Winning and Losing Wars

Different wars and different circumstances. It's the height of naivety to apply your blanket assertions about those Democrats in particular and "leftists" in general to all of our past wars.

Not to point out the obvious, but in the midst of your knee jerk reaction you missed the entire point there champ.

What "obvious" point did I miss? Was not MW's point to this piece an assertion that the philosophy of the Democrats he listed would've resulted in us losing all of our past wars were it in play at the time? .. and, tacitly, that the philosophy of Bush and "neo-conservatives" is what allowed us to win those wars?

I think I spoke to why those assertions are false.. particularly when applied to *all* of our past wars.

The behaviour of America (and Europe) in the past is not to be morally recommended, despite the economic benefits they have left us. It is not OK to continue acting in a certain way just because that has made us powerful so far.

Yeah, those horrible Americans fighting the Nazis and the Commies. Take your white guilt and useful idiocy elsewhere, jez. You're a tool for fascists and tyrants.

Mark, do you ever have anything of substance to say? "It's a blanket assertion." No, it's called an argument:

(1) Winning wars requires a certain kind of political fortitude.

(2) The aforementioned useful idiots do not have that kind of fortitude.

(3) If like-minded useful idiots (such as Britain's wunderkind coward Neville Chamberlain) had emerged in past wars, the US might have lost.

(4*) If people like Mark would stop hiding behind sophistry, we could have a real argument about substantial issues.

* Sybil's addendum to Michael's post.

Sybil,

It's pointless to argue with Mark.

But I do it anyway!

Mark:

If we had today's Leftist mentality in WW2, we'd STILL be negotiating with Japan.

One of the colonists' strengths in the Revolutionary War in fighting the trained, strong British Army was the use of guerrilla warfare. But that's not "PC" today, we could hurt someone's feelings. Like you!

One of the people instrumental in winning the Civil War was General William Tecumseh Sherman. He went through and introduced "Total War" to the United States and effectively obliterated the South. Today, that would be dubbed "inhumane" by Leftist groups and we would still have slaves.

It goes on and no. BTW older Democrats weren't like neo-Dems, which is why I use the term Leftist.

Sybil: Actually, no.. it's definitely a "blanket assertion" because nothing in the piece was cited as evidence and all of the pieces involved were lumped together as if identical.

I find it particularly humorous that you'd call John Murtha an "idiot" who doesn't have the "political fortitude" to win a war. Last time I checked, he's actually fought for us. Can you say the same?

Iraq is not the best present-day example to use as a framework upon which to hang your argument. Apparently the differences between Iraq and all of the other wars we've fought in the past don't factor into your demagoguery-laden argument: almost all of our past wars had military solutions.. and next to none of our past wars amounted to babysitting and waiting around for two denominations with ancient blood feuds to decide to work together.

This is ultimately a question of strategy (or "strategery" in Bush-speak). What the Democrats listed are calling for are changes in the strategy to better address (in their view) the situation that takes into account other concerns (purpose, in particular).

Iraq has been its own country for quite a while now.. and with every glowing announcement of "new milestones" being reached with regards to Iraq's "government" (if it can be called a government) the violence doesn't lessen, the government gains no additional power or relevance, and the civil war between the Shiia and Sunni populations in Iraq continues unabated. Our military is basically a buffer between two sides in this civil war. There is no military victory that will make the situation any better.. and mere military presence has dubious positive influence on the entire process. When people like John Murtha and Chuck Schumer talk about these things.. they're demonstrating a lack of the "fortitude" with which wars are won? Sorry, that crow won't caw.

DD: Actually, today's "Leftists" would've been about as likely to negotiate with Japan as they were to negotiate with Afghanistan after 9/11. Remember: everyone in America was behind Bush when he invaded Afghanistan and brought down the Taliban. Pearl Harbor was the 9/11 of WW2.

If you're going to advocate guerilla warfare and "total war".. basically becoming the enemy, in part, by using his tactics and methods.. you're going to cede the moral high ground, IMO. Additionally, you're only going to create more animosity and more hatred which can only lead to more violence. Is that the ideal to which we should aspire? No.. it's not.

Mark: Well I didn't call John Murtha an idiot... I wouldn't want to be that disrespectful to a Marine. But it should be clear that his present philosophy is foolish.

I think the Iraq situation had a military solution also, but we didn't have the cojones to go in there and really wreak some havoc and we didn't eliminate our opposition, we just made them retreat and then let them re-form as "insurgents".

As for the "moral high ground", I'm mostly concerned with winning. If we can do so without sullying our precious morals that's nice I suppose, but not at the price of victory. We won't have more animosity and hatred if we just kill enough of the right people.

Mark, you just proved my point. You see total war as "lowering" one's moral standings. I see it as, unfortunately, sometimes the only option to protect our nation.

Additionally, your animosity argument was just debunked by the recent terror plot in Canada, a supposedly "neutral" country. What'd Canada do to the Muslims recently? Oh, right, be free, civilized people.

So, you prove your point that someone like you hasn't the stomach for the battlefield of nation-building and nation-protecting. I think your last comment was a better illustration of what I've been talking about than anything I could have come up with on my own.

MW: I know *you* didn't call Murtha an idiot, Sybil did. It's not clear at all that his present philosophy is foolish. Someone with his experience in these matters rarely has foolish approaches to them.

Iraq no longer has a military solution.

Killing "enough of the right people" is a fraction of what must be done. What also matters, in terms of reducing or eliminating animosity and hatred, is how they're killed and under what circumstances.

DD: What's going on in Iraq is *far* from the only option to protect our nation. To support your point, you wrongly group Iraq and the war on terrorism.. and you do the same thing in an attempt to "debunk" my argument. I'm talking about reducing animosity toward us in Iraq.. not among the broader Muslim population and terrorists abroad.

We're not fighting against or protecting ourselves and Iraqis from terrorists (as in Al Qaeda) in Iraq.. we're fighting against and protecting ourselves and Iraqis from other Iraqis. We're also trying to create a democratic government in a country that was barely held together by a dictatorship, and can only hope that this new government doesn't get cozy with Iran. (Although, given the status of this Iraqi government, its capacity for good *or* bad is pretty insignificant at this point.) Babysitting an impotent government and buffering between two sides in a civil war? Is that what our military is there for?

A democratic government derives its power from the consent of the people to be governed by it. Clearly the two largest populations in Iraq have not given the government their consent. Until that changes, a democratic and self-sufficient Iraq will never become a reality. Can our military make it happen? No. Can we work in other ways to make it happen? We're certainly trying.. and not getting anywhere. I'd say it's time for some carrots-and-sticks. The carrot is continued US military presence and support for the Iraqi government.. the stick is we'll start to pull our military out if they don't get their act together.

As for whether someone like me has the stomach for "the battlefield of nation-building and nation-protecting".. that couldn't possibly be more beside the point. The point is that there's no nation to build or protect. A people divided as deeply as the Shiia and Sunni.. held together by a democratic government without the consent to govern.. is not a nation. In order for a nation to survive, its people must be willing to live together and cooperate peacefully. Putting a veneer of government on top of unsettled grievances does not a nation make. I could see a Shiia nation and a Sunni nation (the Kurds could be a part of either).. but beyond that, it's pretty clear they don't want to be one nation at this point.

Sybil, what makes you think I'm white?
My point is that the things that make the west strong and powerful are the fact that we've systematically exploited the rest of the world for a long time. I'm not happy with slaving almost everyone else so that I can be a winner... and if you are ok with that, fuck you.

I'm interested in an ethical foreign policy. An inevitable consequence of that will be relinquishing power and wealth. I don't see how your preference for winning can be reconciled with Christianity.

Say what you like about Chamberlain, but what he gave the allies was an unimpeachable status of "non-aggressor" in WW2, no-one could possibly claim we were spoiling for a fight. This has been a substantial benefit to everyone in the peace which followed. How dare you call him a coward, having lived through WW1 his policy with Germany was widely shared. You have Hollywood's history to thank for your lack of understanding.

Mark:

Of course Iraq is part of the War on Terror. You're denial of the truth only undermines any credibility you may have. Furthermore, we are indeed fighting terrorists in Iraq--the same terrorists that supported Hussein such as Ba'ath members, etc.

You claim Iraq doesn't have a true democratic government--last I checked, it did. A constitution and democratic elections where the people choose the leaders is a democracy. I'd love to see some evidence to support your argument that Iraq doesn't have a true democracy. You can't use propaganda outlets like DNC, DU, ACLU, Daily Kos, either.

Anyways, you act like you know the deep, psychological condition of Iraqis right now. That, again, undermines your credibility.

Obviously, the Shia and Sunni are divided and probably always will be, but the government they have now is 1,000 times better than Saddam Hussein.

Anyways, neither of us can really claim to know what's going on in the heads of Iraqis right now. I may have a little more weight in that area since my dad is Iraqi.

Jez, to be "interested in an ethical foreign policy" you have to have a system of ethics built on something stronger than self-loathing.

That you actually defend Chamberlain is all the proof I need of your moral cowardice.

52 million people in WWII, 35 million civilians. If we had acted earlier, we could have saved millions of lives. If Hitler hadn't attacked Russia, who knows how things would have turned out. We might not have won. And still you'd rather get rammed up the butt before you defend yourself, simply to say, "I didn't start it!"

Anyone tries to rape me, he won't get his pants down before his last breath, if I've got any power left in me. But the left in America and Europe hates itself and its culture so much, it won't defend itself until millions have been slaughtered.

I think DD and Sybil can take care of this themselves, but I just wanted to point out:

jez: You think that America has "systematically exploited the rest of the world for a long time"? I think that's crazy. The vast majority of the wealth and technology in the world right now is owed directly to American, and farther back, British "imperialism". Lives are longer, everywhere, food is cheaper, education is spreading more widely. All because of America. If we're still better off than others, it's because we're the source of all these good things. "Trickle down"?

All the bad in the world would still exist without America: dictators, warlords, drug cartels, communism, fascism, etc, and to a far worse degree. Without America, very little of the good now seen in the world would exist.

To claim that America is somehow exploiting the world is ridiculous and short-sighted.

DD: I never said Iraq was not a part of the war on terror, I simply said that you're lumping them together in the wrong ways. They're definitely related, but they're not interchangeable terms.

Iraq's "government" is analogous to our military having all sorts of training on how to use guns, tanks, and bombs.. without having any guns, tanks, or bombs. It's a bunch of well-intentioned people with no real power in the face of the insurgency.

Nothing I've said about Iraqis is really in dispute, and there's nothing particularly deep or psychological about it.

The situation in Iraq now is better than under Saddam? Hmm.. yeah, let's see.. lots of innocent civilians being killed and no terribly efficient electricity or water supplies. The "leaders" that have been elected are powerless without our military presence; their government cannot help them.. just as it would not help them under Saddam. Seems to me that a lot of things haven't changed between Saddam's Iraq and the Iraq of present day. To be sure, there are no mass graves and direct oppression by the government.. but pain and suffering is pain and suffering.. it's still a very big part of Iraqis' day-to-day lives.

And, for the record DD.. I haven't read anything put out by the DNC, ACLU, DU, or DailyKos. Your presumption that I'd echo what they say speaks to your credibility as well.

Sybil: God help any man who innocently taps you on the shoulder to ask you the time. Imagine a world where there was some doubt about whether Hitler was the bad guy... we might still be facing the prospect of mass eugenics programs, anti-semitism in Europe etc. But no, anyone who doesn't leap into the armoured personel carrier at the first opportunity is a coward, obviously. Chamberlain didn't surrender, he did declare war, how is he a coward? But go back to your John Wayne version of history, you might find that easier to understand.

MW: yep, nice turn-around. It's true, we distributed our knowledge and culture, to most peoples' benefit. We plundered their resources while we were at it. But the reason we seem wealthy here is cos we buy things cheap from "there", and stuff's cheap from "there" cos people are poor over there. To this day, we're wealthy, cos they're poor.