TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The War Strategy

The War Strategy

Thought this was a good article. Clear, concise, to the point.

Source

quote:

Yes, Virginia, the U.S. Has a War Strategy December 6, 2005; Page A21 One of the most remarkable assertions of the anti-Bush, antiwar choristers is that the U.S. has no "strategy for victory." One wonders where they have been these last four years. The strategy's goal has been clear since September 11, 2001: To defeat the jihadists who made it abundantly evident on that bright morning in New York that they are waging war on the U.S. The U.S. method has been spelled out repeatedly as well: Attack the jihadists on their own ground and replace their protectors with democratic governments that share U.S. values. This has been defined as the "Bush doctrine." In November's 60th-anniversary issue of Commentary, no fewer than 36 leading scholars debated it, a rather strong suggestion that such a doctrine exists. Admittedly, they were mostly friendly "neocons," but who else these days has anything interesting to say about foreign policy? The Bush critics aren't dense. They know full well what the Bush doctrine is all about. They know as well that it has had some rather impressive results, forcing the leaders of al Qaeda out of their base in Afghanistan and beginning the process of turning that war-stricken country into a state where an elected government backed by NATO forces provides a higher degree of personal security than Afghans have enjoyed in decades. The invasion of Iraq was not only about weapons of mass destruction, although "Bush-lied" canards have confused this issue as well. It was also about establishing a U.S. war-fighting beachhead in the heart of the Middle East, the principal breeding ground of terrorists. The invasion took out one terrorism sponsor, Saddam Hussein, and gave the U.S. a presence for intimidating two others, Iran and Syria. The claim that Saddam had no connections with al Qaeda -- because Arab socialism and Islamic zealotry don't mix -- came from CIA analysts with an unhappy record of inaccurate perceptions. There are in fact plenty of circumstantial links, but even if Saddam wasn't doing al Qaeda's bidding, he certainly sponsored Mideast terrorism. To counter the latest "no-strategy" claims, the White House was forced to explain it all again last week. Mr. Bush did so in a speech to naval cadets at Annapolis and the White House put up a long document on its Web site detailing the seven pillars of a policy fleshed out as long ago as 2003. Press sophisticates complained that there was nothing new. Of course not. The strategy has been there all along. It was endorsed by both parties and dates back, in rudimentary fashion, to the Clinton years. Serious Democrats like Sen. Joe Lieberman know that it would be a grave error to abandon it at this point, a point he made in this newspaper last week. The document on the White House Web site details a U.S. government doctrine designed and implemented by the commander in chief and approved by the Congress. It is the core of U.S. foreign policy and even though it is not "new," the greater detail makes the document worth reading by anyone with a serious interest in understanding what is going on and what is at stake. Cynics might scoff that it is White House "propaganda," which of course it is in the broadest sense of that word, but it is also an effort to explain to Americans why winning in Iraq is of vital importance to them. That such an explanation should be necessary at this point derives from a number of factors. The American political debate has become intensely polarized as the Democrats and their allies in the press and academia have become increasingly anxious about their chances of regaining political power. This is manifested in something approaching hatred for George W. Bush. Because of the president's domestic failures, particularly his loss of popularity on the right through his failure to control government expansionism, the Democrats sense weakness. There are also signs of public weariness with the war. The "War on Terror" has dragged on longer than America's involvement in World War II, although of course with infinitely fewer casualties. The Bush critics detect impatience in the electorate, hence their calls for setting a specific date when the U.S. will withdraw its troops from Iraq -- a move that would clearly be an enormous mistake, giving Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his murderous gang an incentive to continue their campaign of bombings and mutilation. The Department of Homeland Security is proud of the fact that there hasn't been a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, and that is indeed something to be thankful for. But it has perhaps given Americans a false sense of security that erodes the shock of the 9/11 atrocity and leads to a belief that the "War on Terror" is not as serious as it was first made out to be. One problem is the abstract description. It is not a war on terror, but a defensive struggle against ruthless fanatics who have dedicated their lives to the destruction of Western civilization. They dream of an Islamic "caliphate" stretching from the Far East to the coast of Spain, ruled over by the equivalent of Iran's ayatollahs with an equal disdain for human freedom and dignity. Finally, there may be a legitimate anxiety that the administration has underestimated the enemy. Nowhere is the antipathy toward America and the West more clearly manifested than in Iran. The mullahs are hell-bent on developing a nuclear weapon with which to threaten their neighbors. Getting Iraq under control is urgent because of what may be the next threat in the Middle East. Mr. Bush made it clear at the outset that this war would be a long one -- 30 years in the view of some analysts. It is being fought in the shadows on many fronts. It depends heavily on the gathering of intelligence on where the enemy is and what he is up to, something that the CIA is finally beginning to take seriously through the deployment of more secret agents. But the strategy couldn't be clearer: Defeat the fanatics and tyrants by promoting freedom and democracy. The strategy is in fact working, believe it or not. Write to George Melloan at [email protected]

As scary as some people make Bush to be, I personally find the Islamo-fascist fanatics scarier.
At least we know for the most part what Bush and Co. is up to.
He's at least accountable to someone. The anti-Bush squawkers would say otherwise, however the built in democratic process of a simple vote answers their call.

I'll never forget the uncertainty and horrible feeling in the pit of my stomach the day of 9/11 and I was in Toronto!
What the hell are they going to hit in Toronto???
That may sound stupid but that's the whole point I guess, the psyche of terror lives in the unknown.
The only way to overcome fear is action and in that, I am thankful action was taken albeit overdue and in the shadow of many lost lives before and after the catalyst of 9/11.

This is a good article? I'm sorry but it basically recycles the vague supposed "pros" of going to war in Iraq without addressing any of the specifics that its opponents raise. The best he can do is concoct ad-hominem attacks against CIA evidence without attacking the evidence and analysis itself? Is he really attempting to lump together Iraqi geo-political policy towards Israel as a synonymous threat towards the US? Do you really believe that Shakka or Fir3start3r? If so, should the US have been at war against itself for supporting Afghani terrorism against the Soviets in the 70's, or for supporting South American terror groups that overthrew legitimate governments in the 80's? Does this author really think that I'm so much an infantile that I can be easily seduced by oversimplifying complex political situations with buzz words and thus mischaracterizing what actually consitutes legitimate threats to the United States? Do YOU think it's that simple? Do Iraqi hostilities towards its own ethnic population and the Israelis constitute threats to the United States? If so, than by all means you're going to have to explain Republican opposition to the Balkan War.

Furthermore it lauds the "circumstancial" evidence that we're supposed to believe presents a convincing case for links to Al-Qaeda. The same circumstancial evidence that was used to justify the existence of WMDs that we now know to be false. Is this guy really serious???

Look, let's do a simple cost-benefit analysis here. Do you believe that the benefits of going to war in Iraq outweigh the costs? We'll go by this douche-bag's pros and cons: his pros are that Iraq is no longer a state sponsor to Israeli terrorism and that we're "intimidating" Syria and Iran (right ... Iran looks REALLY intimidated ). The cons are, well difficult to say at this point. From a quantitative standpoint we've been at war for 2.5 years at a cost of $225 billion and some 2,100 dead. I won't even try to extrapolate that out to 30 years as this author suggests. I won't even try to guess at corrolary effects such as anti-US resentment and growing Al-Qaeda support that this war has encouraged. This war isn't consolidating radicalism in one place, it's causing a sharp growth in radicalism. But hey, tell me honestly, is this war worth the costs?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider This is a good article?

yep.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka yep.

Well I'm convinced. Strangely it answers all of my questions while addressing none of them. How fulfilling.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well I'm convinced. Strangely it answers all of my questions while addressing none of them. How fulfilling.

Well, since you've stated you have no plans to ever have any offspring, I can see why you might not think there is any value to the strategy. I happen to feel differently. While the war has certainly created more heightened tensions and some increased radicalism in the near-term (don't all wars and conflicts to a great extent?), I am a true believer in the long-term benefits that I believe will be achieved by finally addressing this 30+ year old issue head on.

Again, the article is clear and concise. It states the goals of the "Bush Doctrine", the expected results, and outlines how those results are expected to be achieved. Our job is to not lose our will and to see the mission through or else it truly will be a failure.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Well, since you've stated you have no plans to ever have any offspring, I can see why you might not think there is any value to the strategy. I happen to feel differently. While the war has certainly created more heightened tensions and some increased radicalism in the near-term (don't all wars and conflicts to a great extent?), I am a true believer in the long-term benefits that I believe will be achieved by finally addressing this 30+ year old issue head on. Again, the article is clear and concise. It states the goals of the "Bush Doctrine", the expected results, and outlines how those results are expected to be achieved. Our job is to not lose our will and to see the mission through or else it truly will be a failure.

I take plenty of value in strategy. After all I am paying for this war and my fellow americans are dying. I just didn't see much strategy there other than really to "win". Yes I saw the attack Al-Qaeda on the homegrown message, but Iraq doesn't really fit that bill does it? Also none of my questions were answered either. Do you take much value in answering questions?

Do you believe the value of going to war in 1941 was worth the cost? Eerie question considering what day it is.

Yes. Did Saddam Hussein plan or fund 9/11?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Yes. Did Saddam Hussein plan or fund 9/11?

Did I say he did? Did Germany plan or fund Pearl Harbor?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Did I say he did? Did Germany plan or fund Pearl Harbor?

Ok. So are you saying that the threats posed by Saddam Hussein are analagous to the threats posed by Hitler? What kind of correlation should we draw between 1941 and 2003?

What I was really getting at was you saying it wasn't worth the cost, human or financial. I say that has yet to be determined, and it will probably take many years to really be able to make a confident conclusion. But in any event, human casualties in WWII far outweighed the human losses that we've seen so far in the current war (as articulated by the writer). As far as the financials go, you have a good grip on that department, so figure out the inflation since then and we should have a good apples to apples comparison. I'd say the current one is probably more financially costly if for no other reason than for the fact that our weapons systems are so much more advanced technologically. Energy costs are certainly a lot higher now too.

Aren't you Bush apologists tired of attempting to tie 9/11 to Saddam yet? How many times do you have to beat that dead horse? If you were truly serious about fighting in the War on Terrorism, don't cha think we would have continued pursuing and eliminating/reducing al Qaeda numbers by now, instead of actually creating the opposite effect of creating more numbers and creating a hot bed for their training camps in Iraq?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka What I was really getting at was you saying it wasn't worth the cost, human or financial. I say that has yet to be determined, and it will probably take many years to really be able to make a confident conclusion......

This analogy of WWII is another talking point that simply has to go. Please stop comparing Saddam, a crippled little pissant who had no power to do anything outside his country to Hitler, who as we all know was pretty damn close to taking over almost all of Europe and God knows what else after that point. But aside of that point, you state that the cost has yet to be determined. Well I've got a bit of a problem with that-

Don't cha think we should have maybe thought of these things beforehand? Yes, I know, we can't see the future, and hindsight is always nice to hold. I grant that, however our motive for outweighing the "cost" was a simple one - eliminate Saddam's WMD and eliminate his ties to al Qaeda.

Which one of those is worth the cost, given that neither were true?

And the fact that we invaded a country to post our spot in the Middle East to put pressure on other surrounding terrorist-sponsoring countries? That is the point of the article really. Well it's interesting, because anyone with half a fucking brain knew full well this is precisely what the neocon douchebags had in mind from the getgo - it was a geopolitical maneuver plain and simple.

But show me one fucking god damn document or statement from Bush, Cheney, Rice, or fucking anyone from 2002 to the summer of 2003, a few months after the invasion where they admit as such. Just one statement will do.

I'd venture to say you won't find one. Oh, but you'll find a shitload of WMD, mushroom cloud, al Qaeda, etc. etc. statements won't you? But not one in which their true motive of setting up a post at any and every American "cost" in a region in which, to be frank, we've got no fucking business being in there outside of a financial one. And if anything, we could even be nipping that financial ****** in the bud if we consider some highly effective fuel efficient ideas here in the States.

So now it's a geopolitical move. Go fucking figure. Like we didn't already know the original motives for fuck's sake. But why not tell the public this from the getgo? Why not try to sell that to everyone from the start, instead of MANIPULATING the intelligence to bolster a case of Saddam being a thread with WMD capability with al Qaeda ties? Why'd they do that?


And finally, I want to know the fucking plan. WHAT IS THE FUCKING QUALITATIVE, MEASURABLE PLAN HERE? There was not one fucking part of Bush's speech in which he gave measurable outcomes to make objective judgements on whether or not progress is being made. That is PRECISELY what the bipartisan Congressional bill had demanded from this Administration, and they have yet to answer to it.

Why is that?

Why do you think that, to this day, they do not have any measurable means of determining when we have achieved "success"?

And what is "success", by the way?

What is "victory"? I've heard that countless fucking times from this Administration in their attempts to fight back the Iraq critics, which happen to be the majority of the public now. What exactly is an objective measure of "victory"? I love schoolbooks being distributed as much as the next American citizen in a foreign country (despite the lack of them being distributed to certain school districts in our own country, but I digress), but let's talk about what exactly is a measurement for "victory". Do you know of any?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka What I was really getting at was you saying it wasn't worth the cost, human or financial. I say that has yet to be determined, and it will probably take many years to really be able to make a confident conclusion. But in any event, human casualties in WWII far outweighed the human losses that we've seen so far in the current war (as articulated by the writer). As far as the financials go, you have a good grip on that department, so figure out the inflation since then and we should have a good apples to apples comparison. I'd say the current one is probably more financially costly if for no other reason than for the fact that our weapons systems are so much more advanced technologically. Energy costs are certainly a lot higher now too.

I'm not arguing that the costs of this war are beyond our means. This is nothing compared to the cost of WW2 or WW1. I'm arguing that the costs of this war today already outweigh the benefits of this war. This isn't a defensive war. This is an offensive war provoked by an attack from a third-party. Not that I'm against all offensive wars, so long as we do it for a really fucking good tangible reason that is worth the money I'm paying and the blood of potentially me and my fellow Americans.

I'm a conservative and I don't believe in nation building. So I don't buy this bullshit of building democracy in the Middle East and providing freedom to other people with expensive wars as means to curb terrorism or whatever 20 years from now. Unless someone poses an imminent threat to our national security or is committing genocide, I'm fine leaving them the fuck alone. Otherwise I might as well jump on the welfare society bandwagon so we can "curb crime" which we might or might not see sometime in the next 20 years or whatever. What I find hard to believe is how many "conservatives" believe in this shit that the Bush administration is selling. Tell me this, why don't we now spend $300 billion in aid to Africa to curb poverty because it's the next "terrorist breeding ground" or some other intangible nation building crap? And tell you what, why don't we raise taxes to pay for this shit so we can actually be fiscal conservatives?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 This analogy of WWII is another talking point that simply has to go. Please stop comparing Saddam, a crippled little pissant who had no power to do anything outside his country to Hitler, who as we all know was pretty damn close to taking over almost all of Europe and God knows what else after that point.

Isn't it funny how you can declare something a talking point and be done with it without addressing it. It's an equally relevant comparison if not moreso than all of those happy Dems who want to declare Iraq the next Vietnam, even though it's an even more ludicrous comparison. Dontcha think?

Hitler didn't almost take over Europe overnight. It's not like Saddam has never tried to aggressively expand his empire. Kuwait anyone? Lobbing bombs at Israel? Oh yeah, I forgot. That was a long time ago. He's a much nicer guy now.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Unless someone poses an imminent threat to our national security or is committing genocide, I'm fine leaving them the fuck alone. Otherwise I might as well jump on the welfare society bandwagon so we can "curb crime" which we might or might not see sometime in the next 20 years or whatever. What I find hard to believe is how many "conservatives" believe in this shit that the Bush administration is selling. Tell me this, why don't we now spend $300 billion in aid to Africa to curb poverty because it's the next "terrorist breeding ground" or some other intangible nation building crap? And tell you what, why don't we raise taxes to pay for this shit so we can actually be fiscal conservatives?

What constitutes genocide? Do mass graves and chemical attacks on hundreds of thousands of your own citizens count?

But seriously, in the end I do respect your opinion on this. I do share many of the same concerns, I guess I just put less weight in the concerns and more weight in what I believe the ultimate outcome may bring. I just tend to have a slightly different point-of-view on the matter.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Tell me this, why don't we now spend $300 billion in aid to Africa to curb poverty because it's the next "terrorist breeding ground"...

Probably because that would be like pissing in the wind.
When was "Band Aid" again? 20 years ago? Why are we still watching starving people on T.V.??? Where the hell did my donation go and why are they still starving!!??
Don't get me wrong, world philanthropy is a great thing, but there's a line I draw between greif and expectation.
What I mean by that is that if I'm going to shell out my earned money on a consistant basis (a one time donation I see as different), I would expect there would be, at some point, a willingness, or some semblance, of improvement.
Are they actually improving or are they just learning the drop off points really well with better clothes?
It's not that I normally expect anything in return but this? After 20 years???
I'm not going to stop mine you, but a little hope and a light at the end of the tunnel would be nice...

(Sorry to hi-jack Shakka, but that arguement really gets my goat)

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Isn't it funny how you can declare something a talking point and be done with it without addressing it. It's an equally relevant comparison if not moreso than all of those happy Dems who want to declare Iraq the next Vietnam, even though it's an even more ludicrous comparison. Dontcha think? Hitler didn't almost take over Europe overnight. It's not like Saddam has never tried to aggressively expand his empire. Kuwait anyone? Lobbing bombs at Israel? Oh yeah, I forgot. That was a long time ago. He's a much nicer guy now.

+1!

I don't buy into the "Iraq = Vietnam" thing either.
Ranks right up there with "Bush = Hitler" and "No War for Oil" arguements...

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Isn't it funny how you can declare something a talking point and be done with it without addressing it. It's an equally relevant comparison if not moreso than all of those happy Dems who want to declare Iraq the next Vietnam, even though it's an even more ludicrous comparison. Dontcha think?

While I don't think Vietnamn is a good comparison, it's a hell of a lot better than that to WWII!!!

quote:

Hitler didn't almost take over Europe overnight.

Actually, he almost did. In a year he took most of europe.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Isn't it funny how you can declare something a talking point and be done with it without addressing it.

I did address it:

quote:

Please stop comparing Saddam, a crippled little pissant who had no power to do anything outside his country to Hitler, who as we all know was pretty damn close to taking over almost all of Europe and God knows what else after that point.

And I'll continue to address it further if you wish. You replied to my retort, which obviously entails you know I addressed the issue. So please stop being ignorant of my replies.

quote:

It's an equally relevant comparison if not moreso than all of those happy Dems who want to declare Iraq the next Vietnam, even though it's an even more ludicrous comparison. Dontcha think?

Now you know better than that. You know full well that I have avoided that comparison for obvious reasons. If you want to create a strawman by stating what someone else has said, you're more than welcome to do so. I could just as easily beat up on an asinine Hannity/Limbaugh/Coulter point, but considering I don't know whether or not you support that position, my argument wouldn't be very strong against you, would it?

But simply throwing that analogy around to counter the argument of just how shitty things are going there, as well as fail to answer the basic question I posed on what exactly is a measurable, qualitative objectives to encite the "victory" cheer doesn't hold water very well at all.

quote:

Hitler didn't almost take over Europe overnight. It's not like Saddam has never tried to aggressively expand his empire. Kuwait anyone? Lobbing bombs at Israel? Oh yeah, I forgot. That was a long time ago. He's a much nicer guy now.

Did I ever say he was a little sweetheart? Did I ever say that I think we should ignore him altogether? Did I ever say that he hasn't done things eeeeevil in the past?

Then let's stop swatting at ghosts and address each other's points. The issue at hand is the fact that Saddam was NOT a threat by any standards that we know of today. He was well contained, at least that's what Rice, Powell, and Cheney believed:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresi...vp20010916.html

The world is full of eeeevil people, Shakka, and we had a pretty damn good hot pursuit of arguably the most eeevil of them all, the one that actually attacked us. We threw that all away just to go after a fucking weakling that was effectively crippled by our sanctions. There is no excuse for that action, none whatsoever.

And there's no excuse for this Administration to bolster it's bullshit case for Saddam's supposed weaponry, nor is there any fucking excuse for them to tie him to 9/11 or al Qaeda.

And there's really, really, REALLY no fucking excuse for how they completely handwaved away any advice by decorated generals and war veterans who know better on how to handle the post-war situation.

To this very day there isn't enough armour on their vehicles. They didn't have enough troops to protect the explosives now stolen, they don't have enough to secure the borders, they don't have enough to fully secure fucking any hotbeds whatsoever.

But the icing on the cake, of course, is the new Islamic fundamentalist regime we are helping install in his place that is in leagues with another big time problem of ours, Iran.

Speaking of which, they are just months away from a "nukular" weapon, according to the IAEA (who happen to be pretty fucking accurate on things, unlike this Administration). How now brown cow?

But we've been done this road before. Why the rehash?

And wasn't Saddam lobbing those bombs DURING a war? Not to excuse his actions, but let's put it in context here. And IF we're going to take out Saddam, then let's put the blame where it was due: George Bush Sr.

But then again, both Cheney and Bush had a few things to say against nation building:

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/17/cheney-flashback/

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/conne...828_joel29.html

That is, until they came to power themselves. Why the flip-flop?

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r +1! I don't buy into the "Iraq = Vietnam" thing either. Ranks right up there with "Bush = Hitler" and "No War for Oil" arguements...

Nice pom poms there Buffy.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.