Israel-Hizbullah war - Excellent article...

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Originally posted by: Rainsford
But how does that work when the enemy is not nation states but state-less groups of radicals?

That is a damn good question...and probably THE question....but I don't have the answer.

Originally posted by: Rainsford
And I think it's worth pointing out that we DID what you suggest with Iraq, we crushed the armed forces of Iraq and fully occupied the country (although not with the number of troops experts recommended).

We absolutely DID NOT do the same thing in Iraq. First of all, we didn't "crush" their armed forces, we took their weapons and let them go free, and we didn't even try to retain any of them as a core for a later army or police force. Secondly, we sent in only 140,000 troops, because our idiot president thought the entire nation would turn out and throw flowers at the mere mention of esoteric words like "freedom" and "democracy". He was clearly wrong. First, you occupy the country in such force as to be able to actually enforce security and rule of law and order; then you worry about democracy. A "free vote" doesn't mean sh*t if half the populace is still getting blown up just trying to buy groceries or go to work.

We failed exactly because we did not "do the same thing" as we had with Germany and Japan. Sorry, but if you decide to knock over a country's government, then you are taking responsibility for filling the breach and putting them back on their feet. Watching $9 billion be carted way in wheelbarrows to be spent God knows where is NOT the same as the Marshall Plan.

That's very true...I guess I was looking at it from the perspective of the "take the gloves off" approach a lot of people seem to be advocating. Our problem in Iraq isn't that we weren't serious or vicious enough, we were just stupid.

 

[charrison]

THis war wont end because we keep stopping it from having someone win it.

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Originally posted by: Rainsford
But how does that work when the enemy is not nation states but state-less groups of radicals?

That is a damn good question...and probably THE question....but I don't have the answer.

Originally posted by: Rainsford
And I think it's worth pointing out that we DID what you suggest with Iraq, we crushed the armed forces of Iraq and fully occupied the country (although not with the number of troops experts recommended).

We absolutely DID NOT do the same thing in Iraq. First of all, we didn't "crush" their armed forces, we took their weapons and let them go free, and we didn't even try to retain any of them as a core for a later army or police force. Secondly, we sent in only 140,000 troops, because our idiot president thought the entire nation would turn out and throw flowers at the mere mention of esoteric words like "freedom" and "democracy". He was clearly wrong. First, you occupy the country in such force as to be able to actually enforce security and rule of law and order; then you worry about democracy. A "free vote" doesn't mean sh*t if half the populace is still getting blown up just trying to buy groceries or go to work.

We failed exactly because we did not "do the same thing" as we had with Germany and Japan. Sorry, but if you decide to knock over a country's government, then you are taking responsibility for filling the breach and putting them back on their feet. Watching $9 billion be carted way in wheelbarrows to be spent God knows where is NOT the same as the Marshall Plan.

That's very true...I guess I was looking at it from the perspective of the "take the gloves off" approach a lot of people seem to be advocating. Our problem in Iraq isn't that we weren't serious or vicious enough, we were just stupid.

Exactly. Brutality isn't even necessary if you're in control of the situation (WWII), and most importantly, if you can just give the common people the stability necessary for them to raise their kids and go to work in peace, and feel like their voice is heard by those in power (which is all that most people in every country really want), you WILL win.

Unfortunately, that is just not possible with 140,000 troops in a country the size of Iraq (and the US military, as well as Bush's daddy, said so). I'm not a Democrat, but its way past time to be honest, even for Republicans; our president is just not capable of running our country OR theirs, and he has made the entire world a much worse place than it was on Sept. 10, 2001. Period.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
I disagree with the premise. World War II ended several age-old regional conflicts for good.

Several age-old conflicts between leaders, monarchs, royalty, who would start a war only if they though their honor was on the line. As I said, the average Joe has a hard time making it through the week; if the situation is bad enough, the leader can divert attention, blame someone else, start a war, etc.

Why? Because the Allies decided to accept nothing less than total victory, and to occupy the Axis powers with overwhelming numbers for as long as it took.

You are forgetting the fanatic devotion of the Japanese ? which revered the Emperor as a god ? and the Nazi's leadership's iron fist.
On the Western front, the German commanders knew that surrendering is not an option; in fact I recall watching on TV regarding one of the high-ranking, highly-decorated Nazi officer (can't remember his name), that towards the end of the war has surrendered to Allied forces. His action prompted Hitler to strip him of his ranks, and brand him a traitor.
On the Eastern front you had military leaders that were too proud to admit defeat. Also, the decision to nuke two civilian cities is debateable (and regretable), especially when records reveal that the men in charge didn't even consider military targets.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Originally posted by: Rainsford
But how does that work when the enemy is not nation states but state-less groups of radicals?

That is a damn good question...and probably THE question....but I don't have the answer.

Originally posted by: Rainsford
And I think it's worth pointing out that we DID what you suggest with Iraq, we crushed the armed forces of Iraq and fully occupied the country (although not with the number of troops experts recommended).

We absolutely DID NOT do the same thing in Iraq. First of all, we didn't "crush" their armed forces, we took their weapons and let them go free, and we didn't even try to retain any of them as a core for a later army or police force. Secondly, we didn't "fully occupy" Iraq; instead, we sent in only 140,000 troops, because our idiot president thought the entire nation would turn out and throw flowers at the mere mention of esoteric words like "freedom" and "democracy". He was clearly wrong. First, you occupy the country in such force as to be able to actually enforce security and rule of law and order; then you worry about democracy. A "free vote" doesn't mean sh*t if half the populace is still getting blown up just trying to buy groceries or go to work.

We failed exactly because we did not "do the same thing" as we had with Germany and Japan. Sorry, but if you decide to knock over a country's government, then you are taking responsibility for filling the breach and putting them back on their feet. Watching $9 billion be carted away in wheelbarrows to be spent God knows where is NOT the same as the Marshall Plan.

We have to remember that point in time: We were going to "go in" Iraq to "Liberate" the Iraqis from "the evil government".
Already we were the agressor, and if we went in carpet bombing and took off the gloves and put ourselves into a total war what would that have looked like?
Now with all these militas we can talk about "oh we should have kicked ass before"...but the question would have been whose arse would we have thrown off the gloves when we attacked?
Al Ansar, ie: the group in Kurdish territory? The militas? Insurgents? WHO.

"Success" in Iraq was not about the actual war because the "real army" that we fought was more concerned with getting the hell out of the way. The other population chose to lock itself into a basement and hope it ended soon, so I disagree that total war was needed because it would been a 95% mindless slaughter of more civilians.
Rather, it was how nearly everything AFTER the war appears to have been messed up sysmetically the the ball dropped repeatedly to ensure that no stability could come out. And in those key, crucial months (or even say that key crucial YEAR) before Iraq fell into sectarian violence...Bush did a pitiful job and is most likely going to be seen as the cause of the break up of Iraq if it ever leads to that beause the United States, over 3.5 years, could STILL not provide security to the Iraqis in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: Lemon law
2. Israel now confuses the terrorist with the State---when the terrorist is stateless---and is still acting without the knowledge or consent of the State. Expect that concept to be tested
in States other than Lebanon in the near future. If Israel then bombs the infrastructure of that State--depite the best efforts of the arab State itself to prevent the terrorists from acting
within its borders------this will quickly turn into a kill them before they kill me conflict.

What you refer to as collective punishment has been used many times in the past, and is still used against Cuba and North Korea (but I don't hear you complain about that), and might be used against Iran if they don't stop their nuclear nonsense.

Also, there have been plenty of collective crackdowns in the Arab world. Saddam cracked down on the Shias after the attempted assasination; King Hussein cracked down on the PLO in 1970; many thousands dead due to collective punishment. I'm certain there have been other cases, and along with the other two I've mentioned they put the image of Israeli brutality -- that you are so avidly trying to promote -- to shame.

Stop trying to extract tears of compassion from us, and go watch some more children's videos in order to reaffirm your point of view.

3. Israel is now somewhat wacked out---and seem to think they are morally superior to an arab---any arab---and therefore have a right of life and death over their neighbors.

Funny, I don't recall a systematic dehumanization done in the Israeli media, as it is done in the Arab media (see video link above).

and something that has happened three times in recorded Jewish history.

Ah, the inner Mel Gibson finally emerges. Would the holocaust be one of those "recorded events" that you are thinking of?

Also, would you please stop that quadruple-hyphening? Reading what you write is difficult enough, without having to deal with this bizzare abuse of a punctuation mark.

So what are you saying exactly ? Are you saying that you think collective punishment is okay and works ? Did it work for Cuba, North Korea or for Iraq ? Is it working it to reduce violence and hatred in the region ?

 

[cwjerome]

I think the article provides some interesting food for thought. The way I see it, we haven't had a successful major campaign since WWII. In Korea we fought a "police action" with limited goals and resources, and look what he have: A war that never really ended, a militarized peninsula, and a looney, dangerous tyrant-killer we have to deal with today. Jump ahead to 1991 and the Persian Gulf War... limited goals and a devout adherence to PC PR simply delayed the inevitable. Now we're trying to finish the job, yet it's a deja-vu mess all over again, and we're setting ourselves up for failure.

Although the idea doesn't send happy waves down our spine, the only truly successful way to impose your will militarily and actually get the positive outcome you want, is to go all out and do the job completely, overwhelmingly and unconditionally. Otherwise, don't even bother.