Maybe we should all prepare ourselves for what is commonly referred to as...mission creep, the eventual insertion of American boots on the ground and we're right back where we started in Iraq.
Several reasons this is a distinct possibility. The Iraqi army, for the most part, sucks. Kurds are far and few in between, the so-called "free Syrian army" won't be much help. On the other hand, the fanatics of ISIS are well funded, well motivated, number over 30,000 and growing...and well equipped (mostly with our own weapons).
I believe ISIS was some 30 miles from marching into Baghdad before Obama ordered in the air strikes that halted their advance.
Topic: The lessons of war? - page 2. (Read 1709 times)
Lessons learned: We were safer under bush because he really did have al qaida on the run and without money to finance their terrorism. That leaving Iraq created a void that terrorist filled just like bush warned and the military predicted. And that IED's in the ME are preferable to IED's in America. BTW if you take the subways in NYC, they're the planned target for terrorist IED's.
I always appreciate your sense of humor, like the post above."Safer under Bush". Wowee Skipper. Um, just to remind you it was Bush ignoring warnings that bought us 9/11 the greatest act of terrorism in our history. And it has been under Obama that zero acts of terrorism have happened on our soil. And safer under bush got hundreds of thousand of Iraqi's killed, millions displaced and nearly 5,000 of our young men and women dead.
Yea, how silly of the enemy to not provide the flight numbers.
Lessons learned: We were safer under bush because he really did have al qaida on the run and without money to finance their terrorism. That leaving Iraq created a void that terrorist filled just like bush warned and the military predicted. And that IED's in the ME are preferable to IED's in America. BTW if you take the subways in NYC, they're the planned target for terrorist IED's.
I always appreciate your sense of humor, like the post above."Safer under Bush". Wowee Skipper. Um, just to remind you it was Bush ignoring warnings that bought us 9/11 the greatest act of terrorism in our history. And it has been under Obama that zero acts of terrorism have happened on our soil. And safer under bush got hundreds of thousand of Iraqi's killed, millions displaced and nearly 5,000 of our young men and women dead.
Yea, how silly of the enemy to not provide the flight numbers.
George didn't decide not to kill OBL numb nuts, that was Clinton and on numerous occasions too.It was the Obama that lied to all of us about Al Qaeda being defeated and on the run.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ0d6J2xCzg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ0d6J2xCzg
Lessons learned: We were safer under bush because he really did have al qaida on the run and without money to finance their terrorism. That leaving Iraq created a void that terrorist filled just like bush warned and the military predicted. And that IED's in the ME are preferable to IED's in America. BTW if you take the subways in NYC, they're the planned target for terrorist IED's.
I always appreciate your sense of humor, like the post above."Safer under Bush". Wowee Skipper. Um, just to remind you it was Bush ignoring warnings that bought us 9/11 the greatest act of terrorism in our history. And it has been under Obama that zero acts of terrorism have happened on our soil. And safer under bush got hundreds of thousand of Iraqi's killed, millions displaced and nearly 5,000 of our young men and women dead.
And as to Iraq it was Bush who set a timetable for withdrawal and failed to secure a security agreement when he did so. And it was Obama who followed the advice of the military to withdraw entirely without a security agreement.
As for Bush having el Qaeda on the run OMG that is funny. It was George who decided not to kill Bin Laden at Tora Bora and Bush who never killed ANY of el Qaeda.
And if you are worried about IED's in America then consider that there will always be terrorists and that risk is never going away.
As for Bush having el Qaeda on the run OMG that is funny. It was George who decided not to kill Bin Laden at Tora Bora and Bush who never killed ANY of el Qaeda.
And if you are worried about IED's in America then consider that there will always be terrorists and that risk is never going away.
Lessons learned: We were safer under bush because he really did have al qaida on the run and without money to finance their terrorism. That leaving Iraq created a void that terrorist filled just like bush warned and the military predicted. And that IED's in the ME are preferable to IED's in America. BTW if you take the subways in NYC, they're the planned target for terrorist IED's.
I always appreciate your sense of humor, like the post above."Safer under Bush". Wowee Skipper. Um, just to remind you it was Bush ignoring warnings that bought us 9/11 the greatest act of terrorism in our history. And it has been under Obama that zero acts of terrorism have happened on our soil. And safer under bush got hundreds of thousand of Iraqi's killed, millions displaced and nearly 5,000 of our young men and women dead.
the only good lesson from war is :
" Never ever war again , Nobody win in the end "
only bring suffer and death
" Never ever war again , Nobody win in the end "
only bring suffer and death
Lessons learned: We were safer under bush because he really did have al qaida on the run and without money to finance their terrorism. That leaving Iraq created a void that terrorist filled just like bush warned and the military predicted. And that IED's in the ME are preferable to IED's in America. BTW if you take the subways in NYC, they're the planned target for terrorist IED's.
It's about an American general, billed as a "Colin Powell type" lolol, who is trapped in Afghanistan with a few SF men who were serving as his escort and he and they have to fight their way out. Very relevant to our own day. Very well written. Very much enjoyed.
Which brings me to the theme of this thread. I tend to agree that boots on the ground are stupid. We need to listen to Clausewitz. "War is an extension of politics by other means.".
Well, we're not really engaged in politics in these countries, as they all hate us, there's no real give and take between the US and our ME enemies. We don't really have a strategic goal, other than protecting our access to oil.
So, it is idiotic for us be involved in their internecine squabbles--if they want to kill each other rather than rebuilding their nation, that's fine by me. I regret the Smirking Chimp's dragging us to war there to make himself feel like a man (apparently, even that wasn't enough since he had to pad his flight suit...something tells that he needs a pair of tweezers to pee).
Here is the disappointing part.Suggest that thought be given to the trends and methods. But of course that does require thought. With just the slightest war buzz the Americans people sign up yet once again. wtf? Which brings me to the theme of this thread. I tend to agree that boots on the ground are stupid. We need to listen to Clausewitz. "War is an extension of politics by other means.".
Well, we're not really engaged in politics in these countries, as they all hate us, there's no real give and take between the US and our ME enemies. We don't really have a strategic goal, other than protecting our access to oil.
So, it is idiotic for us be involved in their internecine squabbles--if they want to kill each other rather than rebuilding their nation, that's fine by me. I regret the Smirking Chimp's dragging us to war there to make himself feel like a man (apparently, even that wasn't enough since he had to pad his flight suit...something tells that he needs a pair of tweezers to pee).
I'm pretty confident that 90% of Americans agree that we need to be out of there. Even the haters on this forum screeching about "boots on the grounds" are just blowing hot air...they don't want it anymore than I do, but since Obama has expressed reluctance to do so, then of course the hate hamsters have to say just the opposite, otherwise they would have no reason for living.
If we use a few airstrikes just to remind folks we're still around there, that's fine by me. For the rest of the time, let them kill each other: every extremist killed by another extremist is one less we have to worry about.
I really did laugh out loud. No one actually laughs out loud when they merely type "lol". If we use a few airstrikes just to remind folks we're still around there, that's fine by me. For the rest of the time, let them kill each other: every extremist killed by another extremist is one less we have to worry about.
This is also why they dare not offer any solutions, lest Obama choose one and destroy their existence with written or spoken evidence that they had actually agreed with him on anything. Much easier to simply say everything he does is the worst EVER, without offering a scintilla of a plan of what should be done.
I'm pretty confident that 90% of Americans agree that we need to be out of there. Even the haters on this forum screeching about "boots on the grounds" are just blowing hot air...they don't want it anymore than I do, but since Obama has expressed reluctance to do so, then of course the hate hamsters have to say just the opposite, otherwise they would have no reason for living.
If we use a few airstrikes just to remind folks we're still around there, that's fine by me. For the rest of the time, let them kill each other: every extremist killed by another extremist is one less we have to worry about.
I really did laugh out loud. No one actually laughs out loud when they merely type "lol". If we use a few airstrikes just to remind folks we're still around there, that's fine by me. For the rest of the time, let them kill each other: every extremist killed by another extremist is one less we have to worry about.
This is also why they dare not offer any solutions, lest Obama choose one and destroy their existence with written or spoken evidence that they had actually agreed with him on anything. Much easier to simply say everything he does is the worst EVER, without offering a scintilla of a plan of what should be done.
I'm pretty confident that 90% of Americans agree that we need to be out of there. Even the haters on this forum screeching about "boots on the grounds" are just blowing hot air...they don't want it anymore than I do, but since Obama has expressed reluctance to do so, then of course the hate hamsters have to say just the opposite, otherwise they would have no reason for living.
If we use a few airstrikes just to remind folks we're still around there, that's fine by me. For the rest of the time, let them kill each other: every extremist killed by another extremist is one less we have to worry about.
If we use a few airstrikes just to remind folks we're still around there, that's fine by me. For the rest of the time, let them kill each other: every extremist killed by another extremist is one less we have to worry about.
You would have thought this lesson would have been learned in Vietnam. I guess they needed a refresher.
It's about an American general, billed as a "Colin Powell type" lolol, who is trapped in Afghanistan with a few SF men who were serving as his escort and he and they have to fight their way out. Very relevant to our own day. Very well written. Very much enjoyed.
Which brings me to the theme of this thread. I tend to agree that boots on the ground are stupid. We need to listen to Clausewitz. "War is an extension of politics by other means.".
Well, we're not really engaged in politics in these countries, as they all hate us, there's no real give and take between the US and our ME enemies. We don't really have a strategic goal, other than protecting our access to oil.
So, it is idiotic for us be involved in their internecine squabbles--if they want to kill each other rather than rebuilding their nation, that's fine by me. I regret the Smirking Chimp's dragging us to war there to make himself feel like a man (apparently, even that wasn't enough since he had to pad his flight suit...something tells that he needs a pair of tweezers to pee).
Which brings me to the theme of this thread. I tend to agree that boots on the ground are stupid. We need to listen to Clausewitz. "War is an extension of politics by other means.".
Well, we're not really engaged in politics in these countries, as they all hate us, there's no real give and take between the US and our ME enemies. We don't really have a strategic goal, other than protecting our access to oil.
So, it is idiotic for us be involved in their internecine squabbles--if they want to kill each other rather than rebuilding their nation, that's fine by me. I regret the Smirking Chimp's dragging us to war there to make himself feel like a man (apparently, even that wasn't enough since he had to pad his flight suit...something tells that he needs a pair of tweezers to pee).
I just finished a very interesting book, called "The Warlord" which has as its theme an apparent conflict in our armed forces between those who like Special Forces, and others who think that SF are a bunch of prima donnas and prefer "heavy metal", meaning traditional infantry and armor, to do our fighting there. Really a good book...these days, it's hard to get me to read a book all the way through, but I read about 200 of the 250 pages last night, really caught my interest.
The Warlord: Richard Dickinson
http://www.amazon.com/The-Warlord-Richard-Dickinson/dp/B000H2MKA4
The Warlord: Richard Dickinson
http://www.amazon.com/The-Warlord-Richard-Dickinson/dp/B000H2MKA4
I think the quote from Fallout 3 is very relevant. "War. War never changes".
War that never ends
The lessons of war in the Middle East seem all too far outside the grasp of American policymakers, pundits and elected officials.
From Iraq and Afghanistan, two wars most Americans now regret, there were potential truths to be discovered, lesson to be appreciated.
First, “boots on the ground,” in a geography where they enemy stands within the general population while hiding in plain sight, poses insolvable problems and dangers. This resulted in IED’s planted nightly and discovered daily by US forces, all too often a discovery by explosion. It also resulted in the “friendly fire” of those trained to serve in the local military turning on their American counterparts to kill from within.
Ultimately, in Iraq the successful policy was developed under General Petraeus, who fueled the Surge by hiring the militias who were fighting the US, many of whom were displaced veterans the US had disposed from their careers upon arriving in Iraq.
When US forces left, unable to secure immunity from Iraqi prosecutions by a security agreement, the payments ended, and the Iraqi army collapsed. Prime Minister Maliki caused that disintegration by replacing trained leaders with his loyalists and by alienating Sunni’s in the country with his actions to discriminate in all possible fashions.
Ultimately Iraq fell back into disarray, its present state. And today ISIS, created within Iraq initially as a local branch of al Qaeda by the US occupation, rose to represent the rejected Sunni’s in Iraq and the region.
And now the US re-engages to stem the flow of Muslim radicalism by organizing a coalition of partners to fight against ISIS. Already critics of the new policy argue that only boots on the ground will bring success.
But the facts are boots on the ground never worked in Iraq for many reasons.
For most of the stay of the American military Iraqi citizens disliked the American presence. Literally millions of Iraqi citizens were displaced, thousands killed in the war. The economy was destroyed, corruption was rampant, and the secular state constructed under Saddam Hussein was divided into religious camps, Sunni vs. Shiite.
The US left because Iraqi’s did not want us there.
The second lesson that could have been learned in Iraq is that Muslim religious division has existed for hundreds of years, and in its violent, primitive form of hatred, it shows no sign of abating. And nothing the US can or will do, boots or no boots, will change that hatred and create peaceful resolution.
Finally, the lesson Americans never seems to learn is that in the ginning up to war our leaders and our media do whatever it takes to excite Americans for war.
George Bush used the potential mushroom cloud; Barack Obama, the fear that ISIS will come to America and kill us here. Therefore, they must be destroyed forever.
But destroying ISIS will not destroy terrorism in the least, for like a Wack a Mole carnival game, wherever we crush terrorists they simply re-appear in other forms.
When we decimated al Qaeda’s leadership and killed Bin Laden, the terrorist threat hardly ended, it just re-shaped. If we destroy ISIS terrorism will again re-shape.
And terrorists will always target the US, always.
The only solution is from those within the Middle East, those nations affected directly by the brutality of radical Muslimism, to fight their own fight to preserve and protect their people and nations.
As Thomas Friedman recently wrote, what if the US just said NO?
The lessons of war in the Middle East seem all too far outside the grasp of American policymakers, pundits and elected officials.
From Iraq and Afghanistan, two wars most Americans now regret, there were potential truths to be discovered, lesson to be appreciated.
First, “boots on the ground,” in a geography where they enemy stands within the general population while hiding in plain sight, poses insolvable problems and dangers. This resulted in IED’s planted nightly and discovered daily by US forces, all too often a discovery by explosion. It also resulted in the “friendly fire” of those trained to serve in the local military turning on their American counterparts to kill from within.
Ultimately, in Iraq the successful policy was developed under General Petraeus, who fueled the Surge by hiring the militias who were fighting the US, many of whom were displaced veterans the US had disposed from their careers upon arriving in Iraq.
When US forces left, unable to secure immunity from Iraqi prosecutions by a security agreement, the payments ended, and the Iraqi army collapsed. Prime Minister Maliki caused that disintegration by replacing trained leaders with his loyalists and by alienating Sunni’s in the country with his actions to discriminate in all possible fashions.
Ultimately Iraq fell back into disarray, its present state. And today ISIS, created within Iraq initially as a local branch of al Qaeda by the US occupation, rose to represent the rejected Sunni’s in Iraq and the region.
And now the US re-engages to stem the flow of Muslim radicalism by organizing a coalition of partners to fight against ISIS. Already critics of the new policy argue that only boots on the ground will bring success.
But the facts are boots on the ground never worked in Iraq for many reasons.
For most of the stay of the American military Iraqi citizens disliked the American presence. Literally millions of Iraqi citizens were displaced, thousands killed in the war. The economy was destroyed, corruption was rampant, and the secular state constructed under Saddam Hussein was divided into religious camps, Sunni vs. Shiite.
The US left because Iraqi’s did not want us there.
The second lesson that could have been learned in Iraq is that Muslim religious division has existed for hundreds of years, and in its violent, primitive form of hatred, it shows no sign of abating. And nothing the US can or will do, boots or no boots, will change that hatred and create peaceful resolution.
Finally, the lesson Americans never seems to learn is that in the ginning up to war our leaders and our media do whatever it takes to excite Americans for war.
George Bush used the potential mushroom cloud; Barack Obama, the fear that ISIS will come to America and kill us here. Therefore, they must be destroyed forever.
But destroying ISIS will not destroy terrorism in the least, for like a Wack a Mole carnival game, wherever we crush terrorists they simply re-appear in other forms.
When we decimated al Qaeda’s leadership and killed Bin Laden, the terrorist threat hardly ended, it just re-shaped. If we destroy ISIS terrorism will again re-shape.
And terrorists will always target the US, always.
The only solution is from those within the Middle East, those nations affected directly by the brutality of radical Muslimism, to fight their own fight to preserve and protect their people and nations.
As Thomas Friedman recently wrote, what if the US just said NO?
Jump to: