|
UtopianRanger -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/9/2007 12:00:47 AM)
|
quote:
UT,
I read the article by Lind. Although I'm not really sure what your point is, exactly.
Hey FHKY.....
My point is that short of carpet bombing the whole Iraqi population into pulverized dust, the war is over. And in the minds of many, will go down as biggest political /military blunder in the history of this republic.
The ‘’surge’’ as they’re calling it…..or any other new strategy as proposed by those wearing ‘’bow ties’’ and coke-bottle-thick, horn rimmed glasses, over at the American Enterprise Institute, is not going to work. If there was some way for me to make a wager on this in Vegas, I’d bet large amounts of money.
The true folly in all this is that after so many mistakes, we never seem to learn our lesson. Ike told us back in the late 50’s, that the era of Imperialism is over. No population in the modern world is prepared to be ruled by a foreign occupier ; no matter of their vast weaponry or good intentions.
I think what we are seeing now, is nothing other than a imperialist mentality refusing to relinquish it’s grasp on new territory in light of a failed conquest – It’s the ultimate of arrogance in the face of defeat. And if the American people we’re really in charge {and not an oligarchy}, they would have abandoned this stupidness long ago.
quote:
I know William Lind's ideas, and his history pretty well. I have an original copy of his "Manuver Warfare" booklet, and studied it when I was responsible for strategy and tactics. Excellent book.
But, over the years, he has lost a lot of credibility.
Ok…. You’ve worked in what, S-2 S-3, maybe? It’s been twenty years….and I think that’s what we officialy referred to it in the Marines.
Who has he lost credibility with? The good folks at CENTCOM or maybe CPOST or one of the other neocon think tanks?
Wouldn’t you agree that right now that might be construed as a vote of confidence.
I think Lind’s writings on strategy and the prospect of encirclement with regard to Iraq, have been garnered from that of a historical perspective.
If we look at back in the mid nineteenth century, early twentieth century, I think the British Army was an invading force on three separate occasions, only to be beaten back and / or encircled and then taken prisoner.
The nature of the ‘’landlockness’’ of both Afghanistan and Iraq from a logistical standpoint has made it virtually impossible to conquer and then occupy for any significant period of time. The only thing that’s changed is the potential to be airlifted out, at the point of encirclement Don’t you agree…..doesn’t history tell us that?
I mean c’mon…..look what just happened with Lebanon. The Israelis turned the place into rubble with air power…..but as soon as they sent ground forces into control the landscape, they got beat down and lost upwards of seventy of the most elite and technology sophisticated tanks in the world in a little over 60 days.
I think the cycle of evolution in the plight for inovative, modern warfare tactics with regard to supposed inferior gorilla forces, is much faster than that of the imperialists, and I think this is where W. Lind is also partially coming from.
By the way…. In that last post {I forgot} I kinda meant to have this article connected with Lind’s just to point out a very new and intuitively smart perspective on a generation of warfare. Both write for many of the same /similar websites
http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/robb_opensource_war.htm
- R
|
|
|
|
