Friday, January 26, 2007
Can we win wars anymore?
I had a talk with a coworker the other day - I said to him that I believe that torture has to be considered when deciding whether to wage war. Basically, I said that I believe it is a guarantee that there will be torture in every war, whether it is right or wrong, and it is stupid to be shocked when it occurs. The cost to the human psyche of torturing has to be considered as one of the costs of war. Lest we forget, Americans (and the world) have tortured people in every single war it has waged. Every one. In fact, what is going on in Iraq now is nothing, considering the prisoners now are begging for Americans to come back after they left Abu Ghraib and handed it to the Iraqi police forces. Think about that one for a moment. Digest it. The media certainly did not cover this with much detail.
Then think about what happened during WWII. Hiroshima. Nagasaki. Dresden. Internment camps. And yet this is considered the "great war." Think about this.
And then think about the fact that, in contrast, Bush recently said that, yes, American troops can protect themselves from Iranians if they attack inside Iraq. HUH???? Americans are allowed to protect themselves? Wow, that's nice to know! Evidently, otherwise they will walk softly to the gallows?
What has the world come to? I am serious, now...can America win wars anymore, what with the extensive rules of engagement that the other side not only ignores, but laughs at? And how do you win a war on the domestic front, what with so many "patriotic terrorists"?
Is there a way to win a war that is fought "proportionately?"
I know that after the atomic bomb, the rules changed. But, it seems the pendulum has swung so far the other way as to make wars simply unwinnable.
What are your thoughts? What is the sufficient balance of human rights, and strategic need to win a war? And how do we win the war of ideas, which is perhaps the most important of all?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Albion:
I actually don't think the war in Iraq should have been fought. (that said, we are there now) I also think we should leave Iraq. Why? Because it is pointless to be there and fight to protect a government that increasingly looks as if it is aligned with Iran. But this is seperate and distinct from the larger question about whether we can win wars. (I further don't see an atrocity against Iraqis being perpetuated by American soldiers en masse) Furthermore, I do think that the war against Islamofascism is not only a just war, but one which has been inflicted upon us.
Do I advocate torture? No. But I do believe it will happen, regardless, and that wars should be entered into knowing it will happen. Thus, the decision to enter war should be made with the utmost caution.
Hope that clarifies things,
Red Tulips
Red Tulips: I absolutely think we CAN win wars (and also agree with your point on torture)... unfortunately, however, we don't appear to have clear objectives and well-articulated goals. Add in the factor of sound-byte style TV, aimed at providing entertainment, rather than information and analysis, add in the brainwashing in colleges, the fact that most people are not politicized and prefer to avoid reading too much into our foreign policy - and you get a population completely unprepared PSYCHOLOGICALLY for wars. Wars entail losses, often heavy casualties. Democratic countries don't like wars. And when you have the war on TV 24/7, everyone gets sick of it very quickly... and the clamors start. Theoretically we can win wars, but we need to do a better job preparing for them.
I think that huffington post article was satire.
War is always futile in the end as, It's a failure of politics.
We can win wars, but we in the west haven't had to face a war on the back door step since the end of WWII and perhaps the Cuban missile crisis.
So it's a question of who has the most iron clad stomach for War.
You cannot conduct a war without mass death on all sides. That is the nature of the beast.
And a correction, the great war is the usual reference for WWI, where millions went to the trenches and not many returned alive or dead for that matter.
As for nuclear weapons, they only add another layer to war. The ultimate weapon, that can wipe both sides out. It only needs one madman or woman to start a nuclear war.
As for Bush's way of dealing with the Iranians, it's probably best that no American tanks roll into Iran without it being the last resort. Iran is a hot bed of anti Americanism. US Soldiers would be fed to the lions, if Iran got a battle field advantage. I'm sure Iran is full of surprises for any would be invading armies. That part of the world is steeped in blood in past, present and probably the future as well.
The basic gist of war is simple. In order to win at war, you need 3 things:
1. Brute determination and intellect
2. Never surrender even if the odds are stacked up against you.
3. Fight to the last man, woman and child.
A winnable war is one where you manage to beat your opponent into submission, take over their land, confiscate their wealth and resources. An ideological war has no definable goals therefore cannot be considered winnable in any true sense.
""""The problem I think lies in the fact that we (America) doesn't have much unification of culture anymore (maybe we never did). We don't have a national identity, except that of consumerist zombies, or Christians, or Jews, or as blacks (excuse me, African-Americans) or Hispanics, or Feminists. In other words, we identify ourselves with sub-cultures and choose to (or are forced to) disenfranchise ourselves from the culture as a whole. """"
I don't really see what that has to do with winning a war, and saying that we must unify and therefore stifle individuality to win a war, and that we must ALWAYS do it, is very dangerous and can politicize wars even moreso.
""""I don't think we even know what we're fighting for. What are we defending? Our God given right to Wal-Mart?""""
The reason I opposed the Iraq war from the beginning was that the administration never seemed able to settle on a reason for it. One day they would be talking about WMD's, then they would talk about spreading "freedom", then they would say Saddam has to go because of what he did to Iraqi's, then it would be over his supposed connections to 9/11 and Al-Qaeda. It seemed there was something different every time they were asked.
From the beginning, I could see no clear benefit to fighting in Iraq.
From the beginning, my dad dismissed the notion that we should even try to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi's, saying; "Those god damn people don't want to be free!"
I voiced similar sentiments, although with different wording. I predicted from the beginning that, if left to their own devices, the Iraqis would eventually bring another Muslim Theocracy to power, and they would be just as "free" as they were before we came, so I thought it would be a wasted effort.
People say that if we leave Iraq now, it will become a threat to the U.S. But by the time the Sunni's, Shiite, remaining Baathists, Kurds, and whoever else gt done fighting each other, there won't be much of anything left in Iraq to threaten anyone.
Yeah, if we leave now, there will probably be a mass slaughter of some group of IRaqi's or another at the hands of another group of Iraqi's. But, we can't stay FOREVER, and I think continued violence between Iraqi's is inevitable. It will happen when we leave, and I think there is little chance of changing their minds. These fights are being driven by prejudices and conflicts that date back decades, centuries, millenia. We won't be able to erase the hatred in months, years, or decades, and we will have to leave some time because it will just become too costly to keep that many troops there indefinitely.
I hate this, because Bill O'Reily said more or less the same thing a while back, and I don't want to have come to the same conclusion as that doofus, but I think he was right when he said (something to this effect): If they want to kill each other so bad, then let them kill each other.
Do I WANT them to die? No. But I think we should be realistic about our prospects of stopping the violence. I think the fighting in Iraq, until one group or another more or less eradicates the others, is inevitable. Not because we're completely powerless against them, but because those people are so consumed by rage and hatred that its impossible to make them see it any other way.
And the defenders of the war seem to have ran out of solutions. They said Iraq needs a constitution, a stable government, elections, and all this other stuff. All these things sort of came to pass in some form, but they didn't seem to do anything to reduce the violence.
The Iraqi's are a lost cause. It may sound very cold, but I think any further attempts to help out over there are a waste of time and resources. We need to turn our attention to the problems of Iran and North Korea.
""""You honestly cannot see why USA went to war in Iraq? Saddam was a major financer and promoter of terrorim.""""
Then why did they not trumpet evidence of that rather than being so dodgy and instead kept using the WMD assertion, of which none have been found, or the "lets free the iraqis", of which no one sincerely gives a fuck?
""""What can I say? Your society seems to have lost the will the live. Unless Americans will get their shit together, USA's descent will be rapid, bloody and as horrible to behold as the fall of Rome.""""
I have more than enough will to live. Since there are things I want to do that require me being alive.
Raccoon:
Let me clarify a few things re: what I think about Iraq.
Firstly, there is no way to know the real reasons that Bush decided war was the best option in Iraq. I am no mind reader, and neither are you. But we can deduce possible reasons that might have been the 'real' reasons for war. What are the reasons that I can think of?
1) Iraq actually was connected to worldwide Islamic terror. People forget this and the media laughs at this concept, but alas, it is true. Christopher Hitchens wrote a great column on this very matter. (read here)
And yet my counter argument to this is that Iraq was still a more minor state actor when it comes to Islamic terror. Iran was always the biggest threat in this regard, certainly not Iraq. (a counter-counter argument to that is that Iran was not "attackable" and you fight the wars you can - addressed later)
2) I don't know if this affected Bush, but it certainly made me never think war with Iraq was a big tragedy - namely, that Saddam supported Palestinian suicide bombing.
And yet to this I have to say that a destabilized Iraq that seems to be aligned with Iran appears to be a much bigger threat to Israel than Iraq under Saddam. (a counter-argument to this is that the Bush camp did not believe Iraq would be unstable or aligned with Iran. A counter-counter argument to THAT is that Bush should have known, as this was predicted by many political scientists around the world as a distinct possibility)
3) Saddam was weak and could be attacked, in contrast to Iran.
To this I say that the cost of attacking Iraq seems to have outweighed the benefits. The cost of an Islamized Iraq that really does appear increasingly aligned with Iran...it appears to be handing Iraq on a silver platter to the #1 enemy. I would support the war in Iraq if there was not the desire to stupidly "bring democracy" over there.
4) There was a desire to "transform" the Middle East. The notion was that Iraq would be some sort of a western democracy, and the power of this success would sweep throughout the region, totally transforming everything.
And yet, let's look at that argument. It was flawed from the start. People do not wake up one morning and suddenly want a western-style democracy. They have to be taught to want this. I am all for democratizing Iraq, but not in this way. Lebanon, with the right factors in place, had a history of a slight majority of the people who were somehow amenable to democracy. (now it looks like those people are being overrun by Hizballah) But Iraq has no such history. I would have supported Bush placing in some sort of "benevolent despot," reeducating the people, waiting twenty years, and then possibly allowing for "democracy." As it stands, there is no real democracy in Iraq. Voting does not make a democracy. The Parliament passed a law making it a crime to criticize the government, and said there is no higher law than Sharia law. This is not democracy.
5) Oil interests - basically, the notion that there is a strategic oil interest in Iraq, Saddam is weak, and someone has to take control over this interest.
Far leftists discount this and scream "no blood for oil," but the truth is that oil is of strategic importance, and will be moreso as the world runs out of oil. I predict that in a few decades, there absolutely will be wars fought simply over oil - and water.
6) WMD - namely, no one knew for sure Saddam did not have them.
I am very skeptical of this argument, and find it hard to imagine that the intelligence was THIS STUPID.
7) The notion of being in place to eventually attack, or at least THREATEN, Iran.
I understand this, but let's face it...the troops could have just as easily come in via the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, simply the sky, I could go on. Nowadays, the US can nuke any nation anywhere in the world practically at the push of a button. I do not believe that the US necessarily had (or has) to be in Iraq to be a threat to Iran.
Finally, lest we forget, Iran and Iraq were at odds with each other. The Iran-Iraq War killed a million people! Saddam's existence in many ways neutralized Iran's threat.
That is my analysis of the "real" reasons Bush decided to go to war. Do those reasons necessarily make sense? In some ways yes and in some ways no. Do those "real" reasons justify war in Iraq? I say no, but certainly it is not some sort of atrocity to be there. The only thing I object to at present (and it is major!) is the notion of giving the Iraqis an independent government. I predict this will prove to be a horrible disaster. Time will tell.
As far as your analysis otherwise about war - Raccoon, I completely agree with you.
""""Finally, lest we forget, Iran and Iraq were at odds with each other. The Iran-Iraq War killed a million people! Saddam's existence in many ways neutralized Iran's threat.""""
Didn't we even use Saddam and give him weapons in the past so he would fight Iran by proxy for us? Or if not fight them FOR us, we aided him in his desire to fight Iran since we saw it as being in our interests to help Iraq against Iran.
As for the rest, I think some of you are coming close to saying that we can't win a war if the public voices any opposition to the war at all, or any opposition to the president or the government, or voices any dissent whatsoever.
Jason:
See the Iran-Contra scandal. The US sold weapons to Iran and said it supported Iraq during this war.
And I do not believe Raccoon or myself are saying dissent in and of itself is not patriotic. However, I believe dissent is unpatriotic when you outright root for the other side to win (see: A.N.S.W.E.R.), or blame America no matter what it does as somehow the root of all evil. I do not believe the column of "patriotic terrorists" was a joke. People like that are not being patriotic while they dissent, no matter what they may be saying.
""""However, I believe dissent is unpatriotic when you outright root for the other side to win (see: A.N.S.W.E.R.), or blame America no matter what it does as somehow the root of all evil.""""
Well, I'm not rooting for them to win. If all the people fighting us in Iraq died it wouldn't bother me a bit. And I'm sure we're TRYING to kill them. I don't know how well we can do that.
As I said before, I don't think we should leave because it will be good for the Iraqis. I just say we leave and let them all kill each other if they want to do that so badly. If they're so intent on wiping each other off the map, why should we stay in the crossfire?
""""or blame America no matter what it does as somehow the root of all evil.""""
Well, I clearly don't think that either.
But many other people DO go as far as I say in thinking that whenever ssomeone even suggest a war, we all fall in line and kill our individuality just to make us unified.
Seeing that people hold these kind of attitudes is just one of the sort of things that makes me want to head for the hills and become a hermit, or just find myself a desert island to live on.
This kinda stuff reminds me of why I sometimes have a soft spot for the more survivalist leaning libertarians.
I hate the right because of its collectivism. I also came to hate the left for the same reason. Both manifested it in different ways, but they are both the same.
If being gay didn't make me have a stake in politics it would be easier for me to ignore all things political.
We should fight to defend ourselves. No other reason. Not to defend others. Not to spread ideology. Not for money or resources. and when we do it, we should go in, get it done, and accept that not everyone will like it, rather than whining and whining that not everyone supports the war. People at home having opinions doesn't mean we can't kill the people we need to kill any less easily.
See, if I were in charge of the country, I would just bring back using assisnation on foreign leaders and others who give us trouble. I've never seen it as immoral as some people say. It can certainly present logistical problems, but everything does.
I think we could easily "win" in Iraq is our goal was not to create a government and bring democracy and blah blah blah. If winning meant killing all our enemies and wiping out the warring factions and all that, it would be a breeze, but we have all this idiocy going on about bringing democracy to a backwater that doesn't even want it.
I guess, I DO think we can win wars if we fight to win like they did back in the day, when winning meant beating the enemy. We won in Afghanistan, and we didn't do too badly there either, as I understand. Of course, we didn't try to undertake as grand a nation building project on there as we have in Iraq.
So, as long as we keep thinking we can build a Democracy in Iraq, we can't win there. We CAN win if we change our goal to 'kill the enemy and leave.', which is just what I would do if I were in charge.
But I'm sure someone or another will still compare me to ANSWER or the like or say I'm ruining our unity even after stating all this.
""""Far leftists discount this and scream "no blood for oil," but the truth is that oil is of strategic importance, and will be moreso as the world runs out of oil. I predict that in a few decades, there absolutely will be wars fought simply over oil - and water.""""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Gear_2
Jason -
Because the American public would not have accepted the truth. It's too complex, it's too dirty, it's too bloody.
YOU may have the will to live (otherwise you'd be dead, wouldn't you?). But does your SOCIETY? Where are you going as a society? How are you defending yourselves? The society is a whole different beastie than the individual.
RT -
These are some of the reasons, and there are others, too.
In no particular order:
1) Saddam was supporting sunni terror, which came to the foreground with OBL. He was not THE supporter (that's Saudi Arabia), but he was in second place. And attacking Saudi Arabia is out of question due to financial and political reasons.
2) Saddam was being blligerent on purpose (no-fly zones violations, denial of inspections, etc), constantly breaking the terms of the ceasefire/peace/whatever they called the farce this time. If USA wanted to have any sort of deterrence and respect in Middle East, Saddam had to be publicly humiliated by force. Such is the way of the Middle East.
3) Saddam's terrorist proclivities were becoming more and more dangerous - he was only months away from a nuke, he probably had stockpiles of chems (now most likely in Syria), he was working on bio. It was a risk USA ill afford - Saddam needed to humiliate the USA (by killing as many American civilians as possible) to regain his "honor", lost in '91. And you don't wait for your enemy to draw and load his gun - you blow his brains out as he reaches for the holster.
4) Afghanistan/Iraq battles were vital to discourage other terrorist states. And it worked - look at Lybia, look at Pakistan, look even at Syria. The Sunni states are shitting themselves with fear every time they are tempted to support another anti-American terrorist.
5) There was, apparently, a futile hope that Iraq could be democratized, which would serve as a trigger for the rest of the Middle East. It didn't work this time... for obvious reasons. Why did it work in Japan, which also had a honor-shame system and zero experience with freedom? Because the Japanese were utterly crushed as a nation. Iraq was handled with silk gloves. A horrible mistake.
These are just the reasons off the top of my mind. I am sure I can find dozens more, if I think about it and research.
I honestly doubt that Mr. Bush really cares that much about Palestinian suicide bombers, BTW. They are a minor nuisance, one with which Israel is more than capable of dealing. The fact that it seems loathe to do so is telling of the societal rot in Israel (thank you, psychotic Left).
""""YOU may have the will to live (otherwise you'd be dead, wouldn't you?). But does your SOCIETY? Where are you going as a society? How are you defending yourselves? The society is a whole different beastie than the individual.""""
I think you're full of it. We still have the most powerful army in the world, and society is not on the verge of collapse, not even close.
Society is going no where in particular, it just is. We are hardly destabilized, nor are we on the verge of complete collapse.
So, would you tell me, how are we NOT defending ourselves?
You seem to think we aren't, so would you care to elaborate as to how?
Jason -
You're not killing your enemies, bro. Every time your soldiers actually win, there is a stink to high heaven about it. Not joy in victory - stink about how dare your soldiers kill people in order to win.
Afghanistan was easy - it's a war-torn shithole, in which half a century or so of constant bloody conflict killed off most of the men. And it's a dangerous shithole to boot, so spin-master journalists don't want to go there and make your soldiers look bad.
I think we're miscommunicating on some level. You society is not falling apart or anything like that - it's just becoming suicidal. Why do I say that? Because USA, as a society, doesn't do what it must do to defend itself. Half-measures don't count. You can have a very much united and a very much dying society at the same time.
Oh... and the power of an army is not determined only by the technological/quality factors. Ethiopian rag-tag troops (compared to USA military) did in a few days in Somalia what USA cannot do for years now in Iraq - break the will of the enemy. Why is that? Because the effectiveness of a military is limited by the state's willingness to shed blood.
Same reason Israel failed in the last skirmish with Hizballah - the top didn't have what it takes to crush the enemy, despite having an absolutely and utterly overwhelming technological, numeric and quality advantage.
How can you win wars when your Chief of Staff has to actually give soldiers his leave to defend themselves? Or when every single military plan is leaked to the media? Or when you have huge demonstrations supporting your enemies?
To make a long story short - USA is failing to defend itself simply because it doesn't do what needs to be done.
And what would your advice be on how to remedy that situation?
I don't have one. There is no way out of that I can see, not for the USA, at least. Which is why I say that you guys are pretty much buggered - unless a massive and unlikely paradigm shift occurs.
Israel still has a chance, kind of: the needed paradigm shift is less massive and is already happening. Israel can still become a fortress-state populated by warrior-scientists.
Maybe a nuclear assault on US soil can wake Americans up and trigger the paradigm shift? It's a hefty price to pay... and there is always the chance that Bush or someone will be blamed, rather than the poor, oppressed "Noble Savages".
Once the decline of a society began, it's very difficult to stop.
BTW, I strongly suggest reading Shrinkwrapped's recent Future Imperfect posts. Very interesting and very relevant.
And you have yet to convince me any such decline even exists.
Jason -
*shrug*
It's your funeral. At this point, I don't care enough to convince people.
Especially when I have to convince them that not defending themselves (when lots of people are trying to kill them) is a bad idea.
The idea that we're not defending ourselves is just a figment of your imagination. You aren't the first person to predict some kind of imminent collapse of society, and you won't be the last, and you certainly won't be the one who gets it right.
I've seen enough doomsayers to know never to take them seriously.
Raccoon:
If the suicidal tendancies of the USA are irreversible, then it is rather irrelevant what anyone thinks, right?
I would tend to eschew such complete doomsday thinking and absolutism. I try to maintain hope, no matter what.
You also have yet to address the fundamental argument about Iraq's Islamist tendancies and increasing affiliation with Iran. This goes to the heart of why I believe that, unless the strategy of the US changes in Iraq, then the war is completely pointless, other than wasting American resources and lives.
Awwww, Racccoon!
I miss you, and wish I could insomniacally hang out with you again! (see, I made up an adverb, yay!)
Anyway, I agree with you re: what would have been a good strategy for Iraq. Let me go back into my head, back when I was a regular 'moonbat.' I assumed, back then, that America was kicking some major arse in Iraq. I believe that to be the thinking of all moonbats. I didn't realize how pathetic the force in Iraq really was, compared to what it needed to be. I also assumed that a puppet dictator would be put in charge. I didn't realize Bush really did believe in democracy!
But let me expand upon this.
I now know that the force in Iraq was too PC, and frankly, nothing compared to what I imagined it was. Yet regular moonbats/useful idiots do not know this or believe this. I now know that Bush really does intend to "bring democracy to Iraq," and yet regular moonbats/useful idiots believe Maliki and the Iraqi parliament are simply puppets of the US.
In short, they believe something that would be a nice reality, but is as far from a reality as possible. They are living in an alternative existence, and this goes to the heart of why they protest the war and consider it such an abomination/crime against humanity.
Raccoon:
I shall be taking you up on this, next time I am in Israel, or next time you are in NYC. :-)
As far as the "why" for moonbats, just read the MSM. You will see how the issues are framed - I believe most of the world lives in an alternate reality. The media is part of the problem.
We cannot win wars when our democratic party aids and supports our enemies, and our MSM openly promotes enemy propoganda, and creates propoganda for them.
Unfortunately, the GOP leadership is too nutless to do what is right as well. When we go to war, it needs to be all out boot in the ass whomp-em, stomp-em and get it over with. Sensibilities be damned. YOu kill your enemies and those sympathetic to them, and then the rest will be queing up to play nice.
Smarty:
Sorry, but there were Republicans, such as Arlen Specter, who also met with Assad. James Baker, a Republican, is calling for talks with Syria.
This is not a Democrat v. Republican problem. It's an overall American will problem.
Post a Comment