Iran

[tw]

Originally Posted by Luce

Before you can even contemplating "winning", you have to have some sort of victory condition established.

Exactly. In order to justify war, three things must exist. These were repeatedly listed here in the Cellar even before George Jr started the Mission Accomplished war. That long ago.

First, a strategic objective must exist. WWII was won because the strategic objective was clear, bluntly stated, and hostilities did not end until that objective was achieved: unconditional surrender.

Second, there must be a smoking gun. That smoking gun is surprisingly unknown to many if not most Americans today - Pearl Harbor.

Third, plans for the peace must exist well before hostilities end.

Vietnam. None existed. So that war was lost and well known as lost by 1966.

Mission Accomplished had no strategic objective. Those WMDs were total fiction - all US intelligence agencies could not find any. They were invented by Cheney, et al.

Second, there was no smoking gun. Nothing (but a lie) justified Mission Accomplished.

Third, there was no planning for the peace - no phase four planning - no after action orders. Only CPA orders 1 and 2 that resulted in 5000 dead American servicemen.

So yes, a strategic objective, et al must be clearly defined even before the very first attack. Desire only disappears when these three critical factors do not exist. Without them, victory cannot happen.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by tw

… First, a strategic objective must exist. WWII was won because the strategic objective was clear, bluntly stated, and hostilities did not end until that objective was achieved: unconditional surrender.

The electorate doesn't have the stomach to do what it takes to achieve that. It hasn't had since WWII. Since the advent of global terrorism, the electorate's position has been We're sorry, please don't hurt us. This has made your justifications for war a moot point. Tit-for-tat is where it's at.

[henry quirk]

Originally Posted by sexobon

The electorate doesn't have the stomach to do what it takes to achieve that. It hasn't had since WWII. Since the advent of global terrorism, the electorate's position has been We're sorry, please don't hurt us. This has made your justifications for war a moot point. Tit-for-tat is where it's at.

Domestication: fat, happy, and stupid; 'don't rock the boat!'; go along to get along; Aesop's dog (the leash only chafes a little).

[Luce]

Originally Posted by sexobon

The electorate doesn't have the stomach to do what it takes to achieve that. It hasn't had since WWII. Since the advent of global terrorism, the electorate's position has been We're sorry, please don't hurt us. This has made your justifications for war a moot point. Tit-for-tat is where it's at.

This is a distinctly bizarre view on the American people.

So let me see if I have this straight:

FIRST we need to carpet bomb, etc, THEN we should decide on objectives?

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Luce

… So let me see if I have this straight: ...

No, you don't.

Fuck dementia.