attack, I'm not sure that would be enough. Perhaps only a nuclear attack against a major US city would turn the current tide of isolationism and appeasement.
I'm wondering if we'll ever declare another war.
I don't really think that the Dems believe the Islamofascists are their allies. They were just willing to use them to get what they wanted, i.e. power. Now that they've got it, though, maybe they will stop trying to undermine our government's efforts in this war. I think that the Dem leadership might at least stop doing that, although I believe that there are a lot of rank-and-file Dems who can't turn on a dime so easily, and are not smart enough to understand that the Dems have pursued this strategy of undermining our government purely for their own political gain, and not for any principled reason.
Nope. I simply responded to a quote in somebody else's post.
Next?
Post #39
You are 100% on target.
Not a chance.
A bit of a difference IMO.
I agree but see it differently. When Pearl Harbor was attacked, a legitimate military target with the express purpose of reducing your enemies war making abilities was attacked. Japan didn't bomb San Francisco, kill civilians, and leave our ability to respond and make war untouched.
But the vast majority of the country pulled together and we engaged in a military campaign the likes of which had never been seen before. Waves of bombers flew over Europe in such numbers as to darken the sky, dropping tens of thousands of bombs in a single run, destroying entire cities in short order.
And we ultimately concluded the war with the nuclear destruction of two Japanese cities.
Today, our civilian population is attacked on a scale never before seen or even imagined. Congress doesn't even declare war, and US citizens want us to respond, but ask "don't kill too many people while we do it, ok?"
Stealth bombers take to the sky in a handful of numbers and drop a handful of guided missles on a few select targets. B2 bombers take off in Wisconson, fly 5,000+ miles, drop a couple bombs, and fly back to America over a 3 day period.
Images of an errant bombs destruction hit the news, a few women are seen crying because their kids got killed, and Americans start to question not only the way, but our very right to defend ourselfs.
Imagine the reaction if instead of using isolated, limited, and percision bombing of a few targets we sent a wave of 1,000 bombers over Baghdad back in March of 2003 each droping their max payload and leaving nothing but a smoking hole in the ground where the city of Baghdad used to be.
Unfortunately I do not believe that the current American populace could or would stand for such a military action, regardless of its neccessity or the act that it was in response to.
Including the detonation of a nuclear device in an American city. I fear that after the initial shock, a sizable amount of people would demand that our government negotiate with the state or organization that pulled off the attack to not do it again, and to disarm any other devices in the country.
I don't believe the American people right now would stand for a full scale response, including the use of our nuclear arsenal.
As another poster said, we are a bunch of pu**ys.
No principled reason at all, just the conviction that anyone who hates America and Capitalism is ipso fact on their side, either as their idol, i.e. France, or as their proteges, i.e, poor downtrodden Palestinians and, by extension, Arabs and Mohammedans in general and everyone who supports the.
Back then it would have been quick and punishment delivered in rapid fashion.
Today, he would have a team of lawyers the likes of which have never been seen, and the trial would make Saddam's and Slobo's seem like speedy and orderly resolutions.
I admire your attitude, and your argument. I'm pessimistic about the big picture, not the war on terror, or Iraq. The signs are clear to me that we are going towards a direction that will end the dominance of western civilization, probably during our grand-children's lives.
Defeat doesn't show in current economics, or current war outcomes. Defeat is an attitude fostered in society. When a country becomes a market, and its citizens become mostly complacent, that is the defeat.
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.