Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by Luca on Mar 2, 2020 12:43:10 GMT -8
Because of our American military experience, we tend to think that wars are supposed to end with total victory and formal surrender of the opponent, as happened in The Civil War, the Spanish American war, World War I and World War II.
That’s when wars were between nation states and the losing nation state had to make a rational decision between surrender or risking destruction of their nation. The more common scenario now is Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan where we are not really fighting an identifiable international entity but rather a "movement" or a proxy.
So, yeah, you go in fast and blow things up and put the opponent back on his heels, but sometimes it’s best to stop there and not keep going, searching for that chimeric total victory against an ambiguous opponent. George Bush 41 did it right when he led a coalition against Saddam Hussein in a 100-hour war and then stopping. He got a lot of criticism for not going into Iraq and taking out Hussein, but subsequent experience shows what happens when you do that. You don’t necessarily have a choice between good and bad outcomes, more of a choice between bad and worse.........................Luca
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Mar 2, 2020 13:26:44 GMT -8
George Bush 41 did it right when he led a coalition against Saddam Hussein in a 100-hour war and then stopping. ........................Luca Although there is a convincing argument that his stopping short of taking out Saddam was viewed as weakness by those in the Middle East, particularly Osama Bin Laden. This led to more & more brazen attacks against the US by Al Qaeda with no fear of reprisal, ultimately concluding with the September 11th attacks. I'm with MDDad on this one, when you decide to go in, you hit so hard that not only does it stop the opponent, it makes future generations think twice about trying anything. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
Member is Online
|
Post by MDDad on Mar 2, 2020 13:34:51 GMT -8
I think I'm probably more in line with Trump's positions than most here are willing to admit. It's just that I think he is an utterly reprehensible human being with absolutely no human management skills. So like the "Bobby Knight" of NCAA Basketball! Effective but an A**!! Yeah, except that Knight had a terrible temper he couldn't control, while Trump is more like a retarded child. Furthermore, Trump couldn't throw a folding chair across a basketball court if his life depended on it. |
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by Luca on Mar 2, 2020 14:05:35 GMT -8
Although there is a convincing argument that his stopping short of taking out Saddam was viewed as weakness by those in the Middle East, particularly Osama Bin Laden. This led to more & more brazen attacks against the US by Al Qaeda with no fear of reprisal, ultimately concluding with the September 11th attacks. I'm with MDDad on this one, when you decide to go in, you hit so hard that not only does it stop the opponent, it makes future generations think twice about trying anything. But we eventually did take out Hussein and look at the results. You've got an unstable government with increasing influence by Iran. And we're still there with no clear idea how or when to get out. I have my doubts that not proceeding into Iraq is what convinced bin Laden to attack the US. He saw the US form an international coalition, transport an entire mechanized US Army halfway across the world, blow through the world's fourth largest Army in 100 hours and force humiliating concessions on Hussein. But not occupying Iraq is what made the impression on him? He saw the United States doing all the above in defense of an ally, but concluded that they would not respond to an attack on themselves? I don't buy that at all. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda had any number of idiosyncratic rationalizations to inevitably attack the US, but it's very hard for me to believe that the decision not to occupy Iraq was a decisive influence..............................Luca |
|
SK80
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 7,376
|
Post by SK80 on Mar 2, 2020 14:46:39 GMT -8
Because of our American military experience, we tend to think that wars are supposed to end with total victory and formal surrender of the opponent, as happened in The Civil War, the Spanish American war, World War I and World War II. Most likely in this historical sense, most wars ended with total victory and formal surrender. Yes in the Civil War the muskets of one side were set down as the muskets on the other won through musket attrition. Wars of history-lore were fought on more of an even keel. What we saw in WWII was a game changer with Japan. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, lights out, game over. In the middle east we could easily do that again. Yet we apply restraint now not to use the modern day muskets we posses. Because our weaponry is so dangerous to the existence of us all, the warfare today has become cyber. I wonder in the future if this puts us all on a newer or more even playing field. There could be a small keyboard warrior country that takes down a Goliath! Maybe even quickly without resorting or even needing hydrogen, atom or nuclear arsenal. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Mar 2, 2020 16:40:25 GMT -8
I see where you are coming from... and agree. i think Viet Nam changed our strategy: We went in, thinking we could stop communism, but the Viet Cong didn’t fight fair. No conventional war strategy, but jungle warfare. We thought what saved us and let us prevail on Iwo Jima and Midway would work in the same Jungles of Viet Nam, but they didn’t. we switched to trying to win the hearts of the people and, of course, Ho Chi Minh was better at that, too. Flash forward a few dozen years and we are in the Middle East fighting the Taliban, of course, but starting out trying to win the hearts of the people... only to find out, it still isn’t working for us. I guess I'm not all that interested in winning hearts and minds as it relates to military involvement. It "sounds" good, but there's a common theme to the results any time we get outside the intended use of Constitutionally approved activities. See, but you are against the FAILED strategy from Viet Nam, and most of us agree: Not only does it no longer work (if it ever did), but as you point out, it flirts with the edges of the Constitution (totally legal for the President to engage our troops as the CiC ... but if you're going to call it a war ... and when have we engaged troops that HASN'T been a war? ... you have to bring Congress in on it. So... why do we keep using it? I'm with MDDad: Go in if you have to, grind the enemy into dust, and leave. |
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by Luca on Mar 2, 2020 17:41:53 GMT -8
But what if the enemy is a non-governmental organization, ie, a political/terroroist movement that hides among the normal population and doesn't wear uniforms identifying them as such?
How do you "grind them into dust" if you cannot identify them? Christ, if it were that simple don't you think it would already have been done?...........................Luca
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Mar 2, 2020 17:52:19 GMT -8
Although there is a convincing argument that his stopping short of taking out Saddam was viewed as weakness by those in the Middle East, particularly Osama Bin Laden. This led to more & more brazen attacks against the US by Al Qaeda with no fear of reprisal, ultimately concluding with the September 11th attacks. I'm with MDDad on this one, when you decide to go in, you hit so hard that not only does it stop the opponent, it makes future generations think twice about trying anything. ...Bin Laden and Al Qaeda had any number of idiosyncratic rationalizations to inevitably attack the US, but it's very hard for me to believe that the decision not to occupy Iraq was a decisive influence..............................Luca It wasn't a failure to occupy, but rather what Bin Laden perceived as a failure to finish. Bin Laden saw the US as a paper tiger, extremely strong but lacking the will to get down & dirty and finish things, because finishing meant more intimate combat and a loss of life on our side. Bin Laden thought the American public lacked the stomach to see its soldiers come back from war dead. From what I read, it wasn't just Bush's decision in Iraq, it was also the timing of Reagan pulling our troops out of Beirut after the compound was car bombed. Many terrorists saw our restraint in both of those events as weakness. It puts our presidents in a no win situation. If they go in & wipe out the enemy completely (not occupy), we are seen on the world stage as bully's. If we show mercy, we are seen by potential enemies as weak. I think the former option, while full of problems, leads to the least bloodshed of Americans, so thats the direction I go. I would have had no problems literally wiping out the country of Iraq and all of its infrastructure. Give the Iraqi people 24 hours to flee the country & then level it. Not very compassionate, but makes enemies think twice about any kind of attack against us. |
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by Luca on Mar 2, 2020 18:37:32 GMT -8
The only way that you wipe out a opponent state is to invade their country. Once you have defeated their army you are now in power and by definition an occupier. International legal convention requires you to keep the peace and take care of the population. So “wiping out“ a nation-state opponent is the same as occupation and you’re screwed.
You guys are a lot more aggressive and tougher than I am. I would have a lot of problems with wiping out an entire country and its infrastructure or “grinding it to dust.”
There is also a “law of proportionality” regarding warfare in international law. Realistically, I don’t see how anybody would enforce it against the United States, but we are still ethically bound in warfare.
I just see things as a lot more complicated than “kicking ass and taking numbers.”...................Luca
|
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorFate on Mar 2, 2020 19:53:02 GMT -8
The only way that you wipe out a opponent state is to invade their country. Once you have defeated their army you are now in power and by definition an occupier. International legal convention requires you to keep the peace and take care of the population. So “wiping out“ a nation-state opponent is the same as occupation and you’re screwed. You guys are a lot more aggressive and tougher than I am. I would have a lot of problems with wiping out an entire country and its infrastructure or “grinding it to dust.” There is also a “law of proportionality” regarding warfare in international law. Realistically, I don’t see how anybody would enforce it against the United States, but we are still ethically bound in warfare. I just see things as a lot more complicated than “kicking ass and taking numbers.”...................Luca I would not be in favor of nuking cities or the like. But with today's smart bombs, and cruise missiles and such, which can land within a few feet of their targets, we have the ability to bomb our enemies into the stone age, without killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, by only targeting infrastructure, ships, planes, tanks, and troop concentrations etc. |
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Mar 3, 2020 7:00:06 GMT -8
The only way that you wipe out a opponent state is to invade their country. Once you have defeated their army you are now in power and by definition an occupier. International legal convention requires you to keep the peace and take care of the population. So “wiping out“ a nation-state opponent is the same as occupation and you’re screwed. You guys are a lot more aggressive and tougher than I am. I would have a lot of problems with wiping out an entire country and its infrastructure or “grinding it to dust.” There is also a “law of proportionality” regarding warfare in international law. Realistically, I don’t see how anybody would enforce it against the United States, but we are still ethically bound in warfare. I just see things as a lot more complicated than “kicking ass and taking numbers.”...................Luca Damn it doc...until I just looked into it 30 minutes ago, I hadn't realized we had an obligation to the citizens of the conquered country. Not sure to what extent that means, but it sounds like it shoots the simplistic notion of "kick ass and get out" right in the forehead. Both the Hague Regulations and the Geneva Convention articulate what's required. If nothing else, I've got a different perspective on our activities in Iraq that I considered to be ambitious nation building. We may have started down a path per our obligations, and then in hindsight, continued well past the intended target. But the initial direction was apparently sound. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Mar 3, 2020 7:01:08 GMT -8
But what if the enemy is a non-governmental organization, ie, a political/terroroist movement that hides among the normal population and doesn't wear uniforms identifying them as such? How do you "grind them into dust" if you cannot identify them? Christ, if it were that simple don't you think it would already have been done?...........................Luca That, too, was an issue in Viet Nam and an underlying reason why reaching the hearts of the people became part of the strategy. Yes, if it was easy to do, of course it would have been done, but it was not easy. |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Mar 3, 2020 7:16:14 GMT -8
But what if the enemy is a non-governmental organization, ie, a political/terroroist movement that hides among the normal population and doesn't wear uniforms identifying them as such? How do you "grind them into dust" if you cannot identify them? Christ, if it were that simple don't you think it would already have been done?...........................Luca That, too, was an issue in Viet Nam and an underlying reason why reaching the hearts of the people became part of the strategy. Yes, if it was easy to do, of course it would have been done, but it was not easy. Dave - I've given this hearts and minds thing some more thought. What I can't get my head around, is the notion that anyone would freely support another who is pointing a loaded M4 at them. It would seem that hearts and minds, and military presence, are oil & water. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Mar 3, 2020 8:17:47 GMT -8
That, too, was an issue in Viet Nam and an underlying reason why reaching the hearts of the people became part of the strategy. Yes, if it was easy to do, of course it would have been done, but it was not easy. Dave - I've given this hearts and minds thing some more thought. What I can't get my head around, is the notion that anyone would freely support another who is pointing a loaded M4 at them. It would seem that hearts and minds, and military presence, are oil & water. Isn’t it possible you’re combining two different audiences into one? take Viet Nam as an example: As Luca pointed out, it was difficult to identify the North Viet Nam soldiers who were dressed as farmers from the South Vietnamese farmers. So, we built schools, hosted medical clinics, improved roads... all in hopes that winning the hearts of the Vietnamese people would aid our military strategy. The only people with .44’s pointed at them were those we believed were the enemy... in principle, anyway: In practice, maybe not so cut-and-dried. |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Mar 3, 2020 10:23:53 GMT -8
I don't think so. Doesn't it seem when we're talking about hearts and minds, the military is involved? While perhaps not directly pointed at them, even a slung M4 sends a colored message.
|
|
