60 Years Ago This Week

[tw]

Originally Posted by djacq75

What in the hell does that mean?

"Unconditional surrender" was a demand made by the U.S. because it sounded bad-ass and we like to be bad-ass.

Then you need to learn the concept called "strategic objective". Unconditional surrender defined the conditions upon which a military operation would lead to a political solution. It was the strategic objective that even defined the exit strategy. It was defined by Churchill and Roosevelt when both meet in the White House to define how WWII would be won.

Your idea that it was a 'bad-ass' expression suggests you don't even understand why the "Mission Accomplished" war cannot be won. We have no strategic objective and therefore have no exit strategy. It also defines why a Vietnam war could only be lost. Why body counts rather than fundamental military and political objectives were how we fought Vietnam to a loss.

Unconditional surrender was THE objective in WWII because those politicians (unlike Cheney, Rumsfled, Wolfovitz, etc in the George Sr administration) did their job, up front, when the US entered that war. Unconditional surrender is extemely important in understanding why WWII was won AND changed the entire worldwide political landscape. A military objective that also demonstrates why WWI was so inconclusive.

[djacq75]

Originally Posted by tw

Then you need to learn the concept called "strategic objective". Unconditional surrender defined the conditions upon which a military operation would lead to a political solution. It was the strategic objective that even defined the exit strategy. It was defined by Churchill and Roosevelt when both meet in the White House to define how WWII would be won.

It was defined by specific persons, and could be redefined by specific persons to accommodate new circumstances. You seem not to understand the difference between metaphysical facts and man-made demands.

This also begs the question, though, of why I should give a damn about Roosevelt, Churchill, or their "strategic objectives." Had I been alive at the time, and experienced enough to see through FDR's bullshit the way I see through Bush's today, I would've opposed entry into the war in the first place. In that case I wouldn't have cared all that much if their "strategic objectives" were achieved or fell to pieces.

Your idea that it was a 'bad-ass' expression suggests you don't even understand why the "Mission Accomplished" war cannot be won. We have no strategic objective and therefore have no exit strategy. It also defines why a Vietnam war could only be lost. Why body counts rather than fundamental military and political objectives were how we fought Vietnam to a loss.

The political objective in the Vietnam war was fairly clear--to preserve the dominance of non-Communists in South Vietnam. It wasn't a practical objective because the entire country was ridden with Communists, which we should've figured out.

Unconditional surrender was THE objective in WWII because those politicians (unlike Cheney, Rumsfled, Wolfovitz, etc in the George Sr administration) did their job, up front, when the US entered that war. Unconditional surrender is extemely important in understanding why WWII was won AND changed the entire worldwide political landscape. A military objective that also demonstrates why WWI was so inconclusive.

They "did their job"? Yes, they did...if you agree with Groucho Marx's view that "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it, and misapplying the wrong remedy." That describes WWII to a tee, and most other wars, for that matter.

WWI was inconclusive precisely because the Versailles treaty tried to impose the "political objectives" about which you have been waxing enthusiastic. (And because it left a government in power in Russia that was worse than any the West had faced before--at least since Genghis Khan--or would face later.)

[tw]

To return more consistent with Griff's recent post:

Originally Posted by djacq75

This also begs the question, though, of why I should give a damn about Roosevelt, Churchill, or their "strategic objectives." Had I been alive at the time, and experienced enough to see through FDR's bullshit the way I see through Bush's today, I would've opposed entry into the war in the first place. In that case I wouldn't have cared all that much if their "strategic objectives" were achieved or fell to pieces.

Fundamentals behind this discussion were previously posted at Morality

Meanwhile below is a typical response posted previously. A response created by propaganda from a mental midget president and his mouthpiece Rush Limbaugh. They do this because so many citizens did not understand the purpose of war and did not appreciate why a 'smoking gun' is so critical. Did not learn from history and even ignored numbers about those aluminim tubes.

Originally Posted by undertoad

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

We know UT was deceived by propaganda from facts in another series of posts - Growing Threat Seen In Afghan Insurgency

The director of the Defense Intelligence Agency told Congress yesterday that the insurgency in Afghanistan is growing and will increase this spring, presenting a greater threat to the central government's expansion of authority "than at any point since late 2001."

and from Poll finds that most U.S. troops are in favor of withdrawal

Nearly 3 out of 4 U.S. troops serving in Iraq think U.S. forces should withdraw...

Each are only symptoms of mistakes made at the highest levels of the American government because a president is a mental midget. Its not nice, but the conclusion is based in facts which explains why we are in a "Mission Accomplished" war that cannot be won. No strategic objective and therefore no exit strategy. This also defines the word "Morality".

Notice how clean and more complex war - its purpose and its propaganda - can become. To keep it simpler, we tell the common man that "they (others) are evil". It is why we are in a "Mission Accomplished" war. A mental midget president is a genius at convoluting the truth. He has lesser intelligent among us thinking we are fighting a war against bin Laden - who runs free because our president is so immoral as to let bin Laden run free.

Years ago, MaggieL and I had a long discussion where I defined the invasion of Iraq as wrong for so many reasons. I was roundly in the minority then and have been proven today to be more accurate than even I had hoped. Those reasons, from historical lessons, were based in above concepts including the strategic objective, the smoking gun, and other lessons from history. That is why we

give a damn about Roosevelt, Churchill, or their "strategic objectives."

When a president so routinely lies as this one does to the destruction of America, well, that is why citizens are suppose to be learned in history. A country with more intelligent people and less Christian religious extremists would not be fighting a war against those who were not a threat. It would again be safe overseas to let others know you are American. These extremist anti-Americans who don't advocate the president's impeachment make it dangerous to be an American citizen where Americans were once so welcome.

If there is an 'evil' in Iraq, it is the American 'crusader' invader. If there is 'evil' in Afghanistan, it is bin Laden who the American president protects by letting him run free. Lessons we all should have learned from 60 years ago.

[djacq75]

Originally Posted by tw

They do this because so many citizens did not understand the purpose of war

The purpose of war is nearly always to convince semi-literate clods to die for a cause that has nothing to do with them, but which you are too much of a pussy to die for yourself.

[djacq75]

Originally Posted by tw

When a president so routinely lies as this one does to the destruction of America, well, that is why citizens are suppose to be learned in history.

Um, I was not asking why we should know what Roosevelt and Churchill's strategic objectives were. I asked why we should give a damn whether they were accomplished if doing so was to cost an additional 120,000 lives.

[tw]

Originally Posted by djacq75

Um, I was not asking why we should know what Roosevelt and Churchill's strategic objectives were. I asked why we should give a damn whether they were accomplished if doing so was to cost an additional 120,000 lives.

Which goes right back to the purpose of war. If at a negotiation table were honest men negotiating, then human life has value. Once one party makes human life irrelevant, then either the other party must surrender (Chamberlin) or all parties must now regard human life as only secondary (war).

In war, human lives are wasted - spent like capital funds. War derates the value to human life to be only another military resource. Don't for one minute forget that. Never worry about human life as paramount once war breaks out. That only makes one a loser. Once in war, human life must lose value for more important purposes.

Suggested is that war could have ended without those additional 120,000 lost lives. But that is irrelevant. We were no longer at a negotiation table where human life has such value. Until we get back to a negotiation table, then human life is only another expendable military asset or target. Cold, hard, and it is called reality. Anything less means war may be lost or that another war must be fought. This from someone that Urbane Guerilla considers too liberal or Democratic and that MaggieL did not understand? You tell me how someone so ruthless could be so.

I don't like it. But that reasoning is also why we must have a smoking gun to justify war. BTW it is also why Patton was so good (old blood and guts) and yet probably saved so many American lives.

Bottom line point is that if one goes to war, then human life must be regarded as something completely expendable until negotiations will start. If one is not willing to make that commitment, then one does not belong in war or may just create another war - ie WWI may have only created WWII. Welcome to justification for the liberation of Kuwait AND why Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfovitz, et al only destroyed (squandered) an oppurtunity created by Swartzkopf and Powell. If you don't understand what 'squander' means here, then you are not ruthless enough to call for war.

Whether those 120,000 lives could have been saved is secondary. Until a conflict gets to a negotiation table, the leader spends people like a corporate president spends his capital. Most coporate advertising dollars are wasted. But he must spend anyway. Currency is what human life becomes once negotiations break down into war.

To worry about 120,000 lives when war has not yet terminated is to be too liberal or simply too naive. Or it is to be too right wing conservative as to get into a war due to penis based intelligence. Either extreme: both are examples of why extremists tend to be of lesser intelligence.

It is war. Life is something to be spent. Be very careful before another president in 30 years lies like Johnson & Nixon in 1960s and George Jr in 2002. Such men forget they work for us - forget what is an American patriot. Such men think we are only capital for them to spend - defines a dictator mentality. If one needs a definition of evil, two examples are Nixon and George Jr. Both would kill rather than solve problems at a negotiation table - all for their own personal glory and in the name of god. Country and intelligence had nothing to due with Nixon's and George Jr's wars.

Defined is also why containment is so effective at solving world problems. And why preemption is strongly based in extremist propaganda. Demonstrated is that one, declared a liberal by some, is more ruthless than the weak kneed Urbane Guerilla who thinks nothing about going to war at the drop of a feather. We need cannon fodder which is why we need Urbane Guerrilla types. But worry when these types get us into a war. Demonstrated by the number of above words, war is not something to enter without both good and deep seated reasoning since 120,000 people suddenly have no significant value.

[djacq75]

Originally Posted by tw

Bottom line point is that if one goes to war, then human life must be regarded as something completely expendable until negotiations will start.

That they will be regarded as expendable by the criminals who launched the war goes without saying. And while it is true that the decent members of the human race should demand an end to the war, if it were hypothetically within one's power to hold the casualties caused by a given war to 100,000 instead of 1,000,000, it is absurd to pretend that the two scenarios make no difference to anyone. That our leaders treat lives as cannon fodder merely establishes that we should be as unlike our leaders as we can manage.

It is also too much, even for a joke, for a belligerent leader to refuse to conduct negotiations (as Truman did in July 1945)--and then use the lack of negotiations as an excuse to unleash whatever destruction tickles his fancy.