Re-Thinking Military Strategy

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

Zeb,

[quote]Sure, most of the regulars know exactly which side your hitting for. However, many of the newbies, or occasional readers might actually think you have something “balanced” to write. We don’t want those folks getting sucked into your tired liberal dogma now do we?

The fact that you think me calling you a “liberal” is a personal attack is just flat out funny! I will never understand why liberals (such as yourself) run from such a label. Labels can be a good thing. If someone refuses to work and sleeps all day (barring any medical problems) he can be called lazy. When someone continues to espouse liberal beliefs he can be called a liberal. Is that an insult? [/quote]

OMG, you are serious? Hahahaha! I’m laughing my ass off at you man.

Oh yes, the average reader is far too stupid to figure out on their own whether or not they should agree with anything I say. They need you to help them out! Hahahahaha. Talk about being an elitist so-and-so.

You don’t generally call me a liberal, you prefer “ultra-liberal” and you would also tag zany folks like PETA with the same label. I don’t like being classed with fringe groups – I don’t have fringe attitudes though you imply I do.

I find it funny that you call me an “ultra-liberal” when I’m not. I refer to it all the time because it is patently false and that fact is easy for anyone but you to see.

Yes, I know, us foreign devils are the bane of existance. It’s called criticism. From time to time, if you were able to look, you’d see acceptance or praise of various things as well.

However, unlike yourself, I don’t see myself as a cheerleader, so I mention what I think are flaws. It is you who feels that I am somehow anti-American, certainly not I.

Anyway, you’ve gone from someone with a very polarized political view to a genuine whacko. Yes, please, keep an eye on me and point me out for those delicate occasional readers. God forbid they actually read something I write and give it a moments thought.

Strangely, you might find your one person vandetta against my expression of my views highlights my criticisms and gets it in front of more people instead of supresses it. Life is funny that way.

I tried to tell you once before, I don’t care. I’m not here to win your praise or approval. I’m not here to earn a certain label. I’m not here to spread some type of dangerous liberal view (the whole notion that a liberal view is somehow dangerous is just so incredibly wrong).

I think perhaps you developed a hatred of liberal views during your childhood. Perhaps you feel they, liberals, dishonored the memory of your childhood hero or something, but it is time to let go and get on with life. I don’t know what the story is, but you are simply in danger of going off the deep end on this one.

How someone as unbalanced as yourself can sit there and decide to protect humanity from my writing and not recognize the absurdity of it amazes me. Good luck in your quest to supress all of the liberal or critical views in the world.

ROFLMFAO!!!

Oh well, we now know who the chief kool-aid drinker is… be sure to share some with your friends too okay? :wink:

62

Hedo,

I think you should be careful with the naive label, because it is easy to slap back the other way.

Do you think terrorism will be rooted out of the region because of Iraq?

Have you ever heard the concept of driving something underground? For example, steriods, though illegal, are rampant on a vibrant black market.

This is naivety that conservatives often display, thinking that outlawing something means that it will stop. Sure, Iraq will be changed, presumably for the better, but the underlying issues are not even being addressed.

In fact, it is possible that a perceived imperialistic occupation will drive up terrorist recruiting and activity in general. It’s incredibly naive to think otherwise – no PC bullshit involved.

All that being said, I am hopeful that Iraq will have the desired effect. I’m hopeful that it will turn into a democratic country despite the poor planning and execution that has taken place.

While you feel liberals are in a kumbaya mindset, perhaps we feel conservatives are in denial of the reality of the situation and the problems that the current actions can cause.

History generally shows that outside intervention in a country in an attempt to get diverse groups to live in harmony is doomed to failure – maybe Iraq will buck this trend. However, Sunni and Shiite strife is going to be simmering on the back burner for generations.

Both viewpoints can actually be fair, though I assure you that I personally am not of the kumbaya type – though they do certainly exist. If you can recognize the dangers inherent in the current course of action I can recognize the potential for improvement as well.

Might and combat are unable to force people to change the way they think over there. Attitudes are something on the inside. The war is only able to (hopefully) supress the expression of that thinking… (it’s not overly successful at doing so right now). Assuming it succeeds, is that going to be enough in the long term?

As a clue, consider that the military is rethinking strategy to find ways to deal with these issues… because the might and combat superiority are certainly wrapped up. If the administration and military are thinking these thoughts it would be foolish to call people naive for voicing these same concerns (especially when we’ve been trying to point these things out for months or years now).

However, beware Hedo, apparently I am some type of insiduous liberal according to Zeb. I can only suggest you ignore everything I’ve said as it surely must be a dangerous viewpoint! :wink:

63

[quote]hedo wrote:
Professor- I don’t think it is a threat to me because to be honest I am not involved with crime, terrorism or defrauding the government. This may sound naive but my experience has shown me that staying away from these things pretty much eliminates a lot of the problems of the government invading my privacy. I think it allows the coordination of information already in existence.[/quote]

Naive? Yes, very from you wrote. In essence, “I don’t mind if they watch, video tape or record me or someone else who is not comitting a crime. I don’t mind if they research my medical records or those of anyone else. I think everyone’s lives should be open books because terrorism is the main issue”.

That is essentially what you are saying, and yes, that is possibly the most naive mentality I have ever come across. Congratulations…you have become a pawn in a much larger game than terrorism. In my opinion, if any of you think that we are doing all this because of Iraq, you are extremely foolish. I have to give credit where credit is due, however. It is quite an accomplishment to get the general public to believe that everything you do should not be questioned or opposed because it is against American people. The biggest victory was in also getting them to think that is a smart thing.

64

Vroom

Perhaps.

Two examples come to mind where dramatic military defeats were followed by the changing of a national mindset. Japan and the elimination of centuries of blind loyalty to the emperor. By the way this was state sponsored religion. Germany and it’s denazification. It can be done if the cause is important enough.

Professor-

While I admire your narrow viewpoint and determination I still find your arguments in support of those ideas weak. An opinion is an opinion. What if’s and might be’s are fun to speculate about but in the end those tasked with getting the job done will find away.
You may think it is naive but I just don’t see conspiracy behind everything.

65

No one said it had anything to do with our allies. I used the “Powell Doctrine” as an example of a series of “tests” used to determine when to use force. This was in response to this, overly-simplistic, statement:

I thought it was a funny statement, and if you read to the end of my post you would have seen that I go on to say that I understood what you really meant but the quote itself was funny. Nothing more.

None of the people you are arguing with here fail to realize that.

If you are refering to me, I would like you to point out for everyone to see how I mis-interpreted the Powell Doctrine.

Again, re-read what I wrote:

My post was to make fun of how ridiculous that un-qualified statement sounded than anything else (as I pointed out) and I think you read far too much into it.

It’s funny though, this is a great example of what I find so humorous about this board. You guys get so defensive here that you start arguing against what the “neo-con”/“ultra-liberal” must have really meant, instead of what was said plainly. Here’s a shocker, I am not against waging war with Iraq, though you seem to be manipulating my post into suggesting I am.

66

Hedo,

You know what, you are right, there are examples that show it can happen.

The following is not a criticism or an attack on anything you’ve stated, just some thoughts on the pickle we are currently in the middle of…

Are we nation building in Iraq or are we just going to let the Iraqi’s run their own country? Unfortunately, either answer is fraught with difficulties.

One means we are there for a long time, which means we will suffer local terrorism for a long time.

The other means we are going to trust the Iraqi’s to overcome internal corruption and dissent using their own resources. Recent events show their own security forces to be vulnerable to infiltration and intimidation.

If there is a magic solution that is going to make this easier, I’d be very very happy to hear it, because both situations above have terrible risks. Maybe Colin Powell was right saying “if you break it, you bought it”?

Just don’t call me naive… lol :wink:

67

Hedo,

I don’t think ProfX is claiming there is a conspiracy. I think if you go through history you’ll find that most governments abuse their power given time.

Honestly, it is unlikely to happen during our generation, because we’ll never forget why the changes were made to erode those freedoms. However, don’t tell me that wiretaps and other surveillance powers haven’t been abused in the past.

The next generation, hopefully one without a terrorist threat, will make use of those abilities to impose law and order or more likely, to combat dissent or illegally spy on or control someone. It is how government or corrupt law enforcement generally works.

It has nothing to do with a conspiracy and if it was a conspiracy theory, I think you’d be right to reject it. Yep, you heard me.

There are bad apples out there and they will misuse the authority they now have, much less any authority we are adding to it. As ProfX has said, the ability to say “I told you so” will not be any comfort at all.

68

vroom:

I really have to point out that your posts get wackier and wackier as they wear on.

It’s not so much your ultra-liberal US bashing, foreign status that is disturbing. I think it’s more your pomposity. You sit in judgement of the USA, the President and every person on the forum who agrees with the President. Yet, you absolutely recoil when someone has the audacity to critique your own opinions (which have become quite easy to predict).

I think the wackiest part is that you have accused me (and some others I think) of calling you names and attacking you personally. When if you look at your most previous post it is difficult to string more than a few sentences together without running across a direct personal attack. I really wonder exactly how you view yourself. The great vroom our savior from the north…Ha ha. Hey pal you have some interesting opinions, however they are not beyond reproach.

The fact is you have been overly harsh on the USA on a regular basis. For example: You have called us “Jesusland!!!” in an attempt to attack the Presidents religion (In vroom’s world it’s okay to hate religion, but not okay to be religious). You have bragged about trashing the President: “as much as I love to bash Bush.”

You have belittled those on the board who take a different view than you do: “I hope your party learns to read so it will understand more sophisticated viewpoints.” “Listen up you dorks who think I’m a hater.”

In short, you appear to play the role of pompus ass very well! I congratulate you on this role and I think you should get poster of the week for playing it to the hilt!

I will stop calling you an ultra-liberal US bashing foreigner when you actually stop acting like one:

“There is only one country on the planet that matters to anyone here, let me throw myself on the ground and worship your feet now before you crush my country for impudence.”

Fortunately, as long as you stay busy on this forum you are not going to be of any consequence in the real world (phew). Therefore, plese respond soon. :slight_smile:

69

Vroom

I’ll agree with you that the outcomes are unclear and filled with danger. I would also agree that any military operation can be done better.

However, I think we are taking a prudent course. I also think that inactivity is of greater risk.

As to mistrusting the government, that’s a healthy thing. I just believe that this government is more benevolent then any other.

70

Moriarity

I get the satire.

My comment about misinterpetation
and mis-quoting Bush was directed against Vroom. Vroom and I enjoy a rather spirited debate now and then. He’s not a bad opponent…for a Canadian Liberal :slight_smile:

Didn’t mean to piss you off. Glad you support the war. It’s the right War at the right time.

Your right we do tend to get defemsive and opinionated around here. That’s what makes it fun to argue politics…at least for me.

71

Zeb,

You’ve gone nuts buddy. Sorry to tell you the bad news.

Umm, maybe you didn’t notice that there was a widely publicized cartoon on the net bearing that label? It was actually funny! So, now you are going to show quotes containing humor and sarcasm and try to claim I’m some evil subversive? You should look into a career as a prosecutor.

Hahahahahaha! It’s called a forum. We pick apart each others opinions here. We discuss issues. We attack and get attacked. Wow, sometimes I too get annoyed when people attack me instead of the issues I raise. Maybe you should just ignore me like JeffR does?

Fire away Zeb! Blast apart my opinions and show me where I’m wrong. That is really what I’m here for. However, yourself, you generally blast away at the person making the post totally ignoring the issues they raise.

Instead you pretend to be humorous while slyly attaching labels and trying to discredit the opinions of the poster. Perhaps you just don’t have the ability to analyze the issues and discuss them instead?

I have to congratulate you for actually looking things up and quoting them correctly for a change. I do appreciate it. I said those things. If you wish to feel insulted instead of laugh them off as forum jibes that is up to you.

Perhaps you should try dismissing such things as the invective they are and focus on the issues discussed before or after those statements. You do realize such statements grab your attention and rile up your feelings right? You know that is their purpose don’t you?

Hey, another correct quote. Thanks again! This was a good one. The sarcasm was particularly ripe. I hope someone out there appreciated the tone and humor for what it was. Maybe not. I know you didn’t.

Maybe you should look into the discussions that I’m able to have with people who aren’t slapping labels. Boston and I sometimes clash and sometimes come to agreement. Just now, in this thread, hedo and I are agreeing on various things.

I’ve recently professed an agreement with the action against Afghanistan and given whole hearted support for finding a way to guide Iraq to a good conclusion. I’ve also pointed out how the administration is now starting to suggest changes to strategy which mirrors issues I and others have raised for months.

Since the administration is now going there, perhaps the viewpoints aren’t necessarily liberal in the first place? I know that might be tough for you to admit, but hey, it could happen. Just because your beloved administration can never admit a mistake, doesn’t mean that you can’t.

I really don’t care if you want to call me an ultra-liberal. Do what you will. You’ve shown yourself to be a whacko with this little gem…

Be insulted if you like. It’s not my problem. Let me know when you are ready to discuss issues instead of acting as the self appointed liberal viewpoint detection police. Getting it wrong and throwing on labels that don’t fit just make you look silly.

I can’t help that… even if I am pompous or sarcastic from time to time. In the immortal words of Popeye, “I am what I am”, and whether or not you like it isn’t really a question I ask myself.

72

[quote]vroom wrote:

I don’t think ProfX is claiming there is a conspiracy. I think if you go through history you’ll find that most governments abuse their power given time. [/quote]

This is true. For the most basic reason, they don’t have to set up a conspiracy. There are enough “Bush till I die” people running around that they can openly give the government these powers. It won’t be until your children or their children feel the consequences that some here will finally understand how danergerous it is to give the government that much of an ability to search through the lives of the people in this country.

[quote]
The next generation, hopefully one without a terrorist threat, will make use of those abilities to impose law and order or more likely, to combat dissent or illegally spy on or control someone. It is how government or corrupt law enforcement generally works.[/quote]

But they can’t see that. I have to be an “ultra liberal”, a “conspiracy nut” or a “crazy liberal” to be able to see that putting that much faith in any major government power is a mistake. For some reason though, since Bush said it, it is ok.

[quote]
There are bad apples out there and they will misuse the authority they now have, much less any authority we are adding to it. As ProfX has said, the ability to say “I told you so” will not be any comfort at all.[/quote]

This bill gives the government the ability to legally watch you at all times. The only reason this is tolerated now is because of fear. Had Clinton proposed something this sweeping 10 years ago, we never would have heard the end of it. I will never understand why people have allowed their defenses to drop simply because a “conservative” (and I use that word loosely considering how non-conservatives his use of government power has become) is in office.

73

vroom:

Glad you answered the post! In fact, I think you need to spend more time in here…away from the real world.

There are plenty of “cartoons,” you just happened to pick one to agree with that is anti-USA. I understand completely. We all do.

You brush off your other anti-US comments by claiming that you can’t help being “pompous or sarcastic.” I suppose so…and that really says it all.

Sorry, but I’m not going to give you the pleasure of ignoring you (as you say Jeff does). It’s far to much fun pointing out your various ultra-liberal, off the wall comments.

Write back soon…The more time you spend defending yourself, the less time you will have to bash the USA.

74

hedo:

I do remember hearing on the news, not from some PC college bullshit source, that the connection between SADDAM and Al-Qaeda was weak. I wouldn’t doubt terrorists cells existed in IRAQ, but I remember hearing about a cultural clash between the two. And don’t you think this whole war on terrorism will just spawn more hatred of the U.S.? I mean, isn’t it clear that it already has? Sure, countries will be wary of invoking the wrath of the U.S., but terrorists are people. Psycho people, but still people. I remember quotes from foreigners in the NY Times after 9/11 saying that we thought we were bigger than God, so we got what we deserved. We’re not helping ourselves out by strong arming the world.

75

the al-quaeda cells in iraq (according to the CIA) were ANTI-saddam. why? saddam was a secular leader. bin laden described saddam as being just as bad as America. yes, saddam DID pay money to the families of suicide bombers but, sorry, the al-aqsa martyr brigade is NOT al-quaeda. yes, al-quaeda support the idea of a free palestine. but no, that does not make palestinians pro-al-quaeda or secular tyrants who funnel money to lunatic fringe palestinians pro-al-quaeda.

76

Vroom,

“Do you think terrorism will be rooted out of the region because of Iraq?”

The chances of terrorism being rooted out of the region are greater because of Iraq.

“Have you ever heard the concept of driving something underground? For example, steriods, though illegal, are rampant on a vibrant black market.”

Terrorism is already underground. It does not have open sponsorship of government regimes - that would defeat the entire advantage of the tactic. A military action in Iraq won’t drive terrorism underground - ut already operates from there.

“This is naivety that conservatives often display, thinking that outlawing something means that it will stop.”

Not sure unconditionally defeating an enemy is the equivalent to passing a law that says you can’t do something. It’s a bad comparison. A military action was never designed to censure terrorism or declare that terrorism was ‘outlawed’ - it’s always been outside of any law, foreign, domestic, or international. Killing terrorists and the conditions they thrive on is not outlawing their behavior.

“Sure, Iraq will be changed, presumably for the better, but the underlying issues are not even being addressed.”

Sure they are. Consensual government leads to equality and prosperity, two things the Arab world lacks. The issues are being addressed - finally - at exactly their most underlying and base level. Everything else that has been tried - apologism, appeasement, foreign aid - has addressed problems on the periphery of the conditions that create Islamism. A wholesale change of Iraq and its institutions will be the most radical attempt at transforming the underlying issues yet.

Will it work? Who knows, but to suggest that the underlying issues are being ignored is faulty. For the first time, the US, the EU, the Arab Nations themselves, the UN, everyone are taking a long, hard look at the problem. Whether you agree with the Iraq war or not, the real stuff is on the table now and the debate is being had on what matters, instead of what was politically correct at the moment.

“In fact, it is possible that a perceived imperialistic occupation will drive up terrorist recruiting and activity in general.”

Can’t spend the rest of the 21st century waging a PR campaign so that the Arab street doesn’t think we are 'imperalists. Fact is, we’re not. The US has done more to help Muslims than the entire Arab League put together. The US needs to be careful not to fan the fire too much, but there’s no logic in mollycoddling the so-called Arab street any longer.

“It’s incredibly naive to think otherwise – no PC bullshit involved.”

Not necessarily - there may be very good reason to believe that many Arabs see this ‘imperialism’ as their one good chance to topple the oppressive regimes they have despised so long. Arab dictatorships - from the pan-Baathists to the fundamentalist Taliban - had an amazing monopoly on power. Since there is no dissemination of education or technology, there’s no way to combat tyranny internally, despite the naive hopes of academic Leftists that think organic change from within will save the Arab world.

Such foolishness is on the tongues of many armchair politicians in comfortable coffee-houses. The Arab world has consistently deteriorated since its days of empire. There is nothing to believe that internal change would be the engine alone - it flies in the face of human nature. Arab autocrats and their cronies crave power and well defend their privilege with force. They always have and always will. Liberal societies are a rarity in history, and despite Left-wing weenies thinking it natural and normal to have a democratic and free society, it’s not at all natural. Rather, it is the bold exception to history. It has required timing, war, education, luck, and inspiration to get the kind of society we currently enjoy. The Arab world is on no such path of success.

"While you feel liberals are in a kumbaya mindset, perhaps we feel conservatives are in denial of the reality of the situation and the problems that the current actions can cause. "

Unfortunately, I think that’s completley backwards. Liberals fail to see that Islamism is the single greatest threat to all they hold dear - liberalism: girls with belly rings, gay men in gay bars, freedom to read “Slaughterhouse Five” and “Catcher in the Rye”, etc. They fail to see that Islamists want to destroy the West because of all the things that Liberals claim to espouse - and yet somehow refuse to see them as enemies worthy of defeat.

So as for being a realist, by default - since Liberals are blinded by a weird utopian dream that somehow the way to defeat the enemy is to hope they suddenly happen to change their minds - Liberals can’t be realists.

“History generally shows that outside intervention in a country in an attempt to get diverse groups to live in harmony is doomed to failure – maybe Iraq will buck this trend. However, Sunni and Shiite strife is going to be simmering on the back burner for generations.”

Nothing the US can do to solve these centuries-old cultural problems. The US didn’t invade Iraq to settle this dispute - the US invaded to get rid of Saddam. What replaces him is up to the Iraqis.

“Might and combat are unable to force people to change the way they think over there.”

What changed the attitudes of the Germans and Japanese after WWII?

It is a myth to think that anyone with a legitimate stake in what is happening in Iraq thinks it isn’t fraught with danger and risk. This war was a huge gamble - but the status quo was simply not satisfactory.

77

Battlelust,

I hear over and over and over that Saddam was a secular leader.

Then why when we went to war with in 1991 did he declare his own jihad for the “Mother of All Battles”, in hopes of getting other Arab nations to help him fight?

Saddam declares holy war but he’s a secular leader?

Do tell.

78

Damn - you’re good, Thunder.

79

i believe that george bush is a secular leader yet he uses christian religious imagery. its called playing to your audience. did joseph stalin care about the poor saps in the factories? probably not. however, he used rhetoric that was designed to appeal to them.

80

Zeb,

Are we married? Maybe you can go latch onto someone else – I think RSU has begun posting again…