Blogs of War

There are 9 comments in this article:

1. 22/11/2006consentofgoverned says:

   Where are all the Vietnam era officers? As a Nam vet I can’t understand the PC military and the sanctuary policy of allowing Iran and Syria to promote and supply the insurgents in Iraq..the use of our boys to go door to door in known enemy strongholds while B52’s sit on the runways -those that ignore our (Vietnam) history will reap the whirlwind.
   Bless each soldier on active duty today..but your top brass and politicians are incompetent- much as In my era with Westmoreland and LBJ and his Ivy League Sec def -fools all. The current leadership from Bush on down to flag staff
   Do not have half the guts of our brave men on the ground..Lets hope the Generals who where JR. officers in Vietnam will stand up and demand the use of all our firepower to defeat the islamofascists and stop sending our good men into the grinder ..THANKS TO EACH AND EVERY ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE MEMBER IN DANGER ACROSS THE WORLD-YOU ALL ARE TRUE HEROS.

2. 22/11/2006Pour_encouragez_les_autres says:

   Well, he did fall short of calling for Pasdaran units to protectively occupy key US installations, so I guess he’s not *totally* brain dead.

3. 22/11/2006Lord Nazh's Daily Ramble says:

   Updates on the news I’m reading out there…

   Updates on the news I’m reading out there…

4. 22/11/2006joe odonnell says:

   obama who the hell is this guy. what makes him a expert on iraq and war. what makes him an expert on anything. i thing thje dems are very happy that a good looking articulate black man just pooped up

5. 22/11/2006Hannah's Friend says:

   Do you seriously think that there’s a real danger of Iran invading or occupying Iraq? These are two strongly nationalistic populations who fought a war with each other less than 30 years ago.

   Additionally, it’s not clear why we have a security interest in Iraq in the first place, nor is it clear that we could impose our geopolitical will in the region at an acceptable cost. Even if the specific argument Obama espouses regarding the motivations and interests of Iran and Syria is nonsense, a troop withdrawal may still be the best way to cut our losses, conserve our economic and military strength, and ensure the security of the American homeland and American people.

6. 23/11/2006A L says:

   The lesson of Iraq should be that a change is needed in Western armies….Even if the U.S trains 100 000 iraqi soldiers and they are deployed tomorrow, that will not be enough to control the problem, namely Islamists. NO ARMY CAN DEFEAT TERRORISM AND THIS WHOLE ‘BUILD UP TROOP NUMBERS TO SAVE IRAQ’ IS FOOEY. Only highly effective anti terrorist commandos can defeat one cell, and one cell at a time, folks. The iraqi army will be a sham and one that is destroyed and imploded. The U.S will leave in larger disgrace than it is in currently, if that is possible, and will be blamed for starting the mess. Whether they did start or they just facilitated a larger growth of Islamic power in that region is really irrelevant. What to do that will neutralise the threat is the key. I propose sanctions for not educating the kids properly- what do you think, Mr Obama?

7. 23/11/2006Hannah's Friend says:

   I’m certainly not Mr. Obama, but I think sanctions are a bad idea because they seldom do anything but inflict mass suffering on a population. In the history of the use of economic sanctions as a tool of international politics, there have been only a few instances of success in achieving a political objective. In almost all cases, the sanctions do nothing to change the behavior of the government and simply lower the standard of living of civilian citizens, frequently killing many of them. It has become the position of many good-hearted people in the world to support sanctions because they appear to be less brutal than all-out war, but the reality is that they can be just as brutal.

   AJ makes an excellent observation that the American military seems unsuited to winning the “war on terror.” The problem now doesn’t seem to be tactical – the troops on the ground are scoring considerable tactical victories against individual militant cells. The problem is that when fighting an insurgency, it’s very difficult to string tactical victories together into a strategic victory, and impossible to achieve a political victory without strategic triumph. A reevaluation of our strategic and political objectives in light of the nature of our enemy is in order.

8. 24/11/2006kb says:

   HF said:

   “Do you seriously think that there’s a real danger of Iran invading or occupying Iraq? These are two strongly nationalistic populations who fought a war with each other less than 30 years ago.”

   HF is correct to obsevre this simple fact. The current threat being concocted against Iran is exactly that, a concoction. Pretty soon there will no doubt be evidence that Osama is friends with the Iranians just as Saddam supposedly was. It’s a fairy tale, albeit a useful one when creating the next pretext. However, HF’s next statement needs to be considered a little more carefully:

   “Additionally, it’s not clear why we have a security interest in Iraq in the first place”

   This is a good question. The answer is that which it has been going back since the British ruled the region, oil. This is hardly a secret from anyone excpet much of the U.S. public who are indoctrinated to believe it has something to do with “spreading democracy”, “fighting terrorism”, or whatever the prop of the week is. It’s never been anything else. And it’s important for the military boys, especially the ones lower down, you know, the ones doing all the fighting, sort of like in huge corporations where most of the work is being down with the rabble, to not be aware of the primary reasons for being there. It’s probably a little more difficult to sell the idea of protecting the oil which sits half way around the world in a different country for exploitation by the west so that Humvees can be driven, instead of something more frightening, like the “Terrorist Islamic baby-eaters are coming to get ya’”, and all the rest of the nonsense. It used to be the baby-eating communists, and now it’s the Islamic terrorists. Always someone to have to save ourselves just in time from. This is as old as recoreded warfare. And anyone familiar with American history should know it’s as old as U.S. history. It’s nothing new at all. The names change, the location, sometimes even the reasons, but OIL is often the reason, and in the case with Iraq there is nothing else. Zero. And anyone thinking there is some other reason is simply living in a fantasy world. If military folks should be pissed off about anything at all, it should be for being used in this manner. This is NOT what the military’s job is. Ask one of the more honest military personnel, Smedly Butler. Now there’s an honest man.

   “nor is it clear that we could impose our geopolitical will in the region at an acceptable cost.”

   Or that we should. Or that we have some sort of right to. I’m still waiting for Consent to explain to me what right the U.S. has of doing anything anywhere, and if all other countries of the world have the same rights.

   “Even if the specific argument Obama espouses regarding the motivations and interests of Iran and Syria is nonsense, a troop withdrawal may still be the best way to cut our losses, conserve our economic and military strength, and ensure the security of the American homeland and American people.”

   I doubt the argument he espouses is nonsense, but the rest of your comment is probably correct. It would also help on the security front by reducing the growing anti-Americanism which has developed almost beyond measure by this administration, and the likes of the New Project for a Manifest Destiny, or whatever their name is.kb

   A L said:

   “The lesson of Iraq should be that a change is needed in Western armies…”

   Yes, I agree. Western armies shouldn’t be going to places where they shouldn’t be. It’s a simple lesson, but one which some find it difficult to abide by.

   “Even if the U.S trains 100 000 iraqi soldiers and they are deployed tomorrow, that will not be enough to control the problem, namely Islamists.”

   Of course that wouldn’t be enough. But the U.S. has no business training anybody to do anything. It’s not the U.S.’s country. And I’m afraid that most of the 100,000 Iraqi soldiers will probably be “Islamists” themselves. Perhaps the U.S. should re-install Saddam as they did in the first place so as to restore “stability” as the government stated. I mean, that IS why we were there in the first place yes? Stability for the oil. Period. Saddam’s crimes were never an issue. For that matter, the crimes of most any U.S. supported dictator are rarely ever the issue, at least until it becomes useful to hold it against them. Most cromes by most U.S. supported dictators were committed, as with Saddam, DURING the time of the support. There are probably few things in world affairs with as much consistancy as this.

   “NO ARMY CAN DEFEAT TERRORISM”

   And it’s probably not a bad idea to stop supporting them from the outset as was done with Osama, as well as supporting them before, during, and after their worst crimes, as was done with Saddam. Helping to create the terrorists, and then having to fight against them, is hardly a noble cause. It’s not much more than having a mafia boss create a bunch of drug dealers, and when a few get out of control he whacks them. The point is, is that he should have been creating them in the first place. Do we cheer when a kingpin kills off a few of his underlings as if this makes him noble? This would be the logic.

   “AND THIS WHOLE ‘BUILD UP TROOP NUMBERS TO SAVE IRAQ’ IS FOOEY.”

   This is exactly correct. And “save” from what? It will probably go the way Iran did when we tried to “save” it from it’s own population and install a dictator.

   “Only highly effective anti terrorist commandos can defeat one cell, and one cell at a time, folks.”

   Yes, I agree. And if the U.S. would quit giving these cells just that which it needs to recruit more and more members, which has increased leaps and bounds thanks to the Bush posse, there would be far fewer cells which need to be confronted. It’s probably a good idea to look at the causes instead of trying to cure the disease simply by looking at the effects.

   “The iraqi army will be a sham and one that is destroyed and imploded.”

   Probably. But that’s not really your problem, other than the U.S. owes Iraq billions of dollars of reparations for destroying much of the country. Of course if it goes the way things usually go, those who lose the war will have to pay for it. This is the history of warefare. So, don’t be surprised when we start hearing talk of how much the Iraqi’s owe the U.S.

   “The U.S will leave in larger disgrace than it is in currently, if that is possible”

   At least you seem to be aware that there is disgrace involved. But it’s hardly because something was lost. It’s because something should never have been started in the first place.

   “and will be blamed for starting the mess.”

   Huh? This is hardly a secret. Of course the U.S. will be blamed. And any honest God-fearing or otherwise person knows this without question. That you must even pose the thought is what’s odd. The U.S. invaded on false pretexts, and ones which were predicted LONG ago, and which 9/11 shot into action. Most folks I knew upon hearing about 9/11 said this would happen before the false Saddam/al Qaeda connection hit the press. This was OLD.

   “Whether they did start or they just facilitated a larger growth of Islamic power in that region is really irrelevant.”

   Yes, it is. As it’s their region, they can pretty much do what they want. The U.S. has helped to do nothing but make the probability more likely. Happened in Iran already, remember?

   “What to do that will neutralise the threat is the key.”

   Yes, and bombing is the absolute worst, not to mention unintelligent answer, as usual, and as one would expect.

   “I propose sanctions for not educating the kids properly- what do you think, Mr Obama?”

   Starving another several hundred thousand civilians into submission is your answer on how to win the hearts and minds of someone? And people want to know what the problem with the U.S. is. Geez!kb

9. 1/11/2010Blogs of War: Video: Barack Obama’s Monday Night Football Announcement says:

   [...] I think Obama’s a lightweight but I don’t think he’s going to campaign like one. Can he generate the huge amount of [...]

Write a comment: