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: Sun Tzu who wrote (150332)	11/1/2004 9:42:40 PM
From: SBHX	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

We have to stop thinking about what to do now and concentrate on where we want to be 10 years from now. ---- What does the old AoW really say about this? (I.2):(war is) a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected. I do not have the faith in men who want to look at a road 10 years in the future and not see in front of them that there are men who saw off heads of old men, kill defenceless schoolchildren or slaughter thousands of office workers. Chamberlain tried to look ten years ahead for Hitler to believe in this grouphug stuff. Hitler never did. A lot of people had to die because Chamberlain did not recognize that his road of "Peace for our Times" was in fact the road to ruin, not safety. (I.8):Earth comprises distances, great and small; danger and security; open ground and narrow passes; the chances of life and death. further showing us all that not recognizing the nature of the danger facing us reduces our odds of survival. I cannot put the safety of my children and their children in the hands of those who do not recognize this danger, but speak of nuisance, as if it does not exist. I cannot respect a leader who would only wait to be attacked again before responding with a 'measured' response after awaiting a 'global test' by other men that also do not recognize what is happening. (III):If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. Not understanding your enemy is the sure way to defeat. To assume that we can ignore what is in front and that things will right itself in 10 years is not only folly, it is a sure way to defeat. If the commander in chief knows not his own people or his own conviction, nor the true nature of the enemy of his people, such a commander will succumb in every battle. This I cannot support. If a commander in chief knows his enemy but not himself, that is not perfection but gives me a 50-50 chance of making it through alive. This I support unwillingly, but support I will. (VI.1) Sun Tzu said: Whoever is first in the field and awaits the coming of the enemy, will be fresh for the fight; whoever is second in the field and has to hasten to battle will arrive exhausted. Not recognizing there is a battlefield is really why the US has to scramble today, the jihadis arrived at the battlefield first and had been planning for more than 20 years. To further go back to days when they are but nuisance and not to recognize them for what they are is to yield the field and is the ultimate in folly.

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (150332)	11/2/2004 1:13:16 AM
From: Jacob Snyder	Respond to of 281500

Four Decades of Imperial Hubris By David H. Hackworth 11/1/04 In most of the wars we’ve fought, our leaders have understood our enemies and how to take them down. But in the current shootout – a continuation of the revolutionary fervor first ignited in Algeria in the 1960s, then fanned by the Iranian Revolution, a huge Jihad victory against the Soviets in Afghanistan, Israel’s humiliating withdrawal from Lebanon and its interminable fight in Palestine culminating in 9/11 and our retaliatory invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq – America’s leaders from both major parties and our military and intelligence establishments remain in deep denial and blindly continue to believe that because we’ve got the power, we shall overcome. Ditto a large chunk of the American public that has sent me gigabytes of e-mail about how we should do a Goldwater on the bad guys and “bomb them back to the Stone Age” – when that's where most of our 1.3 billion potential Islamic opponents already are. If ignorance is bliss, America might have cornered the market on happiness. But unless we get real and bend our brains around what motivates our enemy, we will never prevail against the increasing millions of polarized Muslims who are becoming more united with every explosion of smart bombs and every Yankee occupation boot stumping across their turf. It’s a commonly held belief among Muslims that the United States is grabbing their land in order to destroy their faith and their ancient way of life. Most believe that our unconditional support of repressive Muslim regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and other “friendly” Arab lands is all about keeping the people in chains and sucking up their oil on the cheap at a price that Joe and Jane Doe can pay at the U.S. pump without stroking out. “Bin Laden has been precise in telling America the reasons he is waging war on us,” writes “Anonymous,” the author of Imperial Hubris, a critically important book that defines Osama and what’s driving his bombers. And the reasons don’t “have anything to do with our freedom, liberty, and democracy, but have everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world.” A rationale that bin Laden – dressed in white robes topped by a golden cloak – repeated for our edification last week on global television. Both presidential candidates came back with canned sound bites, choosing to respond only to the medium, not the inconvenient message. The author of Imperial Hubris is a CIA intelligence analyst who’s spent almost two decades “focused exclusively on terrorism, Islamic insurgencies and the state of affairs of South Asia – Afghanistan and Pakistan.” He is our top intelligence gun on Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and the “dangers they pose and symbolize for the United States.” He writes: “The war bin Laden is waging has everything to do with the tenants of the Islamic religion. He could not have his current – and increasing – level of success if Muslims did not believe their faith, brethren, resources, and lands to be under attack by the United States and, more generally, the West.” Years after the fall of Tehran and almost 38 months after 9/11, our leaders still don’t recognize the scope of the bin Laden threat and keep repeating the same mistakes so often that many of the folks we’re fighting are convinced we’re crazy. As the author of Imperial Hubris puts it, “We have not yet begun to fight the kind of war needed to defeat the forces he (bin Laden) leads and inspires.” Our Islamic enemy might not have the capability for a Stalingrad or Saigon, but according to the terrorist beheader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, our soldiers in Iraq are “easy and mouthwatering targets.” History is peppered with examples of a numerically inferior insurgent opponent destroying a Goliath. Especially a Goliath who obviously learned nothing from the Vietnam experience. Israeli historian Martin van Creveld, one of the world’s top insurgency experts, says: “If you are strong, and you are fighting the weak ... (t)he problem is that you cannot prove yourself against someone who is much weaker than yourself – the Israeli forces have not yet lost, but they are, as far as I can see, well on their way to losing.” We have mindlessly waded into the same minefield and are getting clobbered daily. And we will never win over an enemy we refuse to understand. Col. David H. Hackworth (USA Ret.) is SFTT.org co-founder and Senior Military Columnist for DefenseWatch magazine. sftt.org