[Denny]

Looking at the past twenty or thirty years, since Vietnam, it seems that America, and for that matter, the rest of the western world, is unable to raise a substantial force to bring a broad base war to a swift conclusion. I am not sure if the limits are political or economic - maybe both.

Imagine if the USA could have sent 3 million trops to Iraq, not a measly 150,000. Just as in Germany in WW2, they could have taken good control. Closed the borders, cleaned out all the weapons from neighbourhoods. Instead all we have is a damaged country. I suspect Germany or Japan were much better places to live four years after the 1944 invasion, than Iraq is today.

But, I understand from reading that that war on this scale would not be affordable. Or not acceptable to the public. Yet, the US sent more men just to Europe in WW2, and Asia over and above that! I think at a peak, the USA had over 6 million men overseas in uniform, and was able to feed them all well and supply fuel, munitions and replacements for all the equipment that was wrecked in battle. When it had half today's population. Yet, some posture that Iraq is absorbing 10% of the US budget now. So, it would not seem possible to do 10 times as much. Nor would Mr. and Mrs. America feel good about so many of the youth going overseas.


Similar in Afghanistan. It seems we rout out the Taliban from one corner of the country, then move off to fight them elsewhere. Meanwhile they just return to the previous place of coalition "victory". Then we go back, and the circle continues. They have said that they can lose five times as many men as we do and still replace them to maintain battle, and I think they are right, unforunately. So, we have to make them lose 10 times as many men.

Despite our wealth and large population, it seems all western countries are showing ourselves to be kind of wimpy in the face of our enemies. In fact, I think the terrorists fear the USA less today than before Iraq.

Why can't we all just adopt a 100% war effort for a couple of years and clean up Iraq and Afghanistan, and any other nations adopting hostile ways? Get all the western world united. In fact, it may even boost patriotism, as if everybody is on board, the feeling of hard work for a good cause becomes conatagious.

Yes, it may take more taxes and it may take some solid advertising to win the public over, but wouldn't it be good to settle this for once and for all?

[OilIsMastery]

How is a gay military supposed to defeat terrorists? Rumsfeld's Rump Rangers have no chance. What are they going to fight the terrorists with? Pink balloons?

[Twilight]

Why would the Western world want to be united, different parts of it are quite capable of profiting from one another's lucky breaks and misfortune. This isn't land of brotherly love, it's national interest. National, not bloc. It was never anything but. Germany got kicked in the 40s, but did everyone take part? No.

By the way, you said "despite our wealth and large population". Not despite, because. A bricklayer earns more than an infantryman, it would take the infantryman a decade of service to catch up with an entry-level engineer. The West reached a peak of blood-lust in the 1930s and 1940s because life was shit (look, we're talking daily hunger) and you had to be tough to survive. Poverty motivates, wealth doesn't. No-one rushes off to die if there is easy money to be made. People rush off to die if the alternative is staying on the farm wondering whether you'd have enough to eat that year.

You are not going to win the public over with advertising and with higher taxes. You need the right sort of depression to give the public no alternative, but one which does not damage your industrial base.

You also need a population in good health. None of this obesity, allergy, asthma and diabetes stuff. More than half the military age population is ruled out at a glance. This was not the case in the past. Populations have grown, but the pool has not.

Lastly, you are talking about a pyrrhic victory. All wars have some sort of payout in mind. Why go to war to give something away?

[Bas]

it's much easier to win support at home and abroad for fighting agressors like 1940's Japan and Germany then when you are fighting against a guerilla enemy on his own turf, which history has shown countless times is next to impossible to win (even for Nazi Germany against the Russian partisans) plus that in such wars a relative large portion of the victims are civilians, which in a country with a free press will further undermine public support.

A good example of what kind of wars the democratic west should fight and will always win in terms of military succes and public support is the first gulf war; you had an enemy aggressor with a conventional army having invaded a sovereign country. The West acted unanimously in kicking them out, had the Western armies pushed on to baghdad and deposed Saddam back then, the result would probably have been much better then what it is now.

[Denny]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Twilight', '
')Lastly, you are talking about a pyrrhic victory. All wars have some sort of payout in mind. Why go to war to give something away?

[oswald622]

This post relies on false assumptions, such as that a war must be over quickly for it to be 'won'. Why should a war be over quickly? As long as popular dissent doesn't get too out of hand, a protracted war is ultimately beneficial because it means far greater profits for the military-industrial complex.

Also, the US won the Vietnam War - they are making tennis shoes for us now.

The US won the war in Afghanistan - we got the heroin trade up and running again.

The US is winning the war in Iraq - we have a nice big base in the most strategic position in the world, and the military contractors are raking it in. So what if a bunch of Iraqis are dead, or if the country is in chaos, or if a few thousand Americans die? Did you think that our geo-strategists wanted a nice liberal democracy in Iraq, where everyone has water and power and peace and prosperity? What ever made you think they give a fuck?

[Twilight]

Military contractors =/= US.

The mercs are making big bucks, but it's a fraction of the war cost, the US is losing hundreds of billions of dollars. It's a net loss to the US. If it was in America's interest to give payouts to mercs (a large proportion of whom are foreign), it could have given them more contracts in peacetime.

Iraq / Afghanistan is not the most strategic position in the world either. It's a trap.

Strategic is where you can reap easy money and resources. If you go through a bloodbath only to be denied the prize, strategic is not where your strategists thought it was. It is somewhere else, where you are not.

The fact is someone fucked up, and everyone else fully committed to a partial committment because yes, the West is too soft, plump and comfy for the real thing.

If you think the US and UK governments did not make a bad bet, but made a different bet entirely, you must be assuming they are actively working against the interests of the countries they are leading. That's nuts. They are not evil geniuses, just wrong and paying the price.

[seldom_seen]

What Bas said.

Reccomended reading:

Brave New War: The Next Stage of Terrorism and the End of Globalization by John Robb

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/

PS: author mentions peak oil several times in book

[oswald622]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Twilight', 'T')he mercs are making big bucks, but it's a fraction of the war cost, the US is losing hundreds of billions of dollars.

[Twilight]

That's right, being there has no value.

Exerting long-term influence over countries like KSA does have value. Having boots on the ground in Iraq doesn't. What you earn in one location you squander in another, and run the risk of destabilising the golden geese that lay the eggs.

The strategy out there actually worked pretty well until this lot decided to shake it up. For a half century from 1945 it ran OK and we know the reward. If they did it to enrich themselves and their peers through a handful of companies, they are idiots, because there may be only years left until it slips from everyone's grasp.

It's like working your way up a company that has steady long-term performance in several quality markets, then blowing it all on a speculative venture in order to inflate your share options and cash out before the bankruptcy. OK, people do it all the time. It works. That does not mean it is wise.

[NEOPO]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oswald622', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Twilight', 'T')he mercs are making big bucks, but it's a fraction of the war cost, the US is losing hundreds of billions of dollars.

[Denny]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oswald622', 'T')his post relies on false assumptions, such as that a war must be over quickly for it to be 'won'. Why should a war be over quickly? As long as popular dissent doesn't get too out of hand, a protracted war is ultimately beneficial because it means far greater profits for the military-industrial complex.

Also, the US won the Vietnam War - they are making tennis shoes for us now.

The US won the war in Afghanistan - we got the heroin trade up and running again.

The US is winning the war in Iraq - we have a nice big base in the most strategic position in the world, and the military contractors are raking it in. So what if a bunch of Iraqis are dead, or if the country is in chaos, or if a few thousand Americans die? Did you think that our geo-strategists wanted a nice liberal democracy in Iraq, where everyone has water and power and peace and prosperity? What ever made you think they give a fuck?

[NEOPO]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Denny', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oswald622', 'T')his post relies on false assumptions, such as that a war must be over quickly for it to be 'won'. Why should a war be over quickly? As long as popular dissent doesn't get too out of hand, a protracted war is ultimately beneficial because it means far greater profits for the military-industrial complex.

Also, the US won the Vietnam War - they are making tennis shoes for us now.

The US won the war in Afghanistan - we got the heroin trade up and running again.

The US is winning the war in Iraq - we have a nice big base in the most strategic position in the world, and the military contractors are raking it in. So what if a bunch of Iraqis are dead, or if the country is in chaos, or if a few thousand Americans die? Did you think that our geo-strategists wanted a nice liberal democracy in Iraq, where everyone has water and power and peace and prosperity? What ever made you think they give a fuck?

[Gigashadow]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilIsMastery', 'H')ow is a gay military supposed to defeat terrorists? Rumsfeld's Rump Rangers have no chance. What are they going to fight the terrorists with? Pink balloons?

[OilIsMastery]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gigashadow', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilIsMastery', 'H')ow is a gay military supposed to defeat terrorists? Rumsfeld's Rump Rangers have no chance. What are they going to fight the terrorists with? Pink balloons?

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilIsMastery', '
')Maybe you were born yesterday but the last time I checked it's not Christians who are hijacking planes and suicide bombing people all over the world. Or maybe you think it's all a Buddhist conspiracy to make the innocent Muslim terrorists look bad. Borrow a clue.

[OilIsMastery]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Keith_McClary', 'I')sn't it Christians who have been invading and occupying Muslim countries for decades

[Cloud9]

As I recall, the early Christian churches were established long before Islam appeared. It was Islam that drove out Christianity rather than Christianity that drove out Islam.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/coptchurch.htm

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilIsMastery', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Keith_McClary', 'I')sn't it Christians who have been invading and occupying Muslim countries for decades

[OilIsMastery]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Keith_McClary', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilIsMastery', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Keith_McClary', 'I')sn't it Christians who have been invading and occupying Muslim countries for decades