War now appears unwinnable in light of new enemy offensive

[Gangerolf]

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

(I just wanted to post that quote somewhere. Carry on.)

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by Colon
WWII anologies suck.

and don't generally make sense...like this one

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

(I just wanted to post that quote somewhere. Carry on.)

Goering, defending his fascist dictatorship with a smear on democracies.

[Gangerolf]

yup

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Goering, defending his fascist dictatorship with a smear on democracies.

I don't see how anything he said is false.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn


Any analogy with any war is completely ignorant. Societies and political situations change.

If we were to have postponed the Iraq war by 10 years, the resulting war would be entirely different than the one we have today... just by the nature that its ten years in the future.

Drawing parallels is fine, but justifying a losing war today because we won a war in Europe 50 years ago is just dumb.

my hero!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I don't see how anything he said is false.

er, cause pacifists and others impaired british rearmament in the '30s, satisfying Goering just fine? Do I need to list every instance where antiwar sentiment effected a democracys foreign policy? Again there are several from that period alone. I suppose you can always say that in those instance the govt didnt want war - since govt counsels in demos are often divided, it would be hard to prove otherwise. But its a very self-serving statement, from a man whom I would not consider an authority.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
er, cause pacifists and others impaired british rearmament in the '30s, satisfying Goering just fine? Do I need to list every instance where antiwar sentiment effected a democracys foreign policy? Again there are several from that period alone.

True, but the point, which is really true, is that no matter the politicial system, the government can manipulate the people into supporting war through fearmongering and propaganda. Pretty much every time a democratic folk has supported a war, this was proven true.

I suppose you can always say that in those instance the govt didnt want war - since govt counsels in demos are often divided, it would be hard to prove otherwise. But its a very self-serving statement, from a man whom I would not consider an authority.

Of course it's a self-serving statement, and of course the uy is an *******. But the statement is true nonetheless.

[mrmitchell]

It is quite simple, republicans win wars.

Yeah, like those Republicans that led us through WWI and WWII.

Oh...wait. They didn't.

Or the Republican that won us the West in the Mexican War.

Oh...wait. Polk was a Democrat.

At least you've got the Republicans delivering victories in Korea and Vietnam.

Or not. Korea is still divided half-free and half-insane and Nixon let the US lose Vietnam altogether.

However, the Republicans are good at beating up on such difficult wins as Iraq and 1890s Spain.

The only worthy opponent the Republicans ever defeated was the Confederacy, and they had to bring in a Democratic Vice-President, Andrew Johnson, to do it.

Hey, one good Fez deserves another

[Spiffor]

This wasn't a Fezlike argument at all

[mrmitchell]

Spiff, I was quoting Fez/Giancarlo. I haven't even read the Goering thing yet.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
It is quite simple, republicans win wars.

Well, they didn't win korea or Vietnam.

Dems, on the other hand, have a 100% track record of winning wars. After all, the Dems lost to Reps. before being able to win Korea or Vietnam, and then the repugs screwed everything up

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
i guess the point is that its sometimes hard to tell whos winning. D Day isnt that good an illustration. Much better is to look at how desperate things looked for the UK in the early years. And not just when things really were desperate, in 1940, but even after.

Except that the UK was waging a defensive war against an aggressive great power that had taken opver half of Europe. last time I checked:

1. The US is a superpower- the insurgents are NOT
2. This was a war the US chose to wage, in which the US attacked

Thus, any comparison to the allied situation in WW2 is absurd.

For example in May 1941, theyd just screwed up an offensive in Libya. Theyd lost thousands of troops, and several ships, in the evacuation from Crete, only the latest in a string of German triumphs. They didnt have enough troops to deal with the Vichy forces in Syria, and had barely won in Iraq. Sinkings in the Atlantic were high, and the Luftwaffe had just destroyed the House of Commons (the building, not the members)

The whole war was seriously screwed up. Yet in retrospect we know that they were well on their way to victory.

Except that the insurgents have no armored divisions, no planes, no government, so comparing their situation to that of a great power army like the Wermacht is absurd.

which doesnt prove a thing about Iraq today, but it does tell us something about the need to look beyond the headlines to the underlying strategic questions.

Fine, but the underlyting strategiuc situation of a great power war is fundamentally different from that of a local insurgency. If WW2 comparisons are going to be made, then the only valid ones are those of insurgencies happening during the war against an occupying power working with a local government they installed. Unfortunately, the US invariably has the position of the Germans or Japanese in those comparisons.

Interestingly, Algeria or Vietnam comparisons are endlessly more valid.

But is screws up the moralistic arguement right quick.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

Interestingly, Algeria or Vietnam comparisons are endlessly more valid.

But is screws up the moralistic arguement right quick.

I thought this was a strategic discussion, not a moralist one, but then i didnt read the first post too closely.

Algeria and Viet Nam are certainly interesting comparisons. Arguably we are going through Tet, and the public and media reaction is far more sophisticated now. I do think Rummy is going to have go the way of McNamara though. There is of course no equivalent in Viet Nam to the upcoming elections (thats a strategic point NOT a moralistic point). Algeria is of course a poor analogy as that was a fight to retain the metropolitan power's sovereignty, NOT a fight over ideology. Similarly analogies to the West Bank or the Phillipines are inapt. Analogies to Afghanistan, BOTH the Soviet experience and the recent US experience are more apt, though differences are still great.


But are you saying that in insurgency wars, unlike great power conventional wars, it IS correct to focus on headlines rather than underlying strategic drivers?

[lord of the mark]

I would also add, that the notion that UK situation was SIMPLY a great power war, is an oversimplification of their strategic position. They faced open opposition fron local forces in Iraq, and as i just quoted, Gen Wavell feared an occupation - dont you find his quote as striking as i do (though it was not prophetic THEN, but WOULD have been so today)? And they had a very precarious political situation in Egypt, and in Palestine, and kept a significant number of troops aside for security duty. They also faced dilemmas of arming Zionist units, versus the possible impact on the "arab street". Really I suggest you read the Grand Alliance again, or some other history of the period if you dont like Winnie viewpoint. We today can read it in a light that I doubt anyone has prior to the WOT.