Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "Are you accepting that this nation is at war?"
Not against "terror". When used with regard to an object other than another government, "war" is a metaphorical term. Like the "war on illiteracy", or the "war on violence", LOL.
Nor is what is going on in Iraq, technically, a war. The war ended back in May when Bush noted the end of major combat. What's going on now should be called "police action", which makes your comparison with police death rates particularly of interest. The military classification for what is going on in Iraq is "operations other than war", and you know it. Here's some 2450 references from US military websites:
google.com
For example:
AL QAEDA’S GLOBAL INSURGENCY:
AIRPOWER IN THE BATTLE FOR LEGITIMACY
Captain Matthew W. Lacy, USAF
...
Applicable Air Force Doctrine can be found in two publications. Air Force Doctrine Document 2-3, "Military Operations Other Than War (MOOTW)," paints a broad descriptive picture of military operations "not associated with sustained, large-scale combat operations."13 AFDD 2-3.1, "Foreign Internal Defense (FID)," goes into greater detail regarding certain types of MOOTW, including insurgency and counterinsurgency. Each has important information worthy of review in this discussion.
According to AFDD 2-3, several aspects of MOOTW set it apart from large-scale combat operations. In addition to the nine principles of war listed in Air Force Basic Doctrine (AFDD 1) and memorized by PME students far and wide, 2-3 lists six principles of MOOTW, three of which differ from the AFDD 1 list. The three newcomers, restraint, perseverance, and legitimacy, are discussed here.14 The supremacy of political considerations in MOOTW is a central theme to all of these principles.
Restraint means using the minimum amount of force required to accomplish the task at hand. "Determining the appropriate level of force requires an understanding of…the overarching political goals."15 While tactical results may be attained by applying a given amount of force, in some situations use of such force may prove to be counterproductive to achieving the strategic goal. AFDD 2-3 cautions commanders to develop an understanding of the local culture, the nature of the conflict, and the likely response of the population. Another aspect of restraint is "tailoring" a force, or identifying and deploying only what is necessary to the mission. The natural American military tendency to deploy more than is needed, and/or massing reserves, may cast doubt on U.S. intentions and increase political tension, thus making success less likely.16
Perseverance refers to the need to be patient and resolute in MOOTW because such operations are often protracted and frustrating. Nevertheless, attainment of strategic objectives may require long-term commitment. Again, this is primarily a political concept. It encompasses both the commitment of the U.S. populace (and therefore elected officials), as well as the people and government of the host nation (in global terms, this also applies to the international community). American policymakers should accurately identify strategic objectives and the conditions for ending military involvement prior to committing military forces.17
Legitimacy is, perhaps, paramount among the MOOTW principles. When militarily involved in the internal affairs of other nations, the U.S. must be "viewed as a legitimate actor in the mission, working towards international interests rather than just its own."18 By establishing and maintaining legitimacy, the U.S. increases the chance of support both from the host nation populace and the American populace. What’s more, other nations are less likely to interfere and more likely to lend assistance there is widespread international agreement that the U.S. is acting legitimately. Similarly, if the insurgents can establish legitimacy, if they can be seen as the side acting morally and for the good of the people, then it is they who reap those benefits.
Legitimacy is, in a sense, purely political. How U.S. actions are viewed by others is not classically a military concern. But a key point to understand is that although establishing legitimacy is largely a function of the nation’s political leaders, military operations can have significant impact on how the U.S. is viewed by all parties.19 AFDD 2-3 calls legitimacy "critically important" in MOOTW, but cautions that it may be difficult to establish in light of complex international relations. This difficulty is only compounded when the insurgents claim the globe as their battleground.
...
airpower.maxwell.af.mil
If, by some miracle, you really don't know the difference between war and "Military Operations Other Than War", or MOOTW, here's a good primer:
Beyond the Range of Military Operations
dtic.mil
Note that the above article explicitly includes antiterrorism under the classification of MOOTW, along with nation building and the like. And also note that the administration has already tried to end hazardous duty pay for our soldiers in Iraq, which hardly suggests that what they're involved in is "war".
Now, be a man. Be fair. State your position. Choose one. Or make up some other choice:
(a) You were full of it when you wrote: "So every year 140 or so police officers are killed in the line of duty throughout the US. I guess they live in a quagmire too." #reply-19333260
(b) You were not full of it even though ground operations in Iraq are about 12x as dangerous as police operations in the US.
Or at least explain what it is you were talking about, LOL. And by the way, we sent what, 500,000 troops to South Vietnam, population 20 million, and failed to pacify it, so how many more US troops would be unable to pacify Iraq, population 24 million, taking into account the undeniable fact that we don't have a government there to provide troops to do the dying for us.
What I really want to know is how you're going to explain to CobaltBlue that her son who volunteered for a safe job in the Air Force is going to be needed instead for "police" duty on the ground in Iraq.
-- Carl |
