One Hand Tied Behind Our Back

[NortheastCynic]

The most fundamental question that any leader of any group must ask his or herself is "am I personally and is the group I'm leading collectively doing what we need to do the best of our effort and abilities?" If President Bush asked himself that question and answered honestly, he would answer "no". The basic problem with our tactics in the Iraq War is that we are trying to win "the hearts and minds" WHILE we are attempting to incapacitate the enemy; a practical impossiblity. We tiptoe up to our enemy and try to kill him on even footing. In this manner we are betraying our own soldiers in that we are handicapping the war so we don't appear to be "bullies". We are trying to fight a war morally. War is immoral, that's why it should be our last option, but if we are going to fight a war we must do so in such a way to inspire fear. Simply, we must snap, use all force necessary [short of an atomic bomb] to kill the enemy. Last night, the President announced a surge [a troop increase, in English] of troops in Baghdad. This is the opposite of what is truly needed. What we need is a troop reduction and a surge in aircraft, armed drone, bombs and missiles. For the most part, we know where high concentrations of insurgents are, and as a result we should be bombing those places daily, not attempting to take them with American soldiers. We must decimate the enemy, not coax him into surrender or submission. These tactics might result in the emergence of the aforementioned word, "bully", and that is fine. It's fine because that word implies an understanding and respect of the force we are capable of, and in today's world, respect is more important than friendship.

-NC

[lily]

basic problem with our tactics in the Iraq War is that we are trying to win "the hearts and minds" WHILE we are attempting to incapacitate the enemy; a practical impossiblity.

The problem is, that we don't know which is the enemy and which are the citizens. I think that a person can be a citizen by day and the enemy by night.

What we need is a troop reduction and a surge in aircraft, armed drone, bombs and missiles.Â*Â*For the most part, we know where high concentrations of insurgents are, and as a result we should be bombing those places daily, not attempting to take them with American soldiers.

NC, while I will agree with you that an all or nothing would shorten this war, I'm not willing to kill that many civilians in the process. The cost is too high. Also, you are concentraring on just one enemy, the insurgents, while I think that they have pretty much blended into the civil war, to better serve their purpose.

[NortheastCynic]

NC, while I will agree with you that an all or nothing would shorten this war, I'm not willing to kill that many civilians in the process. The cost is too high. Lily, if we had gone into Iraq with my mindset, I'd be willing to bet that less civilians would have died because the insurgency would have been crushed swiftly. There is no excuse for the greatest fighting force known to man being slowed down by this level of insurgency, unless we handcuff ourselves. Remember Shock and Awe? That should not have ended.

Also, you are concentraring on just one enemy, the insurgents, while I think that they have pretty much blended into the civil war, to better serve their purpose.Granted, but I was referring to the insurgents who are actively attacking American troops and Shia militias hostile to American forces, like Al-Sadr [who would be dead if we employed my concept of total war].

-NC

[Nemo]

We have become a nation of so-called “do-gooders.â€�Â*Â*We are on a mission, like Mrs. Jellyby for the natives of Borrioboola-Gha in Charles Dickens’ Bleak House, to make the world a better place - at least to our own liking. We have become the organizers, the proselytizers, the subsidizers of the new Utopia. We pledge to toil ceaselessly and tirelessly for the cause - civic, social, charitable - all for the greater good; or at least what we perceive to be the greater good. We are the spreaders of democracy, Christianity and aid to the poor, the oppressed, the unbaptized.

But are we really doing any good?Â*Â* Can democracy be imposed on a people, however oppressed? Is Christ’s message the only answer? Does aid really help the impoverished sustain themselves, or only grind them into dependency? Are we not doing more harm than good? Must we kill them in order to save them?

God save the world - before we do.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

The most fundamental question that any leader of any group must ask his or herself is "am I personally and is the group I'm leading collectively doing what we need to do the best of our effort and abilities?" If President Bush asked himself that question and answered honestly, he would answer "no".


No he wouldn't, and virtually every premise in your article is wrong, which is why I suspect you fail to support them.

[NortheastCynic]

I fail to support my premises?Â*Â*Here are my premises:

War is immoral, this is a value-based premise.Â*Â*
We are not unleashing the full force of our military, this also is a value based premise.

My premises are value-based, I don't know what else to tell you.
Based on what I have seen and heard, I do not believe we are fighting this war at 100% capacity. You can disagree with me, that's fine, but understand that value-based premises are subjective and therefore impossible to back up with facts. It's like saying "abortion is wrong" and then having someone say "back that up with fact."

-NC

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I fail to support my premises? Here are my premises:

War is immoral, this is a value-based premise.
We are not unleashing the full force of our military, this also is a value based premise.

My premises are value-based, I don't know what else to tell you.

-NC


Those are not the only premise in your article, however even those two cannot be dismissed as value based as an excuse for them being viable to base a reasonable opinion on. War is not immoral any more than sex or taxes are immoral, but the most glaring error in your logic is where you demand the full force of the military (which would be an immoral war) excluding nukes. It's like saying rapes OK if you don't use the whole shaft.

[NortheastCynic]

That's assuming you don't distinguish between nuclear war and war, if we use one nuke, why not two? Why not three? Escalation, it is actually, very logical. Also, I explained in the post that I believe war to be immoral, but if we must be involved in it we can't show mercy until the job is done, makes sense to me.

-NC

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

if we use one nuke, why not two? Why not three? Escalation, it is actually, very logical.


It isn't logical at all. First off, if the point is to maximize force there is no escalation, you fight fully escalated from the beginning, and under those circumstances that means a single complete nuclear strike.

[sbannon]

NC, for what it's worth, here's why I think your idea would be even worse than what we're doing already.

In that region, there is nearly a 100% distrust of American policy by the population. For the most part, Muslim's view American policy as being one-sided in support for Israel over Palestinian rights, which makes them broadly distrust us.

A small percentage of them have actually allowed that distrust to fester into hatred and rage. Radical/terrorist behavior.

While it may seem like simple math to "go in full force" and quickly eliminate those radicals and terrorists who are fighting us, what actually happens isn't quite so simple. For each combatant we kill or capture, a friend, brother, son, spouse or etc. has their own distrust of America boil into hatred and rage; thus creating more enemy combatants.

That's a large part of what has caused us problems already and even the last Intel Report described this (remember the headlines and sound-bites of "Iraq war breeding more terrorists"? This is where that came from), and it's also why it is so important to win the hearts and minds of the mass population while at the same time trying to eliminate the small percentage of radical fighters.

We have to create an environment where we can fight the radicals and prevent their deaths or captures from being martyred and creating more enemy fighters.

That's why a strategy of "all out war" could never work in this region. If we had entered Iraq in that manner it's likely we still wouldn't have reached Baghdad, or if we had the Iraqi death tolls would be in the um-teen millions by now, because the entire nation would have stood up against us in a matter of days.

And, if we were to adopt an "all out war" strategy now, with our troops scattered and mixed throughout the population, it would turn into a massacre for all sides involved. In the end we'd likely prevail, but at what cost?

[NortheastCynic]

A single nuclear strike would not single handedly win us the war. Flea, I don't think you and I are too far from each other on this issue, what part of us using more tactical strikes and bombings and less troops don't you like?

-NC

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

A single overwhelming nuclear strike would end Iraq as a country and a threat, far faster and more completely than conventional bombing would.

[NortheastCynic]

A single nuclear strike would take out Baghdad quickly...I would not ELIMINATE the insurgency.

-NC

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Why not? A single large nuclear strike against Iraq would end the insurgency, and I'm sure haliburton can drill oil in a radioactive environment.

[Drocket]

What we have here is ultimately the biggest problem we face in Iraq, and Bush's biggest mistake: the question of why we're there. If we're there to conquer the area, subjugate the people, and steal their natural resources, then yes, all-out warfare makes perfect sense (though a nuclear strike would still be stupid. Assuming the oil didn't go up in a blaze, it would still be radioactive and essentially unusable.)

If our intentions are anything other than to create a permanent empire, though, its sheer idiocy. If we want to create a stable, democratic and peaceful nation, indiscriminate bombings are doomed to failure because they'll create permanent hatred of the USA as people's friends and relatives are killed.

Now, if you think option 1 is a good plan, I'll think you're an immoral monster, but you'll at least get points for honesty. Pretending that positive, moral goals can be accomplished by bombs, though, is simply dishonest.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Assuming the oil didn't go up in a blaze, it would still be radioactive and essentially unusable.


How would that happen? How would a nuke effect oil that's deep underground?

[Drocket]

How would that happen? How would a nuke effect oil that's deep underground?

Most of the reservoir - the larger ones especially - have been tapped. You nuke them and they're going to go up (and its going to be real hard to put out an oil well blaze in a nuclear wasteland.)

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

How would that happen? How would a nuke effect oil that's deep underground?

Most of the reservoir - the larger ones especially - have been tapped. You nuke them and they're going to go up (and its going to be real hard to put out an oil well blaze in a nuclear wasteland.)


How are they going to go up? Most won't be nuked directly because they are not major population centers.

And how will the oil be made radioactive?

[NortheastCynic]

I thought we were only going to nuke once Flea?

-NC

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Of course, but we can't nuke every square inch of Iraq, we have to be content to kill as many as many as we can, and let radiation and starvation do the rest.

[lily]

NortheastCynic
Lily, if we had gone into Iraq with my mindset, I'd be willing to bet that less civilians would have died because the insurgency would have been crushed swiftly.Â*Â*There is no excuse for the greatest fighting force known to man being slowed down by this level of insurgency, unless we handcuff ourselves.Â*Â*Remember Shock and Awe?Â*Â*That should not have ended.


Now you are going into past tense. Your post was in present, also reading the rest of the thread, it is also in present, or future tense depending on what post I am reading.;)

Granted, but I was referring to the insurgents who are actively attacking American troops and Shia militias hostile to American forces, like Al-Sadr [who would be dead if we employed my concept of total war].

Well, that is debatable. If we didn't negotiate at the battle of Najif, al-Sadr and he merry men wouldn't be in the position they are today. Not to mention al-Maliki.Â*Â*

[Nemo]

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle - be Thou near them! With them - in spirit - we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it - for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen."

- Mark Twain, "The War Prayer," Harper's Monthly (Nov. 1916)