The Cold War, Vietnam War and the Korean war never cost this much

[mmarlo 1]

For me personally I agree with the going to Iraq and Afghan. People have to come back to reality and realize the world is not simply black or white. Reasoning is not an option with so many people..

Unfortunately the war was mismanaged. Iraq has become a guerrilla style of war. Conventional armies cannot win these types of wars using conventional tactics and weapons, no matter how superior or advanced the weapons may be. History has proven this time and time again..

I read an interesting article not to long ago. I think it sums up the strategic failure in recent conflicts, including Iraq..

if you want to catch a mouse, you need a cat. If you hire a lion to do the job because it is bigger and stronger, the very strength and size of the lion can get in the way of getting the job done. "A lion is built for different prey," Lyall said. "A lion is built to take down an antelope, and a cat is designed to take down a mouse. Now [in Iraq] we are a lion trying to take down a mouse.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7030401260.html

Going into Iraq on what grounds?

What is the purpose of international law if one country can flagrantly disregard it?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Moreover - where did this war originate from if not from a "black and white" view of the world?

[Caladan 19]

Afghanistan was the right move. There wasn't an option, really. We didn't recognize the Taliban, there wasn't a civil option, and the country needed blood.

But Iraq. People act as though Iraq was a good idea that was poorly managed and would have worked perfectly except for a few mistakes.

Point one: if your plan depends on flawless execution for success, it isn't a good plan. Point two: if you thought Iraq would be easy in 2002, you were wrong, and not because of mistakes, because it was a guarantee that deposing Hussein would lead to serious regional instability. Smart people saw that. Smart people argued that. Point three: if you couldn't see that, you shouldn't be in charge of the damn government.

Would that in 2002 we had poured those extra troops in to securing and rebuilding Afghanistan. Four years of stability, a solid base from which to work, finish routing al-Qaeda. Of course, the administration wouldn't have been able to dangle 9/11 in everyone's faces to amp up the warhawks, but then we might have actually had half a shot at *not* being in the middle of a civil war.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Afghanistan was the right move. There wasn't an option, really. We didn't recognize the Taliban, there wasn't a civil option, and the country needed blood.

But Iraq. People act as though Iraq was a good idea that was poorly managed and would have worked perfectly except for a few mistakes.

Point one: if your plan depends on flawless execution for success, it isn't a good plan. Point two: if you thought Iraq would be easy in 2002, you were wrong, and not because of mistakes, because it was a guarantee that deposing Hussein would lead to serious regional instability. Smart people saw that. Smart people argued that. Point three: if you couldn't see that, you shouldn't be in charge of the damn government.

Would that in 2002 we had poured those extra troops in to securing and rebuilding Afghanistan. Four years of stability, a solid base from which to work, finish routing al-Qaeda. Of course, the administration wouldn't have been able to dangle 9/11 in everyone's faces to amp up the warhawks, but then we might have actually had half a shot at *not* being in the middle of a civil war.

Yep.

[LaL 418]

How can we defeat such a primitive enemy?

you try too hard to be provocative.

[mmarlo 1]

Afghanistan was the right move. There wasn't an option, really. We didn't recognize the Taliban, there wasn't a civil option, and the country needed blood.

But Iraq. People act as though Iraq was a good idea that was poorly managed and would have worked perfectly except for a few mistakes.

Point one: if your plan depends on flawless execution for success, it isn't a good plan. Point two: if you thought Iraq would be easy in 2002, you were wrong, and not because of mistakes, because it was a guarantee that deposing Hussein would lead to serious regional instability. Smart people saw that. Smart people argued that. Point three: if you couldn't see that, you shouldn't be in charge of the damn government.

Would that in 2002 we had poured those extra troops in to securing and rebuilding Afghanistan. Four years of stability, a solid base from which to work, finish routing al-Qaeda. Of course, the administration wouldn't have been able to dangle 9/11 in everyone's faces to amp up the warhawks, but then we might have actually had half a shot at *not* being in the middle of a civil war.

Afghanistan isn't as much of a slam dunk as it's been made out to be, tacitly assumed to be the right move even on the left. There was widespread criticism of the bombings in Afghanistan, due to the large number of civilian casualties through carpet bombing and the like. Our bombing basically suspended all food, water, and medical aid going to many groups that needed it, and we triggered a humanitarian disaster. The policy itself is actually very dangerous. The war was illegal, but it was considered legitimate. And possibly worse for the stated goal of reducing terrorism in this conflict and related ones across the border in Pakistan, we have incited huge protests after incidents where we fired a missle into a house and killed maybe one or two suspected terrorists while at the same time wiped out a dozen or more civilians. The response is predictable: large-scale protest, hatred, and resentment of the US. Maybe we killed one or two al qaeda operatives, but we made 100-200k much more likely to support al qaeda in the future.

[mawilson 2,133]

Afghanistan isn't as much of a slam dunk as it's been made out to be, tacitly assumed to be the right move even on the left. There was widespread criticism of the bombings in Afghanistan, due to the large number of civilian casualties through carpet bombing and the like. Our bombing basically suspended all food, water, and medical aid going to many groups that needed it, and we triggered a humanitarian disaster. The policy itself is actually very dangerous. The war was illegal, but it was considered legitimate. And possibly worse for the stated goal of reducing terrorism in this conflict and related ones across the border in Pakistan, we have incited huge protests after incidents where we fired a missle into a house and killed maybe one or two suspected terrorists while at the same time wiped out a dozen or more civilians. The response is predictable: large-scale protest, hatred, and resentment of the US. Maybe we killed one or two al qaeda operatives, but we made 100-200k much more likely to support al qaeda in the future.

Since you do not seem to believe in fighting, what do you think would have been an appropriate

response to 9/11? Do nothing?

[Ban Hammer 13,678]

The war was illegal, but it was considered legitimate.

[mmarlo 1]

Since you do not seem to believe in fighting, what do you think would have been an appropriate

response to 9/11? Do nothing?

I'm not a pacifist, and our government has a responsibility to protect its citizens. But what we did was provide support for marginalized group by doing exactly what they wanted us to do, the only thing that gave them a hope for survival. We created a far worse problem for ourselves by attacking single-handedly and without understanding the underlying causes and grievances that triggered the 9/11 attacks. At the time of 9/11, the Arab world virtually all condemned Al Qaeda's actions. Al Qaeda was already extremely marginalized in the Arab world and holed up in caves; they didn't have much support. We should have used the united condemnation of Al Qaeda in the Arab world to extinguish the group, possibly through warfare, but certainly not in the manner we did it--alone and through our own terrorist acts, creating a humanitarian disaster in Afghanistan. Instead, we turned virtually the entire arab world against us, creating many more enemies than we previously had. We should have tried to better understand the causes of the 9/11 attacks and address those causes. Instead, the administration whipped up nationalistic fervor and started a religious war. And now we all stand to lose for it.

How did the UK deal with the IRA and their terrorist bombings? First with much violence, and the situation became much worse and persisted for a long time, with large numbers of casualties on both sides. Eventually, they tried to better address the root causes of the violence, understand the grievances of IRA, etc., doing so without much violence. The situation still isn't problem-free, but it's much better today than it was in the 80s. There are some models for the successful fighting of terrorism. We ignored those examples and have continued as the world's leader in state-sponsored terrorism.

[Jenn! 918]

Since you do not seem to believe in fighting, what do you think would have been an appropriate

response to 9/11? Do nothing?

I'm not a pacifist, and our government has a responsibility to protect its citizens. But what we did was provide support for marginalized group by doing exactly what they wanted us to do, the only thing that gave them a hope for survival. We created a far worse problem for ourselves by attacking single-handedly and without understanding the underlying causes and grievances that triggered the 9/11 attacks. At the time of 9/11, the Arab world virtually all condemned Al Qaeda's actions. Al Qaeda was already extremely marginalized in the Arab world and holed up in caves; they didn't have much support. We should have used the united condemnation of Al Qaeda in the Arab world to extinguish the group, possibly through warfare, but certainly not in the manner we did it--alone and through our own terrorist acts, creating a humanitarian disaster in Afghanistan. Instead, we turned virtually the entire arab world against us, creating many more enemies than we previously had. We should have tried to better understand the causes of the 9/11 attacks and address those causes. Instead, the administration whipped up nationalistic fervor and started a religious war. And now we all stand to lose for it.

How did the UK deal with the IRA and their terrorist bombings? First with much violence, and the situation became much worse and persisted for a long time, with large numbers of casualties on both sides. Eventually, they tried to better address the root causes of the violence, understand the grievances of IRA, etc., doing so without much violence. The situation still isn't problem-free, but it's much better today than it was in the 80s. There are some models for the successful fighting of terrorism. We ignored those examples and have continued as the world's leader in state-sponsored terrorism.

:thumbs:

Edited March 21, 2007 by jenn3539

[mmarlo 1]

The war was illegal, but it was considered legitimate.

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200501--.pdf

On 'just war' theory and the doctrine of illegal but legitimate war. More on Afganistan on p. 22 (of the PDF, p. 26 of the article itself).

[Ban Hammer 13,678]

The war was illegal, but it was considered legitimate.

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200501--.pdf

On 'just war' theory and the doctrine of illegal but legitimate war. More on Afganistan on p. 22 (of the PDF, p. 26 of the article itself).

bad link...........try again.

[LaL 418]

The war was illegal, but it was considered legitimate.

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200501--.pdf

On 'just war' theory and the doctrine of illegal but legitimate war. More on Afganistan on p. 22 (of the PDF, p. 26 of the article itself).

bad link...........try again.

it opened for me (yay chomsky)

[Alex+R 0]

The war was illegal, but it was considered legitimate.

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200501--.pdf

On 'just war' theory and the doctrine of illegal but legitimate war. More on Afganistan on p. 22 (of the PDF, p. 26 of the article itself).

bad link...........try again.

it opened for me (yay chomsky)

for me too (also yay for chomsky)

[Caladan 19]

mmarlo, something like 80% of al Qaeda's membership was routed. It wasn't a slam dunk, but we didn't do it unilaterally. We had Muslim allies. And had we stayed and fixed the humanitarian problem, we'd be in a lot better shape.

Pacifist responses weren't an option in 2001 in Afghanistan. Nothing saying that we shouldn't address root causes, because to *solve* the problem, you have to. But there wasn't going to be a root cause solution with the Taliban in charge. Warring Afghanistan hasn't turned out well, but quite a lot of that is that our resources were diverted to Baghdad rather than put towards rebuilding.