Article

2006-08-16 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mike 2006-08-16 17:33|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Just Win Baby.. Just Win!

and I ain't no throwback buddy

Posted by Barney Rubble 2006-08-16 17:49|| 2006-08-16 17:49|| Front Page Top

#2 I await SnowPersons input.

Posted by 6 2006-08-16 18:04|| 2006-08-16 18:04|| Front Page Top

#3 I just want them to let our military fight this war without artifical restraints.

Is that too much to ask?

Yes, when the liberals and PC whores are in charge.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2006-08-16 18:05|| 2006-08-16 18:05|| Front Page Top

#4 This is a simple argument. An analogy would be "Would you rather win $10 and feel really, really good about it; or earn 1 Million dollars in such a ho-hum and boring manner that you just can't get worked up about it much at all?"

People who want to join the army in a fit of patriotic ferver, to go attack the hated enemy, then come home to great celebration, make shitty soldiers. Their support for real soldiers is also a fickle and mean-spirited thing. They are the "Thank you, Mister Atkins" crowd, lauding one minute and cursing the next.

Life, for them, is a series of emotional events not grounded in reality. Winning or losing is just a means to have their emotional masturbation.

Often they see even the office of the Presidency as nothing more complex than an hour-long TV show.

At the start, someone bursts into his office waving some papers and says, "Mr President, we have a crisis!" The President then has 40 minutes or so to solve the crisis and bring everything back to normal. There is no continuity.

Such people should never have anything to do with foreign policy or the military. They do not have an attention span that recognizes decades, much less years. Policy is based on something said at last week's cocktail party.

The reality is just the opposite. In the 18th and 19th Century foreign and military affairs were seen with the complexity of a chess game, by the great leaders. But today, the greatest of our leaders plays not just 3rd-dimensional chess, but 4th-dimensional chess.

George Bush Sr. was a master of what were called "linkages" in foreign policy, but his son, and his brain trust, transcended even this. Ironically, in one of his first debates, George W. Bush coined the word "strategery", in a presidential debate, to the great amusement of the media.

However, what he and his strategists engage in is so unique and powerful, a whole new level of strategy, that it transcends the word.

"Strategery" should enter the lexicon as a level of strategic planning as far advanced above ordinary strategy as chess is above checkers.

Our leaders use this means of planning to give the United States an advantage over every other nation and power in the world.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-08-16 18:10|| 2006-08-16 18:10|| Front Page Top

#5 I imagine they'll have a hard time figuring out our demographic if we keep eating the pollsters.

Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2006-08-16 18:20|| 2006-08-16 18:20|| Front Page Top

#6 The proper terminology is Jacksonian. Or as reported -

Teddy Roosevelt: "Do not get into a fight if you can possibly avoid it. If you get in, see it through. Don't hit if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting, but never hit soft. Don't hit at all if you can help it; don't hit a man if you can possibly avoid it; but if you do hit him, put him to sleep."

Posted by Glurt Flavitch2274 2006-08-16 18:59|| 2006-08-16 18:59|| Front Page Top

#7 OK, some more serious food for thought than Pollster Tartare...

* One a da big complaints everyone says about the Vietnam War was that the people who got us into it didn't have an "exit strategy."

* Some people have said we did have an exit strategy, but bailed on our plan when the Congress decided to abandon the country; they have a point.

* Other people say the North Vietnamese won because we were obsessed with "exit strategies" while _they_ didn't have one.

Now, I don't wanna get into whether or not Dubya is smart or dumb. It's neither here nor there. There is a lot of dumb ink being spilled over whether "Democritization" is a good or bad idea.

The continuing existance of Hamas and Hezbollah is often cited as evidence that Democracy can't work in the Middle East; never mind that we wouldn't call it democracy in the first place if Hezbollah were elected to the Chicago city council using the same methods as were used in Lebanon (i.e. a prolonged occupation by the Syrian army which only left after all groups BUT Hezbollah were disarmed, and then the election run by Syrian-written rules).

Iraq is also cited as proof that Democracy Can't Work.

Well, I got at least one cite:

We've run the experiment where we just find a local general to keep the country under control and the enemy at bay. Or where we "give up" on Democracy and shoot the leader we think is being ineffective and put in another one. We did that during the Vietnam War.

It really didn't seem to help that much.

Now maybe Democracy is a bad idea, perhaps in the particular cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, maybe even in general. I think Churchill said something along the lines that it sucked, but everything else just sucks worse.

But it is a goal. It might work better than running away, which half the Carping Critics seem to want, or setting up the Ba'athist Core as _our_ tribute farmers instead of Saddam's which about half of the remaining Carping Critics seem to have wanted. These Carping Critics appear to have a consensus put together because they can blame That Retard, George Bush, for listening to Those Sinister Neocons and doing all these foolish things, but the alternative strategies they're suggesting are mutually incompatible and even if pursuing one or the other would produce results, taken alone each of their mutually exclusive strategies doesn't have very much support.

Remember, folks, Clausewitz said that war was (among other things) the extension of politics by other means. (Some people say it's the other way around. But I digress. I guess it depends on how many barbarians are crowded outside your city walls).

And politics is the art of the possible.

Bush seems to be trying to implement a strategy that fits in with the art of the possible. Verily it sucketh, just like any other one will suck.

Turning over Eastern Europe to the Russians and bequething their kids with the Cold War was a sucky strategy during WW2, it's just that noone who really mattered noticed at the time.

The question is, does it suck less than the other possible alternatives?

As for the thesis of the article, well, if there were such overwhelming support for a "caveman" approach to the situation wrt the Middle East, I suspect that Kerry wouldn't have gotten 48-49% of the vote, or whatever it was.

And I suspect that anything the author or I write on the situation in the ME, or the electorate, is going to be badly obsolete in six months' time.

Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2006-08-16 19:02|| 2006-08-16 19:02|| Front Page Top

#8 Bah, wish I could rewrite some parts of that. Ah keeps imagining my Engrish teacher looking over my shoulder, and tapping on it with his sword...

At least they got rid of all the "thee" and "thou" stuff, though, back in the day it really confused me.

Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2006-08-16 19:10|| 2006-08-16 19:10|| Front Page Top

#9 Verily, thou speekest truely, oh hairy one.

Posted by lotp 2006-08-16 19:23|| 2006-08-16 19:23|| Front Page Top

#10 Also, I think there's a false dichotomy involved: do you want a strategy that sucks less, or one that sucks just as much or worse so long as you can pretend it doesn't suck at all?

Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2006-08-16 19:41|| 2006-08-16 19:41|| Front Page Top

#11 The thing is except for the Kurds and the Israelites I don't give a rats ass for the rest. I am sorry that sounds bad , but I don't, if I could get both them groups away from the ME I scorch earth the place and start over.

Posted by djohn66 2006-08-16 20:45|| 2006-08-16 20:45|| Front Page Top

#12 AS: Turning over Eastern Europe to the Russians and bequething their kids with the Cold War was a sucky strategy during WW2, it's just that noone who really mattered noticed at the time.

As far as I'm concerned, that was a fine strategy. It was superior to losing another million men trying to push the Soviets back. Don't get me wrong - I would have loved seeing the French or the British take on this task. As I am sure they would have loved to see GI's in Russia. But the cost would have been astronomical. It's one thing to take on Iran, North Korea or Syria. And quite another to take on a major power like the Soviets on the tail end of bloody wars with three major Axis powers.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-08-16 20:46|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2006-08-16 20:46|| Front Page Top

#13 The supply train for the vast majority of the Soviet Army ran on American-made trucks. It wouldn't have hurt if some of the effort that went into those trucks went into building a better tank than the Sherman.

Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2006-08-16 22:09|| 2006-08-16 22:09|| Front Page Top

#14 A lot of good thoughts in there, Snowman, and don't worry about the grammar. Just tell 'em it's your Yeti dialect coming through.

Posted by Mike 2006-08-16 22:46|| 2006-08-16 22:46|| Front Page Top

23:54 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:52 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:49 PBMcL
23:41 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:37 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:36 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:36 3dc
23:35 RWV
23:20 RWV
23:17 RWV
23:13 Brett
23:08 3dc
23:04 3dc
23:02 anonymous2u
23:00 Danking70
22:58 Steve White
22:50 Old Patriot
22:46 Mike
22:45 Barbara Skolaut
22:44 DMFD
22:44 tu3031
22:40 DMFD
22:34 Frank G
22:33 borgboy