Posted on 05/15/2008 6:23:16 PM PDT by Barbarian6
To better understand the Quranic basis of jihad as practiced by extremists without sifting through a library of interpretations, you should read one book above all others, says Lt. Col. Joseph Myers.
“The Quranic Concept of War,” by Pakistani Brig. Gen. S.K. Malik in the late 1970s, isn’t much studied in the West.
But it should be, Myers said, if America, and more specifically, the U.S. military, wants to gain a better understanding of the enemy in the war on terrorism...
..."I think the significant strategic shortcoming or failing in the war on terror is that we have not gone through the strategic, doctrinal analysis of the enemy, we haven’t distilled and elaborated his threat doctrine."
Q: If you could speak to the members of Congress or members of the federal government, is there anything they could do about that situation?
(Excerpt) Read more at cqpolitics.com ...
You just blamed us for 9/11!
</sarc>
Saddam Hussein not only violated the Armistice he signed at the end of Desert Storm, (violating it more than a 1000 times! As he never stopped fighting us) he purchased weaponized smallpox in 1998 from a Russian defector for $2Million. (This was independently verified by two individuals who did not know one another; one Russian, the other Iraqi.)
You can read about it in the book, The Demon in the Freezer (it is about WMD, mainly smallpox). One could say that Bush, after 9/11, was experiencing a case of “controlled panic” at the nightmare scenario he inherited from the Clintons.
1. The art of war is of vital importance to the State.
2. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.
The ambiguity is very very intentional. For many states going to war is the road to ruin through ill-formed plans and wasting the blood and treasure of the state. It is the most serious business in which the ruler of a state engages.
“There is no excuse for going to war with no plan and no clear estimate of the enemy. “
You mean there was no casulty-free plan. No such plan exists in an operation of this magnitude. Regarding ‘clear estimate of the enemy’, the enemy consists of al-qaeda and Iranian backed terrorists from all over the world. Demanding a clear estimate of non-conventional foes is unrealistic.
First, no one asked for or asserted that there should be a casualty free plan. Second, you are an idiot if you think that you go to war without a strategy, a strategy that you have worked over in every way possible to make sure it is viable. A strategy means, first, that you know what victory would look like if you could achieve it, second, you know how you will go about achieving it, and third you have the means to do so, even when it turns out to be 3 times as hard as you originally thought (and all wars turn out to be a lot harder than you thought).
The neo cons had no idea what they were going to do after the easy part of getting Sadam out. Let freedom ring is not a strategy. It is a fantasy.
But bottom line - you bushbots need to contemplate - you never ever ever ever deliberately start a war without a strategy. Sure, the Taliban attacked us, and that war was arguably (arguably) involuntary. Our attacking Iraq was entirely voluntary, at a time and place of our own choosing. There was no clear throughtful deliberation.
“First, no one asked for or asserted that there should be a casualty free plan.”
Sure they did. This is why any and all casualties are contributed to ‘having no plan’, a foolish charged initiated by congressional democrats and repeated by their left-wing lemmings and arm-chair general isolationists.
“Second, you are an idiot if you think that you go to war without a strategy”
No, we went in with a stragegy. Unless you’re attempting to call people like Franks an ‘idiot’. Just because there were casualties doesn’t mean that there was no strategy.
“The neo cons had no idea what they were going to do after the easy part of getting Sadam out.”
I distinctly remember a majority on both sides of the isle authorizing Operation Iraqi Freedom. I wasn’t aware that people like Biden, Clinton, Feinstein, Reid, Schumer, and Daschle were ‘neo cons’.
“Let freedom ring is not a strategy. It is a fantasy.”
It’s too late for this criticism. The Iraqis have already elected a democratic form of govnerment and are allied with the U.S. against al-qaeda and Iranian backed terrorists. This is not fantasy.
“But bottom line - you bushbots need to contemplate - you never ever ever ever deliberately start a war without a strategy”
Actually, we didn’t start the war. Saddam restarted the war by refusing to abide by the terms of the cease fire.
Oh, right! The “neo cons have destroyed the Republican Party”.
Not the least bit hesitant about parading your rabid anti-semitism, I see.
Oh Yeah, it’s a given. It just irritates me that the buzzhead claims to be a christian and doesn’t even know the meaning of the word. BLT claimes Jesus was black, and he was a Jew neither black nor white...it just makes me so mad!
I can’t believe that we have HALF A COUNTRY without a brain!
Whattt!!!????? Where did I say that?
It reminds me of the KoolAid drinker, that Jim Jones crowd, just follow the Leader. I wrote about this on my blog last month, it’s called BOBBLEHEADS at:
http://thefreedomplatform.blogspot.com/
I shouldn’t be amazed at these morons, but somehow it just is beyond reason, at how they faun over this naive muslim/marxist.
Absolute nonsense. Not having a plan is why after we booted Sadam, it took several years of messing around until we finally booted out the neocons, Bremer, Feith, Wolfowitz and their lack of a plan and brought in Petraeus who did actually have a clue as to what had to be done.
No, we went in with a stragegy. Unless you’re attempting to call people like Franks an ‘idiot’.
well then, what was that strategy? Franks is well known as a tactician, not a strategist.
I wasn’t aware that people like Biden, Clinton, Feinstein, Reid, Schumer, and Daschle were ‘neo cons’.
They were not the one's pushing for us to go in, or directing the policy offices that set the direction, or lack of it for the war.
Saddam restarted the war by refusing to abide by the terms of the cease fire.
that was the Causus Belli. we chose the time, manner and place of the first attack and subsequent conduct of operations, until we ran out of plan and started relying on knee jerk reaction, which had been our strategy for several subsequent years untli Petraeus came along with a plan.
Asserting we had a strategy for Iraq when we self-evidently did not is not going to get the pubbies out of a well-deserved lynching at the polls.
War is serious business and not for amateurs, like the one's who got us into Iraq or the one's like you who are trying to defend it.
Strategy - you two don't know the first thing about strategy. Answer one question - what would victory in Iraq look like if we could achieve it?
Oh no...do you mean to say you didn’t know that all the neocons are Jewish? They are former Democrats who left that party because it abandonned a strong pro-National Defense stance.
Truly, neocons had nothing to do with the decision to resume war with Saddam Hussein. The situation with Iraq had degraded to the point that there really wasn’t anything else we could do but uphold the terms of the Armistice. As for the smallpox WMD, it was never located but the U.S. today has a large store of smallpox vaccine set aside for such an emergency, something we did not have prior to 9/11.
As a military history buff (how many 14-year old girls can you name owned most of the classic books on war?) and Navy veteran, I know all about not going to war without a plan. But hey! Nobody is supposed to have a baby without its birth being planned, either. FAT CHANCE!
Somethings are just damned hard to plan for.
Victory would look like Germany or Japan. And we are still there. And those wars weren’t planned either, as you already well know!
First, that is merely a fantasy, not the goal of a well articulated strategy. Second that is not a victory that we can achieve in Iraq, whose social and political conditions are the opposite of Germany or Japan, so we might as well stop right now.
Care to try again with an actually achieveable goal.
BS
Well, first, instead of collecting one you should actually read one. Second, there is a special place in hell for those who deliberately repeat a failed pattern in history, hoping that it will turn out differently.
McArthur and Patton and Eisenhower and Nimitz and Stark and Marshall and Roosevelt and Churchill did not have a strategy? The entire submarine campaign in the Pacific was without a plan or a strategy? Now you really are smoking illegal substances.
“Absolute nonsense. “
Yeah, there’s no way the war critics would politicize casualties.
“Franks is well known as a tactician, not a strategist.”
Well, what would a four star general know about strategy, especially compared to someone who runs around on the internet complaining about ‘bushbots’ and ‘neocons’.
“until we ran out of plan and started relying on knee jerk reaction”
Yeah, the bombs that landed on Zarqari’s safe house were purely coincidental.
Well I am a strong supporter of an effective and strong anti-terror policy and have become a violent critic of the current administration and its senseless expenditure of blood (some) and enormous quantities of treasure in entirely frivolous ways. I am not politicizing casualties. I am arguing about the heartless souless putting lives at risk without due concern for ensuring that all blood expended is for valid well defined strategic goals (planned down to the squad level in each deliberate skirmish, as is the grave responsibility of military commanders).
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.