PDA

View Full Version : Does america have what it takes?


dude1394
04-09-2004, 08:56 PM
One of the premises of the islamofacists is that the western world in general does not have the intestinal fortitude to engage in a long-term battle of attrition. Just like the palestinians they feel that if they continue to blow up our women, children etc. that we will not strike back but will shrink from their barbarism. They believe that our actions in not finishing the job in Iraq in 91 and the way we tucked our tail in somalia as well as pretty much did nothing as they escalated their attacks against us has proven that we are a paper tiger.

Now the leftist media and the fifth column is in full attack mode discrediting our soldiers accomplisments, using scare tactics to try and bring down the current administration.

So the question is with the current 24/7 news, willingness of the democrats to have us run from the terrorists as they had us run from supporting the south vietnamese are the US citizenry able to endure the hardships that are to come.

OutletPass
04-09-2004, 09:06 PM
Great use of cliches...

islamofacists
intestinal fortitude
a paper tiger
leftist media
the fifth column
scare tactics
willingness of the democrats to have us run from the terrorists

but not quite up to your usual quota...i/expressions/face-icon-small-shocked.gif

You do need that Rolfing session to loosen your tongue.

Go, Dude, GO !!!

dude1394
04-09-2004, 09:33 PM
Yea it was a pretty good collection but the question is still relevant.

OutletPass
04-09-2004, 09:46 PM
Not really...when you quit posting cliche ridden articles that simply polarize the discussion...you might find that many would be willing to consider things...until then, it won't happen.

That's the blindspot in your mirror.

Mavdog
04-09-2004, 11:23 PM
Yes, I believe that America has "what it takes" to battle the scourge of terrorism...and that isn't being a biligerent combatant running all over the world invading countries. We will not gain allies in our battle, or change the mind of those in sympathy with our enemies, with the end of our guns as the introduction.

The invasion and reformation of Afganistan was the wise move. Yet here we are, two and a half years later, and we're still not done there. Why? Because this administration is distracted and has us now involved in Iraq. Why would we leave our work undone?

I wonder how much $80B and 120,000 forces could help our mission in Afganistan?

Yes, I believe America is smart enough. Smart enough to understand that we must have the world as part of the battle, for it is the world that stands to suffer from this malaise of terrorism.

America has what it takes, but our current policies are standing in the way.

dude1394
04-10-2004, 11:29 PM
USS Clueless (http://www.denbeste.nu/)


For the last few days, quite frankly I haven't been paying close attention to the news reports from Iraq. Such reports as I did look at said about what I expected they would, and since I already knew their script ahead of time it's all going to hell; it's all Bush's fault there was no information to be gained. (As Wretchard pointed out, part of the script is that when things go badly for America then we are "hapless"; when things go well then we are "bullies".)

We won't be able to really learn what is happening there for quite a while, by watching long term trends. The press is doing its damndest to turn this into a rerun of the Tet Offensive, and as strange as it may seem, that's the biggest danger we now face.

Recently, Victor sent me the following email: Do you think it is possible that the US can lose the war that were are now engaged in, with the Islamic fanatics? If so, how?

Sure we can lose, and by far the most likely way for us to lose is for us to give up. In the last 30 years we are perceived to have done a lot of that, and our enemies have watched carefully. They know they have no hope of defeating us militarily but they don't think they have to.

The reason we were attacked in September of 2001 was because bin Laden believed we'd fold and surrender. He more or less expected America to respond the way the Spanish did after 3/11. Our enemies now understand that it won't be that easy, but they still hold out hope that eventually we'll lose our nerve.

There may come a time when we have to consider the possibility that the current strategy and campaign has to be significantly altered, but we are not close to that point yet. The recent uprising in Iraq is not an indication that we have failed.

We are often told we must study the lessons of history, and especially we are admonished by those opposing this war to study the lessons of Viet Nam. There are many aspects of that conflict which can teach us important lessons, and much about how it was fought and how it was managed politically to criticize. It is perhaps even arguable that we should not have fought there at all. But irrespective of any of those lessons, there is a very clear lesson to be learned from the Tet Offensive (which was only reinforced by the 1991 Gulf War): civilians can give away politically what soldiers have won on the battlefield.

The five fundamental elements of all war are objectives, strategy, tactics, logistics and morale, and it is possible to win on any of those levels. In this war, our enemies know they have no chance at all of defeating us strategically, tactically or logistically. All attempts to divert us from our objectives have failed. They perceive our greatest vulnerability to be morale, though not the morale of our troops.

They perceive our greatest vulnerability to be morale on the "home front". Even if they can't defeat us militarily, they can win if they convince us as a nation to surrender. If we come to believe we've been defeated, then we are defeated no matter how well or badly things are actually going.

That's how our enemies hope to win this war. But they can only gain such a victory if we citizens permit it. We are now and have always been their primary target. Each and every one of us is fighting this war inside their skulls, and that is where we have the greatest risk of losing.

dude1394
05-13-2004, 10:27 PM
With the media going full-tilt to retreat mode and kerry having viet-nam flashbacks to his greatest victory (humiliating the united states into tucking tail and running) I've been wondering quite a bit if the rest of the US has the stomach for this fight. I'm not sure right now. All I really want to do right now is pretty much make glass and sort it out later, i'm wondering if many of us are feeling that way and we feel that this whole passionate crap towards muslim culture is just a waste of time.


For us to achieve a just victory, it is important to hold ourselves to a higher morality. And when we fall short, the rest of the world should see that we can confront our own mistakes. If airing the Abu Ghraib prison pictures helps us do that, all the better. But we must not let terrorists take it as a sign that we don't have the stomach for war. That's why it's important to show the rest of the world that we're not afraid to kick some ass. And if seeing the gruesome images of Nick Berg's beheading gives us the mettle required to win this war, then he will not have died in vain.
link (http://brain-terminal.com/articles/world/ghraib-berg.html)

Here is a war that has lost less than a 1000 soldiers and the US blue-states have their panties in a wad and are crying that it's doomed and we've lost, even though it's complete bs and only brought on because of politics. But I have to wonder if the us citizen hasn't sunk to that level, that bin laden was actually correct that we really don't have the stomach for any kind of long-term battle.
I think the biggest reason that bush's approval ratings are dropping is because he's NOT kicking ass, but apologising and trying to get the american people to care about the iraqis. Right now the american people could care less about the iraqis or pretty much any muslims right now. They just don't seem to be worth the hassle. It's disturbing.

LRB
05-14-2004, 12:52 AM
Right now the american people could care less about the iraqis or pretty much any muslims right now. They just don't seem to be worth the hassle. It's disturbing.

Unfortuntately I believe that you're right dude. Bush may not be taking the best course to insure reelection, however I believe it to be the right course. I pray that he continues with it and the American people have the stomach to do what is right even if it is hard.

mercury_rev
05-14-2004, 01:54 AM
Originally posted by: LRB

Right now the american people could care less about the iraqis or pretty much any muslims right now. They just don't seem to be worth the hassle. It's disturbing.

Unfortuntately I believe that you're right dude. Bush may not be taking the best course to insure reelection, however I believe it to be the right course. I pray that he continues with it and the American people have the stomach to do what is right even if it is hard.

If Bush cares more about doing what he and his administration honestly judge are the best strategic and tactical approaches to the War against Militant Islam, that's all one can ask of a leader. If Bush continues to abandon the Bush Doctrine for fear of losing reelection, then he deserves to lose. If Bush loses reelection because the majority of voting Americans believe appeasement is a viable strategy for dealing with Muslim fanaticism, then we're screwed. America didn't try to win the "hearts and minds" of fanatical German Nazis or Japanese imperalists, and WWII was a far less dangerous situation than what we now face.

twelli
05-14-2004, 03:54 AM
Originally posted by: mercury_rev

....WWII was a far less dangerous situation than what we now face.


Remember Pearl Harbor?

But I agree, since the failed attempt to appease Hitler, we know that backing off is seen by the enemy as sign of weakness. So, the War on Terrorism has to continue. To do that successfully, they have to be isolated and any support by local governments or less militant groups in the region has to be cut off. More pressure on those governments harboring terrorists. I don't know what happened to Gaddhafi in Libya. How did he become a 'normal' ruler out of a sudden? Or is he still a wolf in sheep's clothing? Is it possible to convert other governments without sending troops, such as Syria, Iran, North Korea?

dude1394
05-28-2004, 07:49 PM
From the great VictorDavisHanson (http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200405280813.asp)
Our leaders should remember this volatility. In the long run, of course, the present strategy is sound and in a decade will be judged as such by historians. How could it not be sound to remove a mass murderer who posed a threat to the region and our country and then sponsor a consensual government in his place?

But what about the short-term for Americans, who are captives of the 24-hour news cycle? Their support depends on us not merely winning as the recent routing of Mr. Sadr attests but winning in such a dramatic fashion that even a global media ideologically opposed to the undertaking is forced to report American success, and report it with genuine zeal.

How does this acceptance of human nature as it is rather than as we wish it to be translate into the proper daily conduct of the war? Not in the way that most think. The communis opinio goes something like this: too few troops, too little planning, and dilatory democratic reform led us into the present 'quagmire' as if our present problems were strategic rather than tactical flaws or a condescending misreading of the Arab Street.

In contrast, I think the military campaign was inspired, the proper number of troops was subject for legitimate debate, and the plans to reconstruct Iraq were more or less sound. After little more than a year, we see greater likelihood of success than failure in this most audacious enterprise. But where we have failed is in managing the pulse of the war and the perception of our advance, success, and victory.

Still not sure we have what it takes for the long haul.