Al Qu' ida forces retake Fallujah
How many people did we lose there? So we declared victory, made all kinds of statements about how successful US operations were in pacifying and rebuilding the country. Then we pulled out and the whole place has returned to fighting with the big difference that Al Qu'ida is not substantially in charge where they almost did not exist before. When will the Galt-led strike begin?
We learned absolutely no lessons from Vietnam at a cost of hundreds of thousands of lives lost or destroyed in some way.
What has been accomplished from a "lead from behind" policy? I posit the following: The destruction of American policy and the lessening of American influence in the world. Obama's legacy has set us back fifteen years and will, in the near future, prohibit us getting involved in some worthwhile causes. Good job American voters.
We learned absolutely no lessons from Vietnam at a cost of hundreds of thousands of lives lost or destroyed in some way.
What has been accomplished from a "lead from behind" policy? I posit the following: The destruction of American policy and the lessening of American influence in the world. Obama's legacy has set us back fifteen years and will, in the near future, prohibit us getting involved in some worthwhile causes. Good job American voters.
That reflects an implicit small-o objectivism in the culture. Human cultures experience such isolated gems. Whether and to what extent they extend and expand that is complicated. I do point out that the first foundation of rationalist-realism (objectivism) in learning was that of that was Pope Sylvester II who, as Guy d'Aurlliac, studied in Spain with Muslim scholars.
All of that being as it may MODERN Islam is not so tolerant, even though, truly, perhaps millions of modern people who accept Islam (as people here in the Gulch announce that they are Christians) do indeed value what we identify as "natural rights." But, again, see the next to khalling.
Using a nuke basically states that all is lost and you are pulling the plug on any resolution.
American invade for a number of reasons. Lately, we have been so full of hubris that we think that we have solutions to everyone's problems. We're like the Dr. Phil of nations; lots of panacea and little cure at an incredible cost in both people and resources.
Here's my solution: If one drop of American blood is spilled in a country we are militarily and financially supporting, we go biblical on them. We act like an empire should act and take all the natural resources for 100 years. We control all elections and put satraps in power who will only do what we say. We reeducate the children and kill anyone who protests. After three generations, we give them a shot at self-governance. Any problems, we reimpose the draconian measures.
I'm not against foreign involvement. I'm against wasted efforts with no end goal possible.
Everything in America is based on centralization We may tout individualism but in reality, we are a top-down structure that abhors individualism on every level because individuality is against any centralization. Everything we do and how are military is structured is based on centralization. I, as a unit officer fighting the huge centralized army, know that I cannot win if I use tactics that the army I'm fighting is the best in the world at utilizing. So I disband my units, have them melt into the populace and fire up warlords and opposing sects to form militias (The same type of militias the founding fathers wanted to use with a regular army at the birth of our republic.) and one one hand cooperate with the invaders and on the other hand fight against them. It will appear as if all is chaos because people steeped in centralization and hierarchical structures have a very difficult time with decentralized forces. They tend to discount them because they don't have the massive appearance of a centralized army.
We can't win in Iraq or anywhere unless we are willing to completely conquer the country, kioll anyone who says a peep about it and keep doing it for three or more generations.
If I wanted to fight American forces, I would decentralize and only kill American military women of color. I would not shoot men and I would not shoot women in general. I would focus on women of color in uniform. Americans would make all kinds of statements about barbarism but be gone in a month. One of the biggest programs our military pushes when we get involved in foreign adventures is women's rights. Those rights are a noble cause and one that should be supported. But during a war, it's hard to enforce social policies.You have to decide which is more important, social engineering or winning a war. This quandary puts us at a disadvantage and we don't even realize it.
The only war worth fighting is the one in which you are willing to carry out any act to win. After you win, you can make all kinds of concessions and be a very fair handed person but until you win be prepared to be a complete bastard and use every tactic that is to your benefit and your enemies detriment.
I'm finding it a great read and would highly recommend it.
Are the Muslim Brotherhood any better than some of these dictators?
What is the arbitrary level of "dictatorship" that separates a Saddam Hussein from a, say, Robert Mugabe?
Is the method that Gaddafi was publicly brutalised and sodomised prior to his death condoning the kind of violence which we are endeavouring to eliminate?
However, I'm not condoning the dictatorships and their suppression of human rights.
The motto of US Special Forces (Green Beret) is De Oppresso Libre (We liberate the oppressed.) Yet the forces are used not to free oppressed people but to enforce American actions and goals.
In our system, we have freedom of assembly to show disfavor with the direction the government is taking. States can get together and force the feds to make changes, People can get together and force changes to policy but short of impeachment, cannot change the structure of the government or how elected offices are populated. If enough people feel strongly enough, any form of protest is valid. If I recall correctly, the general populace made it difficult for vets to get jobs or to be hired. It wasn't the radicals it was the people in general. The lies fostered by disinformation so soured the public that rational thought went out the window; people blamed the symbols of the government they could see and that was the returning vets.
that extreme is counter productive and jeopardizes the body politic in whole but people don't think that way. We have been led to believe that situations must be resolved quickly and favorably. Because of that we use PsyOps against the people and issue all kinds of BS intended to move the populace in one direction or another. In Vietnam, we had the Tet offensive that crippled the VC but firmly established the NVA as the dominant combat force in the country. This exposed the total BS government had been feeding the American people.
My father was a WWII vet. He was in the 11th Airborne. He was a huge patriot but after the '68 Tet, he said, "If we are not going to win this thing, we should get out." He was also really pissed that he and others had been so misled by government stories. I imagine that many otherwise patriotic people felt the same way.
What never leaves my mind is what you men came home to, how you were treated. It boggles me to this day to think that those ungrateful excuses for humanity are the ones we have in office now. Thank you for everything you gave and everything you were willing to give over there.
I learned that American troops were and are the best fighting force on the planet, with perhaps the greatest character of Americans.
I learned that an army made up of bush-beaters, led by communists, will lose when it faces the hard line of young American men in uniform.
I learned that America accomplished its military goal in 1968, when the Tet offensive proved to be an utter disaster for the Viet Cong, virtually wiping them out, removing them as a serious participant in the rest of the war. (by the estimate of a founder of the Viet Cong, to our 15,000 losses over the course of Tet, they lost not 100,000, but 300,000, and were no longer capable of taking to the field of combat).
I learned that the biggest threat to our military wasn't the natives of a backward land, but the people sitting in suits in air-conditioned media newsrooms. I learned that the biggest threat to victory was not the NVA regular, supplied and trained by Chinese and Russian experts, but communist sympathizing Congressmen, who would not let us keep our word.
I learned that our chosen allies, trained by us, were able to hold out against 4 armored corps using more men than the Normandy Invasion... until they ran out of supplies because our Congress would no longer fund them.
America is the best equipped military force on the planet. We are the only military that can successfully operate as an expeditionary force.
It's hard to beat an enemy on his own turf regardless of how superior your force unless you are willing to go biblical.
America cannot both fight a war and build an economic and social structure that has any hope of lasting. Win the war first. Rebuild the country second.
Stalemates are not wins regardless of how much PR asserts a win occurred.
We actually won with the bombing. Lee Duc Tho was given surrender orders when he met with Kissinger. But he defied his orders and told Kissinger that they were willing to all die rather than capitulate. At the time, the American public had had enough and there were riots in the streets. Kissinger folded. Lesson: Never fold a winning hand.
Against light infantry forces, America dominates. We still have to see how we would do if faced with an enemy with air power and the command and control in which we excel.
All fighting men are equal. They are motivated or not based on mission. There is nothing in the American fighting man that is not in any foe he must face.
I have applied the same lessons to every war we have been in since Vietnam and am surprised at our hubris when conducting military operations.
War is a political endeavor that includes massive destruction of an opponents ability to sustain infrastructure by denying access to basic needs and eliminating potential fighters.
Wars without a total victory are useless to change the political environment.
Please be specific.
BTW, I also agree that there should have been no war for Obama to inherit.
Is there anything he might have done differently when he got the problem?
Load more comments...