Originally Posted By tiggertoo Does America really have what it takes to win a terrorist or guerrilla war? I don’t mean militarily, I mean psychologically. Terrorism and guerrilla warfare is really nothing new as numerous leaders and civilizations have fought similar wars (the Romans, Hittites, Egyptians, Louis the 14th, et al…). The difference was they managed to usually completely squelch guerrillas and terrorists through brutality. But the civilized world has been less and less inclined to resort to all-out warfare, going so far as to set up rules (as if it was some sort of game). But even during WWII, the bombing of civilian targets was okayed. Now even a few civilian deaths or even the hint of civilian deaths makes the civilized world squeamish. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating unfettered brutality, but I’m also not someone who will hold up an American flag believing we will defeat anything, anywhere, any way we want to. I want us to win the war on terror and the insurgency in Iraq, I just don’t know if we can under the confines we are want our military to operate. It didn’t work in Vietnam and I don’t think it will work in Iraq or Afghanistan. I’m just trying to be a realist. And sadly, many of the soldiers I’m talking to feel the same way. It’s like the giant vicious dog on a choke-chain with a kid throwing rocks at it. Seriously, if we aren’t going to let them fight to win, why make them fight at all? The terrorists can fight by whatever rules they want—and make them up as they go. And I don’t know if any principled, civilized war will ever manage to have the affect we desire. Well...I probably didn't explain myself very well (nothing knew) but I hope you understand my reasoning. So, does anyone think we can REALLY win this thing? And if so (or not), why?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Well...I probably didn't explain myself very well (nothing knew) but I hope you understand my reasoning.>> You explained yourself VERY well. I think if we want to win a guerilla/insurgent/terrorist war we have to go in willing to do WHATEVER IT TAKES to defeat them, and not worry about world opinion. That means not targeting civilians, but also not caring too much about "collateral damage". If we are unwilling to do that (and I don't believe Iraq was a large enough threat to justify that) then we should not get involved. Can we win under the current "rules"? No. The most we can hope for is to get out of there without appearing completely defeated.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I'm still getting copies of my late father's AARP magazine. [formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons, now just AARP] There is a very nice interview with Colin Powell -- former Secretary of State for President Bush. I especially like what he says in the Q&A section regarding modern day terrorism. Q: So why is it in our vital interest to have a presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future? A: Because the original mission that we went in to deal with has not been finished. The conflict is not over. The conflict did not end when the Iraqi army cracked. We have taken out the government that was there—Hussein's government. Once we did that, on the ninth of April 2003, who is the government of Iraq? We are, under international law, until we turn it back over to a newly established government. And that was my concern—that we gotta understand that when you crack this goblet, it's a crystal goblet, and it's all going to shatter. And as I said to the President, which has been widely reported, "If we break that government, we're gonna own it." But we weren't prepared to do what was necessary to own the country and dominate the country, and keep an insurgency from breaking out. Q: When you look forward, what are you afraid of for your grandchildren? You were very optimistic back in 1995 when you wrote your book. A: I still am. My grandchildren aren't going to see a world war. My grandchildren aren't going to be threatened by the prospect of thermonuclear exchange the way I was, and the way I used to duck under my little school desk. My grandchildren aren't going to see anything like that. There's an Iran and an Iraq and a North Korea, but that isn't going to rise to the level of the Soviet threat or the Chinese threat. There's more at this link. Check it out. It's good reading from a very reasonable man. <a href="http://www.aarpmagazine.org/people/colin_powell.html" target="_blank">http://www.aarpmagazine.org/pe ople/colin_powell.html</a>
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> I just don’t know if we can under the confines we are want our military to operate. << What exactly are you advocating for? The "confines" of our military are in place to maintain our honor and world respect. And they aren't working very well at that. As it is now, people can try to explain away many of the more heinous acts of our own military as "aberrations", and outside of the standards the military upholds, or tries to. By loosening the reins on the military, wouldn't you then expect them to engage in ever greater acts of savagry against innocent civilians? Is that what you think will help?
Originally Posted By JohnS1 Way back in the years that had only three digits, soldiers of the civilized, intelligent, highly organized Roman Empire were beat back by the Picts, a Celtic tribe of savage, no-holds-barred fighters whose tactics were so guerilla in nature that the Romans simply built a wall to keep them out rather than fight them. That's where we are in America. As wonderful as any civilized, caring and democratic empire/nation may seem, the time comes when the very thing that made them different ends up failing to protect them against the age-old rule of warfare - kill the enemy any way possible and forget the rules. If we abandon the rules set out by the constitution, this country may win against the terrorists, but will have abandoned its principles. If it sticks to its principles, it will likely lose to the terrorists, but have some lofty principles to share as memories with their descendents in whatever sort of second-class nation we end up becoming. I'm not sure which alternative is better or worse.
Originally Posted By gadzuux We cannot "lose" to the terrorists - we can only lose to ourselves in the process of fighting them. The threat they present isn't damaging to the republic itself - it's random acts of violence. If we keep our heads we can survive whatever they dish out. But, as lincoln said, the real enemy is within. We need to be better at recognizing where the true threat lays, including the current knucklehead in the white house - that's the biggest threat to our american values. There are plenty of people who will tell you otherwise, but really - who's done more to curtail our liberties and to divide us as a nation? And done so deliberately and with neferious intent? Easy answer - the GOP - they've got more power to subvert our country than any foreign enemy could ever hope to have.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>The threat they present isn't damaging to the republic itself - it's random acts of violence.<< Not if they procure and use nuclear weapons.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Yep - even if they get a nuke. Certainly it would be a disaster of enormous scale, but it cannot shake the foundations of our nation and our government. It would be another random act of violence, only on a much larger scale. The united states as a nation is built upon who we are as a people, and our unique form of governance. Those don't change because we're attacked. They DO change when our leadership embarks on a campaign to corrupt our government from within and to divide us as a nation. That's where the real danger is.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 So, if I understand you, the GOP goal is to completely corrupt us from within, then divide us as a nation, huh? Then what?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>If we abandon the rules set out by the constitution, this country may win against the terrorists, but will have abandoned its principles. If it sticks to its principles, it will likely lose to the terrorists, but have some lofty principles to share as memories with their descendents in whatever sort of second-class nation we end up becoming. I'm not sure which alternative is better or worse.<< I don't know, either. We have to survive. But at the same time, those lofty principals are what define this nation, what set it apart from so many others. Those principals are worth fighting for. If we abandon them, then I'm not sure exactly what it is we'd be trying to save. It would be a different America, that's for sure.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Yep - even if they get a nuke. Certainly it would be a disaster of enormous scale, but it cannot shake the foundations of our nation and our government.<< I'm not so sure. If they took out NY, DC, Chicago, LA and a few other choice metro areas I think that our nation would cease to exist. I'm not saying that we would all die, but the notion of a single union would likely be jeopardized. I could envision surviving regions becoming autonomous as the national economy and government ceased to exist. There would be no FEMA to help survivors. Perhaps all that would remain of the Fedral gov't would be the military, and they would probably be busy nuking suspected enemies off the face of the earth.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I like this part of the Colin Powell article Jim linked to: >>Q: But isn't terrorism scarier than that? A: Terrorism is scary. I think we have to put terrorism in context. It's the unknown about terrorism that's so scary. It's not an enemy you can see and attack and defend yourself easily against. And they can come and they can knock down buildings. They can kill some of our fellow citizens. But they can't defeat us as a nation. Q: Unless we let them. A: Bingo. You're stealing my speech. Only if we start being so afraid that we don't let people come to this country, we don't want any foreigners here, we don't want any Arabs or Muslims running around here, and we take counsel of our fears. We let terrorists scare us so badly that we don't go to football games, and we're afraid to go here and we're afraid to go there, which was something of the case in 2001 in the fall. We're coming out of it. People are going now to entertainment facilities, more students are coming back to our schools, and we're righting ourselves. And we've got to stay upright.<<
Originally Posted By fkurucz My point is that unlike 9/11 there would be no picking up the pieces and getting back to business. If Manhattan were nuked the financial sector wold never recover. If DC were nuked chances are that the branches of the federal gov't would be annihilated. Paper currency would be worthless. We would be starting over nearly from scratch.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Bingo. You're stealing my speech. Only if we start being so afraid that we don't let people come to this country, we don't want any foreigners here, we don't want any Arabs or Muslims running around here, and we take counsel of our fears.<< FWIW, during WW2 we were pretty picky about who was allowed into the US. And I can't imagine that the NYTimes would publish our military strategies and plans back then either.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<My point is that unlike 9/11 there would be no picking up the pieces and getting back to business. If Manhattan were nuked the financial sector wold never recover. If DC were nuked chances are that the branches of the federal gov't would be annihilated. Paper currency would be worthless. We would be starting over nearly from scratch>> I could be wrong, but I like to think that America is strong enough that we would even survive that without substantial long term change.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan My point is that unlike 9/11 there would be no picking up the pieces and getting back to business.<< It's easy to forget that before 9/11, the country was about as divided politically as we are today. But in the months that followed 9/11, people set those differences aside in the interest of healing the country. I have no doubt that the same thing will happen should there be another terrorist atack of any kind, any scale.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> So, if I understand you, the GOP goal is to completely corrupt us from within, then divide us as a nation, huh? Then what? << The GOP goal is to maintain and increase it's own power. With that power it seeks to shift wealth away from the 'middle class' (a democratic construct) and into the control of the already wealthy. Money is power - those that control the money have the power. They don't particularly care about christianity, but pandering to christians has proven to be an effective way to garner the support of these very people that their actions are undermining. So they exploit their ignorance for their own gain. The corrupting influence comes from corporate cronyism. The dividing of our nation comes about by fanning the flames on sidebar issues like gay marriage, abortion, flag burning, ten commandments and school prayer. The 'cultural divide' is exploited for all it's worth. Meanwhile they're robbing us blind and bankrupting our economy, all while professing to be the party of fiscal responsibility and moral rectitude.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<The GOP goal is to maintain and increase it's own power>> This is true. The GOP wants to keep their majorities so they can keep pushing the country in the direction they feel is best for America. They seem to win a lot these days and will keep winning. <<With that power it seeks to shift wealth away from the 'middle class' (a democratic construct) and into the control of the already wealthy. Money is power - those that control the money have the power.>> This is not true and there is no evidence to back it up. In fact, most people are better off than they were 6 years ago. The GOP gets their power from having solid values and ideas that appeal to voters. They also like America and are proud of what America has done in the world. << They don't particularly care about christianity, but pandering to christians has proven to be an effective way to garner the support of these very people that their actions are undermining. So they exploit their ignorance for their own gain. >> Christians are usually Republicans because the GOP comes closest to their values. The part about exploiting their ignorance is of course not true. If you have a way to back this up that would be nice to see. << The dividing of our nation comes about by fanning the flames on sidebar issues like gay marriage, abortion, flag burning, ten commandments and school prayer. >> All of these issues are positives for the GOP because the vast majority of Americans see it like the GOP sees it. So it gets them votes and it makes the dems look out of touch. You will notice that gay marriage is going backwards at a fast pace with NY saying it was illegal, same thing in GA. << Meanwhile they're robbing us blind and bankrupting our economy, all while professing to be the party of fiscal responsibility and moral rectitude. >> The economy is very strong. The deficit has been shrunk due to all the revenue that is coming in from the tax cuts and the booming economy. Bush talked about this very thing this morning. But nice try.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>I could be wrong, but I like to think that America is strong enough that we would even survive that without substantial long term change.<< I recall the night of Sept 11 well. People were panicking. Long lines at gas stations. Our local Sam's Club was pretty busy that night. Now imagine that unlike that evening our national infrastructure was actually destroyed. The power grid in most of the country is now beyond repair. Our electronic infrastructure has been decimated by EMP. Your car won't start, as its computers are fried, and there might never be replacement parts for it. The phone system is fried. The Internet is fried. While not actually sent back to the stone age, its 1880 as far as infrastructure goes. Would we eventually rebuild? Almost certainly. But North America would never be the same again.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>The deficit has been shrunk due to all the revenue that is coming in from the tax cuts and the booming economy.<< Its still nearly 300B. Hardly rosy. And the trade deficit is still mushroomimg. And only 120,000 jobs were created last month. It could be worse, but its not great.
