Are the architects of the War on Terror in trouble

[RedNose]

QUOTE

 

Let me address a few things.

 

First, JosephH-you lecture me about troop strength and being able to move along BIAP HWAY and outside the IZ 300 meters like you have been there. Allow me to tell you a few things. I spent all of 2003-2004 in Iraq. I have as an estimate driven BIAP road about 250 times. During that time I was engaged on less than a half a dozen occassions. Several times by SAF, driven past incidents, and past IED's on the road. Several of my coworkers were killed on BIAP road by Chechynen militants. My principal was attacked there in his motorcade in Dec. 2003. I have seen one other group of Americans killed in that road in early 2003. Although this is tragic, it is certainly not the holocaust situation that you insinuate it might be. If the CPA had authorized it they would have barricaded it Jerusalem style and it would have been end of story, BUT remember we are there to HELP the Iraqi people.

 

Secondly, the Green Zone no longer exists as it did early in the war, it has been called The International Zone since 2004, and civilian administrators made every effort to allow life to return to normal in Baghdad by opening the roads, and making some of the main roads passable. It is exactly this level of civilian bungling in military matters that has from the beginning set the tone for difficult times ahead. In 2003 mortars, rockets, RPG fire was not terribly frequent, with only a few incidents a month. By 2004, and possibly due to more political pressure from Washington, the hostilities were beginning to pick up. We were rocketed and mortared on an almost daily basis, with curtailing possibly by the nature of guerrilla warfare which does not allow for protracted battlefields.

 

This was as I saw it firsthand on the ground the result of VERY lighthanded control by the Coalition Provisional Authority. NO ONE on the ground believed that the Iraqi's were content to just let the love of democracy flow in, but it was the orders coming down from the headshed. As early as 2003 I was saying we were making mistakes, and I was amazed at the amount of personal freedom we allowed the Iraqi's to have. It was as if there was a belief that they would welcome us with open arms, which was precisely the part line. In 2003 I had a conversation with 8 Iraqi men driving dump trucks waiting to clear a checkpoint in Baghdad. The gist of the conversation went like this;

--------------

"You America?"

 

"Yes"

 

"We love Saddam" (Gestures around, and heads shake in acknowledgement)

 

"Why do you love Saddam?"

 

"Because he is strong man, he kills his enemies. Not like Americans, you are weak."

 

"So you would respect me more if I killed your 7 friends right now, and then beat you senseless?"

 

"Yes, you must be the lion to win here in Iraq. Saddam was a strong man"

------------------------

 

All of these men were in their 20's to 30's and were more than likely Sunni's. They were in fact a micro representation of the underlying mentality that permeated the culture. These men would want to hand wrestle with you, provoke you, in essense they were never beaten. So we took a slightly wounded opponent and turned them loose in our midst.

 

What would Ghengis Khan have done? He would have slaughtered every single man who even LOOKED like he would put up a fight, and then folded the survivors into his own, making them his own. Iraq was never ready for western democracy, but they WERE open to complete and utter subjugation with an iron fist. Our western culture apparentally no longer has a stomach for that. It's not a matter of numbers, it's a triumph of the will.

 

In our eyes, we could clearly see this was not going to work. You had a tangible feeling that the Iraqi's WANTED US TO BE HEAVY HANDED RULERS. This is a psychological aspect that the 'planners' of the war did not take into consideration properly, but think tank groups had wargamed into their planning. Robert Kaplan has quoted these studies as being important to the Arab mind. For decades the Iraqis had been ground under Saddams Baathist party, and this is the only thing many of them knew.

 

I think you remember when I posted here in 2004 regarding a conversation I had with an infantry Colonel about securing BIAP road. Is the failure to secure this strategic road an indicator of the failed policy of the military? Or is it a failed policy of civilian administrators? My take is that the headshed failed the military by forcing them to put on the kid gloves immediately after the initial push which secured Baghdad. 3rd Infantry Division was literally shuffled out of Iraq shortly after the war because they were deemed too hostile to the population.

 

My end take is this. It is difficult to win a war with your hands tied. I tend to agree with MattP. American politicians and American reliance on clean, surgical warfare, do not match the paradigm of war, which should remain firmly seated in the ancient understanding of conflict. If you look at the Romans they were brutal, and it took many years under the Roman heels before you began to earn your freedom. Apparentally the US is not willing to go to that length to win.

 

My argument in 2004, was a COMPLETE and total reinvasion package which brought troop levels up to the 350K-400K range. Of course since apparentally I am only useful to kill in onesy-twosies my opinion must be way off base. Or may Trashkan YOUR opinion is based in pure academics which tends to be very useless at the ground level, which is where I spend part of my time anyway. Escalation of the war does not wholly depend on the infusion of more troops, but rather a willingness to allow the ones you have to do their job.

 

I've been telling you all along about how to win a war, but some of you like Trashkan thinks there is some pure academic, surgical way this can be accomplished, but there is not. It's war.

 

Now I can't keep cross posting like this. If you would like to continue conversing in civil dialog feel free to ask RedNose for my email.

 

REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION

[RedNose]

"I would like to address a few other things.

 

Fear_Greed: Go play with your blocks. I have seen one Canadian in Iraq, and he just walked around the main palace doing nothing. You have no say in this, and your voice is not neccessary in adult conversations. I bet you can't tell me the name of the ISAF compound on the west side of Kabul the Canadian army occupied, yet you wanna flow in here? Nappy time.

 

Buck: From the end of the cold war until 2001 there was really nothing for red and blues to argue about. It was all pretty wishy washy. Remember the US is only a little more than 200 years old. Palestine, Iraq, all these are cradle countries. I have stood in Babylon. It looked a lot older than New Orleans."

 

MattP: I think I may have made the statement previously, that those of us who served in the federal government, either as military men, and as other government agencies felt immediately disenfranchised by Bill Clinton who raised the OPTEMPO of repetetive deployments (Somalia, Haiti, Phillipines, etc), disruptively used the military as a blatant sounding board for social engineering (Don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue), underfunded key programs such as HUMINT programs and the CIA, crippled the FBI, it is no secret the Secret Service was very ill treated by the 1st lady and the supposedly leading candidate in the democratic race, that the strikes Bill Clinton ordered were generally considered among the Joint Chiefs to be token gestures, and Bin Laden could have been killed, captured, and handed over (By Sudan) on numerous occassions, yet former president Bill Clinton refused time and time again to take these measures. The list of his failures is tantamount to falling asleep on duty. His complete neglect of anything to do with service to the nation that involved national interest in security, military, intelligence caused MANY MANY good men to walk away from careers they had grown to know and love almost like a family. How do I know this? Because I experienced it firsthand. Hell, even the reenlistment NCO in my last unit left, in fact everyone with a conscience left, not wanting to be a part of something that Bill and Hillary turned into something obscene and unappreciated. All of us knew about the events in Somalia as far back as 1992, and the events of Bakara Market on Oct 3 1993, not ten years later when that trainwreck of a movie came out. Once again how did we know about that stuff, because some of us were either there or tied into the pipeline. This war stuff isn't new news to some of us, it's been our careers for as long as we can remember.

 

Nuff said!

[JosephH]

Rednose, WTF? Who are we talking to here if not you? And why are we talking to them this way? Have them sign up. Are they uniformed or a merc? Sounds like a merc when he's talking 'my principal' (mercs providing security is yet another sign of just how f#cked up this 'war' is).

 

Whomever it is, our troops have been fighting more or less non-stop on Haifa Street just outside what's still called the 'Green Zone' in the press here at home. Regardless of the current nomenclature, when we're fighting down the street from our HQ, it doesn't mean we're winning - it means we're losing.

 

And I don't need to be there to understand what's going on, I spent '72 and '73 in Vietnam and it's not exactly rocket science to figure out the military is getting completely f#cked again in Iraq.

 

Anyway, get an account if we're going to do this...

[RedNose]

"I seem to have a vague memory that you told me, if I remember correctly, that you had an association with a LRP detachment in Vietnam. Care to share which one? In 72-73 I was 3, and I grew up reading and studying everything I could lay my hands on about the Vietnam war. I too assumed that we might have learned our lessons there, and I also see the parrallels, but the ones I infer is more of the socio-political blundering rather than the nature of the combat.

 

The situation in Iraq is a guerrilla war being waged in an urban environment; Baghdad is a city of 5-7 million, and densely packed with buildings. The slum known as Sadr City and formerly Saddam City is the Shiite enclave. It occupies a place to the north of the main city center. It is 100 square blocks of fortified hell. I have taken ground fire in helos from there.

 

How many battles did they fight in Vietnam directly outside of the HQ's of this or that Corps level HQ, or for control of a firebase? How many Viet Cong worked in the city and then marched out into the countryside at night? Did you feel like you were losing the war when they crept up in your backyard at night, or did you just think they were a bunch of sneaky bastards?

 

Well in Iraq they live where they fight. That is why you see fighting down on Haifa Street, which is a Sunni bastion close to the main palaces that Saddam worked from in Baghdad, and yes I have been in contact on Haifa street, have friends who have been in contact on Haifa street, and as funny as it sounds the fact that they are operating right down the street in no way indicates they are about to overrun the HQ's. It's simply a different situation. Having spent a lot of time humping jungles, and now for 4 years in the middle east, I can tell you it's not the same thing. So armchairing it from the rear with the gear, despite your very astute read on the situation, well no offense, but this isn't the same war. Do you think we should just displace 100 blocks of Sunni's to...where? There are apartments inside the IZ with local nationals living in them.

 

As a Vietnam veteran I'm sure it must piss you off when you hear that the Viet Cong were soundly defeated during Tet, and the NVA was played out. The war was won. All it took was the cajones to drive it home, all the way to the north. I'm sure it's crossed your mind that maybe we should have just pushed a little harder. Oh wait Cronkite opened his big mouth, and America listened to the media instead of the guys on the ground who probably knew better.

 

I do agree 100% that the military is getting screwed again, and that is where I will leave it. I don't post on this website anymore, and I don't plan on registering unless I am invited to do so, which may be a cold day in hell for all I know. Just so you understand I am responding to you from Afghanistan over a SAT feed. This is my 4th year in the war, 2 in Iraq, 2 in Afghanistan. In June it will be the start of my 5th year. I have 15 years of various FID, DFLE, DOD, and military experience."

[fear_and_greed]

"I would like to address a few other things.

 

Fear_Greed: Go play with your blocks. I have seen one Canadian in Iraq, and he just walked around the main palace doing nothing. You have no say in this, and your voice is not neccessary in adult conversations. I bet you can't tell me the name of the ISAF compound on the west side of Kabul the Canadian army occupied, yet you wanna flow in here? Nappy time.

 

Thankfully our normally dimwitted politicians didn't fall for the BS and fearmongering coming from the White House at that time so we didn't get embroiled in this Iraq tragedy.

You're right, I don't know the name of the ISAF compound on the west side of Kabul the Canadian army occupied, nor do I care. It is irrelevant to me.

However I do care that you survive, intact, and are around to take your grandchildren for a hike up to a pristine alpine lake someday. Coming back in a body bag or completely shattered will do them no good.

You're being used as a pawn by the war machine whose culture is death, destruction and money. Wake up.

 

 

[JosephH]

I take it that's an affirmative you're a contract merc at this point - who with? I have no issue with you personally with regard to this, but it is terrible policy and incredibly bad for the services...

[Stefan]

The "War on Terror" has been and will always be about money.

 

Since the fall of the U.S.S.R. the military complex of companies making money have struggled to find a reason to build stuff that kills people. September 11, 2001 was a blessing to them. Now those on Capitol Hill who believe in a strong military have the reason and keep touting it to feed the money machine.

[tvashtarkatena]

Next time you're in town I'll buy you a cup of coffee.

 

and with Oly writing he'd go climbing (that's right, I've these pledges in writing from both of you) I've enough support garnered to warrant a trip to the PNW.

 

I'm only waiting for the key pledge of (preferably, heated) doghouse floor space.

 

You can have people house floor space out ours, maybe even a convertible sofa...but you might have to share it with dogs, depending on how much they dig you.

 

Come on out, the water's...fucking freezing.

[RedNose]

"Joseph, No, I will confirm that I am not a mercenary. I'll send you a PM since it is not good PERSEC to discuss these things openly.

 

There are several categories of contractors. You cannot simply lump them as one. The structure of contracting is very similar to military, with the exception that these are individual companies. Bechtel-Engineering, Blackwater-Combat Arms, Halliburton-logistics, Dyncorp-Military Police, etc.

 

The structure and intent of contracts vary as well. Some contracts are extensions of governments need to address temporary manpower shortages, such as diplomatic security. It's cheaper and more efficient to take a former Special Forces soldier and put him in temporarily, than it is to recruit, vet (background investigations usually run about 100K a piece), train, mentor, promote, retire a federal agent.

 

Others which address DoD shortages such as providing dining facilities and camp management, and some are private companies given contracts to work on infrastructure. The military is stretched, and some of the skillsets are not there. The ideal would be to make the profession of arms a true profession, with higher wages, better screening, and better career progression. A fullscale revamping of the military system is in order.

 

The term mercenary is misleading, since most of the high end security contractors come directly from the military, and still adhere to the same values, norms, and ideology that you would find in the military. The pentagon is taking steps to normalize the relationships between contractors and military, including placing all DoD contractors under UCMJ. Despite the misleading news reports about contractors running amok, there is virtually no evidence to support this, and USC applies, and in some cases local law. Keith Idema who sits here in prison at Poli Charki is a prime example. He is serving ten years in an Afghan prison tried by local courts.

 

Anyway, I could write volumes about the topic, but I would say the average contractor is a retired or former Special Forces soldier, SEAL, Ranger, Federal law enforcement, or SWAT police officer who wanted to take their skillset and put it to good use. I find it to be a fair and rational system. You are getting a guy with above average talents, and instead of him sitting on the sidelines watching the big show, while some 19 year FNG two steps into oblivion you get a first rate warrior doing important work.

 

Just my two cents."

 

Posted with permission of the author

[mattp]

In addition to reading that Clinton and not Bush is to blame for 911, we read here that we could have won the war in Vietnam if only the American public had the stomach for real war and had not been swayed by the liberal media. This is an interesting assertion, one I hear from time to time in right wing or militaristic diatribe, but is it true?

 

Here’s an interesting article that I think suggests we might have won the war in Vietnam but not likely, and certainly not at a justifiable cost. It is a lot more complicated than that, and the discussion is both long and complex, so read it yourself:

 

U.S. Army War College

[tvashtarkatena]

Arguing that the Vietnam war could have been 'won' had we employed a different military strategy ignores the most salient factor in deciding the outcome of any war: it's political objectives and considerations.

 

That South Vietnam did not have a viable, popular or survivable government to 'prop up', and that the White House could not convince nor communicate America's strategic interest in Vietnam (because there was none) had more to do with our defeat than any military consideration.

 

Had we pursued routing the North after the Tet offensive, there is no reason why communist strategy could not have shifted it's focus to insurgency, producing the same U.S. defeat.

 

Also conveniently missing in the "we could have won" arguments is any consideration of the impact of the Cold War on the conduct of the Vietnam war. Argue what you may in hindsight, but it's not a stretch to consider that Johnson and Nixon were balancing the cost of defeat in Vietnam (by not territorially expanding our ground efforts northward) with the much greater cost of a possible nuclear exchange with the Soviets.

 

As is so often the case, we see in this exchange overly narrow arguments based solely on military strategy which ignore the true aspect of war as just one of many means to a desired political end.

 

America wins wars when we have clear military AND political objectives; we loose them when we do not. Both Vietnam and the current Iraqi occupation had neither; and the disastrous results have unfolded accordingly.

Edited January 30, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[RedNose]

"I believe the political and economic are tantamount. I proposed here previously (2003-2004) that the underlying reason for the Iraq war was the inevitable lifting of economic sanctions, and Saddams stated desire to back the 3rd largest oil reserve with the Euro dollar. Thus devaluing the gold standard by as much as some estimates at 40%. This would have effectively bankrupted the United States and Japan. Victory can be obtained by simply controlling oil reserves, and pacifying the population in the ensuing windfall of financial reward"

[tvashtarkatena]

I don't disagree with countering Saddam's euro plan as being one of several political catalysts for the invasion, coupled with the desire for a substantial, permanent U.S. military ground presence in the Middle East in the age of declining oil reserves, but it's only part of the equation, if we take the writings of the architects of this war at face value. A showcase of the new American hegemony through overwhelming military power to head off any future challenges to our new found top dog status is primarily what was desired as an outcome in Iraq. Iraq was perceived to be the low hanging fruit in this regard.

 

In my mind, the missing political pieces in the invasion of Iraq were a) an overestimation of the national unity and underestimation of the sectarian unity of Iraq b) the multiple bullshit reasons for the invasion foisted on the American people; a sure recipe for the populace justifiably revoking it's support of the war early on c) an understimation of Iran's intractability (and refusal to engages with Iran during that brief honeymoon period following 911) which seems to be adding to our woes in Iraq, d) the lack of a successful U.S. information campaign to counter the success of that of the insurgents and e) a lack of understanding of the fluidity of successful insurgent tactics, such as suicide bombing, to jump borders and spread instability.

 

This is only a partial list. Rather than pursuing a 'robust' approach to secure another 20 years or so of oil (and it's predictable defensive reaction throughout the world), the U.S. would have done much better to transfer a huge chunk of its bloated, Cold War oriented military budget, which, after all, is not required to 'combat terrorism', into an effective energy independence campaign beginning with the 70's oil shocks. Instead, we let CAFE standards and many other successful energy independence strategies die on the vine after the oil shocks of the 70s. By now we could be thumbing our noses at the bowl full of assholes that is the modern Middle East. But here we are, in nuclear proliferation, sectarian civil war, and climate change heaven.

 

We should leave Iraq as soon as possible, and shift the massive amounts of money we are wasting there to achieving energy independence through free market tax incentives and research. If we can built a drone that can drop a bomb on a car, we can build a car that can go 100 miles on a gallon of biodiesel. If this sounds like a new form of American isolationism, so be it.

Edited January 30, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[JayB]

By "Energy Independence" do you mean a diverse and secure energy-supply that doesn't expose the country to economic or geopolitical risks - or are you literally talking about a policy whereby we reject the use of "foreign energy," for philosophical reasons, even when it makes neither economic nor political sense to do so? No LNG or Uranium from Australia, no oil from Mexico, etc.

[tvashtarkatena]

The former, not the latter, but I also believe that energy independence must include the management of our most critical longer term risk, and thus should stabilize carbon emissions to a level that won't destroy our present human friendly climate.

 

In other words, reduction of GHG emissions should be the primary driver in our energy policy, and decoupling from unstable and hostile oil and gas producing regimes should be secondary.

 

I also do not believe such a policy, if properly executed, would hurt our economy. Quite the opposite: the opportunities for the development and deployment of new technologies, the predictability of using sustainable resources within our control, a reduced reliance on a foreign policy that relies on an expensive military, increased efficiencies, reduced traffic, and the maintenance of an economically friendly climate (meteorologically speaking) should all make for a much healthier economy in the long run.

 

Some concrete policy suggestions: CAFE standards, tax subsidies for home energy efficiency, particularly passive solar and efficient appliances and high mpg vehicles, synchronization of traffic lights and increased use of traffic circles, regulation and incentives for reduced emissions of power plants (CO2 tax and tradeable credits, etc), requirements for farings on trucking (significant, actually), subsidized research on cellulose based ethanol and biodeisel production, and requirements and incentives for green commercial and public buildings, wind turbines...to name a few.

[JayB]

Why use the term "Energy Independence" then, instead of a more accurate expression?

[tvashtarkatena]

Agreed, the common term doesn't quite nail it. How about "Sustainable Energy Policy"? That covers just about all bases.

[JayB]

Definitely an improvement.

[sheaf_stout]

In addition to reading that Clinton and not Bush is to blame for 911, we read here that we could have won the war in Vietnam if only the American public had the stomach for real war and had not been swayed by the liberal media. This is an interesting assertion, one I hear from time to time in right wing or militaristic diatribe, but is it true?

 

Here’s an interesting article that I think suggests we might have won the war in Vietnam but not likely, and certainly not at a justifiable cost. It is a lot more complicated than that, and the discussion is both long and complex, so read it yourself:

 

U.S. Army War College

 

Most key elements which formed the 9/11 murders were in place before Bush took oath. Clinton failed to bring the fight to the enemy and thus protect the national interests. I think the analogy of him sleeping on guard is fair.

 

Clinton did in fact alienate large segments of the military leadership in the NCO Corps leading to a mass exodus from many of the best leaders during the 1990s. His military blunders are not casual miscalculations and it's clear that his terms as Commander in Chief were riddled with many problems with the military. In general many troops viewed him in disgust for various reasons which have already been mentioned. I recall speaking with many upper ranked officers whom planned to retire due to the political circus which ensued after he entered office, but I don't really want to speak for the Officers.

 

I agree that Vietnam was a complicated war but that article does not vindicate or implicate anyone. Don't forget that the grand John F. Kennedy brought the United States into that war and then it was a hot potato passed to Johnson who made some nearly urecoverable and disasterous decisions. Nixon was a crook. A war is measured in military successes and not because of post war political failures. A physical space is siezed and controlled for a given time. To suggest that political failures or ensuing handoff after a war which result in a social or governmental implosion seems like clever scapegoat for someone more than anything else. Those are things beyond what a common soldier is bound to accomplish. In that article you can see that the media was a key instrument for engineering the social failure at home.

 

You even mention yourself that war would have been too costly a price to pay for the measure of success which you have or had envisioned. What did the rest of America have in mind? Maybe not the same things you did...

 

if only the American public had the stomach for real war and had not been swayed by the liberal media

 

I agree with rednose whom suggested that you cannot calculate and win this war based upon pure academics which some here are attempting to do.

 

 

 

[JayB]

"The Looming Tower" provides an excellent overview of some of the broad historical trends and specific personalities involved in the events that lead up to 9/11. The book has been praised by folks who view 9/11 from both sides of the partisan divide, and I hope that some of the nuttier folks on this board actually get around to reading it someday.

[sexual_chocolate]

but you give the impression that you've already read it!

 

 

[JayB]

Que the high-hat for SC.

 

What are you reading these days?

[rbw1966]

Clinton did in fact alienate large segments of the military leadership in the NCO Corps leading to a mass exodus from many of the best leaders during the 1990s. His military blunders are not casual miscalculations and it's clear that his terms as Commander in Chief were riddled with many problems with the military. In general many troops viewed him in disgust for various reasons which have already been mentioned. I recall speaking with many upper ranked officers whom planned to retire due to the political circus which ensued after he entered office, but I don't really want to speak for the Officers.

 

That mass exodus started under Bush the Elder.

[RedNose]

That's not the one he is referring to. That was a program where people who met certain criteria were allowed to leave service, and given severance packages. The one he is referring to could more accurately be called F-T-A (AKA F*ck The Army)

[tvashtarkatena]

I agree that Vietnam was a complicated war but that article does not vindicate or implicate anyone. Don't forget that the grand John F. Kennedy brought the United States into that war and then it was a hot potato passed to Johnson who made some nearly urecoverable and disasterous decisions. Nixon was a crook.

First of all, our relationship with Vietnam actually began in 1946, when a pre-communist Ho Chi Min wrote Truman three (ignored) letters asking him for diplomatic support in gaining independence from the French. The deal was cinched when Eisenhower threatened to cut all foreign aid the French if they capitulated in the mid 50's. It was only a matter of time before an American president, in this case Kennedy, took over for the French as a political move to bolster a 'tough on communism' image for the democratic party.

 

A war is measured in military successes and not because of post war political failures.

 

This little pearl of wisdom is particularly laughable considering the fact that we just won a rapid, decisive military victory in Iraq and are now experiencing an embarrassing political defeat. Wars are 80% political, 20% military. Even a cursory skimming of history proves this in spades.

To suggest that political failures or ensuing handoff after a war which result in a social or governmental implosion seems like clever scapegoat for someone more than anything else. Those are things beyond what a common soldier is bound to accomplish.

I've never seen such a tight contradictory loop, even on this forum. Congratulations.

 

Can't blame the politicians, or the soldiers. Um...there's no one else in the room?

 

All wars are won or lost based on political considerations. Most wars are lost before they are even fought; they are bad ideas by leaders who overestimate their position and underestimate the enemies. WWII: Militarily, Hitler could have, and probably would have, won WWII had he stuck to western europe. It was his political decision to go East and commit 80% of his forces in Russia that tanked him. And it was his political decision to be an asshole rather than benevolent conqueror that raised the ire of his enemies that eventually defeated him.

 

Current Iraq debacle: lost from the start due to neoconservative optimism that ignored the historical and cultural realities of the region.

 

Vietnam: no American interests there (hence no deep public support), a shitty, unpopular South Vietnamese government (hence shaky, local support) and a constraint on U.S. actions caused the by the political and material support of a nuclear-armed USSR.

 

Political, political, political.

In that article you can see that the media was a key instrument for engineering the social failure at home.

We all read what we want in an article, whether it's there or not. In fact, the article neither stated nor implied anything of the sort; it mentioned the media but stated the opposite of your conclusion. "The media", so often blamed for our poor decisions by politicians and poor choices by voters, simply isn't capable of 'engineering' anything of this sort. In this case, you are incorrectly using it as a historical scapegoat.

if only the American public had the stomach for real war and had not been swayed by the liberal media

 

I agree with rednose whom suggested that you cannot calculate and win this war based upon pure academics which some here are attempting to do.

Oh boy. This is the classic 'increase the body bag' approach, which results in defeat far more often than victory (ask Adolph Hitler). It represents a static, naive view of war that assumes that there are no ramifications, (ie, your allies pulling their support, your own populace pulling its support, and your enemies strengthening their resolve and gaining allies), to one's conduct during conflict. It's kneejerk spew that ignores the true nature of warfare as a means to a political end.

 

We detractors of this current complete and utter clusterfuck in Iraq are not arguing 'pure academics', a common code word for alpha male's self-indulgence in anti-intellectualism (and by the way, it is pure 'academics' that brings us all those fascinating high tech weapons and modern command and control systems). No, we're arguing proven, sound principles of foriegn policy, and historical precedent. Take another bong hit and invent your own action comic universe if you will; but this is the one we're stuck with.