Winning a war

Politics International Politics
21

[quote=“Jaboney”]What were the targets of the planes?

WTC: economic heart of America.
Pentagon: military heart of America.
Congress: political heart of America.

If anything–or nearly anything–goes in war, why were these not legitimate targets? Surely it’s not merely because there was no formal declaration of war. Surely such attacks were deeply wrong for reasons that go deeper than that. There are bounds that cannot be crossed, even in war.[/quote]

I think AQ thought they were legitimate targets.

If they think we are too capitalistic and that we worship money and that capitalism is evil, then the atacks on the WTC as a symbol of our devotion to capitalism is actually a war against what they perceive as our religion. They attacked what they thought was our demon god. Hmm, therefore if we are to fight their kind of war, it may not be necessary to go after men women and children, but to bomb their mosques into dust. I find it ironic as hell that the Tallymonban destroyed all the religious imagery a few years back yet didn’t raze their own mosques. Be consistant people!! You might think about avoiding the Hadj next year too.

As for lines that cannot be crossed. Turn the other cheek eh? The American Indian Wars would have put the WWII Japanese soldiers on wood. They killed men and women and children. Men were fighters, women gave birth to fighters, and children grew up to be or give birth to fighters. Can’t beat that logic with a stick.

I do not think we snivilized peoples should EVER think we are above committing the most outrageous and vicious acts of war. When we do, we should turn a claymore mine on a herd of cattle. THAT is what war is, and replace those cows with mothers and kids shopping in a market and you have the militias in Iraq. THEY have crossed the Jabonian Line, and they’re getting away with it. One of the reasons they are getting away with it is that our snivilized armies and good peoples don’t want to level city blocks in order to get rid of the planners, architects, bomb builders and street fighters that are not constrained by what they consider to be “weak stomachs.”

22

Jesus Jaboney! Your navel just expanded to the size of Uranus! :laughing: :bravo:

23

Kurtz would agree.

The Soviets, having done their best, and failed, in Afghanistan and Chechenia, might know better. But they’re still trying.

Didn’t expect you to advocate following their lead.

Or is this more along the lines of the Turks and Armenians?

What’s the model for this kind of war? It ain’t WWII.

24

Jesus Jaboney! Your navel just expanded to the size of Uranus! :laughing: :bravo:[/quote]
Say again?

Do you believe that one can be a guard in a “re-education” or concentration camp without consequences flowing from that, nevermind legal reprecussions? Were the activities photographed at Abu Gharib nothing out of the ordinary? Were the guards and interrogators nasty bastards before ever they went there, or did the environment impact them in negative ways?

25

Jesus Jaboney! Your navel just expanded to the size of Uranus! :laughing: :bravo:[/quote]
Say again?

Do you believe that one can be a guard in a “re-education” or concentration camp without consequences flowing from that, nevermind legal reprecussions? Were the activities photographed at Abu Gharib nothing out of the ordinary? Were the guards and interrogators nasty bastards before ever they went there, or did the environment impact them in negative ways?[/quote]

Here’s one for the navel then:

Do you think Abu Gharib and car bombings on market places cross the line equally?Or are their different lines? Our lines and their lines? Because if there are different lines, then while we have crossed ours, they haven’t crossed theirs.

26

Here’s a pair for the brain:

  1. Market bombings demonstrate what? Are executed in pursuit of what ends? Have what effect?

  2. Abu Gharib demonstrated what? Was executed in pursuit of what ends? Had what effect?

27

When the Christians retook Jerusalem from the Muslims, the slaughter was so great, they were said to be knee-deep in carnage and blood.

When the Romans defeated the Carthaginians in the last Punic War, it is said they razed Carthage to the ground, leaving no trace, and salting the ground so that no thing may ever grow there.

We think the Nazis were the most horrible of all, but perhaps only because they were so systematic and we have photography to thank for. But think of all the massacres of civilian populations in times past which may not be numerically as horrifying, but no less gruesome or butcherous.

It’s easy for you and I to say, “kill women and children” as a means to an end. But who’s actually going to do the killing, and who’s actually going to have to live with that? Not you or I.

28

I think you misunderestimate the ease by which it could all take place.

Carpet bombs. Tactical nukes. What’s to see? The view from ground? Bah. What ground. You think any troops will go in sabers drawn?

[quote]
Here’s a pair for the brain:

  1. Market bombings demonstrate what? Are executed in pursuit of what ends? Have what effect?

  2. Abu Gharib demonstrated what? Was executed in pursuit of what ends? Had what effect?[/quote]
    Do you work for Reuters now?

AG was a bunch of clowns doing their job poorly. Market bombings are a bunch of guys doing their job very well. Our line is so far from their line that their line is a dot.

29

Abu Gharib demonstrated that put in a situation in which they hold great power and have few restraints, many people will cross the line; particularly when they’re encouraged to soften up those they’re guarding. It had a terrific effect on recruitment for the bad guys.

Market bombings, demonstrate an inability to achieve ends by other means. Like the 911 attacks, are designed to a) provoke an unthinking reaction, and b) disrupt the ties that bind individuals to anything other than their clan. They’ve been having precisely their intended effects.

Now, if you’re advocating total war, is that an admission that there’s no other means of achieving your ends? Is there some secret formula, some method to your madness that will avoid provoking an unthinking reaction? (I assume you’re hoping to settle things down, rather than kill 'em all.) Do you think that having an outside power adopt such tactics will do anything other than drive these people together (into a larger clan) in opposition?

What’s the strategy? What’s the end game? Where’s the model for success?

30

I think you misunderestimate the ease by which it could all take place.

Carpet bombs. Tactical nukes. What’s to see? The view from ground? Bah. What ground. You think any troops will go in sabers drawn?
[/quote]

Misunderestimate is not a word. I gather you mean misunderstand and underestimate.

I didn’t overlook the ease of technology. But that doesn’t mean that pilots who drop bombs or soldiers who push buttons/turn keys to launch ICBMs won’t be affected.

From Truman himself, who didn’t even have to push a button or fly over Japan:

I leave you with another Truman quote:

[quote]
"The weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop this terrible bomb on the old capital or the new [Kyoto or Tokyo]. [/quote]

31

[quote=“Jaboney”]Abu Gharib demonstrated that put in a situation in which they hold great power and have few restraints, many people will cross the line;[/quote]NO, it did no such thing. It demonstrated that a few people, acting without proper supervision from their superiors, will use methods not approved for prisoner handling. It also demonstrated that the laws in effect will catch, prosecute and sentence individuals such as this.[quote=“Jaboney”]"…particularly when they’re encouraged to soften up those they’re guarding.[/quote]An assumption on your part…nothing more.[quote=“Jaboney”] It had a terrific effect on recruitment for the bad guys.[/quote]Proof? It may well have had such an effect. Got proof?

[quote=“Jaboney”]Market bombings, demonstrate an inability to achieve ends by other means.[/quote]Whatever does this mean? Do you read what you write?[quote=“Jaboney”] Like the 911 attacks, are designed to a) provoke an unthinking reaction, and b) disrupt the ties that bind individuals to anything other than their clan. They’ve been having precisely their intended effects.[/quote]More assumption. I think this interpretation is incorrect. These are terrorist attacks and are designed to disrupt, terrorize and under mind the efforts at stabilizing the political, social and economic environment of Iraq.

[quote=“Jaboney”]Now, if you’re advocating total war, is that an admission that there’s no other means of achieving your ends? Is there some secret formula, some method to your madness that will avoid provoking an unthinking reaction? (I assume you’re hoping to settle things down, rather than kill 'em all.) Do you think that having an outside power adopt such tactics will do anything other than drive these people together (into a larger clan) in opposition?

What’s the strategy? What’s the end game? Where’s the model for success?[/quote]Gibberish masked as contrianism.

32

Try a sense of humor sometimes. It gets me through the rough spots. :wink:

33

Try a sense of humor sometimes. It gets me through the rough spots. :wink:[/quote]

Sometimes it’s hard for me to see humor expressed online. Put that cat in quotes, and I’m right there with you. :wink:

I leave you with a piece of humour from a very funny movie (paraphrased):

Death is still the leading killer in America. So far, no cure has been found for this debilitating disease. Some common signs:

  1. Rigor Mortis

  2. Rotting Stench

  3. Occasional Drowsiness

34

I don’t get it. :wink:

35

[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“Jaboney”]Abu Gharib demonstrated that put in a situation in which they hold great power and have few restraints, many people will cross the line;[/quote]NO, it did no such thing. It demonstrated that a few people, acting without proper supervision from their superiors, will use methods not approved for prisoner handling. It also demonstrated that the laws in effect will catch, prosecute and sentence individuals such as this.[/quote]Is that right. Ok, you do the comparison. Or take a look at the findings of those who have: prisonexp.org/

As for the rest…proof? Till there’s acknowledgement, you can do your own research, or take what I choose to provide. Should you choose to acknowledge, and deal with evidence posted, here, or in previous posts, your requests will carry some weight. As it is, they carry none.

For now, carry on modeling your posts on fred’s. It’s funny to watch.

36

If I may throw in my unsolicited opinion, consider this.

What ‘lines can or cannot be crossed in war’ is, imho, an outgrowth of the old ideas of ‘chivalrous warfare’ that were acted out in Europe between, lets say, about 900 and 1900 AD. When men were men, fought duels, and in war, killed each other ‘gallantly.’ Around the time of the trenchwarfare’n’gassing of WWI, and then the nuking that ended WWII, people realized that these old rules had little application. In some parts of the world “Educated, modern people” changed the rules so women could be soldiers. In other parts, “Uneducated, backwards and desperate” people drafted children into their armies. Either action would have been unacceptable for the knights of a thousand years ago. But the countries with the women in their armies point at the ones with children in their armies and shout, “for shame!!!”

37

Here’s a different take on what winning requires.

[quote=“Washington Post: Twisting Arms Isn’t as Easy as Dropping Bombs”]Political scientist Patricia Sullivan recently decided to take a different tack than the political pundits. Rather than look for a single war to provide insight, Sullivan decided to look at all post-World War II conflicts between the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and weaker nations.

Her findings will probably surprise you – and would make for sober reading at the White House: Although the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China were militarily superior to their opponents in every one of the 122 conflicts that Sullivan studied, these powerful countries failed to win an astonishing 39 percent of their wars against weaker opponents.

Other research backs up Sullivan: New York University professor of politics Bruce Bueno De Mesquita has shown that, in conflicts between unequal powers over the past 200 years, the weaker country has outdone its stronger foe 41 percent of the time.
[…]
For all the talk of “shock and awe” before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, Sullivan’s research shows that military power alone is not a useful predictor of victory.

Sullivan found that powerful nations tend to win wars when all they seek is an opponent’s submission, but tend to lose when victory requires an opponent’s cooperation.

“On one end of the spectrum are things you can achieve with brute force,” she said. “On the opposite end is getting an adversary to change a domestic or foreign policy – you want the adversary to change his behavior.”

Pushing Hussein’s army behind a line in the 1991 Gulf War and overthrowing the dictator in the current war were aims that did not require the acquiescence of Iraqis; they could be achieved by brute force alone. But creating “a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security and is an ally in the war on terror” – goals that Bush laid out in his State of the Union speech last week – all require the cooperation of Iraqis.

Sullivan found that the five Security Council permanent members won three-quarters of conflicts in which their aims did not require their opponents’ cooperation, but only half of the conflicts in which they did need cooperation.

For the United States, the disparity was even greater – winning 81 percent of conflicts when cooperation was not required, but only 44 percent of the military interventions, such as in Laos in 1964 and Lebanon in 1982, that Sullivan described as having “coercive” goals.

“In other words,” Sullivan concluded, “the United States has withdrawn its troops without attaining its primary political objective in 56 percent of the military interventions it initiated with a coercive war aim.”[/quote]

38

The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World

amazon.com/Utility-Force-Art … F8&s=books

39

TNT: Eliot Cohen’s review of that book is great. It’s now on my wish list.

40

[quote=“spook”][quote=“gao_bo_han”]The dichotomy between soldier and civilian is ridiculous. The phrase “innocent civilian” has become so trite that “innocent” is now redundant. It is a shared beliefs in Western nations that all civilians are innocent. But you take some pimply face kid, teach him how to march, dress him in camoflauge clothing, put a rifle in his hand, and by God he’s fucking expendable. If he gets his head blown off, no problem. If a stray bullet drops his fat mother like a potato sack, a crime against humanity has just been committed. It matters not one wit that mama spent three hours a day every day praying to God to grant her more children who can become soldiers and kill the enemy, nor does it matter that junior wanted to be an artist and not a grunt. Mama’s death is a calamity; junior’s death is nothing.

When nations go to war, everyone is involved. 21-year-old widows stuffing powder into bullet shells and 19-year-old soldier boys are equally committed to killing you, and you have to be equally committed to killing them. In Dresden we got the Germans a triple sweet treat: first we blew their roofs off with powerful explosives, then we dropped incendiary bombs into the exposed timbers, and laid down more high-powered bombs on their roads to prevent fire trucks and ambulances from saving the city or its people. In Japan we did the same thing, but on a grander scale and all across the country. Those wooden cities of Japan burned like rice paper, some cities being over 80% demolished. We killed 300,000 people during the fire bombing of Japan, the same number we killed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. So are we war criminals? Should we have been hanging vets instead of pinning medals on them?

War is hell. War is terrible. War is a teenage soldier back from Iraq with no arms and legs who can look forward to a long life in diapers. War is a disemboweled little girl praying to Jesus or Krishna or Allah or who the fuck ever to let her die quickly. People need to wake up and smell the napalm, and not get themselves or their countries involved in wars unless it is absolutely necessary.[/quote]

Were the three-thousand people incinerated in the World Trade Center “innocent civilians” in your view of things or legitimate casualties of war as al Qaeda maintained – in-line with your “everyone is involved” thesis?[/quote]

Casualties of war. I see no reason to tack on an “innocent” or “legitimate” label. And Jaboney has already explained the symbolic values of their targets.

Sorry to disappoint you JD :wink: