Echoes of Vietnam...

[Ned]

Then, if we are not going to do what is necessary to win, we lose.

Is that the solution?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Lorizael


We might.

MOBIUS: Be quiet. You've expressed more than enough glee over this in the past.

Yay! Two thousand dead! I predicted this! Yay! Told you so!

Sickening.

And I don't think he has ever expressed concern about the much higher casualties of Iraqi civilians.

[Rasputin]

Originally posted by Ned
Then, if we are not going to do what is necessary to win, we lose.

Is that the solution?

no find a better way to win, more than one way to skin a cat !!

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Ned
Wycoff, but if the goal is to win, does not the end justify the means?

Rome knew how to win.

We do not.

If we do that, then we actually lose. The fact is that we have different goals than Rome did. Rome's goal was outright territorial conquest. Massive, overwhelming force and retiribution work if you want to terrorize and subjugate the conquered.

Our stated goals are the opposite. We want a liberal government installed, and we want peace, freedom, democracy, etc. After the WMD justification was debunked, the administration based the reasons for the war on removing Sadaam from power and ending his brutal regime. If we act like conquerors, then we will be acting like Sadaam. We're supposed to be the "good guys" and play by the rules.

Conquerors generally aren't "good guys." They rape and pillage across the land, and they terrorize all of those who oppose them. That's what it takes to truly win a war and pacify the population. I actually agree with you on this Ned. The fact is that we're entering wars in which this strategy isn't a viable option.

I think that any such war in which you occupy a country yet cannot subjugate the population is inherently an unwinnable war. That's why I opposed this war from the start. We weren't going to conquer Iraq, we were going to "regime change" and "nation build." Those options don't work, and we'll ultimately lose every one of those wars in which we participate. The policy makers remove the only effective tools of occupation by the very nature of the goals, which ensure a drawn out defeat. The U.S. citizens will ultiamtely get fed up with the monetary and human costs of the nation building project, especially when so much is left undone domestically.

The message: don't conquer a country unless you're willing to act like a conqueror. If your goals won't allow you to act like a conqueror, then you don't have any business starting such a war.

[Chemical Ollie]

Let them taste the cold steel of democracy!

[Zero]

Originally posted by LordShiva


No, the North won because Texas joined the war on the South's side

so south lost because texans stole all the shoes?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ned
Well Ras, lets go one step further. Lets say anyone that is caught with a gun in their possession or in their house, together with their entire families for three generations.

Once guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Once guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

And then we know whom to arrest

[Ned]

Originally posted by Wycoff



If we do that, then we actually lose. The fact is that we have different goals than Rome did. Rome's goal was outright territorial conquest. Massive, overwhelming force and retiribution work if you want to terrorize and subjugate the conquered.

Our stated goals are the opposite. We want a liberal government installed, and we want peace, freedom, democracy, etc. After the WMD justification was debunked, the administration based the reasons for the war on removing Sadaam from power and ending his brutal regime. If we act like conquerors, then we will be acting like Sadaam. We're supposed to be the "good guys" and play by the rules.

Conquerors generally aren't "good guys." They rape and pillage across the land, and they terrorize all of those who oppose them. That's what it takes to truly win a war and pacify the population. I actually agree with you on this Ned. The fact is that we're entering wars in which this strategy isn't a viable option.

I think that any such war in which you occupy a country yet cannot subjugate the population is inherently an unwinnable war. That's why I opposed this war from the start. We weren't going to conquer Iraq, we were going to "regime change" and "nation build." Those options don't work, and we'll ultimately lose every one of those wars in which we participate. The policy makers remove the only effective tools of occupation by the very nature of the goals, which ensure a drawn out defeat. The U.S. citizens will ultiamtely get fed up with the monetary and human costs of the nation building project, especially when so much is left undone domestically.

The message: don't conquer a country unless you're willing to act like a conqueror. If your goals won't allow you to act like a conqueror, then you don't have any business starting such a war.

I knew if I trolled enough I would get a decent response. I agree with this.

BTW, even though my troll said "the end justifies the means," I actually believe the opposite. I thought the firebombing of Dresden to be wrong. I thought the use of atomic weapons on Japan was wrong.

I supported Bush I's decision not to overthrow Saddam precisely because I feared what has actually happened.

But there are more viable solutions. Arming the Croatians allowed the locals to win in Yugoslavia. Arming the Muhajadeen forced the Sov's out of Afghanistan. Our support of the Northern Alliance defeated the Taliban with ease.

I think we need to go this route, arming local resistance movements to overthrow dictatorships or fight enemy insurgencies. Had we done this in SV from the beginning, there might still be a SV.

I think the only strategy that makes sense for Iraq is to build up their own forces as fast as possible, and do something that will end interference from Iran and Syria. I do not agree that negotiations will work unless there is a credible threat on the table. This threat, I submit, is that unless you cooperate, we will overthrow you by arming and supporting your internal opponents.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Wycoff, but if the goal is to win, does not the end justify the means?

Rome knew how to win.

We do not.

We know how to win, we just aren't total bastards like the Romans were. Rome would start killing everyone in sight and deporting people until they regained control. We are substantially more civilized than the Romans were.

We are not going to do what it takes to win, since that would entail putting half a million combat soldiers in Iraq, according to current military doctrine which holds you need a ration of 1 soldier to every 40 - 50 people in order to control an insurgency.

If we're not going to do what it takes to win, then we have already lost. If we've already lost, there is no point in continuing the occupation.

[Ned]

Che, I agree with you we can't use our military straight up to win because we are not like the Romans.

But see my last post above.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ned

But see my last post above.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I doubt Abizaid truly would want to retire if things are going well. No one retired in the middle of WW2 and infact Generals wait their whole lives to manage the big game. More likely this is like the CEO who "retires" after a really bad turn heading a company so he can "spend more time with his family". Everyone knows the poor sap is just being politely shown the door.

And what of Casey's "firing"/promotion?