[cdhostage]

To wage war effectively, you have to have someone to hate, someone to make into a devil, someone who becomes evil incarnate to your own "good" side. Very well, some say: we have Osama bin Laden. But there are so many people in the Middle and Near East who openly hate the United States who we CANNOT attack because they are not technically at odds with us. There exists a very strong anti-American sentiment which cannot be quashed like bin Laden will be. He WILL be caught and imprisoned or executed eventually. But the great heaping throng of anti-Americans that remain will sprout another leader who will then have to be crushed himself.

Waging "war against terrorrists" is much harder than singling out a country, say, Afghanistan, and waging "classic" war against it. You cannot kill a terrorist cell without killing some innocent (even if they do hate the USA) people. You CAN take out a militarily important city including numbers of innocents, because they became the enemy at the outset of war.

I wish things were as simple as kill the bad guys. By not declaring war on a specific country, our leaders have guaranteed us a long, confusing series of battles with no clear final objectives. Kinda like Vietnam. Once again, the "enemy" is almost completely indistinguishable from the "friend." Or at least the "innocent."

[BuonRotto]

You're talking about an object of your effort, your war. The object may be the Nazi Regime, the driving the Iraqi army out of Kuwait, whatever, but these are objects of our aggression. These are our objectives. The lesson of vietnam is that our objective must be objects, not ideas, the well spring not the water so to speak. I think that's the lesson of Vietnam.

In defense of our leaders, they are trying as best they can to not make this another Marshall Plan or Vietnam War. Colin Powell (whom I have complete trust in, unlike so many others in politics or the military) is acutely aware of this. While Rumsfeld and the Pentagon are apparently eager to broaden the scope of this thing, Powell is sticking to his guns about making this not a broad war against an "ism" but rather a series of measures against specific targets. The rest of the political and military complex has apparently fallen in line with this more or less. The first mini-war will be with bin Laden at this point. They are sure about the first step at least. The next series of steps are not figured out yet but Powell is pushing his "manifesto" of working towards very finite achievable goals, specific objectives that are material or manifest not changes in beliefs or anything. That's why we lost in Vietnam and Somalia. We went in without an exit strategy. So while we know that we're going to take out Bin Laden by legal or military means and this provides an endgame in itself, the idea is to set up a sequence of these with a more well-defined exit from this. So while it will take a long time, Powell is adamant to make this war have an end, to have a final object to attain that you can see, not feel or hear.

[added:]

I should add that Powell seems to be interested in rather unconventional strategies and retaliation as well, and I'm particularly interested in alternative methods of getting the upper hand. Things like information "warfare."

I know if we don't do anything, these nuts will go for more blood. If we overplay our hand we risk sympathy for Bin Laden or worse dividing the Muslim world on this. Sorry, reading CNN's pages at the same time...

[ 09-22-2001: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]

[ghporter]

We do have clear goals. First, to track down and bring to justice the entire network that set up and committed the abominable acts of September 11, then to systematically end international terrorism. You're right that it would be much simpler if it were a nation-state that was the heart of the threat and the home of the enemy. Alas, it is not.

Our enemy is many, and his fuel is hate. He hates the West, and America specifically because we have what he can never have. Freedom of choice, prosperity (even in bad times), pluralism and tolerance. He cannot have these things, not because we deny them to him, but because he denies them to himself. By perverting the beauty and reverance of Islam, our enemy blames us for making him what he is: bitter, hateful and vengeful, poor and exiled.

Damn, I wish it was simply a country that had attacked us. Things would be so much clearer, simpler, and we probably would already be nearly done dealing with them. But one fertilizer of the weed that is our enemy is the fact that so many countries have self-destructed due to crushing totalitarianism and ideological dogmatism that much of the Near and Mid-East is in chaos, shattered not by war, but by their own unwillingness to bend with the winds of change. Russia has managed better than most, and her change due to the break up of the Soviet Union has been vastly greater than any other country's turmoil, but then the Russian people have always been survivors. Many of the peoples in the Near and Mid-East are known more for their determination and stubbornness, and therein lies the thorn of our problem.

Glenn
Remembering 9-11-01

[vega24]

Originally posted by cdhostage:

I wish things were as simple as
killthe bad guys. By not declaring war on a specific
country, our leaders have
guaranteed us a long, confusing
series of battles with no clear final objectives. Kinda like Vietnam. Once again, the "enemy" is almost completely indistinguishable from the
"friend." Or at least the "innocent".

This war will be fought by the US military right out of chapter XIII of Sun Tzu's The Art of War. I'll quote the last two paragraphs of chapter XIII, "Hence it is only the enlightened ruler and wise general who will use the highest intelligence of the army for the purposes of spying, and thereby they achieve great results... Spies are a most important element of war, because upon them depends an army's ability to move."

(Edit: me no spel verry whell.)

[ 09-23-2001: Message edited by: vega24 ]

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Man, I remember the banter going around just as the Golf War was kicking off about 10 years ago... Saddam's men were vowing that the US would be needing about 100,000 body bags. They promised to open up and unleash the 'Furnace of Hell" on us. The media was crowing on about the Republican Guard of Iraq and what a serious foe it was, how this wasn't going to be an easy fight, how this could turn into something long, bloody, and protracted.

I remember watching it all and wondering if there'd be a draft if it did start to become another Vietnam.

Soon however, it became clear that we hadn't just been sitting around on our asses since Vietnam. We'd developed some SERIOUS hardware since then, and were getting off finally being able to use it. It was like "Oh, and by the way, our scientists were just sitting around a while back, and they thought up THIS new and improved way to kick yer ass!" Stealth planes, smart bombs, night vision, laser guided weapons, bunker-depth bombs-- we got to see it all in action.

This time around, I know it's not the same type of conflict, but I'm *HOPING* we have a few surprizes up our sleeves. I'm hoping our military technology has grown even more in the past 10 years. I already expect if Bin Laden and his idiot follwers are thinking we're going to come marching in there Soviet style, in broad daylight, they've got a few rude awakenings coming. All of our troops will have night vision equipment and good ol' yankee know how. I hope no terrorist is able to sleep at night, after we start slipping in silently in the dead of night and slitting a few throats. Want some terror? We can bring it too.

[Nile Crocodile]

One MAJOR thing that makes this war different that 'Nam is that WE HAD OUR OWN CITIZENS DIE IN OUR OWN COUNTRY! Why do people keep forgetting that?

The hardware does make a difference. Short term we over throw the Teliban and get bin Laden and pals. The first may be easy. The Teliban came under attack the first night after the 11th. With a little "air superiority" they will go down hard.


bin Laden and pals may be a bitch. I'd expect a lot of small night time ops. Smoke him out as they say. Wont be easy. Gus will die. There may(will) be blunders. But we can't let this guy just get away.

It's a fact that this "war" will never end. We'll have to keep the heat on the terrorist until the mid east has a renaissance. Knowing those people that could take several hundred years.

[pscates]

I'd add something heartfelt and strongly believed here, but BRussell might somehow take it as me bashing Americans or some nonsense. And I'd make him sick all over again.



Gee, I can't wait: I look forward to prefacing all of my posts from here out with "okay, what I REALLY mean is...".

[BRussell]

Originally posted by pscates:
<STRONG>I'd add something heartfelt and strongly believed here, but BRussell might somehow take it as me bashing Americans or some nonsense.</STRONG>

OK, so I came down hard in that other thread. I know you're a good guy from AI. What the hell do you want me to do? You going to give me a guilt trip about it in every post?

OK:

"We, the undersigned, hereby proclaim pscates (heretofore referred to as the aforementioned "pscates") to be a good ol' bloke, all-around great guy, and one righteous dude."

BRussell

[pscates]

Yeah, something like that would be just fine

Don't worry, this is the only place where I made a reference to that other thing you said. It was last night when I was still really upset at what you'd said about me.

No more "guilt trips" from me.

[funkboy]

I don't know much about Colin Powell's fighting, but read this article to find out about one of other guys in charge, Dick Cheney, and his fighting record...

Let's sure hope Powell can have a backbone and a brain during this conflict...

[buon working]

The "air superiority" route didn't work for the Soviets. Iraq and Kuwait are big flat areas not the "foothills" (like they're only hills) of the Himilayas. plus Saddam Hussein tried in all his shear stupidity to use conventional warfare means on us, very stupid direction to take. We can smoke any conventional force. But this isn't conventional. Hardware is limited in these areas, which plays into these freaks' hands. Large masses of troops are difficult to keep covered or together and don't communicate well there.

As Vizzini once said...

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia. But only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Ha ha ha ha ha--

[VRL]

GHPorter, vega24 - absolutely!

The following is a letter I wrote the other day (a "letter to the editor", if you will). I think it includes some points worth discussing here. ... And yes, I agree that an "old-fashioned war" would be preferable.

Over the past few weeks, I've been researching, reading, discussing, and, of course, thinking. There are some topics that need to be addressed ... by all of us.

Unfortunately. we are dealing with intelligent, cunning, well-financed, and illusive enemies (extremists, terrorists). They have cleverly disguised themselves, and realizing the strengths of civilized, democratic nations, these enemies are managing to force us to fight an unfamiliar type of "war" - one with no rules of engagement, no familiar tactics, no true borders. We all must somehow come to terms with such realities. Furthermore, we must address the notion (fact) that these enemies will use our own freedoms and values against us, if they can. (Actually, they've already done this.)

An example: If an enemy watches and sees that a nation or nations are unwilling to use racial profiles as a matter of defense, a smart enemy will exploit that (even though our resistance to racial profiles is right and good). Of course, we, as freedom-loving people, would prefer, even demand as a matter of principle, not to exercise prejudice in any form ... ever. Nevertheless, we must also be cognizant of the fact that such principles will be used against us in a "psychological war" - a war to ultimately destroy the whole of our societies, including our values and principles.

Our principles are not held in high regard by the enemy - this is demonstrated by their own actions, lifestyles, and even customs. So, using our principles (freedoms) as a means of "making war" is likely justifiable and wise in the minds of terrorists.

Another example: If we are not willing to accept the unintentional injury or death of civilians and we speak openly about our unwillingness, the enemies will hide behind innocent civilians (in this case, fearful, starving, ignorant, and/or brainwashed civilians), and use rhetoric/propaganda to convince our own citizens to become divided and argumentative. The enemy will likely strive to push the idea "make peace, not war", while they continue to pursue their own misguided goals (death to America, Israel, freedom, etc.). At the same time, the enemy would likely remain focused and unified, convinced that they are again victorious and justified, as well as superior warriors. And, because of their "chosen perspective of Islam", the death of civilians would not only be justifiable, but encouraged and applauded by like-minded people. ("Let Allah sort it out.")

Or, if a terrorist sees that people (we) panic, and fear another terrorist attack, and sit at home, and, basically, stop living, these criminals will likely come back and attack us again. The terrorists would undoubtedly see that as a success, and like anyone else experiencing success, an intelligent enemy would have a desire to build on such successes. We must NOT remain afraid (or at least be courageous), and must go back to our routines and lives. Sure, we need to be aware of our surroundings and be law-abiding citizens. That does no prevent us from continuing to live our lives. Go to work and work diligently. Be grateful for all that you have. Go to church, if you wish. Give donations. Help a friend, or a stranger. Be kind to others. Buy stock/invest. Read a good book. Write to your congressman/woman. Buy gifts for the holidays. Go to the mall. Take a trip. And start doing it now! Demonstrate that they did NOT succeed, and would not succeed in the future. If we do not take action now and if we do not continue to take action as long as it takes, it would send a message that we will relinquish our own freedoms without a fight.

Quite frankly, I'm wondering - are some of us becoming despondent already? Do we not want to defend ourselves and our ways of life in any way possible? Do we not see the seriousness of this "situation"? Do we not understand that every one of us can do something to fight this "war"?

While I do not condone any kind of restrictions on our constitutional freedoms or liberties, I am also becoming very aware that our enemies intend to use anything they can to bring us to our knees. We must find ways to guard against this, because if we do not, there might not be free nations to defend in the future. They just might succeed in destroying us and our ways of life. ... God help us.

[Korv]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
<STRONG>
Soon however, it became clear that we hadn't just been sitting around on our asses since Vietnam. We'd developed some SERIOUS hardware since then, and were getting off finally being able to use it. It was like "Oh, and by the way, our scientists were just sitting around a while back, and they thought up THIS new and improved way to kick yer ass!" Stealth planes, smart bombs, night vision, laser guided weapons, bunker-depth bombs-- we got to see it all in action.
</STRONG>

Not all that stuff was new and improved. The Patriot missles, which we showed off mightily by blowing SCUDs out of the air over Israel, is really old stuff. A friend on mine operated Patriot missle systems back in Vietnam. You know that whole "international consortium" thing where we contributed military and like everyone else sent in money? That was basically folks paying us to use our old leftover bombs and missles instead of scuttleing them. Same with stealth planes. The F-117s you saw on the nightly news are old as the hills (or 30 years anyway). Laser-guided weapons? Yup, used those in Vietnam too. Bunker-depth bombs... we've been using AP artillery forever.

Now, I'm not saying we don't have "cool new sh1t". You just mentioned all the old stuff.