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.
To be searched at an airport or entering subway stations is a hardship and an attack on our liberty. It is a sacrifice that no American should be asked to submit to but many of these same people will wait in line, even camping out days before, in freezing and rainy weather to buy a video game.
Suicide bombings at malls, sporting events, and other areas of large public gathering could be pulled off with great ease and little effort.
How hard would it be for you (or anyone else) to have got up at 2 AM on Black Friday, stood in line at Best Buy with 1,000 other people, and upon entering a packed shoulder to shoulder Best Buy at 6:00 AM detonate a device, killing 200 people? You probably could have come up with the plan at noon on Thanksgiving and have everything done and ready to roll by 6 PM.
If such scenarios started happening in America with Islamic suicide bombers, in your honest opinion, do you think the America people as a whole (or a vast majority) would stand up and demand that Congress, The President, and the US Military wage an all out, no holds barred war against Islamic countries that are known to fund and support such actions?
I suspect the American people would not.
How convenient. Talk about your defeatist attitudes.
Not even with liberals accepted as a serious political party. They were just as powerful out of power as in - I got there from the obvious lack of conservative advancement over the past decade.
Probably true. But would an enemy nation be that stupid to invite retaliation? An emeny's first effort would be to attack our ability to react [like at Pearl Harbor]. If an isolated event happened, it could be a renegade or even a false flag. As an aside, the Iraq misinformation will color the minds of Americans for a long time.
Not to mention that our boys weren't brought home over those 50 years, either!
My goodness. Working out a few girl troubles, are you?
Not a defeatist attitude, but an observation of an all to often reality in America today.
Countries like China, yes. As evidenced by their current work on being able to disable our military and communication sattelites.
But China is not our current enemy. It could be in the future, or it could be one of our best friends. I can see China going either way.
But our current enemy, and enemies in the near and not so distant future are not countries like China. They are countries like Iran, Syria, and yes, Saudi Arabia.
Do they fear retaliation by the US? No. They invite it and want it. They are an enemy, where their ultimate victory is death through attacking the infidels and the heavenly rewards that await them for such acts.
Unlike wars in the past, where the leaders, fighters, and civilian populations ultimately wanted to LIVE, our current enemies want to DIE.
How do you fight an enemy whose actual goal is to die becasue of the rewards from doing so?
Threatening to kill them if they attack you isn't a deterent.
Limbaugh always jokes, but is half serious, that one way to defeat our enemies is to export liberalism!
Technically, the Korean was has not ended and we are still at war with Korea. We are just observing a very long ceasefire.
not with the commie dems in charge.
They may as well call it what it is, the Communist Party.
There, said.
Ah c'on, enough. ?They want us to bomb them so they can be killed!
I may be wrong but I fear Bush has coved. He simply can't stand up against elite opinion. The country may be split more or less evenly, but the elite has turned against the war.
Yep, I'm aware of that. Still, no clamor to bring the boys home from that quagmire!
Kind of a big task, wouldn't you say? We are really going to need a bigger Army, but then we have needed one since before Clinton left office and I am left dumbfounded as to why we do not have one.
True, but then if the goal is to destroy and not occupy ... the task would become much easier.
I'd ignore the moslems in Russia though, they are pretty tame. Ivan fixed their hash back in 1521 pretty well.
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.