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.
But is the American population sufficiently poplated with enough people to even get us to this point, or are they more likely to surrender and not even fight if such drastic sacrafices as needed during WWI and WWII are needed to win a war today? I have my doubts.
The United States MUST begin preparations for building up our military infrastructure and staffing to full wartime levels. It's time for our nation to be on a war footing and our great industrial and economic powers being focused upon the major task at hand. Iraq is not the war I speak of; merely, it is but a campaign in what looms ahead. We all know full-scale war is coming - it's only a matter of months or a couple of years.
We can only hope that tens upon hundreds of thousands of Americans don't have to be lost, first, before this great nation and our few true allies begin to finally fight back.
More Jihadis dead in Iraq means less Jihadis in America
BUMP
Now, what is wrong with the correct quotation of Rush?
Sixty years ago, Americans did not spend their evenings huddled in front of the television watching mind-numbing drivel and broadcasts in full sympathy with the enemy;s war effort...Today we have sacrificed thought for 'entertainment', and our values for a soft life.
Not until the war affects Americans on a broad basis as did WWI and WWII will we again have the resolve on the homefront to win the unconditional surrender of our enemies on the battlefield.
Would the same media 'sensitivity' toward the Nazis or the Japanese have been tolerated during WWII?
Nope.
Some people would have ended up in irons over that crap.
Until we again have the stones to bring charges of treason for providing aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war we are doomed to less than optimal outcomes, regardless of the competence of our military or the quality of their equipment.
Now, the majority of Americans just sit on their asses and bitch. It will take a calamity to change that.
Yep. But even then, if people don't start thinking, the blame for the calamity will be placed squarely on those who did not prevent it, and not the perpetrators thereof.
You seem to be assuming that I would disagree with the "corrected" version because I disagreed with the version you said was incorrect.
Why would you assume that?
If you agree with the corrected quote, wouldn't it have been better and more appropriate to say, "having now seen the correct quote, I agree 100%" if in fact you do?
Why should I respond to your assumptions?
As it happens, I do agree ... mostly ... with the statement. I don't agree completely, however. The purpose of the military is to be capable of killing people and breaking things, if necessary.
If the only purpose was literally to kill people and break things, we'd always be at war, n'est pas?
I think it is understood that they will kill people and break things when necessary and does not need to be explicitly spelled out.
"We filled factories with people building the machines and tools of war."
You are correct. When one examines the reasons that we were able to win WWII, our simple ability to out produce our enemies in terms of ships, planes, tanks, etc., was an important factor.
With our manufacturing and engineering expertise going overseas, I wonder if we could pull it off again, even if we had the will to do so.
Correct. The appeasement will destroy us unless the voters finally realize that we are already in WWIII and that their 'children' will be in danger.
Your assessment is harsh and depressing. However, they way things look today, it seems possible that it will play out just as you describe. Watching the coverage of this Iraq study group today has me ready for a straight jacket. It looks like the entire country has gone senile.
Only when we stop being politically correct and just take the gloves off.
But is the American population sufficiently populated with enough people to even get us to this point, or are they more likely to surrender and not even fight if such drastic sacrafices as needed during WWI and WWII are needed to win a war today? I have my doubts.
Seems a missing ingredient in our actions in the recent past [and currently] is the absence of the kind of level threat as from WW II enemies. Actions in Korea or Vietnam were never perceived as a threat here. Their being 'communist' was their problem. Likewise some are calling today WW III or the like. But enemies using suicide car bombs and stolen planes do not evidence the power to make citizens feel threatened. Hence, the current theme is assigning a projected a future capability to fear. Uncertainty becomes certainty without even the calculus of China and a resurrected Russia. We would do well to re-examine President Bush's policy of strike first to make sure we pick the right target to strike.
"Isn't Ben Shapiro about 17 years old. A topic a little out of his league."
No more so than the rest of this website's posters.
It does need to be explicitly spelled out. The tiresome antics of the Keyboard Kommando brigade show that it's very necessary: they seem to think that "killing people and breaking things" is really all you need to do to win a war.
Knowing the difference between military methodology, and the purposes of war -- including when and how to use the military, and when not to do so -- is essential to actually winning.
We'll never win another war if our present political climate remains. The only war we might win is against an enemy who mounts a catostophic attack on us and I don't mean a the destruction of a few high rise buildings. Even then it will be difficult to get everyone reading the same page and there will be substantial claims that we brought it on ourselves. In my 66 years of life I've never seen so many Americans willingly playing in the hands of those who wish to destroy us. We can and we WILL be destroyed if this thinking continues. They'll need high voltage shock treatment and then many of them will still be active in opposing any U.S. response other than appeasement and accommodation. It's a sad time for the United States of America. We are witnessing the fall of the west and we are doing the pushing. Sad, sad indeed. I'm glad I won't be around to witness the end results.
Evidence of rational thought, sir. Well stated.
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.