PDA

View Full Version : Does the US Fight to Win?



5stringJeff
03-21-2007, 02:30 PM
A long article, but very interesting, regarding the America's motivation to fight and win since WWII. I received this via e-mail - copyright info below.


==================
Geopolitics and the U.S. Spoiling Attack

By George Friedman

The United States has now spent four years fighting in Iraq. Those who planned the conflict never expected this outcome. Indeed, it could be argued that this outcome represents not only miscalculation but also a strategic defeat for the United States. The best that can be said about the war at the moment is that it is a strategic stalemate, which is an undesired outcome for the Americans. The worst that can be said is that the United States has failed to meet its strategic objectives and that failure represents defeat.

In considering the situation, our attention is drawn to a strange paradox that has been manifest in American foreign policy since World War II. On the one hand, the United States has consistently encountered strategic stalemate or defeat in particular politico-military operations. At those times, the outcomes have appeared to be disappointing if not catastrophic. Yet, over the same period of time, U.S. global power, on the whole, has surged. In spite of stalemate and defeat during the Cold War, the United States was more in 2000 than it had been in 1950.

Consider these examples from history:

* Korea: Having defeated the North Korean army, U.S. forces were attacked by China. The result was a bloody stalemate, followed by a partition that essentially restored the status quo ante -- thus imposing an extended stalemate.


* Cuba: After a pro-Soviet government was created well within the security cordon of the United States, Washington used overt and covert means to destroy the Castro regime. All attempts failed, and the Castro government remains in place nearly half a century later.


* Vietnam: the United States fought an extended war in Vietnam, designed to contain the expansion of Communism in Indochina. The United States failed to achieve its objectives -- despite massive infusions of force -- and North Vietnam established hegemony over the region.


* Iran: The U.S. containment policy required it to have a cordon of allies around the Soviet Union. Iran was a key link, blocking Soviet access to the Persian Gulf. The U.S. expulsion from Iran following the Islamic Revolution represented a major strategic reversal.

* Iraq: In this context, Iraq appears to represent another strategic reversal -- with U.S. ambitions at least blocked, and possibly defeated, after a major investment of effort and prestige.

Look at it this way. On a pretty arbitrary scale -- between Korea (1950-53), Cuba (1960-63), Vietnam (1963-75), Iran (1979-1981) and Iraq (2003-present) -- the United States has spent about 27 of the last 55 years engaged in politico-military maneuvers that, at the very least, did not bring obvious success, and frequently brought disaster. Yet, in spite of these disasters, the long-term tendency of American power relative to the rest of the world has been favorable to the United States. This general paradox must be explained. And in the course of explanation, some understandings of the Iraq campaign, seen in a broader context, might emerge.

Schools of Thought

There are three general explanations for this paradox:

1. U.S. power does not rest on these politico-military involvements but derives from other factors, such as economic power. Therefore, the fact that the United States has consistently failed in major conflicts is an argument that these conflicts should not have been fought -- that they were not relevant to the emergence of American power. The U.S. preoccupation with politico-military conflict has been an exercise in the irrelevant that has slowed, but has not derailed, expansion of American power. Applying this logic, it would be argued that the Soviet Union would have collapsed anyway under its own weight -- as will the Islamic world -- and that U.S. interventions are pointless.

2. The United States has been extraordinarily fortunate that, despite its inability to use politico-military power effectively and its being drawn consistently into stalemate or defeat, exogenous forces have saved the United States from its own weakness. In the long run, this good fortune should not be viewed as strategy, but as disaster waiting to happen.

3. The wars mentioned previously were never as significant as they appeared to be -- public sentiment and government rhetoric notwithstanding. These conflicts drew on only a small fraction of potential U.S. power, and they always were seen as peripheral to fundamental national interests. The more important dimension of U.S. foreign policy was statecraft that shifted the burden of potential warfare from the United States to its allies. So, regardless of these examples, the core strategic issue for the United States was its alliances and ententes with states like Germany and China. Applying this logic, it follows that the wars themselves were -- practically speaking -- insignificant episodes, that stalemate and defeat were trivial and that, except for the domestic political obsession, none were of fundamental importance to the United States.

Put somewhat differently, there is the liberal view that the Soviet Union was not defeated by the United States in the Cold War, but that it collapsed itself, and the military conflicts of the Cold War were unnecessary. There is the conservative view that the United States won the Cold War in spite of a fundamental flaw in the American character -- an unwillingness to bear the burden of war -- and that this flaw ultimately will prove disastrous for the United States. Finally, there is the non-ideological, non-political view that the United States won the Cold War in spite of defeats and stalemates because these wars were never as important as either the liberals or conservatives made them out to be, however necessary they might have been seen to be at the time.

If we apply these analyses to Iraq, three schools of thought emerge. The first says that the Iraq war is unnecessary and even harmful in the context of the U.S.-jihadist confrontation -- and that, regardless of outcome, it should not be fought. The second says that the war is essential -- and that, while defeat or stalemate in this conflict perhaps would not be catastrophic to the United States, there is a possibility that it would be catastrophic. And at any rate, this argument continues, the United States' ongoing inability to impose its will in conflicts of this class ultimately will destroy it. Finally, there is the view that Iraq is simply a small piece of a bigger war and that the outcome of this particular conflict will not be decisive, although the war might be necessary. The heated rhetoric surrounding the Iraq conflict stems from the traditional American inability to hold things in perspective.

There is a reasonable case to be made for any of these three views. Any Stratfor reader knows that our sympathies gravitate toward the third view. However, that view makes no sense unless it is expanded. It must also take into consideration the view that the Soviet Union's fall was hardwired into history regardless of U.S. politico-military action, along with the notion that a consistent willingness to accept stalemate and defeat represents a significant threat to the United States in the long term.

Resource Commitments and Implications

Let's begin with something that is obviously true. When we consider Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Iran and even Iraq, it is clear that the United States devoted only a tiny fraction of the military power it could have brought to bear if it wished. By this, we mean that in none of these cases was there a general American mobilization, at no point was U.S. industry converted to a wartime footing, at no point were nuclear weapons used to force enemy defeat. The proportion of force brought to bear, relative to capabilities demonstrated in conflicts such as World War II, was minimal.

If there were fundamental issues at stake involving national security, the United States did not act as though that was the case. What is most remarkable about these conflicts was the extreme restraint shown -- both in committing forces and in employing available forces. The conservative critique of U.S. foreign policy revolves around the tendency of the American leadership and public to recoil at the idea of extended conflict. But this recoil is not a response to extended war. Rather, by severely limiting the force available from the outset, the United States has, unintentionally, designed its wars to be extended. From this derives the conservative view that the United States engages in warfare without intending victory.

In each of these cases, the behavior of the United States implied that there were important national security issues at stake, but measured in terms of the resources provided, these national security issues were not of the first order. The United States certainly has shown an ability to mount full-bore politico-military operations in the past: In World War II, it provided sufficient resources to invade Europe and the Japanese empire simultaneously. But in all of the cases we have cited, the United States provided limited resources -- and in some cases, only covert or political resources. Clearly, it was prepared on some level to accept stalemate and defeat.

Even in cases where the enemy was engaged fully, the United States limited its commitment of resources. In Vietnam, for example, the defeat of North Vietnam and regime change were explicitly ruled out. The United States had as its explicit goal a stalemate, in which both South and North Vietnam survived as independent states. In Korea, the United States shifted to a stalemate strategy after the Chinese intervention. So too in Cuba after the Cuban missile crisis; and in Iran, the United States accepted defeat in an apparently critical arena without attempting a major intervention. In each instance, the mark of U.S. intervention was limited exposure -- even at the cost of stalemate or defeat.

In other words, the United States consistently has entered into conflicts in which its level of commitment was extremely limited, in which either victory was not the strategic goal or the mission eventually was redefined to accept stalemate, and in which even defeat was deemed preferable to a level of effort that might avert it. Public discussion on all sides was apoplectic both during these conflicts and afterward, yet American global power was not materially affected in the long run.

The Spoiling Attack

This appears to make no sense until we introduce a military concept into the analysis: the spoiling attack. The spoiling attack is an offensive operation; however, its goal is not to defeat the enemy but to disrupt enemy offensives -- to, in effect, prevent a defeat by the enemy. The success of the spoiling attack is not measured in term of enemy capitulation, but the degree to which it has forestalled successful enemy operations.

The concept of a spoiling attack is intimately bound up with the principle of economy of force. Military power, like all power, is finite. It must be husbanded. Even in a war in which no resources are spared, some operations do not justify a significant expenditure. Some attacks are always designed to succeed by failing. More precisely, the resources devoted to those operations are sufficient to disrupt enemy plans, to delay an enemy offensive, or to create an opportunity for political disruption of the enemy, rather than to defeat the enemy. For those tasked with carrying out the spoiling attack, it appears that they are being wasted in a hopeless effort. For those with a broader strategic or geopolitical perspective, it appears to be the proper application of the "economy of force" principle.

If we consider the examples cited above and apply the twin concepts of the spoiling attack and economy of force, then the conversion of American defeats into increased U.S. global power no longer appears quite as paradoxical. In Korea, spoiling Communist goals created breathing space elsewhere for the United States, and increased tension levels between China and Russia. A stalemate achieved outcomes as satisfactory to Washington as taking North Korea would have been. In Cuba, containing Fidel Castro was, relative to cost, as useful as destroying him. What he did in Cuba itself was less important to Washington than that he should not be an effective player in Latin America. In Vietnam, frustrating the North's strategic goals for a decade allowed the Sino-Soviet dispute to ripen, thus opening the door for Sino-U.S. entente even before the war ended. The U.S. interest in Iran, of course, rested with its utility as a buffer to the Soviets. Being ousted from Iran mattered only if the Iranians capitulated to the Soviets. Absent that, Iran's internal politics were of little interest to the United States.

If we apply the twin concepts to Iraq, it is possible to understand the reasons behind the size of the force deployed (which, while significant, still is limited relative to the full range of options brought to bear in World War II) and the obvious willingness of the Bush administration to court military disaster. The invasion four years ago has led to the Sunnis and Shia turning against each other in direct conflict. Therefore, it could be argued that just as the United States won the Cold War by exploiting the Sino-Soviet split and allying with Mao Zedong, so too the path to defeating the jihadists is not a main attack, but a spoiling attack that turns Sunnis and Shia against each other. This was certainly not the intent of the Bush administration in planning the 2003 invasion; it has become, nevertheless, an unintended and significant outcome.

Moreover, it is far from clear whether U.S. policymakers through history have been aware of this dimension in their operations. In considering Korea, Cuba, Vietnam and Iran, it is never clear that the Truman, Kennedy, Johnson/Nixon or Carter/Reagan administrations purposely set out to implement a spoiling attack. The fog of political rhetoric and the bureaucratized nature of the U.S. foreign policy apparatus make it difficult to speak of U.S. "strategy" as such. Every deputy assistant secretary of something-or-other confuses his little piece of things with the whole, and the American culture demonizes and deifies without clarifying.

However, there is a deep structure in U.S. foreign policy that becomes visible. The incongruities of stalemate and defeat on the one side and growing U.S. power on the other must be reconciled. The liberal and conservative arguments explain things only partially. But the idea that the United States rarely fights to win can be explained. It is not because of a lack of moral fiber, as conservatives would argue; nor a random and needless belligerence, as liberals would argue. Rather, it is the application of the principle of spoiling operations -- using limited resources not in order to defeat the enemy but to disrupt and confuse enemy operations.

As with the invisible hand in economics, businessmen pursue immediate ends without necessarily being aware of how they contribute to the wealth of nations. So too, politicians pursue immediate ends without necessarily being aware of how they contribute to national power. Some are clearer in their thinking than others, perhaps, or possibly all presidents are crystal-clear on what they are doing in these matters. We do not dine with the great.

But there is an underlying order to U.S. foreign policy that makes the apparent chaos of policymaking understandable and rational.

-----
Distribution and Reprints

This report may be distributed or republished with attribution to Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at www.stratfor.com.

Nukeman
03-21-2007, 04:13 PM
This is a great article. Puts a whole new spin on things. Dont know if I totaly agree with it but it does have some very powerful points..:clap: :salute:

Dilloduck
03-21-2007, 04:20 PM
This is a great article. Puts a whole new spin on things. Dont know if I totaly agree with it but it does have some very powerful points..:clap: :salute:

Agreed---finally something intelligent to comment on !:clap:

Gaffer
03-21-2007, 04:46 PM
That was an excellent article which attempts to explain the big picture better than any I have read so far. Hopefully some of the libs here will read it and get a new perspective of things.

mundame
03-22-2007, 03:24 PM
the path to defeating the jihadists is not a main attack, but a spoiling attack that turns Sunnis and Shia against each other. This was certainly not the intent of the Bush administration in planning the 2003 invasion; it has become, nevertheless, an unintended and significant outcome.

Yes, I really like George Friedman's geopolitical analyses; I subscribe to Stratfor. Stratfor was very enthusiastic about this war originally (as were many of us; of course, we all supposed we would win!).

I love his point that these are all spoiling attacks that don't win because ------- it's hard to win, and we don't really need to. I've been saying for months --- just let them all fight each other in the Mideast!! Why, oh why, are we trying to STOP them? They love to fight and kill each other --- they are killing the enemy FOR us.

Let's withdraw and let them do that.

They have to sell the oil; they don't have anything else to sell at all. So getting the oil moving is going to be the first concern of whomever comes out on top wherever there is oil, and oil is fungible: we don't need to care who that is.

Well, presumably Halliburton wishes it were them, but after all the bad audits they've shown up with, I don't care what they want.

I think we could withdraw now because I'm not at all sure we have LOST. I know we have lost in George Bush's terms --- his war aims were a democratic, secure, orderly Iraq, and it hasn't been that since Babylon and probably never will be.

But the war aim a lot of us had was to mess with Arabs enough that they would think twice about bombing New York again. And haven't we done that? How many Arab leaders want us to come lose a war in their state??

Probably they'd rather we not.

I love geopolitics. Friedman does it good. Big think.

5stringJeff
03-22-2007, 03:40 PM
Yes, I really like George Friedman's geopolitical analyses; I subscribe to Stratfor. Stratfor was very enthusiastic about this war originally (as were many of us; of course, we all supposed we would win!).

...

I love geopolitics. Friedman does it good. Big think.


I just subscribed about a month ago. It's well worth the money.

Dilloduck
03-22-2007, 03:57 PM
the path to defeating the jihadists is not a main attack, but a spoiling attack that turns Sunnis and Shia against each other. This was certainly not the intent of the Bush administration in planning the 2003 invasion; it has become, nevertheless, an unintended and significant outcome.

Yes, I really like George Friedman's geopolitical analyses; I subscribe to Stratfor. Stratfor was very enthusiastic about this war originally (as were many of us; of course, we all supposed we would win!).

I love his point that these are all spoiling attacks that don't win because ------- it's hard to win, and we don't really need to. I've been saying for months --- just let them all fight each other in the Mideast!! Why, oh why, are we trying to STOP them? They love to fight and kill each other --- they are killing the enemy FOR us.

Let's withdraw and let them do that.

They have to sell the oil; they don't have anything else to sell at all. So getting the oil moving is going to be the first concern of whomever comes out on top wherever there is oil, and oil is fungible: we don't need to care who that is.

Well, presumably Halliburton wishes it were them, but after all the bad audits they've shown up with, I don't care what they want.

I think we could withdraw now because I'm not at all sure we have LOST. I know we have lost in George Bush's terms --- his war aims were a democratic, secure, orderly Iraq, and it hasn't been that since Babylon and probably never will be.

But the war aim a lot of us had was to mess with Arabs enough that they would think twice about bombing New York again. And haven't we done that? How many Arab leaders want us to come lose a war in their state??

Probably they'd rather we not.

I love geopolitics. Friedman does it good. Big think.

I would also assume they don't want us to fight half a war in thier countries. Perhaps they would be willing to change thier behavior just enough so America doesn't.
I never did and still don't expect our adminstration to come out and lay out our entire game plan and goals to the world. It would be stupid not to have a vague cover story that would be generally acceptable at the time.
I also assume that when the geopolitical situation is right, we will bring our troops home.

CSM
03-22-2007, 04:07 PM
the path to defeating the jihadists is not a main attack, but a spoiling attack that turns Sunnis and Shia against each other. This was certainly not the intent of the Bush administration in planning the 2003 invasion; it has become, nevertheless, an unintended and significant outcome.

Yes, I really like George Friedman's geopolitical analyses; I subscribe to Stratfor. Stratfor was very enthusiastic about this war originally (as were many of us; of course, we all supposed we would win!).

I love his point that these are all spoiling attacks that don't win because ------- it's hard to win, and we don't really need to. I've been saying for months --- just let them all fight each other in the Mideast!! Why, oh why, are we trying to STOP them? They love to fight and kill each other --- they are killing the enemy FOR us.

Let's withdraw and let them do that.

They have to sell the oil; they don't have anything else to sell at all. So getting the oil moving is going to be the first concern of whomever comes out on top wherever there is oil, and oil is fungible: we don't need to care who that is.

Well, presumably Halliburton wishes it were them, but after all the bad audits they've shown up with, I don't care what they want.

I think we could withdraw now because I'm not at all sure we have LOST. I know we have lost in George Bush's terms --- his war aims were a democratic, secure, orderly Iraq, and it hasn't been that since Babylon and probably never will be.

But the war aim a lot of us had was to mess with Arabs enough that they would think twice about bombing New York again. And haven't we done that? How many Arab leaders want us to come lose a war in their state??

Probably they'd rather we not.

I love geopolitics. Friedman does it good. Big think.


I agree...good post...rep ya later!

mundame
03-22-2007, 04:12 PM
I would also assume they don't want us to fight half a war in thier countries. Perhaps they would be willing to change thier behavior just enough so America doesn't.


Yes. Like that.

I love Friedman's point that geopolitics may be like the Market, the Invisible Hand ---- it works by certain rules even when no one intends any of the rules to happen. That is, we keep going into impossible, dumb wars and LOSING them over and over, God help us, and yet, Friedman is perfectly right ------------

We've moved from strength to strength until now we're world hegemon.

What??

He thinks that although every president really meant and wanted to WIN, we settled for spoiling attacks that were effective in backing off enemies anyway.

I'm not sure.........I still like the possibility that we simply didn't step on our own...let's say "feet" by winning at all costs and antagonizing the world.

Because that is what Germany did, TWICE. They threw EVERYTHING into two world wars and they certainly intended world domination both times: world hegemony. And they weren't nice about it either: the Bosche, the Hun, shooting up all the Belgian villages, concentration camps.

So the world ganged up on them and put them down like rabid dogs, but they aren't doing that with us.

So far, anyway. Maybe because we don't throw everything into cruelly winning and annihilating little countries, like the Germans did. So while we are showing willingness to fight, we aren't showing that we're a terrible menace to the world.

I like both answers. All those people who said, bomb the USSR into oblivion, First Strike! They were dead wrong, because Russia collapsed by itself, though again, we stalemated ourselves through the Cold War until we ran them into bankruptcy. And we didn't scare the world into uniting against us.

Gunny
03-24-2007, 09:16 AM
Does the US Fight to Win?

No. Too many generations have passed since those who fought to give us what we have lived. What's mostly left are those who think it'all God-given and free, and enemies somehow can't manage to take it away.

gabosaurus
03-24-2007, 11:39 AM
Perhaps because we haven't fought any legitimate wars since WWII. The United States has not been threatened by another country. Thus, we create conflicts in order to satiate the militarists who enjoy such.
You would think that, after coming out on the short end of conflicts in Korea and Viet Nam, we would learn. But, emboldened by Reagan's brave and patriotic invasion of military power Grenada, we have carried on and picked more fights with those who pose no threat to us.

Dilloduck
03-24-2007, 12:20 PM
Yes. Like that.

I love Friedman's point that geopolitics may be like the Market, the Invisible Hand ---- it works by certain rules even when no one intends any of the rules to happen. That is, we keep going into impossible, dumb wars and LOSING them over and over, God help us, and yet, Friedman is perfectly right ------------

We've moved from strength to strength until now we're world hegemon.

What??

He thinks that although every president really meant and wanted to WIN, we settled for spoiling attacks that were effective in backing off enemies anyway.

I'm not sure.........I still like the possibility that we simply didn't step on our own...let's say "feet" by winning at all costs and antagonizing the world.

Because that is what Germany did, TWICE. They threw EVERYTHING into two world wars and they certainly intended world domination both times: world hegemony. And they weren't nice about it either: the Bosche, the Hun, shooting up all the Belgian villages, concentration camps.

So the world ganged up on them and put them down like rabid dogs, but they aren't doing that with us.

So far, anyway. Maybe because we don't throw everything into cruelly winning and annihilating little countries, like the Germans did. So while we are showing willingness to fight, we aren't showing that we're a terrible menace to the world.

I like both answers. All those people who said, bomb the USSR into oblivion, First Strike! They were dead wrong, because Russia collapsed by itself, though again, we stalemated ourselves through the Cold War until we ran them into bankruptcy. And we didn't scare the world into uniting against us.

Maybe creating chaos in the midst of pure evil gives something better a chance to arise from the ashes. ( Kills of bunch of evil people with evil ideas at the same time)

Gunny
03-24-2007, 12:39 PM
Perhaps because we haven't fought any legitimate wars since WWII. The United States has not been threatened by another country. Thus, we create conflicts in order to satiate the militarists who enjoy such.
You would think that, after coming out on the short end of conflicts in Korea and Viet Nam, we would learn. But, emboldened by Reagan's brave and patriotic invasion of military power Grenada, we have carried on and picked more fights with those who pose no threat to us.

Bullshit. You wouldn't recognize a threat if it was standing in your face holding a .44 magnum to your head.

-Cp
03-24-2007, 06:06 PM
Here's a link:

http://www.navyseals.com/community/articles/article.cfm?id=10779

mundame
03-24-2007, 09:53 PM
No. Too many generations have passed since those who fought to give us what we have lived. What's mostly left are those who think it'all God-given and free, and enemies somehow can't manage to take it away.

No, we clearly no longer fight to win: that is obvious! Well, except I guess for when we DO win --- Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm and of course Serbia.

But there are too many very important national calamities where we fought but did NOT win: Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan even, Cuba, Korea.

Friedman is saying that even though we didn't bother to win (and I think that's really what is going on), it didn't matter and maybe we won anyway, because we DID move from strength to strength as a world power.

And that is a very provocative thought. So.........maybe showing that we are a pugnacious nation, one who WILL fight so watch out enemies ---- is a good thing, because even if we didn't "win," who wants us to come lose like THAT? Whole cities in rubble, tens and hundreds of thousands of people killed, millions in the case of Vietnamese and so on. This is LOSING? Yes, but it's not the sort of defeat nations invite in.

And by not winning "whatever it takes," as all conservatives invariably call for, aren't we preserving something of our non-Hun, non-Bosche reputation, what little there is of it left after too many atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan? Real viciousness in war was the Germans' best tactic, no question: when they deviated from that, they did poorly. The poison gas, the unrestricted submarine sinkings, the flamethrowers ----

But you know, nobody ever liked the Germans. The world united to defeat them, and they are not (so far) doing that to us. Because we aren't just obliterating Iraq and turning it to glass: the Germans probably would have, with our weapons.

Maybe not. Maybe the Germans would simply have stopped the looting and made sure the weapons dumps weren't open arsenals, which we didn't have the sense to do.

I think these losing wars were all terrible mistakes, yes --- but by not viciously murdering all the foreign people we had invaded in order to "win," whatever that means, we have preserved some reputation, enough to survive against hostile world opinion.

Dilloduck
03-24-2007, 10:36 PM
No, we clearly no longer fight to win: that is obvious! Well, except I guess for when we DO win --- Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm and of course Serbia.

But there are too many very important national calamities where we fought but did NOT win: Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan even, Cuba, Korea.

Friedman is saying that even though we didn't bother to win (and I think that's really what is going on), it didn't matter and maybe we won anyway, because we DID move from strength to strength as a world power.

And that is a very provocative thought. So.........maybe showing that we are a pugnacious nation, one who WILL fight so watch out enemies ---- is a good thing, because even if we didn't "win," who wants us to come lose like THAT? Whole cities in rubble, tens and hundreds of thousands of people killed, millions in the case of Vietnamese and so on. This is LOSING? Yes, but it's not the sort of defeat nations invite in.

And by not winning "whatever it takes," as all conservatives invariably call for, aren't we preserving something of our non-Hun, non-Bosche reputation, what little there is of it left after too many atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan? Real viciousness in war was the Germans' best tactic, no question: when they deviated from that, they did poorly. The poison gas, the unrestricted submarine sinkings, the flamethrowers ----

But you know, nobody ever liked the Germans. The world united to defeat them, and they are not (so far) doing that to us. Because we aren't just obliterating Iraq and turning it to glass: the Germans probably would have, with our weapons.

Maybe not. Maybe the Germans would simply have stopped the looting and made sure the weapons dumps weren't open arsenals, which we didn't have the sense to do.

I think these losing wars were all terrible mistakes, yes --- but by not viciously murdering all the foreign people we had invaded in order to "win," whatever that means, we have preserved some reputation, enough to survive against hostile world opinion.

Maybe we can't afford to "win" war and rebuilding countries like Germany and Japan taught us something. What could we possibly gain by nuking anyone ?

gabosaurus
03-25-2007, 11:15 PM
We can end the world as we know it. Which is basically what the GOP Hawks stand for.
Anyone who still believes the U.S. could "win" a nuclear exchange has a definitive lack of intelligence. Watch "Threads" for more details.

Gaffer
03-26-2007, 12:27 AM
We can end the world as we know it. Which is basically what the GOP Hawks stand for.
Anyone who still believes the U.S. could "win" a nuclear exchange has a definitive lack of intelligence. Watch "Threads" for more details.

we can win a nuclear exchange if we strike with conventional weapons before they finish building their bombs. we are not dealing with russia here. we are dealing with mad men that don't care if their country is destroyed.

mundame
03-26-2007, 10:02 AM
Gaffer saying, we can win a nuclear exchange if we strike with conventional weapons before they finish building their bombs.

Conservatives always say this. But consider: if we'd done that to Russia, as you all wanted, it would have been a terrible, wasteful act, because in fact Russia collapsed on its own.

So let's see if Iran and other benighted Muslim states collapse on their own, or more to the point, modernize however reluctantly. They may!!


No, let's save nukes for retaliation. We have a better case for that use, as opposed to "I just think they're evil."

Hobbit
03-26-2007, 11:09 AM
Gaffer saying, we can win a nuclear exchange if we strike with conventional weapons before they finish building their bombs.

Conservatives always say this. But consider: if we'd done that to Russia, as you all wanted, it would have been a terrible, wasteful act, because in fact Russia collapsed on its own.

So let's see if Iran and other benighted Muslim states collapse on their own, or more to the point, modernize however reluctantly. They may!!


No, let's save nukes for retaliation. We have a better case for that use, as opposed to "I just think they're evil."

We can't afford to do that with this enemy. The Soviet Union was unwilling to destroy their nation to strike at us. Iran has no such sense of self-preservation. They would see their entire country turned into a smoldering ruin if they thought they could drag us down with them.

CSM
03-26-2007, 11:12 AM
We can't afford to do that with this enemy. The Soviet Union was unwilling to destroy their nation to strike at us. Iran has no such sense of self-preservation. They would see their entire country turned into a smoldering ruin if they thought they could drag us down with them.

Suicide bombing on a global scale! Not beyond the realm of conceivable either!

glockmail
03-26-2007, 12:19 PM
Gaffer saying, we can win a nuclear exchange if we strike with conventional weapons before they finish building their bombs.

Conservatives always say this. But consider: if we'd done that to Russia, as you all wanted, it would have been a terrible, wasteful act, because in fact Russia collapsed on its own.

...

Not a viable comparison at all for two huge reasons:
1. Iran has religion as a motivator for its people. USSR was atheist.
2. Iran has all the cash they need because of oil, unlike USSR.

glockmail
03-26-2007, 12:23 PM
.....

Consider these examples from history:

* Korea: ....


* Cuba: ......


* Vietnam: ......


* Iran:......
* Iraq: ......



You could add in USSR there as well, and again Germany in WW1. Or Brits in 1776 (war of 1812). Or Mexican war (they are invading us today because of it).

The fact is, what wars has the US fought to win?

Aside from Japan in WW2?

5stringJeff
03-26-2007, 02:16 PM
You could add in USSR there as well, and again Germany in WW1. Or Brits in 1776 (war of 1812). Or Mexican war (they are invading us today because of it).

The fact is, what wars has the US fought to win?

Aside from Japan in WW2?

I disagree. In all wars leading up to the Mexican-American War, we fought for national survival, so we had to win. In the Mexican-American War, we were fighting for Texas and the (now) American Southwest, and we won in a big way, taking about half of Mexico's land. One could possibly make the argument that we didn't fight for total victory in the Spanish-American War, or possibly WWI.

glockmail
03-26-2007, 02:28 PM
I disagree. In all wars leading up to the Mexican-American War, we fought for national survival, so we had to win. In the Mexican-American War, we were fighting for Texas and the (now) American Southwest, and we won in a big way, taking about half of Mexico's land. One could possibly make the argument that we didn't fight for total victory in the Spanish-American War, or possibly WWI.

Sure we won the Revolutionary war, but not decisively, as England kept harassing our maritime trade.

If we had won the Mex war so decisively, then why are we being invaded now? I'm not trying to be cute because you know that is true.

I could add in the Crusades as well, as the Muslims are still trying to take over Europe, and in fact have expanded their sights to include the US.

I think the point here is that of course we fight to win, but we haven't done a very good job at converting the enemy to our ally, which other than complete anihilation is the only way to complete victory.

Of course the Demcrats nixed Viet Nam, and are trying to nix Iraq, but that is a recent phenomenon, IMO.

5stringJeff
03-26-2007, 02:37 PM
If we had won the Mex war so decisively, then why are we being invaded now? I'm not trying to be cute because you know that is true.

Because the objective of the M-A War was not the annialation of the Mexicans; it was the recognition of Texas (with the Rio Grande as its southern border) and the annexation of all the land between Texas and the Pacific. We got what we wanted out of that war.

The current invasion of illegals has little to do with Mexican politics and much more to do with individuals choosing to break the law to make money in America.

glockmail
03-26-2007, 02:55 PM
....

The current invasion of illegals has little to do with Mexican politics and much more to do with individuals choosing to break the law to make money in America.


I remember seein a map recently with the concentration of mexicans, legal plus illegal, by state, and the high concentrations coincided exactly with the pre M-A war territory. They are working to get that land back.

Gaffer
03-26-2007, 02:58 PM
Gaffer saying, we can win a nuclear exchange if we strike with conventional weapons before they finish building their bombs.

Conservatives always say this. But consider: if we'd done that to Russia, as you all wanted, it would have been a terrible, wasteful act, because in fact Russia collapsed on its own.

So let's see if Iran and other benighted Muslim states collapse on their own, or more to the point, modernize however reluctantly. They may!!


No, let's save nukes for retaliation. We have a better case for that use, as opposed to "I just think they're evil."

I never said we should have attacked russia. The only way we could have done that was back before they had the nuke themselves. I am referring to attacking iran before they develope nukes, because once they have them we will be responding. They fully intend to start a catyclismic war. As they believe this will bring about the return of the 12th imam, and this must be done in order for him to return. This isn't the cold war. They are not going to build the weapons and have a face off. They will use them at the first opportunity. That's why pre-emtive attacks are so critical these days. An apocolyptic war is irans goal. If I have to fight somebody I would rather hit them first then let them hit me and have to be on the defensive.

Your right, they are evil and they are also crazy.

glockmail
03-26-2007, 03:08 PM
I never said we should have attacked russia. The only way we could have done that was back before they had the nuke themselves. I am referring to attacking iran before they develope nukes, because once they have them we will be responding. They fully intend to start a catyclismic war. As they believe this will bring about the return of the 12th imam, and this must be done in order for him to return. This isn't the cold war. They are not going to build the weapons and have a face off. They will use them at the first opportunity. That's why pre-emtive attacks are so critical these days. An apocolyptic war is irans goal. If I have to fight somebody I would rather hit them first then let them hit me and have to be on the defensive.

Your right, they are evil and they are also crazy.

Absolutely true. The libs cannot understand that this is a fanatical enemy that wants to die. There is no chance of peace or a stalemate. Its either kill or be killed.

gabosaurus
03-29-2007, 06:10 PM
Absolutely true. The libs cannot understand that this is a fanatical enemy that wants to die. There is no chance of peace or a stalemate. Its either kill or be killed.

Absolute total ignorance. You have no proof of this, nor do you desire one. You only know what the parrot heads tell you.

glockmail
03-29-2007, 06:37 PM
Absolute total ignorance. You have no proof of this, nor do you desire one. You only know what the parrot heads tell you. The proof is in the words that they use, the tactics (suicide bombs), as well as the words written in the koran.

Gaffer
03-29-2007, 07:19 PM
Absolute total ignorance. You have no proof of this, nor do you desire one. You only know what the parrot heads tell you.

The proof is in irans actions and the words of it leaders. They intend to start a apocolyptic war. ahmalittlehitler has said he will sacrifice most of the middle east and iran to achieve this war which will bring back the 12th imam.

if you are not familiar with the 12th imam I suggest you do some serious reading about it. It's the center piece of EVERYTHING that iran does. But a good jihadist will already be familiar with the 12th imam.