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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KonKilo who wrote (24551)	7/20/2006 10:04:50 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541326

Every war we have ever fought was against a state or leader, and with a definite aim. Al Qaeda has leaders. It isn't a state but we have used military force against non-state actors before. Every war has a definite aim? Not really. Our aims have shifted or otherwise not been concrete in a number of wars. Take for example Vietnam. Yes we had the general aim of protecting the government in the South and preventing all of Vietnam from becoming communist, but when and how we would win was never nailed down. We have general aims in this war as well, but against shifting strategies and ideas. How substantial? Would one 911-type attack per year suffice? Less? That would be an increase, hardly a substantial decrease. My thoughts are that war can accomplish some things very well, uniquely so, but that complex and muddled situations are best not addressed militarily. Many wars are complex and muddled. If the other side is using force you don't necessarily have a chance to wait for perfect clarity before using force. Specific applications in this war are less muddled, only the overall "blueprint for victory" is muddled. The attack against Afghanistan for example had an aim as specific as in most wars. Even Iraq had a somewhat specific aim (you might argue the aim was a mistake, but that doesn't mean there wasn't an aim. Tim