Defeatist traitor whines about Iraq

[Patroklos]

The basic point this guy was making is that the military should stand up and say the goal is impossible if they think it's impossible. Few did in this case.

His basic point is crap.

I don't think to many thought nation building impossible at the time, just very difficult. Has anyone tried something like this on this scale before? No.

And even if they did object, well, there is this thing called the chain of command. We don't have the final say, and just because someone is asking you to do something difficult doesn't mean you can not do it. Even if they ask you to do something impossible, but legal, you still have to do it when over ruled.

AND, alot of these general officers we are talking about are not responsible for big picture stuff. "Go clear out Fulujah!" Good to go. "Go secure grid squares Fox 2 and Golf 3!" Good to go. One of the hard lessons of this war is that just because you are succeeding operationally doesn't mean you are strategically (Jutland), or policy wise. There are few operational objectives the military has failed to meet. However, that doesn't mean those were the right objectives to pursue or they are relevant to the larger puzzle of which the military only holds a few pieces.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


No.

If history shows (and I think it has) that the USA is going to intervene in other countries and "nationbuild" then I think we must prepare our military (and/or State Department or other relevant civilian agencies) for that purpose. As for cost, if we're talking about long term budgeting, I'm not so sure that preparing for nationbuilding is more expensive than the status quo procurement of more fighters, carriers, artillery, etc (conventional arms where we already have huge advantages).

For the record, I'm even more against "bomb and leave" than I am against nationbuilding. Given a choice between the two, give me nationbuilding.

-Arrian

If I read your earlier post right, you said we only got into Iraq because no one presented the facts about what it would cost.

And that the US people will NOT support the resources for nation building beyond something like post natural disaster rebuilding. That (if true) says to me, that they will never support the resources required to do nationbuilding right. Unless they are fooled about what is required, probably not possible post-Iraq, and certainly not a sound basis for strategy. So I dont see how you can just say "we have nation-built. ergo we will"

Maybe you think events will suck them in any way, as in Afghanistan. I think you may be right. But if we DONT have the will to do it right, Im NOT so sure we should spend resources to do it half baked. If we're not going to commit to doing afghanistan right, and that means the public supporting it, maybe it would be better to turn the place over to whats left of the Northern Alliance, and just bomb when thats necessary.

And, no, Im not convinced it will be that easy to free the resources from conventional military progra. And IF it were so, then that would hardly mean we should spend the resources on a nation building capacity we dont have the will to use - surely we can both of plenty of other uses, from tax cuts, to solar energy plants, to basic research.

[Patroklos]

I guess we could go back and forth on this forever, but basically I disagree with the dude

Maybe you agree?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Patroklos
If you ask for the impossible

What would that be?

[Kuciwalker]

Finding an algorithm that returns "1" on the input of a program that halts on no input and returns "0" on the input of a program that loops forever on no input.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Geekery.

[MRT144]

bigger question is "is it cheating if i program my calculator to figure out things for me faster?"

[Arrian]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


If I read your earlier post right, you said we only got into Iraq because no one presented the facts about what it would cost.

And that the US people will NOT support the resources for nation building beyond something like post natural disaster rebuilding. That (if true) says to me, that they will never support the resources required to do nationbuilding right. Unless they are fooled about what is required, probably not possible post-Iraq, and certainly not a sound basis for strategy. So I dont see how you can just say "we have nation-built. ergo we will"

Maybe you think events will suck them in any way, as in Afghanistan. I think you may be right. But if we DONT have the will to do it right, Im NOT so sure we should spend resources to do it half baked. If we're not going to commit to doing afghanistan right, and that means the public supporting it, maybe it would be better to turn the place over to whats left of the Northern Alliance, and just bomb when thats necessary.

And, no, Im not convinced it will be that easy to free the resources from conventional military progra. And IF it were so, then that would hardly mean we should spend the resources on a nation building capacity we dont have the will to use - surely we can both of plenty of other uses, from tax cuts, to solar energy plants, to basic research.

1) Best to not go in for a bunch of unnecessary "nation building" interventions.
2) We have a pattern of us doing precisely that, however.
3) Therefore, I want us to plan ahead and make sure the military (and civilian government) is better prepared for the next one. Because there will be one.

I think this stage is "acceptance."

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MRT144
bigger question is "is it cheating if i program my calculator to figure out things for me faster?"

No. Anything that can be done by a computer, ought to be.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


No. Anything that can be done by a computer, ought to be.

Wrong. I see far too many physics undergrads nowadays with that attitude.

For practical purposes, automation is fine. For pedagogical purposes, learning and practicing the methodology is key.

[Kuciwalker]

Well it depends. If I write the program myself, I've learned the methodology just as well as if I do a bunch of rote addition and multiplication.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Wrong. I see far too many physics undergrads nowadays with that attitude.

For practical purposes, automation is fine. For pedagogical purposes, learning and practicing the methodology is key.

so for my example i wrote a program that spits out the function of an exponent given 2 user entered points on a line (or table). it tells me the multiplier unsimplified and y0.

i can show the work, and I will but this is way quick...

isnt the fact I wrote the program a small sign that I can apply the method?

[Dinner]

Nation building is possible though expensive and the best way to approach it is by building international consensus before ever even going in. That way when the going gets rough everyone has already made their commitment and is more likely to pony up. Of course international diplomacy and consensus building is the Bush Administration's weakest link so they are terrible at nation building.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Well it depends. If I write the program myself, I've learned the methodology just as well as if I do a bunch of rote addition and multiplication.

Well, the multiplication and addition is one thing. I assume you've learned that well enough. I'm talking about seeing junior level physics undergrads who can't do a change of variable without Mathematica...

[Kuciwalker]

And if they wrote that functionality into Mathematica themselves then I bet you wouldn't mind if they used it