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: Ish who wrote (153756)	12/9/2004 1:08:15 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 281500

The Greatest Generation did immoral things in WW2 too. Who are we kidding? When there is all out war, terrible things do occur. Many soldiers after the fact recognize this and have to come to terms with it. WW2 returnees came home to the adulation of the crowd and threw themselves into building a better america and a better life for themselves. Vietnam vets were not so lucky and could not ignore their demons which in their case followed them home. Iraq will fall somewhere in between, i suspect. All those folks who were shocked with pics of iraqi insurgents/terrorists with ladies underwear over their head do not know how lucky most of those folks were compared to what happened in earlier wars. And anyone who thinks the US sucks in its treatment of these folks should look at the record of the germans, japanese, north koreans, north vietnamese and these iraqi terrorists. So dont pick on Ed is what i tried to say but as usual i may have gone far afield. mike

To: Ish who wrote (153756)	12/9/2004 2:05:04 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Respond to of 281500

Ish, are you getting a little to indignantly protective about any criticism of the war in Iraq? You said this: I was just wondering if he did all those things Kerry said he did and is now saying our troops are doing immoral things in Iraq. after asking if I'd served in Vietnam. The post that inspired that inguiry would seem to bring in Vietnam only in the sense that stupid then is stupid now. I.E.: ----------------------------------------------------------- Neolib, re: From a tactical standpoint, we should have backed off from Fallujah right near the end (after killing most of them) let it be known that we were pulling out, and they would have flocked back in over the next few weeks, at which point the exercise could be repeated with a similar kill ratio. Our soldiers lost over 100 lives in "cleaning out" Fallujah. I think we have to be careful not to fall into a "trees" kind of thinking. While it's true that we can think of all kinds of strategies to maximize our kill/loss ratio, we should never neglect to ask what it is that we are accomplishing with such body count tactics. In the case of Iraq it seems all too clear that we are educating the insurgents at a heavy cost to them, but at a heavy cost to us as well. If that heavy cost that the insurgents pay doesn't create fear-induced capitulation then the battle will continue with smarter tactics on their part. When you lose the lives of your soldiers in an effort that does not further your overall objectives, can you then claim any kind of a victory? The answer is that you can convincingly claim a victory only to those who see battles as the ends. Those who see winning the "war" as the end will never acknowledge; "we sure killed more of them and kicked their asses" as a victory. The proof; ask yourself if now that we've "cleaned out" Fallujah the locals are our friends and can take over and keep it clear? No? Why not? It's because the balance of "willing to die power" is not on "our" side there. We lost those 100+ lives pursuing a policy of urban warfare to "clean out" insurgents from a population in Fallujah that will continue to supply recruits and support insurgents. To repeat the process at a cost of scores more of our soldiers, (if the insurgents are even stupid or suicidal enough to stay put and get bombed, rocketed and shelled again,) would be just as wasteful in terms of trying to win the overall war as the first "clean out" was. I wouldn't want to have one more American die for such a silly strategy. When, and if, the various populations of Iraqis are willing to reject the insurgents ideas and goals, they won't need our help. As long as they refuse to reject those ideas and goals, however, our aggressive actions will not kill the resistance. It's not that difficult. Destroying Fallujah, attacking in Sammara, and similar aggressive actions that blow up part of the local population and inflame many others, may kill a few insurgents but will ultimately help, not hurt, their cause. With the seemingly endless number of jihadists willing to join the insurgents in that area, what are we gaining? Someday a lot of fathers and mothers of the dead, as well as their buddies, are going to want to hear a sound answer to that question. I don't think there is one. ---------------------------------------------------------- Instead of looking for ways to challenge the motives of the author, why don't you try to articulate a counter rationale? Or can you? Ed