Morality

[Happy Monkey]

But if the bad guys get you to do their work for them, you lose worse.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Wolf, not true. Defending doesn’t mean staying put and repelling attacks. It also includes counterattacks, going after the attackers no matter how far they flee. But that doesn’t mean attacking everyone along the way, you don’t like, when they’re not involved with the attackers.

Afghanistan was a logical target and would have rounded up Bin Laden if it weren’t bungled by politicians that wouldn’t commit the forces necessary to seal the borders before rounding them up.

Attacking Iraq just because they were the baddest army in the middle east (except Israel), to put the fear of Bush in the rest, is just plain aggression. The thing we claim to be against.

Originally Posted by wolf

I don't know gang. If all you do is defend, all you do is lose.

That's the problem. We are not even actually defending ourselves. The real culprit, Bin Laden, is still frisking around out there somewhere, and, meantime, we have become bogged down in a major war against a nation that was NOT responsible for 9/11. All we are doing is proving that we can't engage with our REAL enemy. Self defense is not involved here. Its about time that it is.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Very few people dispute the notion that Afghanistan was a good move, and the US was not attacked by Afghanistan.

We had 'em dead to rights on aiding and abetting.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Very few people dispute the notion that Afghanistan was a good move, and the US was not attacked by Afghanistan.

The justification for war is the smoking gun. Smoking gun clearly existed in Pearl Harbor, the invasion of Kuwait, and 11 September. It never existed in Vietnam, Somalia, or Iraq. In each 'smoking gun' case, no doubt, both in America and among all American allies, that war was justified. The invasion of Afghanistan was so justified that most every nation in the world would have sent troops.

But back then, American principles garnered respect. Back then, in each case, America had a leader with sufficient intelligence rather than only political extremist rhetoric. Today America has even undermined world support for war in Afghanistan. Our leader is that "immoral" - a word defined from military principles rather than from a religious perspective.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Iraq may have been a bad move, but that doesn't mean withdrawal from the entire board is a better one.

If that was true, then the withdrawal from Somalia was just as bad for exact same reasons. If that was true, then the American withdrawal from Vietnam caused massacres and a holocaust. That was the reasoning by war hawks who would have America still fighting the Vietnam war? Of course they were wrong. They failed to comprehend even the basic purpose of war.

UT must learn what is the fundamental purpose of war: to create a settlement at the political negotiation table. That is what happened in WWII. That is what happened in Vietnam. That is what happened in Korea. That is what happened in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Serbia with results far beyond what anyone expected. That is necessary in Iraq.

Victory - at the negotiation table - is not possible when your president did not even know what countries bordered Israel. To fight a war on some mythical idea that we will destroy the insurgency is bogus - rubbish - the mentality of military types who never even learned basic military doctrine - also found in Vietnam victories measured by body counts. An Iraqi insurgency created by America because, again, wacko extremists in the White House masking as military smart have no idea of another concept even taught in a primer on war:

Hence what is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations. And therefore the general who understands war is the Minister of the people's fate and arbiter of the nation's destiny.

Said another way, 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Management who would continue war in Iraq for the next ten years chasing a mythical victory. Under current strategy as even defined in a most simplistic primer of war, America will be fighting in Iraq for at least one decade - until someone has enough balls to say "enough".

Currently the destiny of America is another defeat - in Iraq. The insurgency has at least doubled in only one year. The number of terrorist attacks is now about 50 per day. An Iraqi army of 20,000 built by Americans could only field 1500 troops. And now that number decreased to 500 troops. Whole Iraqi battalions deserted when deployed in Falluja, et al. Recently, the 2000th American died. Now the number is over 2,100 and growing faster every month - just like Vietnam. This is what the mental midget president calls victory? How did we turn "Mission Accomplished" into a 'bleeding to death' war. America is losing the war in Iraq as defined in Sun Tzu lessons on how to defeat a militarily superior force.

I asked this question before. I said "enough" in The Vote: 90 to 9.

Do we massively deploy troops to Iraq or do we get out? The current situation is not winnable - as was obvious so many years ago. It should now be obvious even to those without military training. You the reader must decide whether America does [a] ... massive American deployment to a war once declared "Mission Accomplished", or do we cut our losses so that many more thousands of Americans - soldiers in the field and civilians around the world - are not killed.

Amazed how many in the Cellar would not touch "enough". How can one so hate America as to not be decisive? Do we continue to waste best Americans in a war that can only be won by deploying 0.5 million or more troops? As demonstrated by history so many times, either we go in, win the war decisively (as in WWII, Kuwait, the Balkans, and Korea) or we get out (as in Somolia). Those are the only winning options in Iraq. Up front, UT - do you have a solution? Let's here it.

Meanwhile, who will address this concept of "morality"? Who will have mental fortitude to commit themselves to one of the only two winning options?

[Undertoad]

UT must learn what is the fundamental purpose of war: to create a settlement at the political negotiation table.

The settlement in Afghanistan was what?

[warch]

Taliban be gone?

[xoxoxoBruce]

I beg to differ on WW II, TW.
No negotiation table, unconditional surrender.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I beg to differ on WW II, TW.
No negotiation table, unconditional surrender.

Unconditional surrender were conditions before talks at a WWII negotiation table could start. Even with unconditional surrender, negotiations included who is to be jailed for trial, guidelines for how occupation is conducted, placement of the conquered army, the future status of an emperor, and much 'nation building' that George Jr insisted America must not do. All wars end in negotiations no matter how one sided those negotiations might be.

Meanwhile, UT, there is no end of the war in Afghanistan - as indicated by no negotiations, continued conflict, etc. The purpose of war is to take the conflict back to the negotiation table. Nothing new about that long and well understood principle. And that is my point. If one does not even understand a most basic concepts, then how is one suppose to even understand what justifies war?

Since the Iraq war was entered without any 'smoking gun' and without a strategic objective, then the Iraq war also has no exit strategy and no benchmark to work toward. Classic mistake also made by Westmoreland in Vietnam. The exit strategy was to surrender Vietnam back to the Vietnamese complete with talks at a negotiation table. As Iraqi insurgency doubles about every year, then the American involvement may continue until Americans sue for peace - ask for a negotiation table - just like in Vietnam.

[Undertoad]

There is clearly and obviously no war in Afghanistan right now. When the facts don't suit you, do you just invent them?

The Iraq war suffers from an adminstration that doesn't lead, and can't state its objectives to save itself. The actual strategic objective of the war is to replace the US bases lost in Saudi Arabia, create a pro-US state in the middle of the middle east, and to create a Democratic example for the rest of the Arab world as a basis for reform. But you can't state those objectives up front, you have to come up with something palatable to everyone.

The exit strategy, stated hundreds of times but ignored here, is "as the Iraqis stand up we will stand down." The Iraqi forces have been improving but reporting on this matter is weak and mistakenly claims they are not. There is buzz that the stand-down will start in January, following the next election. You can tell it's imminent by how the politicians are now fighting to be the ones who thought of the idea. The Ds are demanding it so that when it happens they can say they thought of it, and won their point. The Rs will do it because the public wants it and will spin it as victory. The truth will not be evident for years.

Nobody seems to give a crap about actual victory. Even the pols who said there weren't enough troops to do it correctly, never demanded more troops.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Unconditional surrender were conditions before talks at a WWII negotiation table could start. Even with unconditional surrender, negotiations included who is to be jailed for trial, guidelines for how occupation is conducted, placement of the conquered army, the future status of an emperor, and much 'nation building' that George Jr insisted America must not do. All wars end in negotiations no matter how one sided those negotiations might be.

I hear you but I have a hard time calling dictated terms, "negotiations".

There is clearly and obviously no war in Afghanistan right now.

I wonder if the troops over there know that?

Even the pols who said there weren't enough troops to do it correctly, never demanded more troops.

When the Administration was battling the Pentagon over staffing before the invasion, what politician in his right mind would call for sending more men and boys off to war? Even if they felt it would be better for the military it would look bad to the mothers and wives.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I hear you but I have a hard time calling dictated terms, "negotiations".

Perhaps, but at least there was someone on the other side of the table, who could speak for their side, being dictated to.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The Iraq war suffers from an adminstration that doesn't lead, and can't state its objectives to save itself. The actual strategic objective of the war is to replace the US bases lost in Saudi Arabia, create a pro-US state in the middle of the middle east, and to create a Democratic example for the rest of the Arab world as a basis for reform. But you can't state those objectives up front, you have to come up with something palatable to everyone.

Where did you discover these objectives? Do you have an inside scoop from the pentagon or something? I would tend to agree with you that this is why we are really there, but the phoney excuses given for the current engagement are hardly palatable, either.

We are going to have to re-instate the draft to ahieve the agenda you outlined. I don't know where you get the idea that things are so rosey in Iraq, either. Casualties continue to mount and many of our soldiers are now on their third tour of duty over there. Moral amongst our troops is way down.

My friend Lisa's husband is going to be deployed over there on Monday and among his group of soldiers 16 have gone AWOL, including one E7 with 17 years in the military. 36 came up positive for drugs. They'll be going anyhow.

The stated reasons for being in Iraq are obviously becoming unpalatable to our troops, along with everyone else.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Nobody seems to give a crap about actual victory. Even the pols who said there weren't enough troops to do it correctly, never demanded more troops.

Exactly how much authority do you believe Congress has once they give the President the opportunity to start a war? They can, in theory, cut off funding and stop a war, but they cannot force the deployment of more troops. Certainly the Democrats, as a minority party, could not effect any change. The only chance would have been if a significant number of Republicans would add their voice, and noone was sure that this was the wrong decision since the 'professionals' seemed to go along with it.

In the end, the buck stops at the Joint Chiefs and the Commander-in-Chief. If they plan badly, or worse, allow a good plan to be compromised, then everyone suffers. In the Army's case, the troop total was reduced at the insistence of the White House, who thought they could occupy on the cheap. Almost every single one of their predictions was wrong, including the restoration of an oil economy to pay for the reconstruction.

Now we all pay.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Perhaps, but at least there was someone on the other side of the table, who could speak for their side, being dictated to.

Uh,...make that, someone on the other side of the table, who could listen for their side.