Comments on: Win Without a Win

By: Kilo

Kilo — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:32:16 +0000

“If the liberals want a stalemate on the war against terror, they will see another 911 tragedy on their own home ground.“
Posted by: pedestrian at March 26, 2007 10:42 AM
Yeah. Or if the liberals don’t want that you’ll get nothing different. Or if liberals want immediate withdrawal you’ll still get the same thing.
In all scenarios whether liberals want a stalemate or not this has been achieved without them having any influence over the establishment of this stalement whatsoever. Attacks on western targets by jihadists were sought even before a stalemate was apparent.
Yet it never fails to amaze how many different ways liberals have undermined how occupying a hostile nation without a plan for occupation turned out. Or how waiting 4 years to implement a COIN strategy in a COIN operation turned out.

By: Kilo

Kilo — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:18:36 +0000

Dave, the “military industrial complex” is getting funding cut on things like FCS and JSF to help pay for this war. Try again.
Posted by: Brian at March 26, 2007 03:29 PM
Gee… if only creating such instability in the middle east would cause foreign governments to increase military purchases from US suppliers they wouldn’t have to eat dog food out of a can.
What decade was it that multi-national defense suppliers were solely reliant on a single product line and a single government purchaser for profitability ?
Could someone find a decent player of the size that they are suppling shit like JSFs that is suffering ?
LMAO.

By: Solomon

Solomon — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 04:42:29 +0000

Every war that we’ve fought and tied (or lost) has been wars of discretion. When America is threatened, (and that has truly only happened during WW2, War of 1812 and maybe WW1)we are vicious . When others are in danger, we’re helpful– we’re kind but we’re not willing to sacrifice all. Thats why we tie or lose.

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:29:54 +0000

Dave, the “military industrial complex” is getting funding cut on things like FCS and JSF to help pay for this war. Try again.

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:05:39 +0000

We would have been better off bombing half of the Iraqi’s to kingdom come than letting thing draw out into this miserable stalemate. The only winners here are the Military-Industrial complex.

By: Joris

Joris — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 17:33:21 +0000

I think there’s some thruth in the spoiling strategy. But I don’t think it’s an really thought thru strategy. I think it’s more of a balance between the political strategists (thus also the ruling political party) and the militairy strategists (Pentagon). Sometimes it swings to this side and the other time to the other…

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:24:03 +0000

There will always be another 9/11, pedestrian. It may take 10 years, 20 years, or 50 years. Or it may happen tomorrow. But it WILL happen again.
Will dropping a nuke stop that? It certainly wouldn’t have been a good idea in Vietnam, or in Iraq. We don’t need nukes to exterminate the population of a third-world country. We could do that with our standard military weapons. The question becomes, when have you passed the point of reasonable force? No one will ever accuse me of being a dove, I supported the invasion of Iraq and still support it today. But we went into both Iraq and Vietnam to set a people free, not to kill them all.

By: pedestrian

pedestrian — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:42:46 +0000

It only takes several nukes to win a war which the enemy will cease to exist. We could have been done it in Vietnam War, and against Iraq as well, but we didn’t. We decided not to.
If the liberals want a stalemate on the war against terror, they will see another 911 tragedy on their own home ground. If their favorite former president Clinton wiped out Al Qaida in Afghanistan earlier in the first place, the liberals might not had seen a 911 tragedy. They will see it happen again in their own blue states.

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:13:40 +0000

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that this is a purposeful strategy, perhaps an unintended benefit.
By not putting all our eggs in one basket, we limit the harm that would come from a true defeat. There’s no battle of Midway, no place where American power can be truly defeated. Of course, that’s not to say that we wouldn’t be in an even better position had we devoted full attention and resources and achieved a victory instead of a stalemate. Of course, there’s nothing saying we wouldn’t have started a nuclear war in doing so and been just a pile of radioactive ash, either.
Things are never as bad, or as good, as they seem. It’s good to read an article like this that keeps everything in perspective. The War on Terror will not be won or lost with Iraq.

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:36:47 +0000

What a great post!
I had just gotten done reading the NYT, where things seem to be painted in terms of Red/Blue all the time, and it’s mentally refreshing to see a different color.
Makes me wonder what the philosophical/strategic thinkers in the Pentagon are up to of late.
Dave