|
herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (10/30/2007 4:58:54 PM)
|
SimplyMichael: How exactly can you exploit that as weakness?
The insurgents have repeatedly mentioned Vietnam in reference to describing how we’re going to experience things there in the future. From the man that lead the North Vietnamese against the West:
http://www.amigospais-guaracabuya.org/oagmb009.php
quote:
From the memoirs General Vo Nguyen Giap, the North Vietnamese general
"What we still don't understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi. You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder, just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same at the battles of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you knew it. But, we were elated to notice the media were definitely helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields. Yes, we were ready to surrender. You had won!"
Read the whole statement, then concentrate on the last few sentences.
THAT’S how our current enemies ARE exploiting our anti war movement as a weakness.
Should we let history repeat itself?
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18615/article_detail.asp
quote:
“Contrary to the impression given by most newspaper headlines, the United States has won the day in Iraq. In 2004, our military fought fierce battles in Najaf, Fallujah, and Sadr City. Many thousands of terrorists were killed, with comparatively little collateral damage. As examples of the very hardest sorts of urban combat, these will go down in history as smashing U.S. victories.
And our successes at urban combat (which, scandalously, are mostly untold stories in the U.S.) made it crystal clear to both the terrorists and the millions of moderate Iraqis that the insurgents simply cannot win against today’s U.S. Army and Marines. That’s why everyday citizens have surged into politics instead.”
The insurgents that we are fighting have repeatedly referenced Vietnam. Like that war, they’re hoping to pull the same stunt.
If we continue toward our main objective in Iraq, we won’t pull defeat out of the jaws of victory, like what we did with Vietnam. We will accomplish in Iraq what we should’ve accomplished in Vietnam.
SimplyMichael: The vast majority of people in the US who now oppose the war are only recently doing so and do so because they can plainly see what people like myself saw before the war started.
No, they’re not seeing the same things you saw before the war. Their issue is with the government’s not taking this under control sooner.
Go to the majority of those people that changed over, and you’ll see that they also refuse to leave that place before we accomplish our objectives.
The current operation is showing signs of success, and when things really get going in Iraq, we’ll see a reversal of people opposing what we’re doing there.
Here’s another tidbit. The majority of the troops that serve there SUPPORT the war, and they’re doing it on their own will.
SimplyMichael: Putting the Shia in charge of Iraq is a strategic mistake which is why when the rose up after GWI, Bush father allowed Saddam to massacre them along with the Kurds.
First, when you have democratic elections, the group with the majority support is going to be placed in charge. Since people voted these first elections by religious group, it so happened that the Shiites, with the majority population, ended up with the majority seats.
Second, the elder Bush caved in to international pressure and didn’t follow up on what we said we’d do. He also knew to well that the American public didn’t have patience for protracted wars. His son knew that, but didn’t have the convenience that his dad had.
Unfortunately, it’s his failing to support the uprising to the end that contributed to reluctance on many of the Iraqis part to help us. Their watching our news, and when war dissenters get a larger voice, and appear to get more influence, the Iraqis get scared and look out for their own hides--rather than look out for their country.
We “bailed” on them during their first uprising, and thousands got slaughtered as a result. This is precisely what’ll happen if we pull out of Iraq before we accomplish our objectives.
The Iraqis know that.
That’s why it wasn’t till Bush stepped up efforts in Iraq, and showed strength against the opposition, that the Iraqis increasingly joined our side and fought against the insurgency.
Under Asymmetrical Warfare, you can’t do what the older Bush did, especially when the dictator you’re dealing with has repeatedly made death to America statements, and refused to come clean with his WMD programs.
SimplyMichael: Whatever can be salvaged from this massive strategic blunder can only be done so diplomatically, not at the end of a bayonet.
First, this is nowhere CLOSE to being a strategic blunder, of ANY kind. Iraq was the logical next step in the War on Terrorism.
Contrary to mainstream media reports, we’ve been winning, and continue to win, the battles on the battle ground. The terrorists constantly get waxed and pulverized.
Right now, the terrorists are seriously on the ropes. It’s getting to the point to where the population is increasingly turning against our enemies.
Our failure to go into Iraq would’ve been a very big blunder. One of the things that it did is it forced the insurgents to direct their attacks against an environment friendlier to our war machine from one not so friendly to our war machine. Just ask the Soviets. It also changed another country in the area, creating a checkerboard pattern of democratic countries against dictatorships and regimes.
Second, there’s no way that diplomacy ALONE would be able to fix this. You need military might behind it. It’s going to take a combination of diplomacy, economy, and military muscle to get a solution.
Right now, we’re progressing finely.
SimplyMichael: Speaking of which can you name the last time there was a bayonet charge? Probably not but I think it is so cool!
This has nothing to do with the argument.
SimplyMichael: It is the incompetence of this administration, like Custer's, that has emboldened our enemy.
Nope, no incompetence on the Bush Administration’s part. If you want to see an incompetent administration, look at the Clinton Administration. Now THAT was an incompetent administration.
However . . .
The enemy is getting smashed on the battle field. They know that they can’t take us on militarily. Al-Qaeda’s number two, as well as Al-Qaeda in Iraq’s former leader’s statement’s indicated such, that our military was powerful compared to the insurgent’s capabilities.
However, their number two recognized an advantage that they could use, and it had to do with war of the words, and the media. Which leads to our war dissenters as a weakness our enemies could receive comfort from, and be emboldened to keep on fighting.
SimplyMichael: This war isn't being lost because some grandmother is standing on a streetcorner with a sign saying "surrender now" (or whatever)
Go back, and read the quote about the Vietnamese holding on because of our war protests, and you’ll see why the terrorists are holding onto their fight against us.
It’s our war dissenters, and their actions, and the results of their actions, that embolden the enemy to keep on fighting. And they’ll keep on fighting with the hope that war protestors, and war dissenters, manage to put enough pressure on the administration to pull the troops out of Iraq before we could completely defeat them, which is going to happen, and accomplish our objectives in Iraq.
SimplyMichael: but because Bush has made blunders at every level from strategic to tactical.
First, our military has ran the war in Iraq, and we’re on the offensive. Allot of our casualties resulted from our actively going into their nests and weeding these pests out.
Second, mistakes were made in every war that we’ve fought. Things rarely go exactly as planned. This’ll be the case in future wars, guaranteed.
SimplyMichael: If everyone in America wanted to surrender to the Muslims but our military and diplomatic assets were doing what they should be doing, Iraq AND Afghanistan would be prosperous countries by now and nobody could stop them. The only thing standing in the way of our troops winning is this administration, not some grandma with a peace sign.
First, manipulating the American population is a major element of their strategy. If everyone in America wanted to surrender to the Muslims, it wouldn’t matter if our military, diplomatic, AND economic assets were doing everything perfectly.
Our enemies will continue to fight on emboldened by the population will to surrender.
Because, the population’s will represents our will to fight. Historical precedences to this. Rome didn’t fall until her freed men gave up the will to fight. We won every major battle in the Vietnam War. It was our population’s losing the will to fight, and exerting enough pressure, that won the war for our enemies on OUR soil.
The insurgents are holding on, despite getting pulverized in the battle field, in hopes that people stateside will win the war for them on American soil.
Second, the reality is that if everyone in the United States was fully in support of this war, if no matter what the terrorists did in Iraq, our support for the war and the president remained strong, the insurgents would give up. PERIOD.
It’s the war dissenters back in the US, and elsewhere, that’s preventing Iraq and Afghanistan from progressing faster than they are progressing right now.
But, despite these setbacks, both countries are progressing toward our objectives.
The majority of the troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan support the administration, and oppose leaving either country until our objectives are accomplished.
|
|
|
|
