Did I miss the connection. Could someone remind me what the religious guy (Osama, remember him) and the Stalinist (Saddam) had in common that lead us into this ill concieved war. And now that we are there how about some armchair generaling (my own word, you know what it means) because the real generals are not doing very well. From my limited reading on warfare it is not possible to win a guerilla war with popular support. As a matter of fact Mao won a nation of hundreds of millions with an army of about 10,000 using guerilla warfare. Any speculation on how we could win this thing? or even a definition of winning.
it is not possible to win a guerilla war without popualr support I think it has to do with getting a fat lady to sing... :rolling: actually it's not really a laughing matter, We need to set our goals as originally planned a. get Bin Laden, b. concentrate on taking out Al-Queda leaders and training camps, wherever they may be. This is going to be a long long long struggle.
I believe that by attempting to impose our Western concepts of war, winning and generalship, we completely miss our enemy's objectives. They've won simply because we're willing to fight, and therefore legitimize, them. For terrorists and extremists, the journey is the goal. Afghanistan is proof that they're completely out of their element if they actually win the fight. I haven't ever heard a word from our government (and I've been listening for 35 years) that convinces me that they've ever actually deciphered Eastern or Middle Eastern philosophy.
Mao was willing and able to murder tens of millions of Chinese citizens to maintain control over China. Mao and his disciples did the same thing in other parts of Asia. In fact, Communist China is still threatening to attack Taiwan to bring peace and harmony to that island. I am not sure if they count San Francisco as a province of China anymore. Is this how one wins the hearts and minds of citizens in a well-run society? Ten thousand guerillas my foot. China is an awful example for what you are attempting to say, and the "China example" shows a horrific lack of understanding. Japan, Korea, and Taiwan are better models for what is being attempted in Iraq. It will work.
I thought I was just stating history not looking for controversy. Aprx 10,000 is correct though after the long march. Mao is more or less the uncontested master of guerilla warfare, HoChiMin (you may remember him from Vietnam, we lost a war to him) was a disciple of his as far back as the 1920's. As for the millions killed that was after 1949. Mao killed mostly Japanese (the fight with the Japanese created Chinesse communism) in the years that I refer to. Really China is a more appropraite example than those you mentioned since we are dealing with geurilla warfare. After Mao expelled the Japanese it was possible to take over all China. After we are expelled a charismatic leader could easily do the same in mideast. It is unfortunate that most Americans are not familiar with this period in Chinesse history, it impacts our current situation greatly. BTW are you stating that the leaders of the guerilla forces in Iraq are NOT willing to kill 10's of millions.
Actually, Japan isn't a bad example of what's happening in Iraq right now, in one sense. What would the endgame of WWII looked like if Japan's emperor had directed his citizenry to fight us to the last person, regardless of the outcome? The type of commitment to the cause that the Japanese showed during WWII resembles the type of commitment shown by Islamic fundamentalists - they have no feeling of individuality which they consider to override their commitment to their belief system, and indeed they believe that anything they do to us or anyone they consider an enemy makes them better, more worthy people. The difference between our current enemy and Japan, however, is fundamental and disturbing. The Japanese people's commitment was to their people as a whole, to the survival and betterment of the Japanese way of life. They acknowledged the supreme power of their leaders. When their leaders ordered them to surrender, they did. The Islamic fundamentalists' commitment is to a belief system, and they will kill their own families to protect it. Further, they will acknowledge no authority which tells them something contrary to their beliefs, and among those beliefs is the certainty that anyone who does not think like them needs to be destroyed. They will kill their own leaders if ordered to surrender. I can envision a process which will overcome Islamic fundamentalism. Unfortunately, that process will take decades, and at the end of it there will be no more believers in Allah. Beyond that, withdrawing from Iraq today will make no more difference in the long run than staying there another five years. The point is, the only way we "win" in Iraq is by wiping out the fundamentalist belief system, as well as everyone who practices that system. I don't see that as a possibility without a genocide which would label the US as the all-time leader in that category. So, we can't "win" in Iraq. We never could, trying to achieve our goals by military might. At this point, we can't even exit with any real honor left as a country. Everything I've written here was plainly obvious to the bumbling idealogues in Washington, and the proper solution to removing Saddam (a concept I have no objection to) was equally obvious. We would have had to redevelop our HUMINT capability sufficiently to nail down his location and assassinate him. Same time frame, a few years, thousands of fewer deaths. And Mao won China by overcoming the leadership of a people which was inured by thousands of years of history to accept the directions of their leaders, not by winning the people themselves. I'd be surprised if a majority of Chinese had even heard of Mao before he took power.
Did I miss the connection. Could someone remind me what the religious guy (Osama, remember him) and the Stalinist (Saddam) had in common that lead us into this ill concieved war. 14 UN resolutions were not enough? The war was well concieved. You make it sound like, "Okay let's go after Saddam just for the hell of it". I have no doubt in my mind that Saddam was supporting ($$$$) and harboring islamic terrorists. Al Queda is the name you hear all of the time, but let's not forget about groups like Hamas and the Hezbollah. All three groups pretty much have your same rag head beliefs...death to Israel, death to the West, death to infidels, islam for everybody. While I don't believe Saddam was involved in the actual planning of 9/11, he supported it and provided money for a number of islamic terror groups that all had these beliefs. And now that we are there how about some armchair generaling (my own word, you know what it means) because the real generals are not doing very well. Shoot to kill. Don't expose our marines as they travel down the streets of Fallujhad. Flatten the place. Death is the only thing islamic terrorists understand. Don't treat the captives like P.O.W.'s because they are not fighting for a country. The Geneva convention rules DO NOT APPLY to these animals. I don't care how you get information. If it will save another American life, GET IT!! Close and seal the borders with Iran and Syria. Many of the terrorists doing the fighting are pouring in from these islamic radical countries so they can conduct their gihad in Iraq. Better there, then here...remember that! Also, no more embedded press. They (main stream media) are just helping the resolve of the enemy. Allocate the press to a "pool" for daily briefings. If the press asks stupid questions (which they will), tell them they are "stuck on stupid, next questions." Bottom line is that if you fight, you fight!! Forget this PC crap like not bombing a mosque or a school. If the mosque or school is being used to store weapons and/or terrorists, you flatten the place...PERIOD! This "we can't shoot that or shoot here" garbage is GOT TO GO. Are we worried we may tick off another muslim?? Face it, they hated us well before 9/11 and they will always hate us afterwards. From my limited reading on warfare it is not possible to win a guerilla war with popular support. As a matter of fact Mao won a nation of hundreds of millions with an army of about 10,000 using guerilla warfare. Any speculation on how we could win this thing? or even a definition of winning. We are winning the popular support. I spoke with many GI's that returned home on leave and they can't believe what the media is reporting day in and day out. People are voting. Women are finally enjoying "some" rights. Their infrastructure is better than at anytime in their country's history. You don't hear about this because it is "boring" seeing woman vote and all. Also, Americans don't conquer lands, we liberate them. The only real estate we ask for is enough to bury our dead. Bottom line is that we are in a fight against islamic terrorists. We can fight them there or we can fight them here. Make no mistake about this, this is a fight we didn't start, but we have to finish.
Midas - what you are preposing is terrorism, just against someone that isn't us. 'shoot to kill' 'turn X town into a parking lot' That is terrorism. You just don't think so because you see it has some Christian purpose of justice... and it is against someone you probably didn't much care for BEFORE 9/11.
Sure they did, it was the CCP (red army) vs the white army the whole of China marveled at Moa's ability to expel the Japanese. BTW cooldave great thoughts, that was the type of analysis I was hoping for, not just ISLAM BAD KILKILKILL
Isreal (who you ironically use in your arguement) has more UN resolutions against it then Iraq ever did. Also Saddam aint no religious guy, never was never will be (try old style dictator).
I could say, "so what"? Do you know of any country that really cares and has the guts to go up against them to enforce these so called resolutions? That might just be the difference between Iran and Isreal, don't you think?
You are saying that Mao and the communists single-handedly beat the Japanese? Not a chance. Chiang Kai Chek and the Nationalists certainly had something to do with it. There were millions of Chinese, not 10,000, ultimately involved in the communist take-over of China. It was a very bloody civil war, and nothing less. Mao killed millions of innocents in his consolidation of power. He was a human lizard, not a benevolent leader of Chinese peasants. America, with some help from the Brits, Aussies and others, beat the Japanese. Mao and his followers were an American-supported side show in the Asian theater. The Soviets beat the Germans, and the Americans beat the Japanese. Facts to remember. Here is what I think will happen in Iraq. Just this week the Kurds and Shia both discretely chimed-in about the United States pulling it's troops in 2006. This just happens to be consistent with comments recently made in Washington D.C. I think that the United States will pull three U.S. Army divisions from Iraq in 2006. I also suspect that we will maintain a few secure bases in the north and south to form rapid-response forces to support the Iraqi government. The heavy work will be shouldered by the Iraqi army and police forces, as incidently, has been the Bush Administration plan from day-one. What will the Iraqis do? I think the Iraqis will agree to create three states within Iraq and govern the region as an Iraqi confederation. There will of course be perpetual fighting in Sunni areas, especially near Baghdad. The Sunnis will ultimately be marginalized or killed. They will be unable to take the Kirkut oil fields from the Kurds or the Basra oil fields from the Shia. The Kurdish and Shia dominated states will prosper, but remain at war with the Sunnis until the Sunnis settle down and behave. There will probably be "ethnic cleansing" throughout Iraq. I think that the United States will maintain a strong, and most welcome, military presence for decades to come in the new Iraqi Kurdistan. The Turks will rattle sabers and whine a lot. The western Europeans will continue to exclude them from the EU. The United States will have at least two solid allies in the Middle East: Israel and Iraqi Kurdistan. During the period from 2006 to 2026, I think other countries in the region will attempt to form true republics: Probably Lebanon, and perhaps Egypt, Iran, or some of the kingdoms of the Arabian peninsula. Iraq is clearly not a lost cause. The world simply needs more visionary leaders. The world needs more people who are not afraid to draw cards to fill a flush (poker analogy). :thumb:
Old dan I was just pointing out the irony of the fact that he used the UN res. as a reason to go to war and Isreal in the same paragraph.
The Nationalist did not really help much there that is the core of the "political work" that caused China to fall behind Mao. The reason there were millions behind Mao once again is that his group (the CCP) took on the Japanese when Chaing would not, the people of China liked that and followed Mao. Let me think of a few more ways to state that CORNERSTONE of Chinese history. There were not millions after the long march there were aprx 10,000. Through political work it was built to millions. Again the fact that the CCP fought the Japanese when the Nationalist refused is like Washington crossing the Delaware to the Chinese. As for the dudes character I am no fan either. My point is that a clever evil dude like Mao could emerge from Iraq and kick us out like Mao did to the Japanese, that would allow them to gain great power in that region.
Sorry wrong again, the events in China will be the big story in 100 years and OUR WWII will be a sideshow. These events gave birth to the CCP,which looms very large over the scene now and for decades maybe centuries to come.
Now that is the type of analysis I like. Some thought behind it. I don't agree with all these points though. You are discounting the fact that the ground is fertile for a charismatic Islamic leader to emerge. History is often formed by the force of such personalities. The right sort of leader (a new Muhammad archtype) could unite them against us "infidels". Scary huh?
It has happend once before in Is;amic history and that was when Saladin threw back the crusaders (He was a kurd by the way LOL) so it is not impossible to envisage it happening again. Yes it is possible to defeat a gurilla army if your goverment has the nerve to use the tactics required to do so, in 1945 the British Army supressed a revolt by comunist Gurillas in Southern Vietnam, unfortunatly we then handed it back to the French In 1963 we defeated a Chinese supported uprising in Malaya ok the tactics we used were not what one would call PC but they worked in Vietnam we turned loose the Gurkhas on the Insergants and that sort of scared em LOL in Malaya we used there own terror tactics and that scared Them Too Unfortunatly our politicians then got cold feet and we were not allowed to do the same to others :yawn: :headbang: De Orc
I very glad you were not around to fight WWII because that is exactly what our troops did. We shot the enemy in the belly and we flatten Germany and Japan. Today, those countries are BETTER off because they lost. BTW, what is this Christian purpose? It has nothing to do with it. This war is about good and evil, right and wrong and the ones that are left remaining get to make the rules. So go ahead and try to correlate today's war with terrorism...nice try. You want to fight nice and if you look at history, those that fought as hard and fast as they could won past wars. They never let their enemy back up, they made sure they were down for good. So you don't think shooting our enemy in the belly is a good thing? What do want to do? Put them into therapy?
Are you done? first off... I wasn't correlating today's war with terrorism. I was making correlations of your shoot-'em-all-let-god-sort-them-out, or turn the middle east into a parking lot attitude to terrorism. Guess what? That's exactly what it is. You are trying to instill terror into a group of people that includes many innocent civilians in order to acheive what you believe is victory. I don't want that kind of victory. A lot of Americans don't want that kind of victory. It's tainted. Then you want to talk about past wars, but let's rewind to a comment you made that this is not a war like the others. You said we can fight even dirtier, because these people have no country... Pick a stance and work with it. As it is now, you're all over the board. It makes my skin crawl, when I see people agree with you and your racist tantrums. We don't need it. I don't think I'm alone when I say that I really hoped that America had progressed past war propoganda based in racist smut. Let me offer another opinion. Dropping the bomb on Japan in WWII was not a good thing - nobody... NOBODY should think that was a good thing. At most, it was a necessary thing. Even that is questionable, but I hope that every American regrets the lives of the innocents lost in that action right along side the sadness for the lives lost in Pearl Harbor that initiated the decision. If you don't regret every innocent live lost in war, there is something seriously wrong with you... And I think it's worse when you seem to be chanting for it. So no, do not tell me just because I don't fall in line with your sociopathic essays, that I am not a true American. Don't tell me that I have no backbone because I do not revel in the idea of more innocent lives lost - and that *is* what happens when you turn a city into a parking lot, Midas. Actions like these, whereas sometimes necessary, should weigh strongly on people... and they should regret the NEED to perform it. You want to skip all that NEED crap... just do it because it's wicked cool, right? Why don't we just do some ethnic cleansing, while we're at it? No Midas, I am a good American. You will not call me otherwise.
