Hi MDC,
It's only an analogy..... but in a hockey game, the fans have little or no input about how the game is played, but that doesn't mean they should not yell and scream as if they did. My point is that life is a participation sport, and meant to be experienced. You jump in with whatever you have to jump in with. If you wait until you have optimal information and training, you will be useless and spend your life sitting on your hands. Although their intelligence is certainly better than what is available to you and I, the military cannot have optimal complete information even now.... should they do nothing?
So that means if you have an opinion, express it. Whether you know what you are talking about or not. All are welcome IMHO, whether I agree or not is irrelevant. Our opinions are only that, and really have little or no impact on the conduct of the war. We are making no decisions.
But there's another issue here---do we blindly trust that the military will use what intelligence they have in the best way possible? History has shown that such an attitude can be foolish indeed (witness Viet Nam, to cite just one example), not because the military has bad intentions, but because to a carpenter with a hammer everything looks like a nail; a surgeon with a scalpel will find something to operate on sooner rather than later. So we have architects and interior designers who direct what the carpenters do, and we get second and third opinions, and consult internists, and these are prudent courses to take. It implies nothing at all about the motivation of the carpenter and the surgeon; they have the best of motivations as a rule, and so does the military I suspect.
But this highlights one of the outstanding features of our great country, IMHO: effective checks and balances. Their importance should never be underestimated, and they have, IMHO, contributed in a major way to the greatness of our country. Yes, sometimes the tensions get pulled too far one way or the other, but generally never too far for too long, and in the end it is a win-win game though various participants may not think so from time to time. This is the only way I know that the constitutional imperative to "provide for the common welfare" can be pursued with any semblance of effectiveness.
<< I would keep one thing in mind though, the nature of war fighting is that as technology progresses, war fighting changes. >>
Sometimes, but to fight wars in a particular way just because the technology is available can be very misguided. Again, Viet Nam comes to mind as a prime example. The lesson here, it would seem, is that it is not the technology available that dictates how a war ought best be fought, but rather the nature of the war itself and the nature of the enemy and his power base. If technology does not dovetail with that, it should not be used IMHO.
<<The Gulf war demonstrated clearly that precision bombing, mixed with carpet bombing (given enough time), was a morale and enemy destroyer.>>
I must disagree. Heavy bombardment in the Gulf War did nothing. The Red Guard surrendered or retreated in response to thousands of men in the field and tanks. Precision bombing did, I would agree, assist the infantry by precisely targeting some strategic targets. But of itself it would never have forced the Red Guard to surrender. And I see no reason to anticipate a different effect in the present war.
We should not lose sight of the fact that bombing can indeed galvanize the enemy, and make him far stronger. To cite just two examples, is that not the lesson of Pearl Harbor, and even more pertinent, the WTC ?
Your point about fighting for their homeland is very well taken, and should never be underestimated. Again, the lessons of history have shown that the most determined, most formidable enemy is one that is defending his homeland, and in this scenario, the impact of technology and numbers of troops to a war's outcome pales in comparison. Again, Viet Nam comes to mind as a prime example.
Bottom line, and I think we are in agreement on this, is that this war will be nothing like the wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am Gulf War. It will be far more difficult and prolonged, and will require a steadfast commitment on our part (I believe there is). But as an aside, I think it ought to be clearly recognized that there will, as in all wars, be enormous civilian casualties. It goes with the territory, and to expect anything else would be Pollyanna. It makes me sick to see all the ink given the fact that some stray bomb killed some civilians in Afghanistan---especially in light of the fact that some stray planes killed five thousand civilians right here in America. And it was fully intended that all casualties be civilian. And even worse, the perpetrators fully intend that to be just the warmup, that all American civilians are their ultimate targets. We must never lose that perspective.
JMVHO......
WS |
