Ignorance

[JohnKoerner]

Regarding fighting at 100% this doesn't sit easy with me. I am not a pacifist but the Vietnam, Gulf Wars, Falklands crisis and the wars in Palestine were unnecessary imo. The first three were imperialist in origin as most wars are. Probably the second world war was the last one worth fighting.

I agree with you, for the most part, except of course 9/11 ...

Please also remember that I said IFFF a country makes the decision to go to war THEN it needs to be at 100% capacity. The decision to go to war itself, however, is not one that should be taken lightly. Such a decision should be made only if all available satisfactory alternatives are not possible or beneficial in the long-term. However, if war proves to be THE best option from a long-term perspective, then that war needs to be fought, and it needs to be fought at 100% capacity.

IMO the USA go looking for wars to fight so your idea of 100% isn't valid because it isn't in defence of the homeland which to me is the only ones that are worth fighting. The USA hasn't had to defend it's self - apart from 9/11 which wasn't a war - so the brutality of your thinking doesn't sit easy.

Ahh, but is a "defense of one's homeland" the only reason to wage war? It appears you believe that any form of aggression (or first-attack) is immoral by default, which is an opinion I do not share. A first-attack can be both justifiable as well as vital to success. For example, if I see someone prowling outside my home with what looks like bad intentions, must I first "wait to be attacked" before I respond with deadly force (or at least make my intent to use deadly force known, prior to attack)? Or should I first aim my gun, warn, and if the intruder persists make the first aggressive action to shoot him?

In a similar, but more major scale, must a country first "wait to be attacked," even though it clearly sees malicious intentions forming around it? Or is initial aggression sometimes called for as a means to provide a best defense of itself?

RE: 9/11, that was a direct attack, which I think we both can agree is the beginning of a war.

Regardless, once the decision to wage war is made, you bet, a 100% commitment to finish it as quickly and decisively as possible is the only way to win.

I would have left Saddam alone, not because I was a fan of his but the aftermath of what happened wasn't worth it. In the first one the USA were itching for a fight because imo at times it helps their economy. The second world war was economically a boom time for them but a tragedy for American lives. The second Gulf War was for oil and left over 100,000 dead and the country doesn't have democracy which we are led to believe. With regards to Vietnam then the question I would pose is: What did the Vietnamese people deserve that merited America invading and nearly destroying it? Hopefully the answer isn't because it was going communist? I don't believe America or any other country should decide what philosophy another country adopts. As to Iran then I simply think that they are chugging the West's chain to upset them. An invasion of them, which America can't afford unless they use it as an excuse to kick start the economy, would likely start World war three as China and Russia has an interest there.

Well, my beliefs are actually more akin to your own in these matters. I think whether another country wants to be communist or not is their business, not ours. That our country began with a democricy and freedom as its mantra is something we would do well to live up to ourselves, by giving other countries the freedom to choose what forms of government they wish to have. If there is war in other countries, that is their problem, unless it becomes our problem. Dictatorships provide an interesting dilemma that quite frankly I don't feel like addressing, but suffice it to say I think our primary concern should be our own welfare, with a secondary concern of the welfare of those countries who are legitimately our allies.

IMO, war is only justified if it is THE BEST long-term solution to any problem. IMO the best long-term solution to the problems of the Middle East isn't war, but rather to switch our own fuel consumption practices away from oil ... which not only will cut-off their lifeblood permanently and thus more effectively ... but we will likewise remove our own parasitic dependence on oil, while at the same time we will create better long-term environmental conditions for the world as well. If I were a leader achieving THAT end would be my #1 concern, not war.

Finally your 100% thinking is possibly a reflection of your mentality. That isn't meant to be offensive but possibly reflects your mindset rather than a good idea of how to approach things.

Well, I can truthfully promise you that IF one is in a war (or life-and-death situation), that my thinking of giving that effort a 100% commitment of heart and soul offers the best chance of success and winning ... and that anything less than that is the best chance of winding up a memory (or at least a loser).

But the part about my mentality that you aren't realizing also exists is that, in order to achieve that 100% mindset, an intelligent and moral person has to be convinced (deep down) that his actions are right, just, and that there is no better long-term alternative. IMO, waging war over oil is *not* the best long-term decision. Rather, I believe it is a stupid, short-sided decision and is nothing but a manifestation of our equally-unwise addiction to oil. Having oil as our primary energy source is itself not really in anyone's best interest, long-term, nor is it in the best interests of our planet, long-term.

The wisest leaders of our future, IMO, will be paving the way for green oil alternatives ... which in turn will weaken the stronghold in the Middle-East ... it will remove our dependency on this filthy resource ... and in the end said shift will be better not just for "America" in the long-term, but for the entire world.

Those are my thoughts on the subject,

Jack




.

[Joe Behar]

I am not a pacifist but the Vietnam, Gulf Wars, Falklands crisis and the wars in Palestine were unnecessary imo.

Stamper,

You might not consider this important but it is.

There were no wars fought in Palestine...only Israel

Israel was declared a nation state on May 14, 1948 after a 33-13 vote of approval by the UN.

Comments such as yours only promote a distortion of reality and history. You're entitled to your opinion, but at least get the facts straight.

[stamper]

Russ,
        first up I am not here to fall out with you. We obviously disagree as politically we are poles apart. None of this is personal. Am I correct in asserting that the US were hampered in Vietnam because China stated that if America went into Cambodia in pursuit of enemy bases then they would have to deal with them as well? You obviously felt the war was worth waging but equally a lot of your fellow countrymen disagreed with you. It was a very divisive war that polarised America and the rest of the world. Strong opinions on both sides? At the end of the day this is primarily a photographic site and possibly Michael should ban the politics and we can fall out over photographic matters?

[stamper]

Stamper,

You might not consider this important but it is.

There were no wars fought in Palestine...only Israel

Israel was declared a nation state on May 14, 1948 after a 33-13 vote of approval by the UN.

Comments such as yours only promote a distortion of reality and history. You're entitled to your opinion, but at least get the facts straight.

Joe,
       I have read - I have a few books on the subject - that at the time the Jews made up about 6% of the population but they got to live on about 50% of the land which angered the Palestinians. I repeat I have nothing against Jews, my father was Jewish but I am not, and my take on the situation obviously differs from yours. Source Ilan Pappe's book. A history of Modern Palestine. Note the title.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

1.) On war strategies and how to win:
I think you should differentiate conventional war from nuclear/biological/chemical warfare, when you discuss this kind of strategies. The difference is the long term consequences. There is an interesting book of the philosopher Hans Jonas "Das Prinzip Verantwortung" (Literally: "The principle of Responsibility") in this context of ethics in the age of high technology.

„Handle so, dass die Wirkungen deiner Handlung verträglich sind mit der Permanenz echten menschlichen Lebens auf Erden.“
My translation: "Act such, that the consequences of your action are compatible with the permanence of true human life on earth"


2.) Concerning the conflict in the near east:
No way of resolving anything there by trying to follow any arbitrarily defined chain of cause and consequence down to the founding of Israel or even earlier.
We have two peoples down there who are at war since GENERATIONS. Peace would be a threat for their identity. Its terrible, but it is like that. In psychotherapy this is called "identity resistance". Fear of change, even a positive change. If this is not taken into account any attempt for peace in the near east will remain futile.
They NEED their war and the NEED their hatred. Because if they would turn back and live in peace the nagging question would be:"What was all this for?".
The good news is, that in both peoples there are people who are really fed up with that situation and who actually try to find a way, but I believe these movements are unfortunately not yet strong enough.

3.) Concerning Ignorance:
Kids are somewhat ignorant due to developmental facts, but that is not really the ignorance of grown ups, of course. Generally they are often much less ignorant than the grown ups surrounding them.
Ignorance is evil because neglecting parts of reality is a little bit like killing this part of reality.



my $ 0.02

[Joe Behar]

Joe,
       I have read - I have a few books on the subject - that at the time the Jews made up about 6% of the population but they got to live on about 50% of the land which angered the Palestinians. I repeat I have nothing against Jews, my father was Jewish but I am not, and my take on the situation obviously differs from yours. Source Ilan Pappe's book. A history of Modern Palestine. Note the title.

This is not about Jews at this point its about getting the facts right.

At the time of the Balfour declaration and in the subesquent years following, the Jewish population that was to be in Israel was far greater than was realized in 1948, mostly due to one thing....The slaughter of 6 million Jews by the Nazis. Do you think that if there were 3 million Jews in the region instead of the 500,000 you would be happier? I know I would.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... The only way to... get it over with is to go all-out as quickly as possible and eliminate the enemy's ability or willingness to continue the fight.

Russ, with all due respect, your military experience is quite obviously completely shaping your view of the world. Which, in itself, is kind of normal and not surprising. As they say, "when a hammer is the only tool in your toolbox, every problem seems like a nail". In other words, if the only tools you have are military, every problem seems worth bombing the living hell out of it. There is a reason civilians command the military, and not vice versa (at least in democracies).

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Stamper, I will agree that you provided references for your views; I also agree others simply didn't like your references.

I will further agree that your original statement, "BTW not all Jews are Zionists. Most of them want to live in peace," was twisted into the much more disparaging, "some of them want to live peacefully." So I do believe you are being unfairly criticized in some respects.
...

It is surprising, yet highly commendable, when someone on this board (or any Internet board) cedes certain points in a debate, even when it is "in some respects". So, my hat off to you, Sir.

[RSL]

Russ, with all due respect, your military experience is quite obviously completely shaping your view of the world. Which, in itself, is kind of normal and not surprising. As they say, "when a hammer is the only tool in your toolbox, every problem seems like a nail". In other words, if the only tools you have are military, every problem seems worth bombing the living hell out of it. There is a reason civilians command the military, and not vice versa (at least in democracies).

Slobodan, It's been said many times before, but I'll say it again: military people, at least experienced military people, probably abhor war more than anyone else. You have to see it and be in it to understand how horrible war is. I was appalled when JFK committed a bunch of "advisors" to Southeast Asia who actually were combatants, but the problem went back to the unconscionable political mistakes we made in Asia at the end of WW II and the partition after the collapse of the French. Having been there during the Korean war I knew full well why Eisenhower warned against becoming embroiled in a land war in Asia. I was further appalled when LBJ started the buildup that turned the damned thing into "our" war. But... and it's a big but: what I said is that if you're going to go to war you need to go all the way. Far better to avoid war in the first place. But how do you do that? Not by negotiating from a position of weakness. You avoid war by demonstrating that you're willing to go to war if need be and that if you do go to war you'll annihilate your enemy. It's exactly what the Arabs mean when they say they'll side with the "strong horse."

[JohnKoerner]

It is surprising, yet highly commendable, when someone on this board (or any Internet board) cedes certain points in a debate, even when it is "in some respects". So, my hat off to you, Sir.

Thank you.

Just trying to keep it honest. It's impossible to reach any sort of agreement if someone isn't willing to acknowledge well-made points ... or to clarify points that were previously confounded.




__________________________________________
__________________________________________

... if you're going to go to war you need to go all the way. Far better to avoid war in the first place. But how do you do that? Not by negotiating from a position of weakness. You avoid war by demonstrating that you're willing to go to war if need be and that if you do go to war you'll annihilate your enemy. It's exactly what the Arabs mean when they say they'll side with the "strong horse."

Agreed.

Any leader who isn't legitimately 100% committed to his cause does not deserve to be followed by anyone.

Anyone who wages war with less than 100% commitment simply knows in his heart he has no business being there.


Jack




.

[RSL]

Russ,
        first up I am not here to fall out with you. We obviously disagree as politically we are poles apart. None of this is personal. Am I correct in asserting that the US were hampered in Vietnam because China stated that if America went into Cambodia in pursuit of enemy bases then they would have to deal with them as well? You obviously felt the war was worth waging but equally a lot of your fellow countrymen disagreed with you. It was a very divisive war that polarised America and the rest of the world. Strong opinions on both sides? At the end of the day this is primarily a photographic site and possibly Michael should ban the politics and we can fall out over photographic matters?

Stamper, I'm not happy about the idea of falling out with you either. I've seen your photography and it's good work. I agree it would be better to get back to that.

I didn't feel the Vietnam war was worth getting into in the first place, but I felt that once we were in it we needed to get on with it and finish it. That's the way you minimize casualties on both sides. The idea of pursuing forces operating out of Cambodia came along late in the war. I don't know what China threatened, neither does anyone else who wasn't involved in communications with them, but they'd have had a hell of a time bringing effective forces into the fight. We had absolute air supremacy and absolute supremacy at sea. It wasn't like Korea where we'd pushed the North Koreans back to the Yalu river, next to the Chinese border, before the Chinese attacked on land.

My countrymen weren't against the Vietnam war at first. They turned against it when it became obvious to everyone that we weren't willing to fight it effectively. "Body counts" aren't exactly the kind of thing that makes a war sound worth fighting, especially if you're subject to the draft.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

[sarcasm]At least the consequences of the Vietnam war helped to research and develop the concept of posttraumatic stress disorder which is very useful today and helps many people with severe traumatization.[/sarcasm]

[RSL]

There is a reason civilians command the military, and not vice versa (at least in democracies).

Slobodan, I let this one go by and I shouldn't have. You're right. It's important for civilians to command the military. I doubt you'd find many if any military officers in the United States who don't agree completely with that idea. But it leads to another point: For civilians to be able to commit the military effectively in furtherance of our national objectives those civilians need to have at least some understanding of how the military works. Unfortunately, we're at a point where almost none of our civilian "leaders" have a clue about the military, much less have any military experience.

[Misirlou]

Your last four words sum up the fact that there wasn't even a damp firework in the country. How could they have got it so wrong? George Tennant paid the penalty with his job. He became the fall guy for Bush. In Britain Tony Blair didn't dare blame John Scarlett because he would have then told the world it was Blair's lies. How can you possibly defend the intelligence  operations considering there weren't anything to be found? If someone says that there is evidence of something and it turns out there isn't a shred then they are incompetent or lying. There isn't anything in between. The simple answer is that once they invaded Iraq then they expected to find evidence that would have backed up their thinking and the world would have agreed with them. I find it astonishing that there are still some like yourself that are still clinging to the idea that there was evidence of WMD'S. Events has totally proved you wrong.

You are incorrect on so many levels. After the invasion, numerous chemical weapons were discharged. In most cases, they were artillery shells that were used in the assembling of IEDs. The people who did that probably didn't even know what they had. It's unlikey that those devices all came form a single large stockpile of weapons ready for use before the invasion, but there were nevertheless dangerous WMDs in Iraq, and there probably still are.  For some reason, that never seems to be acknowledged by the "there were no WMDs" crowd. So I am not "proved wrong." Feel free to continue your astonishment if you prefer.

How could we have gotten it wrong? We had an oponent who had already used chemical and biological weapons on civilians, and who had the means and the determination to keep the world believing he could still do that at any time. It's that simple.

After Gulf War I, Hussein was required to turn over all documents related to his manufacture of WMDs. Included in that, among other nasty surprises, was detailed documentation of the manufacture of many tons of chemical weapons. Enough to kill everyone in a number of large cities. Hussein never subsequently provided any documentation of the destruction of any of that. Zero.

When the inspectors would arrive at one of his suspected sites, there was usually a flury of large moving vehicles and so forth, which indicated to all those watching that he had something to hide. Why did Hussein do that? He said in the weeks before he was executed that he wanted Iran, and to a lesser extent the US, to believe he still had WMDs. He thought, stupidly, that would be the best way for him to ensure that he would not be deposed by outside forces.

Without his cooperation with the inspectors, we would never have been able to prove that he didn't maintain the damn things any longer. Go back to the papers and look at what was going on with the inspecton regime in the summer of 2001. You'll see that Hussein refused to grant the access that might have shown he wasn't maintaining large stockpiles. Why is it so difficut for you to understand that the natural conclusion prior to the invasion was that Hussein had WMDs?

Intelligence work is about making one's best judgement based on the facts one has to work with. The facts suggested Hussein had not destroyed his WMDs. We still don't have any evidence that he did. If you wish to say that all the intelligence services in the western world were therefore "incompetent," well, that's your prerogative. For all anyone knows, those Iraqi WMDs were in the huge train of trucks we saw headed into Syria right before the invasion. We just don't know.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...Now, regarding 100% vs. 100%, let's see if we can agree this point as well: if one country has more men, more sophisticated weapons, as well as more total weapons than another country ... then, if both countries operate at 100% capacity, the country with the most manpower and firepower should theoretically win.

I like that you relativized your own statement with words like "should" and "theoretically". Economist would typically add to such assumptions the "ceteris paribus" phrase, i.e., "all other things being equal".

So, in your example, if there are only two countries in the world, and they are at war, the superior country would win if they use "every means at [their] disposal to do so". In game theory, that model would be described as a two-player, single-stage game.

In reality, however, "other things" are rarely being equal, so  games are much more likely to be multiple-player, multiple-stage ones. So, while in your single stage of the game in your model you might win, the reality is that you would most likely face further resistance, maybe even years down the road, from children that grew up to hate your guts, and the game would turn into a multiple-stage one (as the history of human conflict is so readily showing us through "hundred year wars", Northern Ireland, Middle East, etc.).

Your only solution to prevent it, to bring your model to its logical conclusion, is to be 100% resolved to completely, utterly, obliterate and annihilate the entire population of the enemy... and not only its army and male population, but specifically fertile women and every and any child. Human history is littered with such attempts, known as "scorched earth", "take no prisoners", "final solution",  etc.

And here is when the game becomes rally interesting (pardon the rhetorical coldness): it stops being a two-payer game at that point. Other players, seeing the destruction of one side, would go into alliances to protect themselves from the same fate or to further their interest. The West went into the "unholy" alliance with communists, for instance.

Fortunately (for the world), most leaders are aware of the complexities of the 100% wars, and are justifiably right to avoid them (and I guess their bathrooms are kept cleaner, so they do not build their view of the world on urinal "philosophy"  (cheap shot, I admit... just could not resist 

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

In Germany we had a guy who asked "Do you want total war?"
We all know what happened.

And as a psychotherapist I must say - up to today we are dealing with the consequences of WW2 in our daily work.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

When in a hole, stop digging (unless you are looking for a shortcut to China). Any attempt to defend the WMD theory today is just making its proponents even more a laughing stock of the rest of the world. So, admit you got it wrong (blame the political pressure) and move on.

Especially because the war had nothing to do with WMD, ugly regime, liberating Iraqi people, etc. That was just marketing (where is a truth-in-advertising commission when you need one? ).

It is about oil, of course. It is a simple question: who do you want to control the most important single resource the mankind has today (for better or worse)? If you are American, you would't like to leave it to the backward, despotic regimes of the Middle East. If you are American, you would not want Russia or China, or, for that matter, even France to have control over it. If you are American, you would not want to undermine your superiority by allowing anyone else to control your access to oil. So, if you are American, you go in and secure control. If you are not American... tough luck 

[jeremypayne]

>>>> If you are not American... tough luck

Nah ... not tough luck ... hop a plane, stay out of trouble and within a few years someone will offer blanket immigration amnesty and you can be American, too. 

I agree with you (Slobodan) that "the WMD issue" was the "marketing" casus belli for the war and that broader self-interests - including control of the regions oil reserves - were the real "reason" we went to war.

Guess what?  If one had paid attention to what the real foreign policy apparatchiks were saying both before and after the lead-up to war ... they said the exact same thing.  You had to dig deeper than the evening news or the front page to see or hear that, but it was explicitly stated that WMDs were the "public focus" of the campaign to win support, but the true motivations and justifications were complex and multifaceted.

To those that think "The West" knew that there were no WMDs and lied about it, where's the proof of that?

The various intelligence agencies were obviously wrong, but the leading Iraqi generals that have been debriefed report that they thought there were WMDs until only months before the invasion ... so the Generals thought there were weapons, but the US government knew there weren't?  Really? 

I'd like to know where there is any evidence of lying ... being wrong, sure ... lying?  That's pushing it from what I've read and been told by some pretty well-connected folks ...

[Misirlou]

When in a hole, stop digging (unless you are looking for a shortcut to China). Any attempt to defend the WMD theory today is just making its proponents even more a laughing stock of the rest of the world. So, admit you got it wrong (blame the political pressure) and move on.

Especially because the war had nothing to do with WMD, ugly regime, liberating Iraqi people, etc. That was just marketing (where is a truth-in-advertising commission when you need one? ).

It is about oil, of course. It is a simple question: who do you want to control the most important single resource the mankind has today (for better or worse)? If you are American, you would't like to leave it to the backward, despotic regimes of the Middle East. If you are American, you would not want Russia or China, or, for that matter, even France to have control over it. If you are American, you would not want to undermine your superiority by allowing anyone else to control your access to oil. So, if you are American, you go in and secure control. If you are not American... tough luck 

We will never agree on any of that. Oil was never my motivation, nor that of any of the people I ever served with. Access to oil probably does play a part in strategic considerations at the international political level, but it had, and has, nothing whatsoever to do with technical intelligence matters, where one is, for example, counting trucks from overhead imagery.

If oil were really so central to all this, then why didn't we just take it? Obviously, we didn't. The US only has, I think, two driling contracts with the Iraqis right now. The rest were all let to companies from other countries. So be it.

Did we overestimate Hussein's ability to employe WMDs? Sure. Has it been proven that he destroyed every last one he created? Absolutely not. I know what I saw, I know what I did, I know what I said. I really don't give a damn whether that makes me anyone's "laughing stock" or not. Everyone who mattered to the decison process thought Hussein had them, and for anyone to suggest otherwise is just flat wrong.

You have your set of facts, and your opinions, as I have mine. The difference is that I had access to an additional set of facts you did not. I'm telling you that there was never any "lying" or "cherry picking" or any of that other nonsense that people seem to want to use as exlanations for what happened. Clearly, you have little reason to trust an anonymous source on the internet. Fine. Just consider that I might be telling the truth, and that you might be arguing from....ignorance? That's all I'm saying.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Slobodan,... I agree with everything you said, but there are some flies in the soothing ointment we'd like to compound with books, computers, teachers and doctors.

Have you ever read the Koran... But it's also a call to war. Mohammad was a warrior, not a peacemaker. According to the Koran, Islam's "final solution" will be to institute a worldwide Caliphate, forcibly convert, or as an alternative, kill unbelievers, and institute sharia law. It contains no "new testament" that teaches turning the other cheek...

Yes, I heard that widespread claim that Islam is violent, and Christianity peaceful, turn-the-other-cheek religion. Now, I am definitely not a fan of Islam, and, truth to be told, I am not a fan of any organized religion, but let me offer some food for thought (for some reason I find that metaphor more appetizing than "flies..." .

That turn-the-other-cheek religion (and I am, by family tradition, if not practice, a part of it) is, throughout history, responsible for an incredible amount of deaths. From Inquisition, witch hunt, forced conversion (especially in Latin America), Crusaders, Conquistadors, Templars, etc., millions are killed in the name of the "peaceful" religion.

As for Islam, I am sure it had its fair share of forced conversion, but take a look at their method of spreading their influence: they mostly left conquered countries retain their language, culture and religion. How I know? My home country (Serbia) was 500 years under Turks, yet we managed to retain our identity. Similar thing in Spain.

Just a thought.