Asherman I suppose Napolean agreed with you up until 1812 Moscow. He died after losing an empire with the model of strength prevails. Vietnam, remember the kill ratio? That was the same model of strength that allowed the US to lose on the ground, in the trenches, in the streets, the living rooms back home and most of all the US lost it's audience. Americans have never been weak but they (we) often misunderestimate the strength the enemy. Reagan did in Lebanon, Johnson/Nixon did in Vietnam and Rumsfeld is doing it today.
Asherman wrote:ChicagoJoe,
Thank you for elaborating on the formula describing wars of attrition. The salient facts are that in such conflicts the odds favor the side with the greatest resources, but even more important than resources is the will to continue to the end.
And that's why your formula is vacuous. Ultimately, if the formula merely describes wars of attrition, then the side that wins is the side that had the
will to continue. As I pointed out, the formula then can be pared down to E(w):A(w), which doesn't actually explain anything that we didn't already know.
Asherman wrote:In Vietnam we were victorious on the battlefield, but the campaign was lost in the living rooms of America. We will prevail in Iraq, if the administration retains the will to pursue the effort with vigor.
Or, to put it another way, we'll win if we win. Formula or not, you are still stuck repeating vapid truisms,
Asherman.
Asherman wrote:The inability of our enemies to fight the United States by conventional means is the reason that they have adopted irregular war as a strategy.
Of course. That's the very nature of asymmetric warfare.
Asherman wrote:They can not win on the battlefield, ever. So instead they place their hopes for victory on the idea that their Will is greater than ours. They believe that Americans have grown soft and are afraid of the realities of war. They believe that Americans are so softhearted and softheaded that they will do anything to avoid bloodshed ... especially their own. They believe that Americans are so decadent and spoiled by riches that they will never sacrifice their own well-being for the greater good. They believe that God is directing them to victory over the Jews and the infidels of Western Civilization.
That might be true, although I pretend to have no profound insights into the minds of the Iraqi patriots.*
Asherman wrote:Are they right? Are Americans weaker than they are? Does America have the Will to fight and defeat those who plot our downfall? Does their picture of Americans fit you?
Again, I have no idea if I fit the Iraqi patriots'* picture of a typical American, since I have no idea what that picture is. I can say, however, that I have not been swayed by the televised images of brutality and death. I advocated an immediate withdrawal of American forces even before the first body bags arrived at Dover AFB.
*EDIT: I originally wrote "insurgents" rather than "Iraqi patriots." Given that the definitions of "patriot" offered in this thread seem to apply equally to the Iraqis who are opposing the US as to those Americans who support the war, I see no reason not to call them "patriots" as well.
Listen to the outcry. Rushing to the defense of a maligned comrade. Are so many of you offended that the world may not be the "love, peace, chicken grease" paradise you seem to think may be brought on if only you were given super powers. Fact of the matter is you would all need super powers as none of you are doing
anything in these fields besides talk about them.
He still hasn't answered the question. Still hasn't even mentioned a shred of anything that would remotely qualify him to expound on the issue, besides his god given gift of gab.
DrewDad wrote:What else do you do besides mock?
Here's a suggestion for future posts: Brevity is the soul of wit. You could have saved us a lot of time by just reducing your post to "you're a poo-poo head."
Drew, in the matter in question, my time is completely absorbed in its day-to-day reality. The opinions and tirades individuals regurgitate on these threads are directly concerning my morning and night. Do you think I would accuse someone of doing something if I was doing the exact same concurrently? Spouting off opinions and drivel when I had no stake and no experience in the matter. "Brevity is the soul of wit". Good quote. I take it you consider yourself very, very witty.
dlowan wrote:Lol - he verbosely and hyperbolically bombasts, also.
Clever, clever words. Still doesn't absolve your idealogical ally from the ridiculous armchair general role he tries to craft for himself. Do we generally allow accountants to address the American Medical Association with their visions of what should or should not happen in western medicine? How about lawyers rant and rave on the thickness of drywall used in construction of a sub-development? Same should apply to other fields, especially ones that encompass life and death.
Setanta wrote:I might seriously consider suicide if i did not think as much in the case of this administration. The failures of staffing, providing sufficient troops, of arming, amoring and supplying the troops, the logistical idiocy and the stunning indifferences to the inadequacies of the resources deployed by the Defense Depatment passeth all understanding . . .
What on earth do you think you know about any of those subjects? Was it editorial commentary you heard on American Morning, Headline News, or perhaps the internet (drumroll please)? Do you really believe that just because you get CNN you are a subject matter expert on the supply and logistics of the armed forces? Or perhaps it was that 2 hours you spent surfing the web and reading articles (no melodrama or exaggeration there now, right) describing the shortages and insufficient numbers of troops? So, Jeeves, how many sets of body armor do I have? Am I riding in an uparmor Humvee or not? How about the rest of the special ops? How about the 2nd Battalion, 325th Infantry Regiment of the 82nd Airborne? Are they using uparmors? Do they have enough troops? WHAT ON EARTH DO YOU KNOW ABOUT ANY OF THAT? Oh, my bad CNN.
P.S. Suicide comment, rather ironic.
So I suppose not being elected government officals we citizens should also refrain from voting cause we don't know what the **** we are talking about?
Asherman wrote:The inability of our enemies to fight the United States by conventional means is the reason that they have adopted irregular war as a strategy.
...
Are they right? Are Americans weaker than they are? Does America have the Will to fight and defeat those who plot our downfall? Does their picture of Americans fit you?
Apparently we have the will to place our soldiers smack-dab in the middle of where they
can fight them.
I'll ask it again: How does it make sense to spend 15,000 American lives (+60,000 wounded) to "fight terrorism at the source" when we've only lost ~4,000 American lives to Islamic terrorists?
And don't give me the cop-out of "we can't know how many lives are saved." How many lives do you
think are saved (or will be lost)? More than 15,000? Less than 15,000?
You've tried to justify a war of attrition as the only way to win the war in Iraq.... but the way I see it, a "win" costs us a helluva lot more than a "loss*." And a "win" doesn't
gain us a helluva lot more than a loss. High cost for little gain... not my idea of a winning strategy.
*Defining "losing" as
cutting our losses and getting out of Dodge as fast as possible.
You statement would make sense IF we were FIGHTING THE WAR ON TERRORISM IN IRAQ.
We are not fighting "terrorism" in Iraq. The IRaq conflict is a war of enforcement of prior cease fire agreements.
woiyo wrote:You statement would make sense IF we were FIGHTING THE WAR ON TERRORISM IN IRAQ.
We are not fighting "terrorism" in Iraq. The IRaq conflict is a war of enforcement of prior cease fire agreements.
According to Asherman, the war in Iraq is designed to create a secular state so that the terrorists can focus their efforts there instead of at the US.
If the Iraq conflict is simply to enforce a cease fire agreement, then WTF are we still doing there?
More than 2000 years before CNN came into existence, Iulius Caesar described the beginning of each of his campaign seasons by explaining what provisions he had made for grain for his troops. Centuries before that, Xenephon and the Greek mercenaries marched into what is now Iraq, and found themselves in possession of the field after the battle which both destroyed their opponent, as well as the would-be ursurper who had hired them. They were obliged to march north along the rivers because their means of supply was perhaps assured in that direction, but to a certainty there were no sources of food and water if they attempted to return across the desert by which the approach march had been made. Between their time and that of Caesar, Alexander III of Macedon marched his troops to the bottom of the Indus valley, when, facing mutiny, he was obliged to give into his soldiers' demand that they return home. Part of the army coasted along coast of southern Persia, and suffered badly from want of food and fresh water; the remainder marched through that hellish landscape, and died from starvation and dehydration--more proof, were it needed, that Alexander was just a boy playing at war, delighted in nothing but the slaughter, without the least conception of losgistics and communications.
Crassus marched to his army's destruction because of his hubris, but also because of a stupidity inexcusable in a Roman commander, given how well their method supported even the mediocre commander. That was because he not only faced a foe which did not fear his legions, and could match them on the battlefield, but because he marched across the same desert that Xenephon had been too wise to try to recross two centuries earlier--and because he neglected the rudimentary logistic and communications imperatives which the Roman method was so brilliant at providing, even for incompetent commanders.
When Aetius and the Frankish Merving defeated Attila in northern Gaul a half a millenium later, the Huns were defeated in battle, but not destroyed. That destruction awaited the retreat through hostile forests with which the campaigning method of his people was not prepared to deal--those of his troops who did not starve were cut to pieces by the Franks who were at home there.
When Alaric and his Goths wandered through Italy and plundered Rome in the following century, he was eventually defeated just as Hannibal had been--he had destroyed the means of his subsistence, and had no communication with a base that could supply him.
The first Crusade was a rolling, brawling, stealing, raping, murdering agglomeration of men at arms, knights, and more camp followers than soldiers. Those who did not die of thirst attempting to cross Anatolia (even Alexander had been smart enough to march along the coast--but then, he was then still getting good advice from his father's generals), and were not slaughtered by the Osmanli Turks, only managed to make it Antioch because they killed and ate their Turk and Arab prisoners--the evidence for which is the written testimony of the Christian monks who accompanied them.
Frederick Barbarossa died after marching his army through a desert which killed half of their number, when, coming at last to a river, in his own thirst-crazed folly, he plunged into the water fully armored, where he was dragged down and drowned by the weight of iron he was wearing. He had made no provision logistics and communications. No longer campaigning in the resource rich heartland of Europe, there was no living off the land, and both he and his advisors were clueless about the necessity to supply themselves if they intended to march across the Syrian Desert to Jerusalem.
I can go on for a lot longer, but my point should be made. I don't learn history from CNN or on-line, and i need neither resource to teach about the importance of logistics and communications. And just as we none of us need a weather man to tell us which way the wind blows, i don't need a talking-head pundit or somebody's blog to show me that Rummy screwed the pooch big time on this one, and went in unprepared and clueless. Now he's too stiff-necked to admit any error, and the situation will very likely not rapidly improve, because he won't listen to criticism.
DrewDad wrote:Apparently we have the will to place our soldiers smack-dab in the middle of where they can fight them.
Drew, what is this "we" stuff? You played no part in sending anyone anywhere. You won't believe me, too hurtfull to your ego, but I can assure you than none of the soldiers, and other governmental operatives, in Iraq and other parts of the middle east, are fighting for you or your kind. The right to talk, and talk, and talk some more, "I bemoan this, and believe that, and think this, and know that," that plagues so many internet users today is merely a byproduct of the true goal: to make sure there is a strong and wonderful country to come home to, and hopefully that will last at least the next generation. You are enjoying the fruits of others' efforts that would be far, far less enthusiastic if said others had the chance to converse with you in person.
DrewDad wrote:I'll ask it again: How does it make sense to spend 15,000 American lives (+60,000 wounded) to "fight terrorism at the source" when we've only lost ~4,000 American lives to Islamic terrorists?
Where do you get these ridiculous, laughable figures. Even a hardcore internet user couldn't pull those out of the CNN updates.
DrewDad wrote:*Defining "losing" as cutting our losses and getting out of Dodge as fast as possible.
Since you've never deigned to get closer than a TV screen to Dodge, I'm sure that makes excellent sense to you.
P.S. Dsylexia, you really shouldn't vote if you are uninformed, as an uninformed vote is oftentimes exponentially worse than no vote at all. Judging by some of your posts, it might be a course you should consider.
well your probably right on this one lusatian, I probably shouldn't vote. I should defer to your superior knowledge. Do you get headaches often?
As i have read the pertinent United Nations Security Council resolutions as they pertain to Iraq--even those which refer to Iraq only in passing--I consider it ludicrous to contend that we are fighting in Iraq to enforce prior cease fire agreements.
But, perhaps you won't agree. Well then, why don't you read
United Nations Secuirty Council Resolutions relating to Iraq, which provides a wide variety of links, should you be loathe to trust the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq, whose site this is, sponsored by Cambridge University--there are more than sufficient links and references for you to check the material.
It is always helpful to dust off these exceedingly dry sorts of documents and read them before making statements predicated upon a thorough knowledge of their contents--and i frankly suspect you have not.
Set, why do you suppose the US invaded Iraq. Legal wise I mean. Not the conspiracy theories running around, but what legal reason did the US present the UN with for reasons behind the invasion?
Lusatian wrote: DrewDad wrote:Apparently we have the will to place our soldiers smack-dab in the middle of where they can fight them.
Drew, what is this "we" stuff? You played no part in sending anyone anywhere. You won't believe me, too hurtfull to your ego, but I can assure you than none of the soldiers, and other governmental operatives, in Iraq and other parts of the middle east, are fighting for you or your kind. The right to talk, and talk, and talk some more, "I bemoan this, and believe that, and think this, and know that," that plagues so many internet users today is merely a byproduct of the true goal: to make sure there is a strong and wonderful country to come home to, and hopefully that will last at least the next generation. You are enjoying the fruits of others' efforts that would be far, far less enthusiastic if said others had the chance to converse with you in person.
The power of the government and, by extension, the military derive from the will of the people. As a citizen of this nation I bear some responsibility for its actions. I play my part in society just as these soldiers, generals, and politicians do. I support the policies that I deem beneficial and oppose those that I deem harmful. Any of this over your head?
Lusatian wrote:DrewDad wrote:I'll ask it again: How does it make sense to spend 15,000 American lives (+60,000 wounded) to "fight terrorism at the source" when we've only lost ~4,000 American lives to Islamic terrorists?
Where do you get these ridiculous, laughable figures. Even a hardcore internet user couldn't pull those out of the CNN updates.
Actually, I'm using Asherman's numbers... as you would know had you bothered to read the thread. Another informed comment from Lusatian.
Lusatian wrote:DrewDad wrote:*Defining "losing" as cutting our losses and getting out of Dodge as fast as possible.
Since you've never deigned to get closer than a TV screen to Dodge, I'm sure that makes excellent sense to you.
And what, exactly, do you know about me?
Another informed comment from Lusatian.
You hardly seem the person to be advising others on what to do when one is uninformed....
Now then, do you care to actually address any of the issues? I'm
guessing you will simply post another personal attack while having nothing of substance to say.
joefromchicago wrote:McGentrix wrote:...what legal reason did the US present the UN with for reasons behind the invasion?
This is a joke, right?
Why? Do you find it humorous?
McG, it's not humorous, but I imagine
THIS is what his response will be.
Ah... I see.
I guess all those lawyers working for the government are just slackers. They couldn't possibly have any idea what they were doing. Perhaps Joe should forward his business card to them just in case something else comes up. That way they could just ask Joe for his advice.
Weapons of Mass Destruction. That's what it's all about. Ask George.
whitehouse link
Quote:President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours
Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation
The Cross Hall
8:01 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.
The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men.
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.
<snip>
Quote:
We believe in the mission of the United Nations. One reason the U.N. was founded after the second world war was to confront aggressive dictators, actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace.
In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act, in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687 -- both still in effect -- the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will.
Last September, I went to the U.N. General Assembly and urged the nations of the world to unite and bring an end to this danger. On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm.
