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.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (147792)	10/14/2004 7:11:11 AM
From: dumbmoney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

It's not all about will, esp. when both sides have enormous reserves of will to win, but if either side has a big deficit of will to win in general or in the particular conflict then it can lose even if the other side is superior in numbers, technology, firepower, training, logistics, and/or tactics. Vietnam was a good example of it being about will. The Vietnamese communists had more will to win the the US did. Please define "will" (in such a way that these statements are not tautologies). In the Vietnam war, the U.S. expended blood and treasure far out of proportion to the possible gain, so how can you say that will (passion, determination) was lacking? Because the commitment was not infinite? Pledges to "win at any cost" are not really credible, especially for a democracy. The enemy knows we will behave at least somewhat rationally, and can therefore win by demonstrating that it is not in our rational interest to continue the war - which does not require either military or will superiority.

To: TimF who wrote (147792)	10/14/2004 10:41:48 AM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

If the US was invaded and occupied by a foreign nation, our will to kick them out of our country would indeed be unlimited. This is the problem we face in Iraq -- invaders are rarely likely to have the same dep;th of "will" as the people who have been "conquered".

To: TimF who wrote (147792)	10/14/2004 2:35:02 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Twfowler, re: Vietnam was a good example of it being about will. The Vietnamese communists had more will to win than the US did. Tw, I would like you to think carefully about the statement I'm going to make and then answer with a thoughtful post. Here's the statement: The Vietnamese communists won the battle of wills because we had no way to effectively destroy their "will to win." They could fight, or not, on any given day, month or year. They could lay low and lick their wounds when their will ebbed as it did after 68 Tet, and then fight when their will rebounded. They could, in effect, largely determine the level of conflict, the places, times and intensity. And there was, generally speaking, no effective way for us to identify, locate or attack them. In the interim, many of the actions we took incensed the local population and increased their number and determination. It was only a matter of time until rationality took hold and our will eroded to the point where we left.