12 myths of 21st century war

[hokie4redskins]

12 Myths of 21st-Century War -- Unaware of the cost of freedom and served by leaders without military expertise, Americans have started to believe whatever's comfortable

By Ralph Peters

We're in trouble. We're in danger of losing more wars. Our troops haven't forgotten how to fight. We've never had better men and women in uniform. But our leaders and many of our fellow Americans no longer grasp what war means or what it takes to win.

Thanks to those who have served in uniform, we've lived in such safety and comfort for so long that for many Americans sacrifice means little more than skipping a second trip to the buffet table.

Two trends over the past four decades contributed to our national ignorance of the cost, and necessity, of victory. First, the most privileged Americans used the Vietnam War as an excuse to break their tradition of uniformed service. Ivy League universities once produced heroes. Now they resist Reserve Officer Training Corps representation on their campuses.

Yet, our leading universities still produce a disproportionate number of U.S. political leaders. The men and women destined to lead us in wartime dismiss military service as a waste of their time and talents. Delighted to pose for campaign photos with our troops, elected officials in private disdain the military. Only one serious presidential aspirant in either party is a veteran, while another presidential hopeful pays as much for a single haircut as I took home in a month as an Army private.

Second, we've stripped in-depth U.S. history classes out of our schools. Since the 1960s, one history course after another has been cut, while the content of those remaining focuses on social issues and our alleged misdeeds. Dumbed-down textbooks minimize the wars that kept us free. As a result, ignorance of the terrible price our troops had to pay for freedom in the past creates absurd expectations about our present conflicts. When the media offer flawed or biased analyses, the public lacks the knowledge to make informed judgments.

This combination of national leadership with no military expertise and a population that hasn't been taught the cost of freedom leaves us with a government that does whatever seems expedient and a citizenry that believes whatever's comfortable. Thus, myths about war thrive.

Myth No. 1: War doesn't change anything.

This campus slogan contradicts all of human history. Over thousands of years, war has been the last resort - and all too frequently the first resort - of tribes, religions, dynasties, empires, states and demagogues driven by grievance, greed or a heartless quest for glory. No one believes that war is a good thing, but it is sometimes necessary. We need not agree in our politics or on the manner in which a given war is prosecuted, but we can't pretend that if only we laid down our arms all others would do the same.

Wars, in fact, often change everything. Who would argue that the American Revolution, our Civil War or World War II changed nothing? Would the world be better today if we had been pacifists in the face of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan?

Certainly, not all of the changes warfare has wrought through the centuries have been positive. Even a just war may generate undesirable results, such as Soviet tyranny over half of Europe after 1945. But of one thing we may be certain: a U.S. defeat in any war is a defeat not only for freedom, but for civilization. Our enemies believe that war can change the world. And they won't be deterred by bumper stickers.

Myth No. 2: Victory is impossible today.

Victory is always possible, if our nation is willing to do what it takes to win. But victory is, indeed, impossible if U.S. troops are placed under impossible restrictions, if their leaders refuse to act boldly, if every target must be approved by lawyers, and if the American people are disheartened by a constant barrage of negativity from the media. We don't need generals who pop up behind microphones to apologize for every mistake our soldiers make. We need generals who win.

And you can't win if you won't fight. We're at the start of a violent struggle that will ebb and flow for decades, yet our current generation of leaders, in and out of uniform, worries about hurting the enemy's feelings.

One of the tragedies of our involvement in Iraq is that while we did a great thing by removing Saddam Hussein, we tried to do it on the cheap. It's an iron law of warfare that those unwilling to pay the butcher's bill up front will pay it with compound interest in the end. We not only didn't want to pay that bill, but our leaders imagined that we could make friends with our enemies even before they were fully defeated. Killing a few hundred violent actors like Moqtada al-Sadr in 2003 would have prevented thousands of subsequent American deaths and tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths. We started something our national leadership lacked the guts to finish.

Despite our missteps, victory looked a great deal less likely in the early months of 1942 than it does against our enemies today. Should we have surrendered after the fall of the Philippines? Today's opinionmakers and elected officials have lost their grip on what it takes to win. In the timeless words of Nathan Bedford Forrest, "War means fighting, and fighting means killing."

And in the words of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, "It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it."

Myth No. 3: Insurgencies can never be defeated.

Historically, fewer than one in 20 major insurgencies succeeded. Virtually no minor ones survived. In the mid-20th century, insurgencies scored more wins than previously had been the case, but that was because the European colonial powers against which they rebelled had already decided to rid themselves of their imperial possessions. Even so, more insurgencies were defeated than not, from the Philippines to Kenya to Greece. In the entire 18th century, our war of independence was the only insurgency that defeated a major foreign power and drove it out for good.

The insurgencies we face today are, in fact, more lethal than the insurrections of the past century. We now face an international terrorist insurgency as well as local rebellions, all motivated by religious passion or ethnicity or a fatal compound of both. The good news is that in over 3,000 years of recorded history, insurgencies motivated by faith and blood overwhelmingly failed. The bad news is that they had to be put down with remorseless bloodshed.

Myth No. 4: There's no military solution; only negotiations can solve our problems.

In most cases, the reverse is true. Negotiations solve nothing until a military decision has been reached and one side recognizes a peace agreement as its only hope of survival. It would be a welcome development if negotiations fixed the problems we face in Iraq, but we're the only side interested in a negotiated solution. Every other faction - the terrorists, Sunni insurgents, Shia militias, Iran and Syria - is convinced it can win.

The only negotiations that produce lasting results are those conducted from positions of indisputable strength.

Myth No. 5: When we fight back, we only provoke our enemies.

When dealing with bullies, either in the schoolyard or in a global war, the opposite is true: if you don't fight back, you encourage your enemy to behave more viciously.

Passive resistance only works when directed against rule-of-law states, such as the core English-speaking nations. It doesn't work where silent protest is answered with a bayonet in the belly or a one-way trip to a political prison. We've allowed far too many myths about the "innate goodness of humanity" to creep up on us. Certainly, many humans would rather be good than bad. But if we're unwilling to fight the fraction of humanity that's evil, armed and determined to subjugate the rest, we'll face even grimmer conflicts.

Myth No. 6: Killing terrorists only turns them into martyrs.

It's an anomaly of today's Western world that privileged individuals feel more sympathy for dictators, mass murderers and terrorists - consider the irrational protests against Guantanamo - than they do for their victims. We were told, over and over, that killing Osama bin Laden or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, hanging Saddam Hussein or targeting the Taliban's Mullah Omar would only unite their followers. Well, we haven't yet gotten Osama or Omar, but Zarqawi's dead and forgotten by his own movement, whose members never invoke that butcher's memory. And no one is fighting to avenge Saddam. The harsh truth is that when faced with true fanatics, killing them is the only way to end their influence. Imprisoned, they galvanize protests, kidnappings, bombings and attacks that seek to free them. Want to make a terrorist a martyr? Just lock him up. Attempts to try such monsters in a court of law turn into mockeries that only provide public platforms for their hate speech, which the global media is delighted to broadcast. Dead, they're dead. And killing them is the ultimate proof that they lack divine protection. Dead terrorists don't kill.

http://www.legion.org/?section=publications&subsection=pubs_mag_index&content=pub_mag_warmyths_1107

[Popeman38]

Was a good read. But I fear that reaction in the tailgate to an article written by The Legion will not be well received. Hopefully, I will be pleasently surprised.

[alexey]

Myth No. 7: All myths listed above actually exist

Good but obvious points. Notice how each myth has "only." "all," "never," or "impossible" in it. That needs to be there in order to make them false

[headexplode]

It seems that Sparta is still alive and well in the consciousness of the conservative, militaristic mind.

Though I agree with some of the authors points, specifically on our relations with Saudi Arabia and our unwillingness to "win the war" (because winning the war might prompt people to ask when our troops are coming home, which has never been the plan of the Bush administration), the arrogance and obvious hostility in his tone towards those who "just don't get it," as well as his overly-simplistic (and jingoistic) logic, makes it difficult for me to do little more than dismiss the entire thing as so much animalistic chest-pounding.

And I'll add one more thing: he's right that war does change the dynamics of power, but one thing a war will never do, is bring peace to the world. If we ever do defeat "the terrorists," we'll quickly find a new threat, a new enemy, a new reason to hate people that are different than us. This isn't an American phenomenon, but a human phenomenon, and rather than look for a new way, the author is asking us (no, telling us) to embrace the violent and brutal ways of our ancestors.

[headexplode]

Myth No. 7: All myths listed above actually exist

Good but obvious points. Notice how each myth has "only." "all," "never," or "impossible" in it. That needs to be there in order to make them false

This is a very commonly used tactic. Because nuance is a dirty word in the conservative mind.

This kind of writing is insulting to someone like me, who understands that sometimes in life there are more than just one or two answers. Sometimes, there's a third way.

Asking questions about fanaticism and how it spreads and what are the possible non-violent means of combating its foothold is "giving comfort" or offering sympathetic ears to the "feelings" of our enemies.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Color me unimpressed (seriously, I think its some shade of pink).

[alexey]

Sometimes, there's a third way.

In Buddhism it is called the "Middle Way," which is the general practice of non-extremism.

Humans tend to think in terms of contradicting dualities. Transcending that self-imposed limitation is key...

[headexplode]

Color me unimpressed (seriously, I think its some shade of pink).

I just wish we could have a legitimate conversation without being talked down to by people "who know better."

I mean, what's so wrong with strength and diplomacy?

Isn't it possible that, aside from just "killing all the terrorists," we could try to understand where this kind of fanaticism has its roots? Couldn't that be just as much a part of the GWOT?

Too faggoty, I guess.

[headexplode]

In Buddhism it is called the "Middle Way," which is the general practice of non-extremism.

Humans tend to think in terms of contradicting dualities. Transcending that is key.

Great point. That's exactly what I was getting at.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Too faggoty, I guess.

That... and the commies would win.

[Predicto]

Needless to say, I disagree with a large part of Mr. Peters' analysis.

Some of it is indisputably true - for example, one cannot fight wars without making huge and terrible sacrifices and we as a nation are no longer comfortable making those sacrifices. And yes, war is sometimes necessary, despite what a few peaceniks claim. And yes, insurgencies can be defeated.

However, the rest of it is, essentially, an argument that war is virtually ALWAYS the solution and that virtually ALL war is justified (and, by correlation, the current struggle in Iraq must be a good thing).

Here's some of the specific statements I have trouble with.

1. "We're at the start of a violent struggle that will ebb and flow for decades, yet our current generation of leaders, in and out of uniform, worries about hurting the enemy's feelings."

This is a self fulfilling prophecy. A cogent argument may be made that if we tried a bit not to aggravate those people as much, we wouldn't be at the start of a violent struggle that will last decades.

2. "Negotiations solve nothing until a military decision has been reached and one side recognizes a peace agreement as its only hope of survival."

Hmm. Perhaps this is true once you are involved in all-out warfare, but that presumes that you must be in a war to achieve any results. A few people from Northern Ireland would like to speak with Me. Peters about this.

3. "When dealing with bullies, either in the schoolyard or in a global war, the opposite is true: if you don't fight back, you encourage your enemy to behave more viciously."

I assume that Peters is trying to say that invading Iraq was our way of "fighting back" against the perpetrators of 9/11, but that is a false connection. The real problem is that, in may ways, we are percieved as the bullies and the insurgents are the ones "fighting back." This is a perception that we should be going out of our way not to foster, if at all possible.

4. "It's an anomaly of today's Western world that privileged individuals feel more sympathy for dictators, mass murderers and terrorists - consider the irrational protests against Guantanamo - than they do for their victims... The harsh truth is that when faced with true fanatics, killing them is the only way to end their influence.."

This is not true. We EXPECT more from our government than we do from dictators and mass murders. We think that there is a longterm value to being undeniably better than our opponents in every way. The statement also conflates true fanatics with "whoever we have locked up," which is not accurate.

5. "Only one serious presidential aspirant in either party is a veteran, while another presidential hopeful pays as much for a single haircut as I took home in a month as an Army private."

I just enjoyed this cheap shot. It added a lot to the analysis.

Overall, you will like this piece if it reflects your own view on the War, and it will gall you if it doesn't. I don't think anyone will be persuaded to change their mind based on this.

[JMS]

This article is bunk..

We're in trouble. We're in danger of losing more wars. Our troops haven't forgotten how to fight. We've never had better men and women in uniform. But our leaders and many of our fellow Americans no longer grasp what war means or what it takes to win.

Should have stopped right there cause he was half right here and that's as close as he's come. It's not the American people who failed and floundered for five years in Iraq, It was Bush. Bush didn't grasp how to win, what it would take to win, and never mobilized the public behind him with a clear reason for why we went in or what our goal was. The minimum of what could be expected from a war time President.

First, the most privileged Americans used the Vietnam War as an excuse to break their tradition of uniformed service.

:doh:

Fact is the Military itself along with the Executive broke the military in Korea and Vietnam. It's not that College men don't want to serve. It's that they've been told not to serve. When we had the draft we gave them deferments. Now that we don't have the draft Bush tells the country not to change their life styles and keep spending.. Bush never asked for national commitment FDR asked for. Bush didn't want that. The Military didn't want that. Cause they're incompetent boobs who were underestimating the commitment Iraq would take from day one.

Our Military decided they didn't need the elite college men or average citizens in order to fight Korea, or Vietnam. They drafted the children and the poor and exempted the College and those over the age of 24. They wanted the squishy brained 18 year olds who were economically despensible. And that's who they took.

Yet, our leading universities still produce a disproportionate number of U.S. political leaders. The men and women destined to lead us in wartime dismiss military service as a waste of their time and talents. Delighted to pose for campaign photos with our troops, elected officials in private disdain the military. Only one serious presidential aspirant in either party is a veteran, while another presidential hopeful pays as much for a single haircut as I took home in a month as an Army private.

Our greatest War time Presidents were not servicemen. Wilson did not serve in the military yet lead us through WWI. FDR did not serve in the military and he sucessfully saw us through the majority of WWII.

The lack of military service is not an indicator either way of how good a war time president you will be, just like military experience alone is not an indicator of how good War time President you will make.

Truman served and still got us mired down in Korea. Kenedy Johnston and Nixon served and that didn't help them to avoid Vietnam which they all tripped into and wallowed around in.

Myth No. 1: War doesn't change anything.

Wars are expensive and they should be seen as a last resort. For a country which isn't interested in occupation or collecting an empire; they do solve little.

Wars, in fact, often change everything. Who would argue that the American Revolution, our Civil War or World War II changed nothing? Would the world be better today if we had been pacifists in the face of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan?

This is the difference between a war in which you are attacked, not of your choosing. Totally different than deciding to go to war to solve some political or economic problem.

Myth No. 2: Victory is impossible today.

Victory has been elusive since WWII mostly because of incompetent leadership. The last four wars we've fought have been failures. Not because we were out fought, or because we were defeated on the ground. We've lost wars because American leaders failed to define militarily achievable objectives and failed define objectives sutable to justify our national involvement.

• Korea(stalemate),
  
• Vietnam (defeat),
  
• Gulf War One(inconclusive),
  
• Gulf War Two (inconclusive).
  

Myth No. 3: Insurgencies can never be defeated.

The United States hasn't had much luck against insurgency. You can claim the Philipeans was a victory but the fact is they are independent today, for the same reasons we left Vietnam. Cause they wouldn't stop fighting and we lost interest.

Insurgencies have a pretty good track record actually..

• Napolean vs Spanish
  
• Britain vs the Irish
  
• Philipenes
  
• Algeria
  
• Vietnam vs French,
  
• Vietnam vs The US
  

Myth No. 4: There's no military solution; only negotiations can solve our problems.

Military solutions are expensive and should be the last resort. If we would have offered Saddam 500 billion dollars to hold free elections it's likely we would have saved ourselves 75% of the cost of the second Iraq war.

There is no good economic reason to use the military. That's how expensive our military has become.

Myth No. 5: When we fight back, we only provoke our enemies.

Terrorism is up like 2000 percent globally since 911. So that's exactly what has happenned. although I don't think this is the norm. Perhaps it's the norm when you go into wars of agression incompetently.

Myth No. 6: Killing terrorists only turns them into martyrs.

It's not the terrorists who are the issue. It's the 100,000 civilians you kill along with those few terrorists who are the true martyrs. Those are the folks that should give any American president pause. Saddly not this one.

[sacase]

This article is bunk..

Should have stopped right there cause he was half right here and that's as close as he's come. It's not the American people who failed and floundered for five years in Iraq, It was Bush. Bush didn't grasp how to win, what it would take to win, and never mobilized the public behind him with a clear reason for why we went in or what our goal was. The minimum of what could be expected from a war time President.

No this is on Rumsfield. General Shinseki told Rumsfield what was needed to win in Iraq. He was ignored because Rumsfield wanted to treat the war as a business. SF and the Airforce are great when you have limited objectives but you need the Army to take and hold ground. The Air Force will never win you a war since they cannot take and hold ground. The objectives were clear, however they changed since we did not have enough boots on the ground.

:doh:

Fact is the Military itself along with the Executive broke the military in Korea and Vietnam. It's not that College men don't want to serve. It's that they've been told not to serve. When we had the draft we gave them deferments. Now that we don't have the draft Bush tells the country not to change their life styles and keep spending.. Bush never asked for national commitment FDR asked for. Bush didn't want that. The Military didn't want that. Cause they're incompetent boobs who were underestimating the commitment Iraq would take from day one.

Our Military decided they didn't need the elite college men or average citizens in order to fight Korea, or Vietnam. They drafted the children and the poor and exempted the College and those over the age of 24. They wanted the squishy brained 18 year olds who were economically despensible. And that's who they took.

They were never told not to serve, they would have been welcomed to serve. They are just cowards and chose to hide behind college rather than serve their country. They like many others don't want to give up their nice and comfortable lifestyle because they might actually *gasp* die protecting this country. That is waaaaaay to much to give I mean who else would be able to party with Paris or spit on soldiers.

You know take a look at the poor squishy masses that the military recruits from, you know the crowd you think is unintelligent. The ones that are called teh smartest soldiers we have ever had. Many of the enlisted personnel have Bachlors and Masters degree's. Once they get out of the military they go one to do great things in life. They are able to provide for their families and make more money than many of them thought would be a dream. More often than not the military life leaves you better than you were when you came in.

The military needs elite college men and women now more than ever, but they don't want overprivledge elitist ****s who have no understanding of sacrifice and are complete cowards when they don't have daddy's wallet to back them up.

Our greatest War time Presidents were not servicemen. Wilson did not serve in the military yet lead us through WWI. FDR did not serve in the military and he sucessfully saw us through the majority of WWII.

The lack of military service is not an indicator either way of how good a war time president you will be, just like military experience alone is not an indicator of how good War time President you will make.

Truman served and still got us mired down in Korea. Kenedy Johnston and Nixon served and that didn't help them to avoid Vietnam which they all tripped into and wallowed around in.

I agree with you somewhate here. Military service doesn't make you a great president, however it does make you a better leader if you spent a significant amount of time in it. Leadership is essential to becoming a good president wether you have a civilian or military background.

With reguards to Truman and Korea....the chinese involvement is what caused the stalemate. The North Koreans were getting the butts kicked and china got to nervous about us being so close to their border.

Vietnam. Purely on the POLITICS of ALL POLITICIANS in the US. The military won that war handily. Politicians failed to win the war. That was the start of us placing stupid and needless restrictions on military actions. Bad crap happens in war. Deal with it.

Wars are expensive and they should be seen as a last resort. For a country which isn't interested in occupation or collecting an empire; they do solve little.

This is the difference between a war in which you are attacked, not of your choosing. Totally different than deciding to go to war to solve some political or economic problem.

So should we stayed out of WWI and WWII? They were not our problem. War solves every problem if you are willing to committ to winning it. However, war is not always the best solution to every problem, but it does give you a final solution if allowed to.

Victory has been elusive since WWII mostly because of incompetent leadership. The last four wars we've fought have been failures. Not because we were out fought, or because we were defeated on the ground. We've lost wars because American leaders failed to define militarily achievable objectives and failed define objectives sutable to justify our national involvement.

Again, all politians failed the military. Everything is a political point. Decisions are made because of politics not because they are the right thing to do. Politics both left and right are the cause of the military problems.

The United States hasn't had much luck against insurgency. You can claim the Philipeans was a victory but the fact is they are independent today, for the same reasons we left Vietnam. Cause they wouldn't stop fighting and we lost interest.

Insurgencies have a pretty good track record actually..

• Napolean vs Spanish
  
• Britain vs the Irish
  
• Philipenes
  
• Algeria
  
• Vietnam vs French,
  
• Vietnam vs The US
  

Amazing, you chose the successful ones. American Indians....well they are now stuck on reservations. Last time I looked Hawai'i was a state. Don't see the confederate flag to much any more either. That's three failed ones in the US alone. What about Malayan Communists, Greek Communists, Filipino Huks, Nicaraguan Contras, Communists in El Salvador, Che Guevara in Bolivia, the Boers in South Africa (twice), Savimbi in Angola, and Sindero Luminoso in Peru. For fun I will take a little time and lets look and how many failed insurgencies there have been since 1900.....

* The Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising (failed)

* Bourgeois-liberal revolution (Failed)

* The Maji Maji Rebellion (Failed)

* 1907 Romanian Peasants' Revolt (Failed)

* Ten Days War (failed) (Happend in the US by the way)

* The Maritz Rebellion (failed)

* The Green Corn Rebellion (failed, whoops another one in the US)

* The Third Russian Revolution (failed)

* The Basmachi Revolt (failed)

* The Kronstadt rebellion (failed)

* Sheikh Said Rebellion (failed)

* Kurdish Rebellion (failed)

Ok that is just till the 30's the longer it goes the more there are and more failures there are.

Military solutions are expensive and should be the last resort. If we would have offered Saddam 500 billion dollars to hold free elections it's likely we would have saved ourselves 75% of the cost of the second Iraq war.

There is no good economic reason to use the military. That's how expensive our military has become.

Yeah let's reward a dictator. There are somethings that money can't buy, obviously that lesson is lost on you.

Terrorism is up like 2000 percent globally since 911. So that's exactly what has happenned. although I don't think this is the norm. Perhaps it's the norm when you go into wars of agression incompetently.

Blah blah blah, liberal rhetoric. How many teorrorist attacks have there been against the US since we have been in Iraq? So which is it? Terrorists or insurgents? They can't be both.....

It's not the terrorists who are the issue. It's the 100,000 civilians you kill along with those few terrorists who are the true martyrs. Those are the folks that should give any American president pause. Saddly not this one.

Hmm so we have killed 100,000 innocent civilians? Oh wait. AQI has probably killed that many, so no that is not on our concious, that is on theirs...if they had one.

[The_cavalierman]

Myth No. 5: When we fight back, we only provoke our enemies.

When dealing with bullies, either in the schoolyard or in a global war, the opposite is true: if you don't fight back, you encourage your enemy to behave more viciously.

Passive resistance only works when directed against rule-of-law states, such as the core English-speaking nations. It doesn't work where silent protest is answered with a bayonet in the belly or a one-way trip to a political prison. We've allowed far too many myths about the "innate goodness of humanity" to creep up on us. Certainly, many humans would rather be good than bad. But if we're unwilling to fight the fraction of humanity that's evil, armed and determined to subjugate the rest, we'll face even grimmer conflicts.

Which brings us to a common GOP myth...Liberals do not fight or are passive.

Smart liberals know that this war against terrorism will be won using the following tools:

• Law enforcement
  
• Diplomacy
  
• Use of force
  

Contrary to GOP propaganda, liberals are not pacifists. Liberals just do not use the bull in the China shop approach to every situation that Neo-con republicans favor.

A smarter war on terror that utilizes all of the options available to us makes a lot more sense than the failed plan that GW Bush has floundered on for the last 4-5 years.

[The Evil Genius]

Reward the dictator? Who do you really think was behind putting him there in the first ****ing place?

[headexplode]

Reward the dictator? Who do you really think was behind putting him there in the first ****ing place?

It's the brilliant "Mortgage Our Future for Short-Term Stability" foreign policy that we have operated on for the past fifty or so years.

[sacase]

Which brings us to a common GOP myth...Liberals do not fight or are passive.

Smart liberals know that this war against terrorism will be won using the following tools:

• Law enforcement
  
• Diplomacy
  
• Use of force
  

Contrary to GOP propaganda, liberals are not pacifists. Liberals just do not use the bull in the China shop approach to every situation that Neo-con republicans favor.

A smarter war on terror that utilizes all of the options available to us makes a lot more sense than the failed plan that GW Bush has floundered on for the last 4-5 years.

'

However it is amazing what happens when you get a competent General leading the effort huh? You do know that violence is going down right? More and more people are getting sick of AQI and are fighting against them. Liberals don't belive in the use of force, they belive in surrender and reward.

[The Evil Genius]

Headexplode,

Ding.

My question is - Who screens the whackjobs that the US not so secretly helps gain power?

[thehogs]

surely the greatest myth spun of 21st century war is that we can fight 'clean' wars. That Western military technology is so phenominally accurate that civilian deaths will be absolutely minimal blah blah. Simply not true.

[sacase]

Headexplode,

Ding.

My question is - Who screens the whackjobs that the US not so secretly helps gain power?

You can thank your fellow democrat, Carter for that.

[Predicto]

'

Liberals don't belive in the use of force, they belive in surrender and reward.

Why do you say stuff like this? It isn't true, it's just a cheap talking point.

[JMS]

No this is on Rumsfield. General Shinseki told Rumsfield what was needed to win in Iraq. He was ignored because Rumsfield wanted to treat the war as a business. SF and the Airforce are great when you have limited objectives but you need the Army to take and hold ground. The Air Force will never win you a war since they cannot take and hold ground. The objectives were clear, however they changed since we did not have enough boots on the ground.

Rumsfeld was a boob. So was Bush for sticking with him for 4 years. Clearly if Iraq takes you longer to sort out than it took FDR to sort out Germay while he was simultanously fighting Japan, you aren't competent. Knowing FDR started with a military the size of Belguim's and ended with 16 million under arms... Bush started with the greatest mechanized machine the world has likely ever seen; yet still has floundered.

They were never told not to serve, they would have been welcomed to serve. They are just cowards and chose to hide behind college rather than serve their country. They like many others don't want to give up their nice and comfortable lifestyle because they might actually *gasp* die protecting this country. That is waaaaaay to much to give I mean who else would be able to party with Paris or spit on soldiers.

The average age of soldiers from Vietnam to WWII dropped by nearly a decade. That's not a coincidence.

You know take a look at the poor squishy masses that the military recruits from, you know the crowd you think is unintelligent. The ones that are called teh smartest soldiers we have ever had. Many of the enlisted personnel have Bachlors and Masters degree's. Once they get out of the military they go one to do great things in life. They are able to provide for their families and make more money than many of them thought would be a dream. More often than not the military life leaves you better than you were when you came in.

Don't confuse squishy brained with inteligence. If you ask an 18 year old kid to charge a machine gun nest he will likely go for it; all out. It's not a sign of inteligence. It's more a feeling of indistructability. Likewise if you ask a 27 year old to charge the same machinegun nest he's likely to be a might bit more cautous. Again, it's not about inteligence. That's why the military during Vietnam decided to go for the kids. They studied who was doing all the fighting in WWII and Korea and noted that 10% of the soldiers were doing 80% of the actual fighting. So during Vietnam they switched it around and went for the squishy brained youngsters and left the college kids and young adults out of the draft.

Problem with this was the youngsters were prone to other issues. ( like poor moral, like poor disipline, like drug use )

Anyway the reason college kids don't drop out of school today to serve is because the military told them not to in Vietnam. Those wo do serve in ROTC programs aren't activated for service as they were in WWII, cause they're the officers of the future.

The military needs elite college men and women now more than ever, but they don't want overprivledge elitist ****s who have no understanding of sacrifice and are complete cowards when they don't have daddy's wallet to back them up.

Who won the national football title in 1944, 1945, 1946? Army that's who. That's because many college aged men were serving. In Vietnam the government gave deferments to college folks so they didn't have to serve. Not while they were in college; and after they graduated from college the army didn't want them they were too old.

Fact is it's not the elite snobs the Army decided they didn't want. It's all the college men. You had to graduate on time and volenteer to get into the services during Vietnam. Guys like Kerry did that.

With reguards to Truman and Korea....the chinese involvement is what caused the stalemate. The North Koreans were getting the butts kicked and china got to nervous about us being so close to their border.

Yeah but Truman and McArthor didn't predict China would come in on N. Korea's side. McArthor actively dismissed the idea. Fact is when Ridgway replaced McArthor he turned the war around using tactics like rolling artilery which had escaped MacArthor.

Vietnam. Purely on the POLITICS of ALL POLITICIANS in the US. The military won that war handily. Politicians failed to win the war. That was the start of us placing stupid and needless restrictions on military actions. Bad crap happens in war. Deal with it.

Actually the military lost that war. It's the polititions which salvaged a military defeat into a strategic victory. Westmorland with 650,000 troops failed to subdue the country. It's only after the military withdrew that the Vietnamese have become the strong ally we always hoped our pupet Diem would grow to be. After we left in the early 1970's, the south fell in the mid 1970's and in the late 1970's the vietnamese were fighting the Chinese comunists and the 1980's they were fighting the Kermer Rouge. Today the vietnamese are holding trade sumits and hosting the President; or being hosted at the White House.

So should we stayed out of WWI and WWII? They were not our problem. War solves every problem if you are willing to committ to winning it. However, war is not always the best solution to every problem, but it does give you a final solution if allowed to.

Our shipping was attacked in WWI or citezens were killed on the high seas. Remember the Lusitania?

And again in WWII, Japan attacked us first and before we could declair war on them Germany declaired war on us. We didn't choose those wars. They were chosen for us.

Amazing, you chose the successful ones. ( insurgencies )

Fact is the only times the US has lost wars were due to insurgencies. And we haven't fought that many insurgencies. The arguement isn't that insurgencies always win. The argument is that the US military has historically had a rougher time with insurgencies than facing off against conventional militaries.

Yeah let's reward a dictator. There are somethings that money can't buy, obviously that lesson is lost on you.

The lesson which is lost on you is that throughout the 1980's Ronald Reagan was actively supporting Saddam including Rumsfeld. Not because Saddam was a great guy, but because we would rather have Saddam in power than see the increase in Iranian power and influence which would have occured if Saddam fell. How come Regan's pragmatism worked out so well for us in the 1980's were we saw our enemies bash themselves to peices in a decades long war and our allies prosper?

Why is it a shock to you that IRan is now assending and Egypt, Saudi to Israel's horror are seeking nuclear weapons?

Hmm so we have killed 100,000 innocent civilians? Oh wait. AQI has probably killed that many, so no that is not on our concious, that is on theirs...if they had one.

Johns hopkins a University without a winning football team has estimated that more than 150,000 innocents have died in the Iraqi war.

[JMS]

Liberals don't belive in the use of force, they belive in surrender and reward.

Yeah Liberals like..

• Lincoln. ( liberal Republican )
  
• Teddy Roosevelt - Speak softly carry a big stick. (Liberal Republican)
  
• Wilson (Dem)
  
• FDR, (Dem)
  
• Truman,(Dem)
  
• Kennedy (Dem)
  
• Johnston (Dem)
  

Come to think of it Liberals have been President when most of our wars have started.... Not that that is something to be proud of, just demonstrating historically what you said isn't acurate.

[hokie4redskins]

(*(*#&(*&$#

[hokie4redskins]

Yeah Liberals like..

• Lincoln. ( liberal Republican )
  
• Teddy Roosevelt - Speak softly carry a big stick. (Liberal Republican)
  
• Wilson (Dem)
  
• FDR, (Dem)
  
• Truman,(Dem)
  
• Kennedy (Dem)
  
• Johnston (Dem)
  

Come to think of it Liberals have been President when most of our wars have started.... Not that that is something to be proud off, just demonstrating you don't know what the heck you are talking about.

By Liberal, you mean in the classic sense of the word, right? You need to read up on classical liberalism before you make such claims and connections. American liberals are ANYTHING but a classical liberal. They contradict every tenet of the laissez faire characteristics of classical liberalism.

And frankly, the democrat/republican labels you've attached to these presidents do not reflect the current political climate in this country either. The democrats of yesteryear would roll over in their grave if they saw the current state of their Pelosi/Reid-led party. So, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. These labels are arbitrary.