Opposition to Vietnam war was a Fad?

[slothrop]

If they were going to go into Iraq, then they needed to go in three times bigger and clean the place out of weapons and munitions in the first week or two.

 

1) 20/20 hindsight

 

2) who do you think prevented this spending from happening? the man who voted for the 82 billion before he voted against it.

 

Anyways sir, this is no vietnam. In any shape or form.

 

1) Not according to the advice of some in DoD. Rumsfeld was all about sending minimal troops. And then Bremer opened up the borders to enable "free trade"--no inspections, no tariffs, etc. Surprise, out goes the looted goods and in comes the contraband!

 

2) 87 billion. And Kerry's vote didn't change the fact that the bill passed both houses on Oct. 17, 2003.

[scott_harpell]

If they were going to go into Iraq, then they needed to go in three times bigger and clean the place out of weapons and munitions in the first week or two.

 

1) 20/20 hindsight

 

2) who do you think prevented this spending from happening? the man who voted for the 82 billion before he voted against it.

 

Anyways sir, this is no vietnam. In any shape or form.

 

1) Not according to the advice of some in DoD. Rumsfeld was all about sending minimal troops. And then Bremer opened up the borders to enable "free trade"--no inspections, no tariffs, etc. Surprise, out goes the looted goods and in comes the contraband!

 

2) 87 billion. And Kerry's vote didn't change the fact that the bill passed both houses on Oct. 17, 2003.

 

1) Wow! Some said it. Did they put their money where their mouth is?

 

2) Merely a show of precedence and a demonstration on the impedence of bi-partisan beaurocracy.

 

I took the liberty of assuming that you could read between the lines just a little.

[JosephH]

Scott,

 

1) 20/20 hindsight

 

2) who do you think prevented this spending from happening? the man who voted for the 82 billion before he voted against it.

 

That's bullshit. George had total and complete discretion on the force level and military's analysis and recommendation was to go in big. The only reason we didn't was because Rumsfield and the Neocon's were trying to prove their pet theory that they could go in ultra light, decapitate, and all the populace would rollover. That theory would allow them to manage two or three such fronts if necessary (Iran, Syria, etc...).

 

That "theory" was contrary to every intelligence and military analysis done by professionals rather than the posers Rumsfield assembled. To tell the truth guys, I get confused here sometimes, a whole bunch of you appear to support politicians and not the military. They are not the same at all, this administration has a blantant disregard for the military, has ignored the military and intelligence analyses at ever turn and blindly put our troops in harms way to test the amateurish theory of a bunch of civilians.

 

Far from pointing them at an objective and letting them go, this administration has hamstrung every aspect of this campaign to-date and have destroyed the Reserves and Guard while they were at it. If you really supported the military and troops then these are the last fools on earth you'd allow near the power to wield them.

 

Anyways sir, this is no vietnam. In any shape or form.

 

Actually the parallels are quite striking:

 

* Cogent analyses that advised against the engagement

* Manufactured and manipulated intelligence in liew of assests on the ground

* No short or long term exit strategy

* No effort to understand the local population needs

* No post invasion plans of note

 

What's really different between this and other engagements is most intelligent folks wait until they actually have the country secure before divving up the spoils among their buddies. That way you actually get to enjoy them instead of being annoyed by an endless string of locals with IED's you left laying around.

 

[slothrop]

1) They were overruled by their superior, who I named. Some, like former White House economic adviser, Larry Lindsey, were fired when the estimated the cost of the war (accurately) at $100-200 billion (it was $150B as of April).

 

2) I have no idea what you're trying to say. How many ohms of impedance are we talking about? If you would rather have a dictatorship, I suggest you move to where that's an acceptable form of government. Or gather up a few wives and guns and set up your own in the hills of Idaho.

[scott_harpell]

That "theory" was contrary to every intelligence and military analysis done by professionals rather than the posers Rumsfield assembled.

 

When you assign names such as posers, you suggest they have no validity. Truth be known, Rummy's men are professionals as well. It is true that they made a mistake in judgment, but it in no way warrants your comparisons to vietnam. Furthermore, because there were conflicting intelligence reports, I fail to see how "every" intelligence data point says we need to go in there with everything we have. The Iraqui army did fall fast, but the miscalculations came into play with the so called insurgents. It is never as simple as you try to make it; especially in war. Mistakes were made... no-one denies that, but for you to say that people are intentionally endangering their troops and with total disregard for their safety, I think you are taking quite a few liberties.

[Greg_W]

My understanding was that they went in light due to the size of the force commitment in Afghanistan.

[scott_harpell]

1) They were overruled by their superior, who I named. Some, like former White House economic adviser, Larry Lindsey, were fired when the estimated the cost of the war (accurately) at $100-200 billion (it was $150B as of April).

 

2) I have no idea what you're trying to say. How many ohms of impedance are we talking about? If you would rather have a dictatorship, I suggest you move to where that's an acceptable form of government. Or gather up a few wives and guns and set up your own in the hills of Idaho.

 

If you are looking for a form of communism, I suggest you move to China... this oversimplification of matters tires me. Not everything is pinko commies or capitolist dictators... there is middle ground... I promise.

[slothrop]

None of the top-level members of the Bush Administration served in Vietnam. Such draft-dodging pro-war people are commonly referred to as chickenhawks. These people let their grand vision get in the war of practical matters, such as fighting an effective war. Perhaps their lack of experience with actual war has jaundiced their vision.

 

Professionalism does not correspond to competence and there are many appointed officials (i.e., not vetted by a vote of the people and subject to cronyism) involved here.

 

It's hard not to see how Iraq is similar (note: not necessarily the same) to Vietnam. Armed insurgents are killing lots of our people and stifling "democratization" of the country. We don't have an exit strategy. I'd say that sounds like either war.

[JosephH]

Scott,

 

When you assign names such as posers, you suggest they have no validity. Truth be known, Rummy's men are professionals as well. It is true that they made a mistake in judgment, but it in no way warrants your comparisons to vietnam. Furthermore, because there were conflicting intelligence reports, I fail to see how "every" intelligence data point says we need to go in there with everything we have.

 

You guys are just relentlessly blinded by something. Do you read? "Rummy's" men deliberately manufactured intelligence to support Neocon fantasies and Israeli interests, are absolutely scorned by the intelligence and military establishments, and have proven again and again they have no regard for the military, our troops, or the people of Afganistan or Iraq. General Zinni, Franks, and Sanchez have all heaped scorn on "Rummy's" crew of posers - there isn't a professional among them when it comes to Intelligence and Military Operations and matters - they are politicians with an agenda/fantasy. And having had "liberties" taken with me by a similar crew while in Vietnam, I do have the experience to take them in turn.

 

I gotta go climbing, see ya...

[Dru]

My understanding was that they went in light due to the size of the force commitment in Afghanistan.

 

Maybe you should watch F9/11 again particularly the part comparing the miniscule force sent to Afghanistan with the much larger force committed to Iraq.

[slothrop]

If you are looking for a form of communism, I suggest you move to China... this oversimplification of matters tires me. Not everything is pinko commies or capitolist dictators... there is middle ground... I promise.

 

You were vague and over-simple, so I "took liberties". You complained (I think) about bi-partisan bureaucracy getting in the way of fighting a war. Please give evidence of this, or mention an alternative to bi-partisan democracy/bureaucracy that would be more effective at fighting wars within the framework of our Constitution.

 

Take a nap if you're getting all tired out by this, cheif.

[slothrop]

What has been the commanding-general turnover rate in Iraq, anyway? Something like three per year? Doesn't that seem excessive? I mean, the average undertrained National Guard MP has probably served an 18-month tour.

[Greg_W]

My understanding was that they went in light due to the size of the force commitment in Afghanistan.

 

Maybe you should watch F9/11 again particularly the part comparing the miniscule force sent to Afghanistan with the much larger force committed to Iraq.

 

I said that that was my understanding; I'm confident that it could be (is) wrong. I don't think Michael Moore's fantasy docu-drama isn't a great place for facts.

[scott_harpell]

If you are looking for a form of communism, I suggest you move to China... this oversimplification of matters tires me. Not everything is pinko commies or capitolist dictators... there is middle ground... I promise.

 

You were vague and over-simple, so I "took liberties". You complained (I think) about bi-partisan bureaucracy getting in the way of fighting a war. Please give evidence of this, or mention an alternative to bi-partisan democracy/bureaucracy that would be more effective at fighting wars within the framework of our Constitution.

 

Take a nap if you're getting all tired out by this, cheif.

 

My suggestion as to the restructuring of the government in the U.S. must simply come from both parties. Both accuse the other of the division of the U.S. If you are too worried about seeing your fellow americans as enemies, you will not likely have the time to deal with the real enemies that are flying planes into your office buildings, and taking an entire school hostage. You rattle on and on about the evils of "Bushco" but nothing about the horrors commited by our real enemies. Is it not cool for a liberal to be against a minority... even if that minority is hell bent on ending your ass? That is beyond ridiculous.

 

You want an example of bi-partisan politics hindering the war? Here it is. Once you have comitted to a war...ride it out. The war was voted on... mistakes were made... We cannot do anything about that now. You have some on the left calling for a complete withdrawl today. You have others, who voted for the war saying that we should not have gone in there. The current democratic candidate is one of them.

 

We are at war. There is nothing we can do about this now, but pull together and do all we can to protect our soldiers while they finish the job they started. I am not telling people they have to support the war, but like it or not... we are there and we will be there until the job is done and it is done right. What good does dividing the nation do? The main difference I see in Vietnam and Iraq is that in Iraq... good can be done... freedom can come to these people... and it already is. In Vietnam, this was less than a pipe dream.

 

Lets band together to finish the job that we started instead of sacrificing our chances of sucess so that we can berate and chastise someone (deservedly or not) to further our own political aspirations.

[gotterdamerung]

gotterdamerung,

 

With all due respect to the service you've done - you weren't in Vietnam, and the reason you've probably had a better experience in the military is because all the guys that re-org'd how we conduct operations were in Vietnam and experienced how fucked up things were there first hand.

 

As far as I'm concerned the protests didn't start soon enough and I joined them the day I returned from my second tour. Many of the policies in place at the time, both military and political, would never have been acceptable during the all the ensuing years until now when the crew in office today decided we can make up rules of engagement as we go along.

 

Do you really think this crew gives a rats ass about you or anyone else they've shipped out or thrown a stoploss order on - get real, you have to go back to Vietnam to find an administration less interested in the men and women who are actually putting it on the line.

 

Dwight Eisenhower had an exhaustive in-country study done on what it would take to succeed in Vietnam overseen by one of the toughest frontline commanders from WWII and Korea and he catagorically stated it was unwinnable on the ground. Eisenhower declined to get involved as a direct result of that evaluation and that report was buried by subsequent administrations who had different agendas and didn't care about the folks they'd be sending into harms way.

 

This crew is even worse - amateur hour for Neocon "Intellectuals" (now there is an oxymoron) heavily aligned with Israeli interests. They had intel and in-depth, detailed evaluations that explicitly described the fact that you were going to be listening to 127's whiz overhead and were going to be fragged relentlessly with IED's. Did they commit the force levels the military recommended to prevent or reduce such events - of course not. Hell, they didn't even secure conventional munitions facilities until they had been completely picked over for months (where the IED's come from).

 

Again, I'm sure you served admirably and everyone who does desperately wants to believe they did it for a good cause, but it aint so, and we aren't safer here because of these misguided policies and priorities. If they were going to go into Iraq, then they needed to go in three times bigger and clean the place out of weapons and munitions in the first week or two.

 

Oh, and we won't even talk about the political prowess of a team that can't even bribe the Turks with $32 billion - thank god the Kurds didn't completely write us off after we repeatedly left them hanging out to dry.

 

Like you said, don't even get me started...

 

Everything you've said is pretty much true. Believe it or not the guys on the ground over there know it too, and most of them don't really care. I know that might seem incomprehensible, but it's the truth. The military of today is more like the Reagan Youth Brigade. Ultra-nationalistic, intense, foscused, professional. Not a draft Army. The video games of the past 10 years? Blueprints for future combat. There are Americans who like to fight and will fight against long odds despite the obvious political fall out. It would be nice if they would let us win now instead of waiting on this chikenshit election. Allow us to reconsolidate before Bush sends everyone screaming into Iran like the light brigade. It would be nice if they would send another 100,000 troops to Iraq and clean house. Nice to see the draft reinstated or benefits of military service greatly expanded. It would be nice to have MOAB's dropped on Fallujah, Najaf, and Nasariyah.

 

All due respect for your service in Vietnam. I have always had interest in the veterans of that war and took it upon myself long ago to study that war in depth. I've read everything from Hackworth to Lam Son 719. I've talked with veterans from all branches of service who served in Korea and Vietnam. I've studied warfare for years. Much longer than two tours in Vietnam. I've spent more time in uniform than 90% of the Vietnam vets. Longer time in a combat site than anyone with less than 3 tours. Don't let the irreverant internet persona fool you. Vietnam? It was a raw deal, but this war (Iraq) is winnable. It is winnable by ruthless action. I believe that if Bush is reelected there will be a strong card played on the Arabs in Iraq, and this time they won't be a soft sell.

 

My service covers over a decade on several continents, under several presidents and against many enemies other than the NVA/Viet Cong. I've travelled jungles, deserts and cities. All kidding aside I appreciate your input, and it pretty much right on the money, but it is hindsight and no one wants to be the last man to die in Iraq. We would prefer to make the other guy die for their flag. That's why the casualty ratios are somewhere near a 100 to 1. They don't send people charging up hillsides anymore sir. We wait them out and smoke them out one by one. Let us win and we will. Begin protesting something you don't really understand and we will come home and rip your country to peices with anger and resentment. Like I said. Spit on me in an airport when I come home from Iraq and I'll kill you where you stand. And that's not an internet avatar speaking either.

[gotterdamerung]

Scott,

 

1) 20/20 hindsight

 

2) who do you think prevented this spending from happening? the man who voted for the 82 billion before he voted against it.

 

That's bullshit. George had total and complete discretion on the force level and military's analysis and recommendation was to go in big. The only reason we didn't was because Rumsfield and the Neocon's were trying to prove their pet theory that they could go in ultra light, decapitate, and all the populace would rollover. That theory would allow them to manage two or three such fronts if necessary (Iran, Syria, etc...).

 

That "theory" was contrary to every intelligence and military analysis done by professionals rather than the posers Rumsfield assembled. To tell the truth guys, I get confused here sometimes, a whole bunch of you appear to support politicians and not the military. They are not the same at all, this administration has a blantant disregard for the military, has ignored the military and intelligence analyses at ever turn and blindly put our troops in harms way to test the amateurish theory of a bunch of civilians.

 

Far from pointing them at an objective and letting them go, this administration has hamstrung every aspect of this campaign to-date and have destroyed the Reserves and Guard while they were at it. If you really supported the military and troops then these are the last fools on earth you'd allow near the power to wield them.

 

Anyways sir, this is no vietnam. In any shape or form.

 

Actually the parallels are quite striking:

 

* Cogent analyses that advised against the engagement

* Manufactured and manipulated intelligence in liew of assests on the ground

* No short or long term exit strategy

* No effort to understand the local population needs

* No post invasion plans of note

 

What's really different between this and other engagements is most intelligent folks wait until they actually have the country secure before divving up the spoils among their buddies. That way you actually get to enjoy them instead of being annoyed by an endless string of locals with IED's you left laying around.

 

PDX dweller,

 

Once again your analysis is pretty much right on the head. Nonetheless, this is not the right time to start protesting against the war ala' Vietnam style. It's time to get the job done right, and THEN get the hell out. If more people put more time into trying to figure that one out we'd all be in a lot better shape and A LOT of deserving young men and women would come home safe to a warm respectful welcome.

 

In this devisive political year it seems more important for Americans at our level to come together. We can clearly see our politicians on both sides are ineffectual or too hard line. I think it's shown us a few things about the world we live in. Europe is not neccessarily our allies of old, Saudi Arabia has an agenda, rogue nations are willing to go to great lengths to survive (even risking a world war), and the US is not omnipotent.

 

I for one would quit antagonizing everyone here so hard if they were willing to find more common ground. Our mutual stereotyping is doing no one any good anymore. Things have come to far too fast for any of that to be relevant anymore.

[foraker]

Despite his sometimes caustic internet persona, I lend more creedence to GD's views on Iraq that I do to most people's. I don't really disagree with him politically all the time either and I think we have a shared concern that if anything is going to screw up Iraq, it will be the politicians and not the military.

Sometimes, discussion here reminds me of this conference on the moon and there was much debate about the nature of the lunar regolith. During the course of a long winded debate amongst many participants, one of the moderates called forward one of the few men who'd stood on the moon, an Apollo astronaut. He asked him basically, "Is it as our learned colleagues describe it?". His only answer was "No". That pretty much ended the debate. Thus, I appreciate GD's view of things despite his flame-baiting and sometime often churlish internet persona. ;-) (yes, i know, you don't need any of my nancy-boy validation and you'll kick my ass )

[JosephH]

gotterdamerung,

 

Let's be clear, I have nothing but respect and empathy for those that serve and would never disrespect anyone who has, in or out of uniform. But let's agree to separate those folks that wield power from those that deliver it. The current administration loves to wrap the two together as an inseperable whole, i.e. if you're against the war, you're against the troops - nothing could be farther from the truth.

 

I'm actually a very strong supporter of the appropriate and intelligent use of military power - and that's the crux of the problem here - the current engagement in Iraq failed both criteria before we even began. But given we went in against all sane advice, the first month we had the golden opportunity, as the military recommended, to go in with overwhelming force and clean house on their brigades, munitions,irregulars, and potential fundamentalist insurgents. One opportunity - and the administration overrode almost every recommendation the military made relative to how to run a successful campaign to take advantage of it.

 

That trade off was made explicitly to test the Neocons' strategy/fantasy about how to deal with the Middle East. Now that they've fallen on their faces we're in a hell of a jam - and you rightly understand that the issue now is what to do about it. You happen to want to give these folks a chance to make things right, I believe they are inherently incompetent and will only continue to make things worse. They didn't finish what they started in Afganistan and we've now essentially handed that country right back to the very Warlords that made life such a hell for the people that the Taliban had no problem coming to power. The odds are excellent they'll cut and run in Iraq as well, or worse, start a tango with Iran or Syria further inflaming the whole arena and fanning radical fundamentalist movements further.

 

Look, I know you're a fighter - trained and motivated to win - but winning militarily is the simplist part of the equation - wars don't make peace, policies do, and ours are currently either looney, isolationist, or appear morally bankrupt to the world. The saddest aspect of our Middle East policy is it is that it has largely been based on adapting and apply concepts and experience from a hundred years of dubious involvement in Central and South America to the Middle East. That was really the root problem of the Iran-Contragate affair - the naive assumption that people in the Middle East would behave the same way as Latins did when offered arms and money - but being neophytes at cultural diversity they missed a few vital cultural clues like that fact that there are no Latin Suicide bombers. They keep basing actions on naive assumptions about Arab and other indigeous Middle Eastern cultures and trying to drape their [White/Christian] life/worldview on other mostly homogenous cultures with long-lived, stable cultural histories that are radically different than our short-lived, heterogenous culture and it is a disaster everytime.

 

So what to do in Iraq? Neither parties' politicians are going to let you win on the ground militarily because it would be regional suicide as the real battle in the Middle East [like elsewhere] is slowly coming down to one between secular [educated] and fundamentalist [uneducated] societies. W's team, mucked things up and has accelerated that battle in the region and now doesn't know what to do and despite all their retoric they are simply looking for the door or for distracting cover fire. And we are never going to get any help on Iraq - we told the world to fuck off, and now the world is returning the favor by letting us boil in a stew of our own making. There is unfortunately no other intelligent option other than a U.N.-commanded, multinational force relieving the U.S. (of the burden and a lot of contracts) and we'll get no help under any other conditions than those.

 

The other base questions are: Are we safer? And how do we become safer? It is incredibly naive and stupid to believe that by going around and attempting to "take the battle to the enemy" by engaging rogue militaries and irregulars we are somehow going to stave off Terrorism. They aren't Terrorist, they're nutballs and rogues.

 

What we need to do is organize our domestic and foreign Intelligence Services so they look at and listen to existing intel like: the Phillipines begging us to pay attention to the real Al Qaeda terrorists they caught in 1995 planning to use airplanes for attacks; and to multiple FBI Agents begging the Agency to pay attention to real Al Qaeda terrorists in US Flight Schools. We need to radically beef up the Coast Guard and port security and need to find a solution to the absolutely daunting task of avaition/marine shipping container security. We need to intelligently allocate anti-terrorism funding which doesn't mean giving more per capita to Wyoming than New York. And we need to work cooperatively with the International Intel community which is now impossible in the current political climate.

 

We need to do a lot of things that just aren't being done. Safer, with these radical, activist clowns surrounding W I don't feel safer, in fact, I feel less safe every single day (I'd bet money there wasn't and isn't a single rogue nuke or GPS trigger in all of Iraq). I am disappointed by my choices for President this year, but I'll take the unknown Kerry Team over a dangerous and incompetent Team-W every time.

 

[And let's not even talk about Team-W's complete and total hypocrisy relative to North Korea, home of the original nutball with a bottle of Jack Daniels in one hand and eight nukes to the highest bidder in the other (and who hates it when the world's attention is distracted away from him by things like Iraq). I'm sure, though,the fact that they have overwhelming military superiority on the ground within walking distance of Seoul doesn't have anything to do with Team-W's reluctance to convert bluster to muster...]

 

Again, I have nothing but respect for your military experience, but the real lessons from Vietnam and every other war aren't so much military ones as geo-political ones. I wish it was as simple as winning militarily, but globally the real battle isn't one you can fight effectively or win with weapons. War is simply a symptom of failed policy execution or the result of intractable competition between cultures for resources (I'm not sure which is more dangerous to give the Chinese - supercomputer technology or teaching them how to make decent cross-trainers...)

[Greg_W]

There is unfortunately no other intelligent option other than a U.N.-commanded, multinational force relieving the U.S. (of the burden and a lot of contracts) and we'll get no help under any other conditions than those.

 

Joseph,

 

Who is the largest military contributer to the U.N.? We are. Do you honestly think that the United Nations can succeed where you think we have failed? What will the U.N. do? Anything? How will action (or inaction) by the U.N. reinforce the idea that terrorism will not be tolerated in by the United States of America? If anything, I see a handoff to the U.N. as a message to the Islamo-fascist world that the U.S. is weak and can't hack the fight. We both know that isn't true.

 

As GD has said, the U.S. CAN win the fight; those in power just need to release the operators who know how to get the job done. You speak of geo-politics, but my first concern is the safety and security of the United States of America and my fellow citizens in this country. Decisive eradication of those who are our enemies is the first step to achieving this security. Take it to their homes before they bring it to ours. And for those of you who say, "I don't feel in danger." Look at the airplane bombings and the school hostages in Russia - it's come to their home. Why do you think it can't come here? On a related note, when I was in California last week, I saw on the news that there were arrests of individuals caught smuggling Al Qaeda members across the border from Mexico; don't think it can't happen.

 

Greg_W

[foraker]

Makes the premise of that John Travolta movie, "Swordfish", seem all that much more desireable, eh? :-)

[JosephH]

Greg,

 

I don't think the U.N. will be particularly more effective in any military sense - they will however diffuse the increasing tensions that create more terrorist. And believe me, if I thought there was any effective way to "take the fight to the enemy" with large scale military engagements I would be on it in a heartbeat.

 

Unfortunately there really isn't. Look, it's not that different than climbing in the sense that as much as we want to lash out (freak out in climbing), we will be far safer if we remain calm act methodically. First of all, rogue states aren't terrorists, and there is only one way to kill terrorists and that's with solid human and electronic intelligence, small special ops teams, and Predators - not army brigages.

 

The Israelis are doing it on the West Bank one automobile at a time quite effectively from an ops perspective (terrible from Peace perspective). That's effective as you can get, but it still doesn't stop the bus bombings - that's because the "terrorists" aren't terrorist, they are people with specific grievances and they will not stop under any circumstances until those grievances are addressed. The Russians have all but obliterated Chechnya with a harsher version of the approach we're taking now and it hasn't worked particularly well and won't there because they've just keep pissing the survivors off further.

 

I'd love the luxury of lashing out at the folks who attacked the U.S. but it wasn't Iraq and it wasn't Afganistan. Iraq had no Islamist terrorists, abetted no Islamist terrorists, was incapable of threatening us. In fact, Al Qeeda hated Saddam as he was a secularist. Iraq, aside from the Saddam problem, was the most secular country over there with the highest literacy rates (particularly among women). No aspect of our security was enhanced by attacking Iraq. Afganistan did harbor terrorists, but if that's the criteria why are we stopping at the Pakistan border? Pakistan is where they are held up know. If we want to get Osama and his crew we'd have descended on Pakistan and Iran - not Iraq.

 

In fact you take Team-W at face value and say that Iraq and Afganistan are legitimate fronts on the war on terror and add up all the Al Qeeda killed or captured to-date than it's costing us something on the order of $2-400 million per terrorists (and the destruction of the Guard and Reserve system). 9/11 cost Al Qeeda something like $10-15 thousand per casualty. This is neither a calm, intelligent way of fighting terrorists, nor is it sustainable. We are simply playing into their game creating breeding grounds and fanning fundamentalist flames. Monetarily this is the same game Reagan played with the Russians - get them to spend themselves into exhaustion.

 

This is no time for clumsy, lumbering about with our military accomplishing little more than pissing people off; we should have been using those funds and time to build up security at home, build up our human intelligence abroad, learn to work better with allies, and quietly hunt down every human responsible; and at the same time having some serious conversations with Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and North Korea. That would have made us safer and not just "feel good about doing something...". Our operations in Iraq and Afganistan have been about as effective (and are going to feel about as good) as punching a large paper wasp nest in the long run.

 

In biological terms the approach Team-W is taking now is a lot like using antibacterial soaps - it make you feel good about the fact the you're doing something and you are killing 99% of the bacteria - the problem is the 1% are begin to reproduce and are incredibly nasty and after awhile your home is now actually getting more dangerous with every use.

 

And no U.S. Government will ever "unleash" the military under circumstanses such as we have today because they know it isn't an effect solution - it kills thousands of the wrong folks for every one of the right ones. Again, the only real long-term solution lies in effective geo-political policies combined with small, but relentless search and destroy missions against the leadership of those unwilling to compromise and live in peace.

[markinore]

Decisive eradication of those who are our enemies is the first step to achieving this security.

 

Greg, did you really think about this statement before writing it down? When you reflect, doesn't the idea of "eradication" seem a bit absurd? To paraphrase a potato chip commercial, "Eradicate all you want, THEY'LL MAKE MORE."

 

It seems even stranger that you describe this eradication process as the "first step" to achieving security. Why wouldn't eradication of enemies result in total security? You know the answer. We'll make more enemies! Now, you may say that these enemies will arise because "they hate our freedom" or some similar stretch of logic. I would argue that these enemies arise as a natural consequence of our foreign policy, most notably our excessive support of Israel vs. the Palestinians, our propping up of repressive regimes in the Middle East, and our willingness to overlook injustice in order to maintain our oil addiction.

 

Regardless of what one sees as the "cause" of anti-American sentiment in the Middle East, it should be pretty obvious that extermination is impossible even if it could be justified.

[Jim]

Don't go messing up the conversation with logic!

[scott_harpell]

Greg, did you really think about this statement before writing it down? When you reflect, doesn't the idea of "eradication" seem a bit absurd? To paraphrase a potato chip commercial, "Eradicate all you want, THEY'LL MAKE MORE."

 

Look at Breslav and you will see the sort of people you are dealing with. You want to talk reason? Reason with a people who would kill women and children indiscrimintly? You are dilusional at best if you think there is anyother way of dealing with these people than eradication. Cold... Hard... but its the fucking truth.

[foraker]

Whatever Israels failings, or ours, I think the Palestinians have pretty much shown themselves to be unwilling, for a long long time, to reach a political solution even when the Israeli's have bent over backwards to make peace overtures.