Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (289794)	6/25/2004 3:49:29 PM
From: da_cheif™	Respond to of 436258

" What we did in Afghanistan was much closer to the proper approach than what we're doing in Iraq." u mean like the afgan b52 carpet bombing?...or pinpoint targeting like were doin in iraq....think you missed something there eh?

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (289794)	6/25/2004 4:28:40 PM
From: SGJ	Respond to of 436258

"But a military response is not always the optimal way to combat it, that's why it's called "asymmetric war". It requires intelligence, propaganda, occassional pinpoint application of power against the right individuals." Straight out of The Art of War, something not on the Pentagons reading list

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (289794)	6/25/2004 5:07:52 PM
From: mishedlo	Respond to of 436258

I stole your idea, kept some of it, rewrote some of it, added substantially to it, and posted it on SI. Here goes. ========================================================== They're always has been, and always will be evil in the world. But a military response is not always the optimal way to combat it, that's why it's called "asymmetric war". It requires intelligence, propaganda, occassional pinpoint application of power against the right individuals. Essentially a guerrilla war approach, instead of the Battle of the Bulge, take no prisoners, kill them all mentality we are attmpting now. What we did in Afghanistan was much closer to the proper approach than what we're doing in Iraq. Had we continued with that approach instead of splitting our efforts and making more enemies, we might have had Bin Laden by now. We sure would not have as many enemies as we have now, nor would the US be as divided as we are now, nor would we have totally squanderd all of the goodwill the world had towards the US after 911. These same questions were raised in Vietnam, and the correct response then (as now) was to NOT attempt brutal force but to learn more about our enemy and redesign the engagement to suit OUR purposes and not theirs. We made that mistake in Vienam and we are making the same mistakes again today. Iraq might not be Vietnam, but the mistakes and the miscalculations sure are. In the end we lost the war in Vietnam because of three factors: First and foremost, there never was a legitimate reason to invade Vietam. In the second place we failed to understand the determination and resolve of the country we invaded. The third and final nail in the coffin was that as soon as the public realized the grounds for war were bogus, the war was lost. Right now in Iraq we have reached a turning point. For the first time the majority of the US public thinks Iraq was a mistake. Had we quickly won this war, Bush might have gotten away with it. Too late now. Bush is back peddeling in Iraq and back peddeling on North Korea as well. Iraq is a failed foreign policy and a failed war. Right now we are looking to hand over this mess to anyone that will take it. Ready or not, we have a handover on June 30. Does anyone really think we are ready? Hand it over, over to who? To a few US puppets with no real authority, and probably a huge pricetag on their heads to boot. How much longer are those "leaders" going to survive anyway? Even IF they make it what real power do they have? Ultimately none of this short term politics matters. Johnson lost his will to fight just as the citizens of the US lost theirs. Bush is more stubborn but it does not matter. He will be voted out of office for the mistakes he has made. The will of the people to see this mess to the conclusion that Bush wanted just not there. The costs in human lives and US$ is just too too high. We failed to fully understand the politics of the region, the resolve of the Iraqis, and the various factions and infighting of Iraq, and all of the associated costs. Just as in Vietnam, there were GROSS miscalculations all over the place. Had this been a legitimate war, like WWII, I am sure there would have been public resolve to see it thru. The only legitimate reason to invade Iraq was if there was IMMINENT danger they were going to obtain WMD's or attack the USA. Everything else is just an excuse. Every day, more and more and more people are coming to the conclusion that Bush lied about the grounds for war, the cost of the war, the number of people it would take to win the war, and how long the entire mess would last. Every day more and more compromises are being made, and the standards for "success" lowered and lowered. In the end, we will come home wagging out tails between our legs just like we did in Vietnam. If we are lucky, Bush will get to declare "Peace With Honor", just like Nixon did before South Vietnam fell. In the end, the US will see what the whole rest of the world knew from the outset: This mission was doomed from the very beginning because we failed to understand the risks of invading a country on grounds that never were legitimate in the first place. Mish