|
JohnWarren -> RE: War on Terrorism (3/9/2006 11:43:36 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: incognitoinmass
quote:
Not to mention that we abdicated the moral high ground.
How, exactly, did we do that?
There is no alternative to victory. If you do not resolve yourself to win you lose. There is no middle ground.
That might have been the case when faced with Mongol armies. Hitler and Tojo certainly had plans to dissemble the USA and the Soviets went to great care planning the after-strike world they sought, but the enemy we face now?
What we have is a few thousand poorly armed religious fanatics backed up by a population of millions who are incensed by our what they see as unjustified occupation of their homeland.
Hitler and Tojo has FLEETS of battleships, air forces that could darken the sky over hundreds of miles, armies of millions. They had the power to strike thousands of miles beyond their borders. The Soviets had thousands of multistage nuclear weapons mounted on ICBMs that could reach any place on the globe in minutes, not to mention a supply of tanks that would have made Rommel green with envy.
All this was aimed at us and we didn't have a national command authority who publically stated that he wanted those under his supervision to have the right to torture.
But we are talking about victory and defeat. Look back on the kind of world Hitler/Togo/Stalin promised. Now consider what would happen if we were went through a Vietnam style defeat in Iraq. Are we facing landing crafts full of mullahs coming ashore on New York beaches? Fleets of aircraft disgourging parachuting al-Qaida?
They don't and ever had the capablity of hurting the United States. Oh, they can kill our citizens. One time they showed an ability to kill quite a number of the them (about the same number who die each month on our nation's roads) but doing so they shot their wad. The American psyche changed. Never again will individuals sit by in an aircraft when it has been taken over. Since then passengers have killed and will kill again whenever hit happens. Not government, not air marshalls, but people stopped this approach.
They will kill again. I'm sure of that. Bad guys kill all the time. That's what we have police for. When a 7/11 is held up, the First Marines don't land. We send in a few guys with guns and it's all over.
Horror of horrors, we'll have a new Islamic country that doesn't like us. Wake up, we have LOTS of Islamic countries that don't like us and Bush's idea that all countries should be democratic doesn't help that. Just remember that most of the oil rich countries that do like us (well the government likes us) are dictatorships. This kind of grandstanding can't make the Saudi royal family, Sheikh Jabr al-Sabah, the Emir of Kuwait and the rulers of all the Emirates (you do know what "emirate" means?) feel all that willing to help us out.
Now let's look at winning. The best money right now in the current "violent nation building" (Bush's word not mine) is there's is going to be long term unrest. (unrest = burned bodies in body bags, buildings burned out and lots of little children homeless, parentless and or dead). One outcome is a country that elects clerics and we end up with a little Iran. Another is a strong man gets elected and then uses the unrest to push through a lot of "safety" laws and gets the consitution "temporarily" suspended and rules (Shades of Sadam). A third result is the country will split into three along religious lines with the Suni getting the short end of the stick because of where they live.
Hopefully, at some point in this nation building, we can tip our hats jump in to trucks and make it to Kuwait before things go boom again. I just hope we get a chance to blow the stuff we'll leave behind just to make the local counties more comfortable.
OK, I've given my analysis of winning and losing. I trust the OP will tell me what he defines winning as? It's such an easy word to say. Bush says it all the time and frankly I don't think he has any idea of what it means.
|
|
|
|
