12 Myths of 21st-Century War-Ralph Peters-American Legion Magazine

[KB]

http://www.legion.org/?section=publications&subsection=pubs_mag_index&content=pub_mag_warmyths_1107

The American Legion Magazine
November, 2007

12 Myths of 21st-Century War
Unaware of the cost of freedom and served by leaders without military expertise, Americans have started to believe whatever's comfortable

By Ralph Peters

We're in trouble. We're in danger of losing more wars. Our troops haven't forgotten how to fight. We've never had better men and women in uniform. But our leaders and many of our fellow Americans no longer grasp what war means or what it takes to win.

Thanks to those who have served in uniform, we've lived in such safety and comfort for so long that for many Americans sacrifice means little more than skipping a second trip to the buffet table.

Two trends over the past four decades contributed to our national ignorance of the cost, and necessity, of victory. First, the most privileged Americans used the Vietnam War as an excuse to break their tradition of uniformed service. Ivy League universities once produced heroes. Now they resist Reserve Officer Training Corps representation on their campuses.

Yet, our leading universities still produce a disproportionate number of U.S. political leaders. The men and women destined to lead us in wartime dismiss military service as a waste of their time and talents. Delighted to pose for campaign photos with our troops, elected officials in private disdain the military. Only one serious presidential aspirant in either party is a veteran, while another presidential hopeful pays as much for a single haircut as I took home in a month as an Army private.

Second, we've stripped in-depth U.S. history classes out of our schools. Since the 1960s, one history course after another has been cut, while the content of those remaining focuses on social issues and our alleged misdeeds. Dumbed-down textbooks minimize the wars that kept us free. As a result, ignorance of the terrible price our troops had to pay for freedom in the past creates absurd expectations about our present conflicts. When the media offer flawed or biased analyses, the public lacks the knowledge to make informed judgments.

This combination of national leadership with no military expertise and a population that hasn't been taught the cost of freedom leaves us with a government that does whatever seems expedient and a citizenry that believes whatever's comfortable. Thus, myths about war thrive.

Myth No. 1: War doesn't change anything.

This campus slogan contradicts all of human history. Over thousands of years, war has been the last resort - and all too frequently the first resort - of tribes, religions, dynasties, empires, states and demagogues driven by grievance, greed or a heartless quest for glory. No one believes that war is a good thing, but it is sometimes necessary. We need not agree in our politics or on the manner in which a given war is prosecuted, but we can't pretend that if only we laid down our arms all others would do the same.

Wars, in fact, often change everything. Who would argue that the American Revolution, our Civil War or World War II changed nothing? Would the world be better today if we had been pacifists in the face of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan?

Certainly, not all of the changes warfare has wrought through the centuries have been positive. Even a just war may generate undesirable results, such as Soviet tyranny over half of Europe after 1945. But of one thing we may be certain: a U.S. defeat in any war is a defeat not only for freedom, but for civilization. Our enemies believe that war can change the world. And they won't be deterred by bumper stickers.

Myth No. 2: Victory is impossible today.

Victory is always possible, if our nation is willing to do what it takes to win. But victory is, indeed, impossible if U.S. troops are placed under impossible restrictions, if their leaders refuse to act boldly, if every target must be approved by lawyers, and if the American people are disheartened by a constant barrage of negativity from the media. We don't need generals who pop up behind microphones to apologize for every mistake our soldiers make. We need generals who win.

And you can't win if you won't fight. We're at the start of a violent struggle that will ebb and flow for decades, yet our current generation of leaders, in and out of uniform, worries about hurting the enemy's feelings.

One of the tragedies of our involvement in Iraq is that while we did a great thing by removing Saddam Hussein, we tried to do it on the cheap. It's an iron law of warfare that those unwilling to pay the butcher's bill up front will pay it with compound interest in the end. We not only didn't want to pay that bill, but our leaders imagined that we could make friends with our enemies even before they were fully defeated. Killing a few hundred violent actors like Moqtada al-Sadr in 2003 would have prevented thousands of subsequent American deaths and tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths. We started something our national leadership lacked the guts to finish.

Despite our missteps, victory looked a great deal less likely in the early months of 1942 than it does against our enemies today. Should we have surrendered after the fall of the Philippines? Today's opinionmakers and elected officials have lost their grip on what it takes to win. In the timeless words of Nathan Bedford Forrest, "War means fighting, and fighting means killing."

And in the words of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, "It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it."

Myth No. 3: Insurgencies can never be defeated.

Historically, fewer than one in 20 major insurgencies succeeded. Virtually no minor ones survived. In the mid-20th century, insurgencies scored more wins than previously had been the case, but that was because the European colonial powers against which they rebelled had already decided to rid themselves of their imperial possessions. Even so, more insurgencies were defeated than not, from the Philippines to Kenya to Greece. In the entire 18th century, our war of independence was the only insurgency that defeated a major foreign power and drove it out for good.

The insurgencies we face today are, in fact, more lethal than the insurrections of the past century. We now face an international terrorist insurgency as well as local rebellions, all motivated by religious passion or ethnicity or a fatal compound of both. The good news is that in over 3,000 years of recorded history, insurgencies motivated by faith and blood overwhelmingly failed. The bad news is that they had to be put down with remorseless bloodshed.

Myth No. 4: There's no military solution; only negotiations can solve our problems.

In most cases, the reverse is true. Negotiations solve nothing until a military decision has been reached and one side recognizes a peace agreement as its only hope of survival. It would be a welcome development if negotiations fixed the problems we face in Iraq, but we're the only side interested in a negotiated solution. Every other faction - the terrorists, Sunni insurgents, Shia militias, Iran and Syria - is convinced it can win.

The only negotiations that produce lasting results are those conducted from positions of indisputable strength.

Myth No. 5: When we fight back, we only provoke our enemies.

When dealing with bullies, either in the schoolyard or in a global war, the opposite is true: if you don't fight back, you encourage your enemy to behave more viciously.

Passive resistance only works when directed against rule-of-law states, such as the core English-speaking nations. It doesn't work where silent protest is answered with a bayonet in the belly or a one-way trip to a political prison. We've allowed far too many myths about the "innate goodness of humanity" to creep up on us. Certainly, many humans would rather be good than bad. But if we're unwilling to fight the fraction of humanity that's evil, armed and determined to subjugate the rest, we'll face even grimmer conflicts.

Myth No. 6: Killing terrorists only turns them into martyrs.

It's an anomaly of today's Western world that privileged individuals feel more sympathy for dictators, mass murderers and terrorists - consider the irrational protests against Guantanamo - than they do for their victims. We were told, over and over, that killing Osama bin Laden or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, hanging Saddam Hussein or targeting the Taliban's Mullah Omar would only unite their followers. Well, we haven't yet gotten Osama or Omar, but Zarqawi's dead and forgotten by his own movement, whose members never invoke that butcher's memory. And no one is fighting to avenge Saddam. The harsh truth is that when faced with true fanatics, killing them is the only way to end their influence. Imprisoned, they galvanize protests, kidnappings, bombings and attacks that seek to free them. Want to make a terrorist a martyr? Just lock him up. Attempts to try such monsters in a court of law turn into mockeries that only provide public platforms for their hate speech, which the global media is delighted to broadcast. Dead, they're dead. And killing them is the ultimate proof that they lack divine protection. Dead terrorists don't kill.

Myth No. 7: If we fight as fiercely as our enemies, we're no better than them.

Did the bombing campaign against Germany turn us into Nazis? Did dropping atomic bombs on Japan to end the war and save hundreds of thousands of American lives, as well as millions of Japanese lives, turn us into the beasts who conducted the Bataan Death March?

The greatest immorality is for the United States to lose a war. While we seek to be as humane as the path to victory permits, we cannot shrink from doing what it takes to win. At present, the media and influential elements of our society are obsessed with the small immoralities that are inevitable in wartime. Soldiers are human, and no matter how rigorous their training, a miniscule fraction of our troops will do vicious things and must be punished as a consequence. Not everyone in uniform will turn out to be a saint, and not every chain of command will do its job with equal effectiveness. But obsessing on tragic incidents - of which there have been remarkably few in Iraq or Afghanistan - obscures the greater moral issue: the need to defeat enemies who revel in butchering the innocent, who celebrate atrocities, and who claim their god wants blood.

Myth No. 8: The United States is more hated today than ever before.

Those who served in Europe during the Cold War remember enormous, often-violent protests against U.S. policy that dwarfed today's let's-have-fun-on-a-Sunday-afternoon rallies. Older readers recall the huge ban-the-bomb, pro-communist demonstrations of the 1950s and the vast seas of demonstrators filling the streets of Paris, Rome and Berlin to protest our commitment to Vietnam. Imagine if we'd had 24/7 news coverage of those rallies. I well remember serving in Germany in the wake of our withdrawal from Saigon, when U.S. soldiers were despised by the locals - who nonetheless were willing to take our money - and terrorists tried to assassinate U.S. generals.

The fashionable anti-Americanism of the chattering classes hasn't stopped the world from seeking one big green card. As I've traveled around the globe since 9/11, I've found that below the government-spokesman/professional-radical level, the United States remains the great dream for university graduates from Berlin to Bangalore to Bogota.

On the domestic front, we hear ludicrous claims that our country has never been so divided. Well, that leaves out our Civil War. Our historical amnesia also erases the violent protests of the late 1960s and early 1970s, the mass confrontations, rioting and deaths. Is today's America really more fractured than it was in 1968?

Myth No. 9: Our invasion of Iraq created our terrorist problems.

This claim rearranges the order of events, as if the attacks of 9/11 happened after Baghdad fell. Our terrorist problems have been created by the catastrophic failure of Middle Eastern civilization to compete on any front and were exacerbated by the determination of successive U.S. administrations, Democrat and Republican, to pretend that Islamist terrorism was a brief aberration. Refusing to respond to attacks, from the bombings in Beirut to Khobar Towers, from the first attack on the Twin Towers to the near-sinking of the USS Cole, we allowed our enemies to believe that we were weak and cowardly. Their unchallenged successes served as a powerful recruiting tool.

Did our mistakes on the ground in Iraq radicalize some new recruits for terror? Yes. But imagine how many more recruits there might have been and the damage they might have inflicted on our homeland had we not responded militarily in Afghanistan and then carried the fight to Iraq. Now Iraq is al-Qaeda's Vietnam, not ours.

Myth No. 10: If we just leave, the Iraqis will patch up their differences on their own.

The point may come at which we have to accept that Iraqis are so determined to destroy their own future that there's nothing more we can do. But we're not there yet, and leaving immediately would guarantee not just one massacre but a series of slaughters and the delivery of a massive victory to the forces of terrorism. We must be open-minded about practical measures, from changes in strategy to troop reductions, if that's what the developing situation warrants. But it's grossly irresponsible to claim that our presence is the primary cause of the violence in Iraq - an allegation that ignores history.

Myth No. 11: It's all Israel's fault. Or the popular Washington corollary: "The Saudis are our friends."

Israel is the Muslim world's excuse for failure, not a reason for it. Even if we didn't support Israel, Islamist extremists would blame us for countless other imagined wrongs, since they fear our freedoms and our culture even more than they do our military. All men and women of conscience must recognize the core difference between Israel and its neighbors: Israel genuinely wants to live in peace, while its genocidal neighbors want Israel erased from the map.

As for the mad belief that the Saudis are our friends, it endures only because the Saudis have spent so much money on both sides of the aisle in Washington. Saudi money continues to subsidize anti-Western extremism, to divide fragile societies, and encourage hatred between Muslims and all others. Saudi extremism has done far more damage to the Middle East than Israel ever did. The Saudis are our enemies.

Myth No. 12: The Middle East's problems are all America's fault.

Muslim extremists would like everyone to believe this, but it just isn't true. The collapse of once great Middle Eastern civilizations has been under way for more than five centuries, and the region became a backwater before the United States became a country. For the first century and a half of our national existence, our relations with the people of the Middle East were largely beneficent and protective, notwithstanding our conflict with the Barbary Pirates in North Africa. But Islamic civilization was on a downward trajectory that could not be arrested. Its social and economic structures, its values, its neglect of education, its lack of scientific curiosity, the indolence of its ruling classes and its inability to produce a single modern state that served its people all guaranteed that, as the West's progress accelerated, the Middle East would fall ever farther behind. The Middle East has itself to blame for its problems.

None of us knows what our strategic future holds, but we have no excuse for not knowing our own past. We need to challenge inaccurate assertions about our policies, about our past and about war itself. And we need to work within our community and state education systems to return balanced, comprehensive history programs to our schools. The unprecedented wealth and power of the United States allows us to afford many things denied to human beings throughout history. But we, the people, cannot afford ignorance.

Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer, strategist and author of 22 books, including the recent "Wars of Blood and Faith: The Conflicts That Will Shape the 21st Century.

[JKD]

What is this, the neoconservative manifesto?

[AZRON]

No, it's called a reality check.

[Dasein]

It's a textbook example of the strawman fallacy.

[StukaJr]

What is this, the neoconservative manifesto?

You either agree with the points (which is short and sweet) or point out the fallacy in the author's statement... NeoCon or not, the man has points and points out the err in more liberal way of thinking - I think he's spot on on his points... It's a good look on history and past failures and successes against the ideals of cuddling the enemy.


It's a textbook example of the strawman fallacy.

Same... Cliche one liner disagreements are good for heckling, but that's about it.

[CMNot]

The only insurgency to defeat a major power the American War of Independence?

Russia? Afghanistan?

I made if that far into this drivel at least...

[Firetxmi]

While we seek to be as humane as the path to victory permits, we cannot shrink from doing what it takes to win. At present, the media and influential elements of our society are obsessed with the small immoralities that are inevitable in wartime.

Small immoralities.....? What is a small immorality?

From the party of the moral majority, I'd like to know what a small immorality is.

[Cralis]

As a Marine, and having direct experience with some of this, I'd say he's "spot on."

And I have to agree with StukaJr: if you disagree, at the least post something of substance. Don't just post a one-liner and run.

[little icebear]

And the right-wingers call the "liberal" mainstream media biased... rofl

[Laconian]

And the right-wingers call the "liberal" mainstream media biased... rofl

It wasn't reported in the mainstream media, it was in the American Legion magazine/website. He makes some excellent points. Peters is well-read, his opinions are respected in the Community. Like someone else wrote, tell me where he is wrong.

[afreu]

War means fighting, and fighting means killing.

The war on terror is no war you can win by just killing the enemy. I don't think you can't even speak of a war in this case. It's a matter of an ideology driven by social, economic and cultural problems in the Islamic world. Islamic extremism is only a symptom of a much deeper rooted illness.

[Hollis]

As a Marine, and having direct experience with some of this, I'd say he's "spot on."

And I have to agree with StukaJr: if you disagree, at the least post something of substance. Don't just post a one-liner and run.


I guess they have not read yours or Stuka's post, they still post onelines and run.......

[AZRON]

The war on terror is no war you can win by just killing the enemy. I don't think you can't even speak of a war in this case. It's a matter of an ideology driven by social, economic and cultural problems in the Islamic world. Islamic extremism is only a symptom of a much deeper rooted illness.

........and what was NAZI Germany ?

[little icebear]

It wasn't reported in the mainstream media, it was in the American Legion magazine/website.

I know. What I wanted to say is that I consider those sources to be by far more biased than the (in this forum) often despised "liberal" media outlets.
To me, that´s double-standards. On mp.net you read the word "biased" almost exclusively in connection with opinions, labeled as leftist/liberal (as if liberalism and leftism had anything to do with each other :roll:), while right-leaning opinions taken without the suspicion of bias.

Don´t get me wrong - I heard a few things about the American Legion and I know that they do a lot of good things like help and support projects for service men and their families, but they are a very patriotic crowd and rather right from the center...

[little icebear]

........and what was NAZI Germany ?

A country?

[StukaJr]

Small immoralities.....? What is a small immorality?

From the party of the moral majority, I'd like to know what a small immorality is.

Open your history book - it's full of them. Final results weighed against sacrifices made, like taking lives to save many more or bring a conflict to a quicker resolution by doing acts that would make a civilian shudder...

I'd consider firebombing of Japan and complete destruction of main Civilian Centers to finish the conflict faster as such "small immorality" - you wouldn't do it for kicks, but would if it brought results. Wars continue indefinitely as long as "moral majority" is free to spend their Saturday afternoon in a corner bistro worrying about the morality of the war or other nonsense.

What is "Morality" in the time of War if it gets your own men killed?

[tsuri]

I can agree to most points but some things are just silly...


but our leaders imagined that we could make friends with our enemies even before they were fully defeated.
As far as I remember, the enemy was pretty soundly defeated in the Iraq War. The warlords and forces at work now are Saddam`s old enemies who exploit the vaccuum of power created with the sudden annihilation of the entire security apparatus of Iraq. Of course if he can prove that he advocated killing almost all anti Saddam elements in 2003....



consider the irrational protests against Guantanamo
I am not going to go down that road again but let this get through your head. He thinks that protests against a prison where people are held without an independent trial and void of any rights that we believe to be the inalienable birth right of any person irrational!


Myth No. 7: If we fight as fiercely as our enemies, we're no better than them.

Is he trying to justify torture and the whole Abu Ghraib thing here? I am not sure.. pretty strange argument..



Myth No. 9: Our invasion of Iraq created our terrorist problems.

Convenient way to get around the "Our invasion of Iraq created a massive training ground for terrorists and destabilized the whole area" Myth.

"Myth" 9 clearly is true for European members of the coalition though.

[StukaJr]

To me, that´s double-standards. On mp.net you read the word "biased" almost exclusively in connection with opinions, labeled as leftist/liberal (as if liberalism and leftism had anything to do with each other :roll:), while right-leaning opinions taken without the suspicion of bias.

Don´t get me wrong - I heard a few things about the American Legion and I know that they do a lot of good things like help and support projects for service men and their families, but they are a very patriotic crowd and rather right from the center...

The man is a retired Army Officer and a Strategist, in case if you missed...

The Article is also an editorial and an opinion, backed by years of research and personal experience in the matter - if you read the article again, you will see that he is criticizing a developing trend in thinking and not any Political standing, Party or the elluisive Left.

I will say this again - point where the author is wrong and explain where the fallacy is, how things are the way you say they are and why the Liberals are not the Utopian windbags everybody sees them as.

P.S. Personally, there are plenty of Liberals on MP.net so I wouldn't go as far as there being pro-right bias... Just look at how many negative remarks are on this article alone - sadly, they are all childish one liner comments that warrant no second thought.

Why would a reasonable person judge the idea by what goes into the Ballot Box?

[Kitsune]

Another article by Ralph Peters. The usual quality, of course. The more I read of his Neocon ideas, of his Englishspeaker supremacism (always highlighted with some Antigermanism) or of his ongoing demands to fight harder or more brutal to save the world, the more I come to the conclusion that he surely must be in the Top Five of the greatest arseholes of the present age.

However, I have to admire his bravery. Yes, I do. Most people who have supported ideas like this are by now hiding in deep holes but he still dares to publish more of this stuff.

Ralph Peters - The Last Neocorn.

[CMNot]

I'd consider firebombing of Japan and complete destruction of main Civilian Centers to finish the conflict faster as such "small immorality"

Whilst I don't care for the morality (just about incompatible with war as one can get), the firebombing of Japan was not overly effective in comparison to the naval blockade - which always goes unnoticed.

And as for major powers defeated by insurgencies - well I've already mentioned Russia, we could chuck in French Indo-China and Algeria for ****s and giggles.

I will add however that odds for the US in Iraq have gotten considerably better since Petreaus took the helm from the jobsworths making a mess beforehand...best of luck to him, seems well learned and squared away.

[Clayton Gold]

I think the whole point of his article can be summed up with this line:


This combination of national leadership with no military expertise and a population that hasn't been taught the cost of freedom leaves us with a government that does whatever seems expedient and a citizenry that believes whatever's comfortable. Thus, myths about war thrive.I fully agree with this statement; and I don't think it is only an American problem. There are also many Canadians who life a soft, easy life, and are quick to dismiss points like this as "neoconservative manifesto".

The part I like best, is that most who are quick to use the word "neocon", don't have the slightest clue what it actually means ! rofl

[NavyTimes]

Reading articles such as these, I can only fear what will be of the small nations once the energy crunch gets going.


CMN (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/member.php?u=8793): Spot on about the blockade thing. In a full scale, all out war the outcome will always come down to resources, and not much else. The allies could have starved Japan to submission withoutd dropping any bombs. (Though that would likely have killed as many japanese as the nukes and firebombs did.)

[StukaJr]

Another article by Ralph Peters. The usual quality, of course. The more I read of his Neocon ideas, of his Englishspeaker supremacism (always highlighted with some Antigermanism) or of his ongoing demands to fight harder or more brutal to save the world, the more I come to the conclusion that he surely must be in the Top Five of the greatest arseholes of the present age.

However, I have to admire his bravery. Yes, I do. Most people who have supported ideas like this are by now hiding in deep holes but he still dares to publish more of this stuff.

Ralph Peters - The Last Neocorn.

I never realized that a one liner could fill two paragraphs, really p-)

Then again, if I take out sensationalisms and empty adjectives - I'm left with about enough for a one liner and a slander to boot. Very crafty!

Don't see how he's asking to fight the War more brutally or harder - more like fighting the way the wars were fought and won(the kind of Wars that brought on ending to a conflict, that is). Is he offering some new level of brutality? If so, then where? Or is he just dispelling the myth that wars can somehow be moral, nice or fought with constant mingling of outsider's lack of guts when exposed to a small amount of what real conflicts bring?

[little icebear]

Well, stuka. He may be an experienced officer with an opinion and he is free to state his opinion.
I´m some young guy from Germany whose experience with military issues are reduced to his time as a conscript, but nevertheless there are some "points" he makes, that just leave me breathless.

For example when he states that you can defeat an insurgency, but he adds:


The bad news is that they had to be put down with remorseless bloodshed.

How does he expect the troops to act? The collateral damage is anything but neglectable. Being less careful about it will do more harm than good and will further damage America´s moral integrity - which already has been damaged by such "unimportant" issues like Guantanomo, the use of torture and secret prisons with kidnapped suspects, detained without any proof of their guilt...

And he gets applause from guys who consider the threat of militant islamism comparable with Nazi-Germany... :cantbeli:

[little icebear]

more like fighting the way the wars were fought

The problem is (and an officer should be aware of that): This is not a "normal" war. Usually you drop bombs on a country and invade it. Bang. Over. In the case of Iraq, that´s were the whole thing started.
Your not fighting a nation, but you´re faced with insurgents and terrorists (the latter ones you invited to the party yourselves, which was predicted by pretty much everyone, except for the smartasses who came up with this plan for an invasion).
That´s not what the wars you usually fought have been - so what´s his advice good for?

[JKD]

I guess they have not read yours or Stuka's post, they still post onelines and run.......
If by "run" you mean I had other things I had to go do besides typing on the internet you are correct.

Oneliner or not, pointing this article is neoconservative thinking through and through was not innacurate.


Myth No. 1: War doesn't change anything.
All wars change things. Not all wars change things for the better. Not all wars are neccessary.


Myth No. 3: Insurgencies can never be defeated.
Who has ever said this.


Myth No. 4: There's no military solution; only negotiations can solve our problems.
I would say the military can buy time or set the stage for political solutions but force alone is not going to bring vicotry in Iraq.


Myth No. 5: When we fight back, we only provoke our enemies.
When we invade a country which never attacked us and was no threat to us we're not exactly doing our image an favors.


Myth No. 7: If we fight as fiercely as our enemies, we're no better than them.
What is it with neocons and torture? They're like Mel Gibson on South Park.

Never mind the experts on the subject of interrogation say it doesn't produce reliable intelligence.


Myth No. 9: Our invasion of Iraq created our terrorist problems.
Of course not. But did it make them worse?

[JKD]

The part I like best, is that most who are quick to use the word "neocon", don't have the slightest clue what it actually means ! rofl
I do actually. And I'm starting to find it funny that almost without fail everytime I or anyone else accurately use the term in a conversation the reflexive response is "you don't even know what that means".

[StukaJr]

Whilst I don't care for the morality (just about incompatible with war as one can get), the firebombing of Japan was not overly effective in comparison to the naval blockade - which always goes unnoticed.

And as for major powers defeated by insurgencies - well I've already mentioned Russia, we could chuck in French Indo-China and Algeria for ****s and giggles.

I will add however that odds for the US in Iraq have gotten considerably better since Petreaus took the helm from the jobsworths making a mess beforehand...best of luck to him, seems well learned and squared away.

Using your "logic", you forgot Cuba, and Somalia...

When one says "winning" - it means "winning"... The United States is the only nation that fought for its independence and was able to build a Nation, that was made safe for its citizens and from further invasions... Could that not be a point?

Soviet decision to leave Afghanistan was largely Political and Economical - it was not a military defeat. It has also left the government in place that was able to hold out for a period of time - the original intent of the 40th Army was to facilitate the hand over of the country and leave (Afghanis just never picked up the ball). Your examples are also tied in by small Army contingents that these insurgencies defeated... Add political pressure, unstopping support from rival Super Powers... "Victory" in Afghanistan did not stop an ongoing Civil War, incursion of Taliban from Pakistan and on and on, and on...

[Noble713]

The only insurgency to defeat a major power the American War of Independence?

Russia? Afghanistan?

I made if that far into this drivel at least...


Re-read the article. He specifically refers to THE 18TH CENTURY ONLY in that part.

[StukaJr]

The problem is (and an officer should be aware of that): This is not a "normal" war. Usually you drop bombs on a country and invade it. Bang. Over. In the case of Iraq, that´s were the whole thing started.
Your not fighting a nation, but you´re faced with insurgents and terrorists (the latter ones you invited to the party yourselves, which was predicted by pretty much everyone, except for the smartasses who came up with this plan for an invasion).
That´s not what the wars you usually fought have been - so what´s his advice good for?

Well, maybe it's part of the failed doctrine of using a small mobile force that captures the Capital of the country, calls the end and then releases half a million POW's back into the population with no means of supporting themselves? It's a Strategic study of the War, not a Political one - it should be in "Military history" and not in "Political Rants"... From a Political Standpoint - I suppose there would be a huge demand to release all the captured Iraqi Servicemen if they were held captive...

Using example of WWII - what is a chance of WWIII starting up in the Fall of 1945 if all German POW's were released by Allies all at once and only few hundred thousand Allied soldiers were a part of the Occupational Force? I mean, it's not "nice" to hold POW's for years after the conflict is finished - but is not the necessity of a textbook occupation?

I'm sure plenty of Germans died in the Allied Captivity whom would have otherwise be alive if let go on the V-Day parade, but does the future of a Country counts more as niceties to captured enemy? Would WWII be finished if German POW's were tried and released back to Germany upon their Capture?

You demand freeing prisoners captured in a War Zone in an ongoing conflict...
I do not understand. I really don't. It's stupid.

[little icebear]

Sorry, but I fail to understand what you try to tell me. How does this reply fit to what I wrote before?



You demand freeing prisoners captured in a War Zone in an ongoing conflict...
I do not understand. I really don't. It's stupid.

WHAT did I do?!

[StukaJr]

Sorry, but I fail to understand what you try to tell me. How does this reply fit to what I wrote before?

WHAT did I do?!

Earlier you wrote this, quoting:

"which already has been damaged by such "unimportant" issues like Guantanomo, the use of torture and secret prisons with kidnapped suspects, detained without any proof of their guilt..."

Since when do you prove guilt of people you capture in a War? Prior to 21st Century that is? Goes hand in hand with "12 Myths of 21st Century War"...

In common speak - "This is not how Wars are Fought"

[little icebear]

Buddie, you´re aware of the fact that the inmates of the Guantanamo Detention Camp are not regarded as POWs and that not all of them were detained because of being caught red-handed e.g. being captured after fightings?
Another reason not to conform with the term "War on Terror". If it is a war, why aren´t they treated as POWs?
In fact we know little about who is there for what reasons. All TopSecret-Stuff... No Geneva Convention Rules, no Red Cross allowed and so on...

I never said that I have a problem with detaining enemy fighters, but as the situation is right know, your comparison with WWII POWs seems rather far-fetched to me.

[Hollis]

Stuka, ever heard the expression, "pissin into the wind" ?

[duhblow7]

I do actually. And I'm starting to find it funny that almost without fail everytime I or anyone else accurately use the term in a conversation the reflexive response is "you don't even know what that means".

You can always find out what it means from the Conservapedia. And while you're there, check out the most viewed pages:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics

[little icebear]

You can always find out what it means from the Conservapedia. And while you're there, check out the most viewed pages:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics

That site is brilliant! :) At the first glance, one might think it´s made up for satirical purpose, but it gets even funnier when you realize that they mean it!

[StukaJr]

Buddie, you´re aware of the fact that the inmates of the Guantanamo Detention Camp are not regarded as POWs and that not all of them were detained because of being caught red-handed e.g. being captured after fightings?
Another reason not to conform with the term "War on Terror". If it is a war, why aren´t they treated as POWs?
In fact we know little about who is there for what reasons. All TopSecret-Stuff... No Geneva Convention Rules, no Red Cross allowed and so on...

I never said that I have a problem with detaining enemy fighters, but as the situation is right know, your comparison with WWII POWs seems rather far-fetched to me.

And all WWII POW's were caught red handed while fighting?

Geneva Convention Rules do not apply to individuals fighting out of the uniform - but summary execution applies (and have been applied in WWII). Skorzeny's commandos that got caught mis-directing traffic while wearing US Uniforms during the Ardennes Offensive? Were captured and executed after being read their sentence - that's in accordance to Geneva Convention... Captured Insurgents are way better off than their WWII counterparts - "The Rules of War" that US follows is a lot more humane and fair (and up to date) than Geneva Convention (ha!) ever was! Guantanamo would be at 10%, have the Geneva Convention be applied.


Stuka, ever heard the expression, "pissin into the wind" ?

Eeeehhh - gulp gulp gulp... What? p-)

I'm about done - I'm looking for a bail out picture...

[Clayton Gold]

I do actually. And I'm starting to find it funny that almost without fail everytime I or anyone else accurately use the term in a conversation the reflexive response is "you don't even know what that means".

Thing is - it's not accurate.

According to your statements - anyone who agrees with some points of this article is a "neocon" ?

After all - its a "neoconservative manifesto" right ?

By that same logic, anyone who joins up to serve their country is a neocon too ?

Wanting your country to win, and being willing to give what it takes is what makes a "neocon" ?

Again - where is the accuracy here ?

Either way - while I think some of the "myths" presented are pushing it a little - I do agree that many people, through decades of relative peace & prosperity, have grown into thinking that our wars just win themselves.

You can argue about whether Iraq was right or not all you wish, but it`s time to get over it - this is about finishing it. Many people would like to see victory, not just "neocons".:bash:

[little icebear]

****************

[little icebear]

And all WWII POW's were caught red handed while fighting?

They were not really hard to recognize as enemies ... they usually wore a uniform and did not deny to be the enemy.



Geneva Convention Rules do not apply to individuals fighting out of the uniform - but summary execution applies (and have been applied in WWII). Skorzeny's commandos that got caught mis-directing traffic while wearing US Uniforms during the Ardennes Offensive? Were captured and executed after being read their sentence - that's in accordance to Geneva Convention...

Yep. That´s what they did with spies. The other way around, too. So what?


Captured Insurgents are way better off than their WWII counterparts - "The Rules of War" that US follows is a lot more humane and fair (and up to date) than Geneva Convention (ha!) ever was! Guantanamo would be at 10%, have the Geneva Convention be applied.

I can hardly argue against the fact that the Geneva Convention is far from being up to date... we live in the 21. Century...
As for what´s going on exactly with Guantanamo... well none of us knows much, I guess. And that´s part of the problem.

But one think is for sure - comparing the situation with usual warfare is BS, cause the enemy is not a souvereign state you´re at war with but groups of individuals.




Eeeehhh - gulp gulp gulp... What? p-)

I'm about done - I'm looking for a bail out picture...

Reality has a well known liberal bias. Get over it. p-)

[JKD]

Thing is - it's not accurate.

According to your statements - anyone who agrees with some points of this article is a "neocon" ?
No


After all - its a "neoconservative manifesto" right ?
It was most certainly written by a neoconservative and represents many of that ideology's views


By that same logic, anyone who joins up to serve their country is a neocon too ?
Absolutely not. When did I say that?


Wanting your country to win, and being willing to give what it takes is what makes a "neocon" ?
I like my country to win. It's a difference of opinion on how to achieve that victory.


Again - where is the accuracy here ?
I don't know, so far you haven't been talking about anything I said.


Either way - while I think some of the "myths" presented are pushing it a little - I do agree that many people, through decades of relative peace & prosperity, have grown into thinking that our wars just win themselves.

You can argue about whether Iraq was right or not all you wish, but it`s time to get over it - this is about finishing it. Many people would like to see victory, not just "neocons".:bash:
I would love to see Iraq turn out well.

[StukaJr]

They were not really hard to recognize as enemies ... they usually wore a uniform and did not deny to be the enemy.


Isn't wearing identifying marks and clothing the same as wearing full uniform?

Isn't concealing such identifying marks when not fighting the same as hiding affiliation to the enemy group by being out of the uniform?



But one think is for sure - comparing the situation with usual warfare is BS, cause the enemy is not a souvereign state you´re at war with but groups of individuals.


Do define a Civil War then.

Also, Taliban controlled areas of Afghanistan could be considered a Sovereign State - even though the borders were not re-drawn to reflect areas controlled by the former and the Northern Alliance...



Reality has a well known liberal bias. Get over it. p-)

I subscribed to common sense and not to blindly following my viewpoint of a given political leaning - I have not gotten a good argument from the liberal side, yet... however. I'm still waiting.

BTW, I hold no political affiliation other than what I happen to agree with - it's a logical solution to everybody's problem, not a superiority of one's political agendas.

[Clayton Gold]

It was most certainly written by a neoconservative and represents many of that ideology's views

So again - anyone who agrees with some points of this article is a "neocon".


Absolutely not. When did I say that?Notice no one accused you of saying that.

Using your logic in this argument however, it can be easily concluded.


I like my country to win. It's a difference of opinion on how to achieve that victory.Thing is - you don't offer any solution how, except for disagreeing with any that have been brought forward.


I don't know, so far you haven't been talking about anything I said.It is you who choose to deny and ignore it. I am simply addressing your staements.


I would love to see Iraq turn out well.But without having to put forward any resources, time or effort it seems.

[JKD]

So again - anyone who agrees with some points of this article is a "neocon".
As I responded the first time you made that assumption.....No.

Don't know how to be any more to the point than that.

I am pro-choice on abortion but am not a democrat. You can have overlapping opinions with ideologies and/or political parties without being a full on believer y'know.


Notice no one accused you of saying that.

Using your logic in this argument however, it can be easily concluded.
That conclusion would be wildly incorrect.

The friends I have currently serving are not at all neconservative.


Thing is - you don't offer any solution how, except for disagreeing with any that have been brought forward.
You didn't ask for any solutions. You asked if wanting your country to win makes a person a neoconservative. I replied that it does not.


It is you who choose to deny and ignore it. I am simply addressing your staements.
You''re making assumptions from my statements and I am responding to them.


But without having to put forward any resources, time or effort it seems.
What?

[little icebear]

Isn't wearing identifying marks and clothing the same as wearing full uniform?

Isn't concealing such identifying marks when not fighting the same as hiding affiliation to the enemy group by being out of the uniform?


By no means is an iraqi insurgent or some AQ-Terrorist comparable with a real soldier.
They look just like any other local and you recognize them when they try to kill you.
That is not regular warfare.



Do define a Civil War then.

The Geneve Convention already did so. But that´s a bit difficult. For example one could say that the Chechen-Conflict would qualify to be considered a civil war, well, the Russian would certainly not want to hear that.
If you want to know if I´d consider Civil War to be a "normal" War, than I´d say it depends on how far the parties are organized. The American Civil war would certainly qualify cause there where two legit governments and two regular Armies fightig each other.
In Iraq the situation is very different, because none of the Parties really controls anything.



Also, Taliban controlled areas of Afghanistan could be considered a Sovereign State - even though the borders were not re-drawn to reflect areas controlled by the former and the Northern Alliance...

By no means can the Taliban be considered as a state body. How would they qualify?




I subscribed to common sense and not to blindly following my viewpoint of a given political leaning - I have not gotten a good argument from the liberal side, yet... however. I'm still waiting.

BTW, I hold no political affiliation other than what I happen to agree with - it's a logical solution to everybody's problem, not a superiority of one's political agendas.

I do not consider myself a liberal, I just wanted to quote Steven Colbert on that.

[StukaJr]

By no means is an iraqi insurgent or some AQ-Terrorist comparable with a real soldier.
They look just like any other local and you recognize them when they try to kill you.
That is not regular warfare.

They are still an enemy and they are still trying to kill the people on your side - don't see why they suppose to be treated less harshly than uniformed enemy... Just because they are not wearing uniform - doesn't mean they apply to the same rights as civilians of the United States or Europe.

I understand the difference of asymmetrical or "irregular" warfare against partisans/guerillas/insurgents/freedom fighters when compared to standard engagement rules, but I don't understand why you are suggesting that this irregular warfare cannot be fought. If anything, fighting asymmetrical warfare is a lot harsher action than fighting irregulars by Rules of Engagement designed for combat between two regular armies... Counter-insurgency rules means a lot less people are enjoying three square meals in Abu Garib or Guantanamo.




The Geneve Convention already did so. But that´s a bit difficult. For example one could say that the Chechen-Conflict would qualify to be considered a civil war, well, the Russian would certainly not want to hear that.
If you want to know if I´d consider Civil War to be a "normal" War, than I´d say it depends on how far the parties are organized. The American Civil war would certainly qualify cause there where two legit governments and two regular Armies fightig each other.
In Iraq the situation is very different, because none of the Parties really controls anything.


Both Chechen Campaigns involved removal of Illegitimate Governments, extermination of foreign fighters and stopping criminal actions of individual bands of illegitimate armed formations.

Taliban still has control of parts of Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan.

Iraqi insurgents are still waging a war against Coalition Forces, civilians and elected Government - I see why you can't have an enemy that's neither united nor organized.



By no means can the Taliban be considered as a state body. How would they qualify?


Apart from Areas in control of Northern Alliance and areas in control of individual Warlords - most of Afghanistan was led by Taliban... Read for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

Quote: "The Taliban (Pashto: طالبان ṭālibān, also anglicized as Taleban) are a Sunni Muslim and ethnic Pashtun movement [2] that ruled most of Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001, when their leaders were removed from power by a cooperative military effort between the Northern Alliance, United States, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom."

Taliban was legitimized government of the Taliban just as Confederacy was the legitimized government of the South.



I do not consider myself a liberal, I just wanted to quote Steven Colbert on that.

It got lost. Quotes are usually in quotation, with person's name you quoting in the close.



I had fun, picking peanuts out of poop - I'm done with this conversation. Regards.

[little icebear]

Only so much, cause I think youre constantly getting me wrong on that.


don't see why they suppose to be treated less harshly than uniformed enemyI dont think they should be "treated less harshly". Never said that, never thought so. The opposite is true. A soldier is a soldier, a terrorist is a dangerous criminal.

Regards.

Edit: And... I don´t have to read up about the past rule of the Taliban. I´ve already had a TV Set and Newspapers when the Campaign started.

[Rictor]

Oh boy. Let's work through some of these , and will someone please turn off The Star-Spangled Banner which appears to be blasting in the background.



Myth No. 1: War doesn't change anything.
But of one thing we may be certain: a U.S. defeat in any war is a defeat not only for freedom, but for civilization. Our enemies believe that war can change the world. And they won't be deterred by bumper stickers.
Assumes that the US is always indisputably on the side of pure light, reason, goodness and warm apple pies. America's defeats in Vietnam, Lebanon and elsewhere were not defeats for civilization, but rather victories for the concept of political sovereignty. The fact that these peoples later went on to butcher one another is a different matter, and speaks more of their character than of the righteousness of American involvement.



Myth No. 2: Victory is impossible today.
Victory is always possible, if our nation is willing to do what it takes to win.

Absolutely right. In Iraq, what would be necessary to pacify the country is either to leave or to commit oneself to a campaign of genocide. Victory is entirely possible, if bothersome morality can be thrown by the wayside.




Myth No. 3: Insurgencies can never be defeated.
The good news is that in over 3,000 years of recorded history, insurgencies motivated by faith and blood overwhelmingly failed. The bad news is that they had to be put down with remorseless bloodshed.
Again, they can be defeated through brutality and genocide. The fact that a war is winnable does not make the price worth it. It is also a fact of history that the vast majority of insurgencies were directed against groups which fully deserved to be rebelled against.



Myth No. 4: There's no military solution; only negotiations can solve our problems.
The only negotiations that produce lasting results are those conducted from positions of indisputable strength.
I think the gentleman is confusing the terms "negotiation" and "terms of surrender". Unless the Unites States intends to stay forever, it will at some point have to negotiate its withdrawl.



Myth No. 5: When we fight back, we only provoke our enemies.

When dealing with bullies, either in the schoolyard or in a global war, the opposite is true: if you don't fight back, you encourage your enemy to behave more viciously.
When dealing with bullies, yes. Yet how the author concludes that the majority of those fighting the US in their own countries classify as bullies, I have no idea.




Myth No. 6: Killing terrorists only turns them into martyrs.
We were told, over and over, that killing Osama bin Laden or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, hanging Saddam Hussein or targeting the Taliban's Mullah Omar would only unite their followers.
Saddam and Zarqawi ain't who we're discussing here, who are symbolic leaders with little tactical importance. We're talking about Ali Hussein down the street and his extended family, in which case killing a brother, father or friend most definitely does provoke his living relatives into further retaliation.



Myth No. 7: If we fight as fiercely as our enemies, we're no better than them.
Did the bombing campaign against Germany turn us into Nazis?

The greatest immorality is for the United States to lose a war. While we seek to be as humane as the path to victory permits, we cannot shrink from doing what it takes to win. At present, the media and influential elements of our society are obsessed with the small immoralities that are inevitable in wartime.
Short answer: yes. Dresden was an inhumane, barbaric act. Whether an immorality is small, rare and forgivable or a savage act of pure evil is almost entirely a matter of perspective. Stones which others throw are always boulders, stones which we throw are always pebbles.



Myth No. 8: The United States is more hated today than ever before.

Those who served in Europe during the Cold War remember enormous, often-violent protests against U.S. policy that dwarfed today's let's-have-fun-on-a-Sunday-afternoon rallies. Older readers recall the huge ban-the-bomb, pro-communist demonstrations of the 1950s and the vast seas of demonstrators filling the streets of Paris, Rome and Berlin to protest our commitment to Vietnam.
Ah, good stuff. Those who wished to avert nuclear armageddon were anti-American commies, or else just idle middle-class kids who had nothing to do on a Sunday afternoon. Despite the authors anecdotal evidence to the contrary, most opinion shows that US policies are despised the world over.



Myth No. 9: Our invasion of Iraq created our terrorist problems.

This claim rearranges the order of events, as if the attacks of 9/11 happened after Baghdad fell.
Strawman. No one claims that the Iraq war created terrorism, as if a mode or warfare which has existed since the dawn of man sprung up overnight.

Created? No. Exacerbate? Yes. The truth is that the total number of people in Iraq who made it a mission to fight the United States is higher post-invasion than pre-invasion.



Myth No. 10: If we just leave, the Iraqis will patch up their differences on their own.
The point may come at which we have to accept that Iraqis are so determined to destroy their own future that there's nothing more we can do.
How cute. Treating the Iraqis like children, forgetting that they have governed themselves quite well without any help for several millenia. Protecting-the-misbegotten-darkies-from-their-own-stupid-nature is a classic imperialist refrain.



Myth No. 11: It's all Israel's fault. Or the popular Washington corollary: "The Saudis are our friends."
All men and women of conscience must recognize the core difference between Israel and its neighbors: Israel genuinely wants to live in peace, while its genocidal neighbors want Israel erased from the map.

As for the mad belief that the Saudis are our friends, it endures only because the Saudis have spent so much money on both sides of the aisle in Washington.
Seeing the world is black and white is more often than not quite delusional. Israel is not angelic and those opposing it are not monstrous, but neither is the opposite true.

As for the Saudis: agreed.



Myth No. 12: The Middle East's problems are all America's fault.
The Middle East has itself to blame for its problems.
Good: their problem, their responsibility. Leave them to sort out their own issues, stop interfering and, if you consider the region to be so troublesome, irrational and hopelessly self-destructive, have as little contact with it as possible.

[mas-36]

unnoticed.

And as for major powers defeated by insurgencies - well I've already mentioned Russia, we could chuck in French Indo-China and Algeria for ****s and giggles.


The French in Indo-China were fighting an enemy which conducted itself and fought more as an army, rather than a popular insurgency involving much of the civilian population. That would come later. The Algerian war could be better defined as a popular insurgency involving rural populations, but the French military was actually winning that until political and popular support in France fell through.

Funny how Mr. Peters invokes our War of Independence. In this respect, a comparison with Vietnem would be more appropriate, since he appears to have overlooked the fact that a home-grown insurgency is only successful when it is aided massively from an outside source.

What I find interesting in the original article, is that the author seems to have completely dismissed the international diplomatic front. Postwar planning also seems to be a low priority.

[Clayton Gold]

I am pro-choice on abortion but am not a democrat. You can have overlapping opinions with ideologies and/or political parties without being a full on believer y'know.

Fair enough. This is what i was getting at as well.

As I said before, some of his "myths" presented are stretching it, but I just don't think that the point of this article can be outright dismissed as "neocon manifesto", when the author does have a good overall point IMO.

[BugHunt]

Myth No. 9: Our invasion of Iraq created our terrorist problems.

This claim rearranges the order of events, as if the attacks of 9/11 happened after Baghdad fell. Our terrorist problems have been created by the catastrophic failure of Middle Eastern civilization to compete on any front and were exacerbated by the determination of successive U.S. administrations, Democrat and Republican, to pretend that Islamist terrorism was a brief aberration. Refusing to respond to attacks, from the bombings in Beirut to Khobar Towers, from the first attack on the Twin Towers to the near-sinking of the USS Cole, we allowed our enemies to believe that we were weak and cowardly. Their unchallenged successes served as a powerful recruiting tool.

Did our mistakes on the ground in Iraq radicalize some new recruits for terror? Yes. But imagine how many more recruits there might have been and the damage they might have inflicted on our homeland had we not responded militarily in Afghanistan and then carried the fight to Iraq. Now Iraq is al-Qaeda's Vietnam, not ours.

Space cadet.....:roll:

[budgie]

It's a myth that some of these are even myths at all. As usual those on the right simply conjure an 'argument' from the 'left' just so they can disagree with it. Let me dissect:



Myth No. 1: War doesn't change anything.

Few people believe such nonsense. War can be used as an absolute last result to resolve a variety of territorial disputes, humanitarian disasters and of course in self-defense. Few people believe that WWII didn't solve anything - it resolved the 20th century European dilemma over National Socialism versus free democracies and whether Japan should be allowed to subjugate Asia. I don't see millions calling for the abolition of the armed forces. This 'myth' exists in the author's mind alone.


Myth No. 2: Victory is impossible today.

Of course victory, in various forms is possible. It was possible in wars past and recent conflicts of the nineties. Whether 'victory' is possible in Iraq depends on one's definition. A simple American military victory over all insurgencies taking place seems a little far-fetched as the situation is more complicated that simply stamping out a unified opposing ideology. It may however be possible in Afghanistan. Victory may sadly be a case-by-case matter.


Myth No. 3: Insurgencies can never be defeated.

Nobody believes this either. The author correctly points out that historical insurgencies were mostly doomed. Mostly however being the operative word. See above. Afghanistan can be salvaged, but Iraq will take more than simply military might. Now if we accept a broader definition of 'defeat', inlcuding changing the political climate and fostering accord among warring factions, then you could say such a thing is possible in Iraq. But not on purely military terms. Petraeus knows this and has already made great strides in places like Anbar. But co-opting insurgencies can hardly be called 'defeating' them.


Myth No. 4: There's no military solution; only negotiations can solve our problems.

Again this guy is imagining a 'myth' just so he can 'refute' it. Apparently he thinks the rest of us have never heard of carrots and sticks. He's also drawing attention away from the real argument of whether negotiation should be used at all by suggesting that there are only two options, force and talks, and that the latter won't work:


It would be a welcome development if negotiations fixed the problems we face in Iraq, but we're the only side interested in a negotiated solution. Every other faction - the terrorists, Sunni insurgents, Shia militias, Iran and Syria - is convinced it can win.

Unfortunately these factions are fighting mostly against one another and if victory is the only solution I fail to see how an outside party - America - can impose it. One of these sides is going to have to defeat the other, by the Colonel's own logic.


Myth No. 5: When we fight back, we only provoke our enemies.

Once more, few rational people believe we shouldn't fight back. By definition this means we have been provoked. Aside from the usual 'peaceniks' who genuinely deplore all violence (from the attack on the Taliban to the liberation of Kosovo) nobody else really thinks we should always turn the other cheek. However the Coalition did not 'fight back' against Iraq in 2003 - we were not provoked, except by the propaganda spun by our own leaders.

Now if this is a direct attack on the notion that the Invasion of Iraq would provoke outrage in the Arab world, it has. It did provoke many angry young men in Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia to take up arms - young men that otherwise might have stayed home. It also provoked Iraqis, who previously only had their own dictator to worry about. Nobody believes that fighting back against Argentina in the Falklands or Saddam in 1991 provoked these enemies any more than they had already provoked themselves. Ditto for the Japanese and the Germans in WWII. But the notion that America invaded Iraq without just cause did just that: it provoked the angry young men of the Arab world to lash out.



Myth No. 6: Killing terrorists only turns them into martyrs.

Well this is simply the last so-called 'myth' worded differently. Martyrs and the concept of martyrdom presumably inspires more people to fight us, in other words, provoking them. Yes killing terrorists does turn them into martyrs in the eyes of some. But that is no reason not to fight them and again, the rational left do not believe it is.


Myth No. 7: If we fight as fiercely as our enemies, we're no better than them.

Let's not mince words here. Yes we should fight fiercely but I believe the author is alluding to torture. Nobody believes that fighting back drags us down to the level of the terrorists - that's a myth. Now if he's suggesting we liberals all think that torture makes us no better than our enemies then he'd be right. And so are we: torture makes us no better than our enemies..



Myth No. 8: The United States is more hated today than ever before.

This might actually be the only true 'myth' in here. There is a wide perception among the world community that America has acted very cynically in its own self-interest of late, and that the Bush administration has squandered most of the post 9/11 goodwill it had. It's no surprise that the people America is at war with hate her, but for the others, well, let's see how the next administration does to restore our faith in her.


Myth No. 9: Our invasion of Iraq created our terrorist problems.
Refusing to respond to attacks, from the bombings in Beirut to Khobar Towers, from the first attack on the Twin Towers to the near-sinking of the USS Cole, we allowed our enemies to believe that we were weak and cowardly. Their unchallenged successes served as a powerful recruiting tool.

Ahh, Bill Clintons fault I suppose? Now there's a myth.

I think you'd be hard put to find a single literate persion who believes that all America's problems with terrorists began in 2003. In part however, this may be another true 'myth'. Unfortunately those that espouse this 'myth' are right. The invasion of Iraq exacerbated terrorism and created new terrorists. It did in fact spawn al-Qaeda in Iraq, a new and more active strain of the old virus. It gave rise to islamist insurgencies and a militant Shia revival. But let's not pretend that the invasion of Iraq was a response to 9/11. Pop quiz: how many Iraqis were among the 9/11 hijackers?


Myth No. 10: If we just leave, the Iraqis will patch up their differences on their own.

Again, nobody believes this myth. There are those fatalistic members of us that believe pulling out will cause more bloodshed and lead to one side or another gaining victory over another, but we all know Iraqis are too factionalised to patch up their differences alone.


The point may come at which we have to accept that Iraqis are so determined to destroy their own future that there's nothing more we can do.

This is nearer to the beliefs of people like myself who do not subscribe to Bush's promises of 'victory'.


Myth No. 11: It's all Israel's fault. Or the popular Washington corollary: "The Saudis are our friends."

Nobody is blaming Israel for Iraq or the Taliban. Or for Pakistan's problems or the Islamic insurgency in Algeria or southern Thailand. The Palestine problem is one for Israel and America must shoulder a great deal of blame but Iraq is a separate issue. I recall Bush's claim that "the road to Jerusalem leads through Baghdad". Now there's a real myth for you, or a blind necon's wet dream at least.

As for the Saudis, they are Bush's friends. Or at least he thinks so. Everyone else knows that they are the ones funding most of America's Islamist enemies around the world. Nobody else believes the Saudis have any love for America anymore.



Myth No. 12: The Middle East's problems are all America's fault.

Another false myth. While many people agree that America has exacerbated the problems in the region (tacitly supporting Israel's settlement policies; invading Iraq under false pretenses), nobody thinks America started all the conflicts in the middle East. However it is true that hundreds of millions in the region are angry at America, and there has to be a reason for that.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Easy to be outspoken about having the will to sustain casualties and "pay the butchers bill" when you're unlikely to be called upon to do so personally in the future and by virtue of your previous career not been exposed to such demands in the past.


You have to wonder what language the voices inside his head speak when you read some of these.

To rebut this stupidity I'll employ the Principles of War, the ten point UK version as used by most commonwealth militaries as opposed to the US version. Considering a number of them are involved in the GWOT they are eminently applicable.




Myth No. 1: War doesn't change anything.

This campus slogan contradicts all of human history. Over thousands of years, war has been the last resort - and all too frequently the first resort - of tribes, religions, dynasties, empires, states and demagogues driven by grievance, greed or a heartless quest for glory. No one believes that war is a good thing, but it is sometimes necessary. We need not agree in our politics or on the manner in which a given war is prosecuted, but we can't pretend that if only we laid down our arms all others would do the same.

Wars, in fact, often change everything. Who would argue that the American Revolution, our Civil War or World War II changed nothing? Would the world be better today if we had been pacifists in the face of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan?

Certainly, not all of the changes warfare has wrought through the centuries have been positive. Even a just war may generate undesirable results, such as Soviet tyranny over half of Europe after 1945. But of one thing we may be certain: a U.S. defeat in any war is a defeat not only for freedom, but for civilization. Our enemies believe that war can change the world. And they won't be deterred by bumper stickers.

Selection and Maintenance of the Aim
Define the end state and ensure that all strategy is directed toward achieving it.

If you're gong to wage war then the above is of paramount importance. Yet, it was and is conspicuously absent in any meaningful sense.

Apart from that obvious point that statement is an awe-inspiring display of pretentiousness. The US has been defeated in a couple of wars in the last fifty/sixty years and the world hasn't come to an end.





Myth No. 2: Victory is impossible today.

Victory is always possible, if our nation is willing to do what it takes to win. But victory is, indeed, impossible if U.S. troops are placed under impossible restrictions, if their leaders refuse to act boldly, if every target must be approved by lawyers, and if the American people are disheartened by a constant barrage of negativity from the media. We don't need generals who pop up behind microphones to apologize for every mistake our soldiers make. We need generals who win.

And you can't win if you won't fight. We're at the start of a violent struggle that will ebb and flow for decades, yet our current generation of leaders, in and out of uniform, worries about hurting the enemy's feelings.

One of the tragedies of our involvement in Iraq is that while we did a great thing by removing Saddam Hussein, we tried to do it on the cheap. It's an iron law of warfare that those unwilling to pay the butcher's bill up front will pay it with compound interest in the end. We not only didn't want to pay that bill, but our leaders imagined that we could make friends with our enemies even before they were fully defeated. Killing a few hundred violent actors like Moqtada al-Sadr in 2003 would have prevented thousands of subsequent American deaths and tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths. We started something our national leadership lacked the guts to finish.

Despite our missteps, victory looked a great deal less likely in the early months of 1942 than it does against our enemies today. Should we have surrendered after the fall of the Philippines? Today's opinionmakers and elected officials have lost their grip on what it takes to win. In the timeless words of Nathan Bedford Forrest, "War means fighting, and fighting means killing."

And in the words of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, "It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it."

Concentration of Force
Make the best use of military power to achieve the commander's aims by overwhelming the enemy's military capacity.

Economy of Effort
Make efficient use of forces, conserving energy and materiel to prevent unnecessary depletion.

Victory would have been a hell of a lot closer in all probability if a coherent, workable plan had been in place to deal with the aftermath of the "accomplished mission".

The implementation of the Coalition Provisional Authority and it's running of the reconstruction of Iraq was a debacle. Haphazard`and poorly resourced. A clear, concise plan supported at all levels would have made a huge difference, probably all the difference in post invasion Iraq.




Myth No. 3: Insurgencies can never be defeated.

Historically, fewer than one in 20 major insurgencies succeeded. Virtually no minor ones survived. In the mid-20th century, insurgencies scored more wins than previously had been the case, but that was because the European colonial powers against which they rebelled had already decided to rid themselves of their imperial possessions. Even so, more insurgencies were defeated than not, from the Philippines to Kenya to Greece. In the entire 18th century, our war of independence was the only insurgency that defeated a major foreign power and drove it out for good.

The insurgencies we face today are, in fact, more lethal than the insurrections of the past century. We now face an international terrorist insurgency as well as local rebellions, all motivated by religious passion or ethnicity or a fatal compound of both. The good news is that in over 3,000 years of recorded history, insurgencies motivated by faith and blood overwhelmingly failed. The bad news is that they had to be put down with remorseless bloodshed.

Who the hell ever said that?

The US military has certainly had difficulty in countering insurgencies but that's more of a mind set issue on the part of a military interested more in whiz bang technology in general, USMC and USSF the notable exceptions.

But the rest of the world has generally had more success.



Myth No. 4: There's no military solution; only negotiations can solve our problems.

In most cases, the reverse is true. Negotiations solve nothing until a military decision has been reached and one side recognizes a peace agreement as its only hope of survival. It would be a welcome development if negotiations fixed the problems we face in Iraq, but we're the only side interested in a negotiated solution. Every other faction - the terrorists, Sunni insurgents, Shia militias, Iran and Syria - is convinced it can win.

The only negotiations that produce lasting results are those conducted from positions of indisputable strength.

Again who said that?

Certainly military action by itself without the backing of diplomacy is sure to fail.




Myth No. 5: When we fight back, we only provoke our enemies.

When dealing with bullies, either in the schoolyard or in a global war, the opposite is true: if you don't fight back, you encourage your enemy to behave more viciously.

Passive resistance only works when directed against rule-of-law states, such as the core English-speaking nations. It doesn't work where silent protest is answered with a bayonet in the belly or a one-way trip to a political prison. We've allowed far too many myths about the "innate goodness of humanity" to creep up on us. Certainly, many humans would rather be good than bad. But if we're unwilling to fight the fraction of humanity that's evil, armed and determined to subjugate the rest, we'll face even grimmer conflicts.

There is a difference to fighting a bully in self defence and pre-emptively dropping a brick on his head because he's been talking about attacking you.

It's all about justification.

OEF certainly was justified.

OIF not so much. The much vaunted WMD's failed to materialise and there were little or no evidence of support from Iraq to terrorists, compared to Syria and Iran.

Using the Saddam Hussein was a bad guy justification just won't wash in the face of so many other bad guys going about their business unmolested.


Myth No. 6: Killing terrorists only turns them into martyrs.

It's an anomaly of today's Western world that privileged individuals feel more sympathy for dictators, mass murderers and terrorists - consider the irrational protests against Guantanamo - than they do for their victims. We were told, over and over, that killing Osama bin Laden or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, hanging Saddam Hussein or targeting the Taliban's Mullah Omar would only unite their followers. Well, we haven't yet gotten Osama or Omar, but Zarqawi's dead and forgotten by his own movement, whose members never invoke that butcher's memory. And no one is fighting to avenge Saddam. The harsh truth is that when faced with true fanatics, killing them is the only way to end their influence. Imprisoned, they galvanize protests, kidnappings, bombings and attacks that seek to free them. Want to make a terrorist a martyr? Just lock him up. Attempts to try such monsters in a court of law turn into mockeries that only provide public platforms for their hate speech, which the global media is delighted to broadcast. Dead, they're dead. And killing them is the ultimate proof that they lack divine protection. Dead terrorists don't kill.

Offensive Action
Maintain operational tempo by attacking the enemy.

E-N-E-M-Y

It's not the terrorists being killed that causes problems.

It's the hundreds to thousands of civilians cut down for whatever reason that produces the most martyrs.

Pull the gloves of and create more, then see what happens.



Myth No. 7: If we fight as fiercely as our enemies, we're no better than them.

Did the bombing campaign against Germany turn us into Nazis? Did dropping atomic bombs on Japan to end the war and save hundreds of thousands of American lives, as well as millions of Japanese lives, turn us into the beasts who conducted the Bataan Death March?

The greatest immorality is for the United States to lose a war. While we seek to be as humane as the path to victory permits, we cannot shrink from doing what it takes to win. At present, the media and influential elements of our society are obsessed with the small immoralities that are inevitable in wartime. Soldiers are human, and no matter how rigorous their training, a miniscule fraction of our troops will do vicious things and must be punished as a consequence. Not everyone in uniform will turn out to be a saint, and not every chain of command will do its job with equal effectiveness. But obsessing on tragic incidents - of which there have been remarkably few in Iraq or Afghanistan - obscures the greater moral issue: the need to defeat enemies who revel in butchering the innocent, who celebrate atrocities, and who claim their god wants blood.

Maintenance of Morale
Prevent one's own forces from losing the will to fight

I especially like this one.

So, in his world, if we fight as fiercely as our enemies, we can still be better than them.

Lets break that down because as usual he refuses to.

The Taleban/HIG/Sunni and Shiite insurgents don't actually fight that 'fiercely'. They won't go toe to toe with CF most of the time and the few instances they do it's when they think they have the upperhand in all respects. As archetypal insurgents they much rather prefer to hit and then run.

On the other hand, maybe he's insinuating that US forces should begin following Taleban/Al Qaeda SOP's such as beheading captives on international media mediums, poisoning children, bombing madrassas, etc.

Who exactly would undertake these tasks?

The average grunt in the rifle squads?

Considering the phsycological issues being faced by personnel deployed on OIF/OEF when conducting operations under the extant LOAC this is blatant stupidity.

Look at the toll suffered by the 'Marlboro Marine' as an example.

How is this new found desire to kill out of hand to a far greater extent going to sit with the teachings of main stream US society?

How is all that programing going to be overridden?



Myth No. 8: The United States is more hated today than ever before.

Those who served in Europe during the Cold War remember enormous, often-violent protests against U.S. policy that dwarfed today's let's-have-fun-on-a-Sunday-afternoon rallies. Older readers recall the huge ban-the-bomb, pro-communist demonstrations of the 1950s and the vast seas of demonstrators filling the streets of Paris, Rome and Berlin to protest our commitment to Vietnam. Imagine if we'd had 24/7 news coverage of those rallies. I well remember serving in Germany in the wake of our withdrawal from Saigon, when U.S. soldiers were despised by the locals - who nonetheless were willing to take our money - and terrorists tried to assassinate U.S. generals.

The fashionable anti-Americanism of the chattering classes hasn't stopped the world from seeking one big green card. As I've traveled around the globe since 9/11, I've found that below the government-spokesman/professional-radical level, the United States remains the great dream for university graduates from Berlin to Bangalore to Bogota.

On the domestic front, we hear ludicrous claims that our country has never been so divided. Well, that leaves out our Civil War. Our historical amnesia also erases the violent protests of the late 1960s and early 1970s, the mass confrontations, rioting and deaths. Is today's America really more fractured than it was in 1968?

The US isn't despised as much as held in contempt for the numerous double standards that it upholds.

In many cases blatantly so.


Myth No. 9: Our invasion of Iraq created our terrorist problems.

This claim rearranges the order of events, as if the attacks of 9/11 happened after Baghdad fell. Our terrorist problems have been created by the catastrophic failure of Middle Eastern civilization to compete on any front and were exacerbated by the determination of successive U.S. administrations, Democrat and Republican, to pretend that Islamist terrorism was a brief aberration. Refusing to respond to attacks, from the bombings in Beirut to Khobar Towers, from the first attack on the Twin Towers to the near-sinking of the USS Cole, we allowed our enemies to believe that we were weak and cowardly. Their unchallenged successes served as a powerful recruiting tool.

Did our mistakes on the ground in Iraq radicalize some new recruits for terror? Yes. But imagine how many more recruits there might have been and the damage they might have inflicted on our homeland had we not responded militarily in Afghanistan and then carried the fight to Iraq. Now Iraq is al-Qaeda's Vietnam, not ours.

OIF has undoubtedly drawn more recruits towards the global jihad.

Every mistake made by the CF, many of which were avoidable as the lessons had already been learnt previously, has added to the pool.

Obviously none were of the same standard of stupidity displayed by the french at Haiphong harbour in November 1946 but the overall efect has been the same.

A fueling of the insurgency and ammunition for the detracters, and an errosion of CF morale.



Myth No. 10: If we just leave, the Iraqis will patch up their differences on their own.

The point may come at which we have to accept that Iraqis are so determined to destroy their own future that there's nothing more we can do. But we're not there yet, and leaving immediately would guarantee not just one massacre but a series of slaughters and the delivery of a massive victory to the forces of terrorism. We must be open-minded about practical measures, from changes in strategy to troop reductions, if that's what the developing situation warrants. But it's grossly irresponsible to claim that our presence is the primary cause of the violence in Iraq - an allegation that ignores history.

Ah, the escape clause.

"look it's not our fault, we're not the primary cause of the violence but we might just have to leave anyway"

Heh, the tar baby is starting to get pretty annoying for this Brer rabbit.


Myth No. 11: It's all Israel's fault. Or the popular Washington corollary: "The Saudis are our friends."

Israel is the Muslim world's excuse for failure, not a reason for it. Even if we didn't support Israel, Islamist extremists would blame us for countless other imagined wrongs, since they fear our freedoms and our culture even more than they do our military. All men and women of conscience must recognize the core difference between Israel and its neighbors: Israel genuinely wants to live in peace, while its genocidal neighbors want Israel erased from the map.

As for the mad belief that the Saudis are our friends, it endures only because the Saudis have spent so much money on both sides of the aisle in Washington. Saudi money continues to subsidize anti-Western extremism, to divide fragile societies, and encourage hatred between Muslims and all others. Saudi extremism has done far more damage to the Middle East than Israel ever did. The Saudis are our enemies.


Well, he got it half right.

It's the US's policy's towards the middle east that have had the most to do with the current state of affairs. Specifically Israel and Saudi Arabia.



Myth No. 12: The Middle East's problems are all America's fault.

Muslim extremists would like everyone to believe this, but it just isn't true. The collapse of once great Middle Eastern civilizations has been under way for more than five centuries, and the region became a backwater before the United States became a country. For the first century and a half of our national existence, our relations with the people of the Middle East were largely beneficent and protective, notwithstanding our conflict with the Barbary Pirates in North Africa. But Islamic civilization was on a downward trajectory that could not be arrested. Its social and economic structures, its values, its neglect of education, its lack of scientific curiosity, the indolence of its ruling classes and its inability to produce a single modern state that served its people all guaranteed that, as the West's progress accelerated, the Middle East would fall ever farther behind. The Middle East has itself to blame for its problems.

None of us knows what our strategic future holds, but we have no excuse for not knowing our own past. We need to challenge inaccurate assertions about our policies, about our past and about war itself. And we need to work within our community and state education systems to return balanced, comprehensive history programs to our schools. The unprecedented wealth and power of the United States allows us to afford many things denied to human beings throughout history. But we, the people, cannot afford ignorance.


Of course they're not.

On the other hand the US is the greatest end user of the middle easts biggest export.

Therefore, strategically it's fate is intertwined with the middle east as a whole.

So, it can't help but stay involved, unfortunately to the point of meddling.

Bit like the scorpion and the turtle.




Ralph Peters grows more delusional as the years pass. It's facinating watching the inexorable descent into dementia.



I do however find it supremely ironic that proponents of the "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" style of waging war are either,

A. Current/retired military from trades/MOS's that are not combat.
B. Civilians who've never put their nuts on the line and if they were honest would admit they never will.
C. Chairborne commandos finger painting with fecal matter via their keyboard.
D. Adolescents with no concept of reality outside the world of their XBOX/PS3/whatever.
E. A combination of the above.



The Principles of War in their entirety

Selection and Maintenance of the Aim
Define the end state and ensure that all strategy is directed toward achieving it.

Concentration of Force
Make the best use of military power to achieve the commander's aims by overwhelming the enemy's military capacity.

Economy of Effort
Make efficient use of forces, conserving energy and materiel to prevent unnecessary depletion.

Maintenance of Morale
Prevent one's own forces from losing the will to fight.

Offensive Action
Maintain operational tempo by attacking the enemy.

Flexibility
Be able to respond to unexpected changes or attacks and be able to modify one's plans accordingly.

Co-Operation
Ensure that the maritime, land and air components work in unison to achieve the end state.

Security
Prevent the enemy from benefiting from lapses in operational security at all stages of the military process.

Surprise
Seize the initiative by attacking the enemy when, where and how he least expects it.

Sustainability
Support, fuel and guide forces to maintain operational capability.

[afreu]

Thanks for your post Ngati Tumatuenga.

[Firetxmi]

Thanks for your post Ngati Tumatuenga.

Agree! Excellent post!

[-DarthMaul-]

was a good read...until he absolved the West of 100% all blame of what is happening in the middle east. Terorrism, Poverty, and whatnot. We did not want this.

OR the muslim world? Hasnt he realized its been the Arabs that hate and faught Israel, not the WHOLE muslim world?

I mean seriously, he is rational on some parts, but completely irrational on others.

[Dercius]

"In the entire 18th century, our war of independence was the only insurgency that defeated a major foreign power and drove it out for good"
If you believe this,I suppose that you dont know or you omit why your insurgency was not crushed from the begining by UK. Read a little bit and you will know the part played by French and Spanish forces all round the world.

Not a single insurgency can win a war on his own if its not supported equiped, supplied and paid by another country or power. Afganistan, Vietnam, The Peninsula War 1808, are good examples.

"Insurgencies can never be defeated"

Its just absurd, if its true why are all countries keeping armed forces??? just give the school kids some old AK´s and RPG and tell them to fight the invading forces like Patrick Swayze in "RED DAWN":):):):)

[SFC MAC]

Now that it's 2011, Iraq has been won and the reigns are being passed to the Iraqi people, a little perspective on your diatribe is in order.


"Easy to be outspoken about having the will to sustain casualties and "pay the butchers bill" when you're unlikely to be called upon to do so personally in the future and by virtue of your previous career not been exposed to such demands in the past."

Whether you agree with Peters or not, he makes some valid comments about the (left-leaning) talking points about war.
I'm a retired Army Sergeant First Class, with a total of 30 years Reserve and Active duty service. I was an Intelligence Analyst, an S2 and a G2 NCOIC, as well as platoon sergeant. I served two tours in Iraq as part of the combat operations in Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom. I was called upon personnaly to meet the demands of the "butcher's bill".


"The US has been defeated in a couple of wars in the last fifty/sixty years and the world hasn't come to an end."

I'm assuming you're referring to Vietnam (what other war?) which was more of a withdrawal than a "defeat". I don't recall any surrender papers being signed by either side.


"Victory would have been a hell of a lot closer in all probability if a coherent, workable plan had been in place to deal with the aftermath of the "accomplished mission".

The implementation of the Coalition Provisional Authority and it's running of the reconstruction of Iraq was a debacle. Haphazard`and poorly resourced. A clear, concise plan supported at all levels would have made a huge difference, probably all the difference in post invasion Iraq."

If you need a definition of victory, here it is: It’s when we have crushed the Islamofascists to the point where they realize that messing with the “Great Satan” is far more costly than simply practicing their religion peacefully, without using Islam and bombs as instruments of terrorism. It’s when Iraq and Afghanistan develop stable infrastructures (executive, judicial, legislative, and military) that can stand on their own and protect themselves from the extremists who want to stop the progress of democracy, and (this is very important) when the 150+ major tribes and the close to 2000 smaller clans are able to live, work, and govern in a compromised co-existence. In Iraq, the first steps have already been taken. They have been given a chance to change the course of their lives from fear and oppression to opportunity, basic human rights, and a voice in their futures. The Guidon has been passed to them.


"The US military has certainly had difficulty in countering insurgencies but that's more of a mind set issue on the part of a military interested more in whiz bang technology in general, USMC and USSF the notable exceptions."

The United States Army, not the marines, has done the best job of fighting and quelling insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Just ask Mahdi and the Haqqani. The Al Qeada, Taliban, et al, always get their asses kicked if they try ground assaults, so they're left with IEDs and homicide bombs. Not much ground action from them to speak of. We're also putting a big hurt on their havens in Pakistan with Predator drones.


"Certainly military action by itself without the backing of diplomacy is sure to fail."


"Diplomacy" is usually the step right before military action. We tried diplomacy for 12 years in Iraq while Saddam thumbed his nose at U.N. inspectors. As for Afghanistan, why waste diplomacy on an enemy that planned and carried out 9/11 from that particular country?


"The much vaunted WMD's failed to materialise and there were little or no evidence of support from Iraq to terrorists, compared to Syria and Iran. Using the Saddam Hussein was a bad guy justification just won't wash in the face of so many other bad guys going about their business unmolested."

Iraq is the bane of intellectually bankrupt leftwingnuts who opposed any effort to rid the planet of a WMD-weilding megalomaniac. Iraq’s involvement in sponsoring terrorism, violating U.N. resolutions, and engaging in WMD production, is well documented. I'm damned glad we got the son-of-a-bitch. I still cannot discuss classified information, but there's plenty of open source reports to substantiate his violations and intent.


1) Declassified NGIC report:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

2) 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm
3) 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html

4) Looting of WMD facilities:In the weeks after Baghdad fell in April 2003, looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein’s most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms, a senior Iraqi official said this week in the government’s first extensive comments on the looting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/international/middleeast/13loot.html?pagewanted=1
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/


The UN admitted that Iraq had over six tons of anthrax, most of it weaponized, right up until the invasion.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1437528/posts

Those weapons were previously unknown to U.N. inspectors; they were concealed. Those are weapons and materials Hussein was not supposed to possess, yet he did.

5) Last major stockpile from Saddam’s nuclear efforts (the yellowcake that Joe Wilson claimed Saddam never had) arrives in Canada:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

When assclown Julian Assange (WikiLeaks) leaked thousands of classified documents with the intent to damage the war effort, he inadvertently included information that proved we continued to find WMD materials long after the invasion.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/

More: http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/no-lies-about-iraq/

Afghanistan, of course, was the major operating base for Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda thugs. We fought in Iraq and Afghanistan for all the right reasons.


"It's not the terrorists being killed that causes problems.

It's the hundreds to thousands of civilians cut down for whatever reason that produces the most martyrs.

Pull the gloves of and create more, then see what happens."

In case you forgot, muslims attacked this country and murdered almost 3000 people. Their avowed goal is domination of the West, through terrorism.

We are retaliating against a violent, ruthless, brutal Islamic culture that uses bombs, beheadings, stonings, and planes full of innocent people, to spread their message of “peace”. That message was proscribed by a frothing zealot in the 7th Century and they’ve been following his instructions ever since. Last I checked, they brought their “holy war” to us. We killed a lot of them and as far as I’m concerned, we haven’t gone far enough. I won’t apologize for it, either.


The Taleban/HIG/Sunni and Shiite insurgents don't actually fight that 'fiercely'. They won't go toe to toe with CF most of the time and the few instances they do it's when they think they have the upperhand in all respects. As archetypal insurgents they much rather prefer to hit and then run.

Hence, the point I made about the ground assaults vs Predator.


"The US isn't despised as much as held in contempt for the numerous double standards that it upholds."


Double standards...something the Eurotrash are pretty good at, like the French and German governments protecting their lucrative contracts with the Hussein Regime over the greater cause of defusing the region, and the re-arming of the Iraqi military by the Euros and Russians after the first Gulf War. A while back, Bridget Johson published at article in the Pajamas Media titled "Why the world hates America".
Link: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-the-world-hates-america/2/

Every country does whatever is in its own best interest; including the ones that hate us or if you will, like us when it’s convienient.


"OIF has undoubtedly drawn more recruits towards the global jihad."


The fatuous notion that our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan "created" terrorists is like saying Nazis were "created" because we invaded Germany. That crap is hackneyed and patently false. Islamic extremists have been around long before we decided to fight back. The Nazis, Japs, and Italians didn't roll over and neither will the ragheads. Enemies don't like it when you fight back, especially on their own turf. They threw us a sucker punch on 9/11 and deserve every death they get. It's just a shame we didn't scorch the Middle Eastern cesspool to expedite the process.


"It's the US's policy's towards the middle east that have had the most to do with the current state of affairs. Specifically Israel and Saudi Arabia."


Thank you, Ayman al Zawahri. Saudi Arabia is not our friend, it's part and parcel of the Islamic terrorist network. Israel is the only real ally we have in the Middle East, period. Obama is doing everything he can to erode that friendship. But what do you expect from a Dhimmi?


"I do however find it supremely ironic that proponents of the "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" style of waging war are either..."


Then you'll love this:
On 12 September 2001, I’d have leveled 3/4ths of the Middle East. Terrorists are bred, funded, indoctrinated, supported, and trained throughout that Islamic cesspool. I’d have started with all the capitals: Baghdad, Damascus, Kabul, Riyadh, Tehran, Islamabad, Amman, all of them. I’d have used MOABs and probably neutron bombs; a beautiful surgical weapon that delivers a high concentration of radiation to kill people but leaves structures intact. The radiation disspates quickly, thus making it safer for ground troop invasion. I’d have sent in the Army to finish off whatever and whoever was left.

That’s what I’d have done with the "other bad guys going about their business unmolested." They want a jihad, give ‘em one. But, I’m a former Soldier not a politician.

As evidenced by the frequent arrests of muslim extremists plotting attacks in the United States, the existence of jihadist training camps (Jamaat al Fuqra), radical muslim enclaves in places like Dearborn Michigan, coupled with the Ft. Hood massacre and the shooting of U.S. Soldiers at an Arkansas recruiting station, this war ain't over by a long shot.

[SFC MAC]

I prefer the U.S. Priniciples of War:

United States principles of war
(Refer to US Army Field Manual FM 3-0)
The United States Armed Forces (http://us.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States) use the following nine principles of war:

Objective (http://us.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/wiki/Objective_(military)) – Direct every military operation toward a clearly defined, decisive and attainable objective. The ultimate military purpose of war is the destruction of the enemy's ability to fight and will to fight.


Offensive (http://us.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/wiki/Offensive_(military)) – Seize, retain, and exploit the initiative. Offensive action is the most effective and decisive way to attain a clearly defined common objective. Offensive operations are the means by which a military force seizes and holds the initiative while maintaining freedom of action and achieving decisive results. This is fundamentally true across all levels of war.


Mass (http://us.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/wiki/Force_concentration) – Mass the effects of overwhelming combat power at the decisive place and time. Synchronizing all the elements of combat power where they will have decisive effect on an enemy force in a short period of time is to achieve mass. Massing effects, rather than concentrating forces, can enable numerically inferior forces to achieve decisive results, while limiting exposure to enemy fire.


Economy of Force (http://us.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/wiki/Economy_of_force) – Employ all combat power available in the most effective way possible; allocate minimum essential combat power to secondary efforts. Economy of force is the judicious employment and distribution of forces. No part of the force should ever be left without purpose. The allocation of available combat power to such tasks as limited attacks, defense, delays, deception, or even retrograde operations is measured in order to achieve mass elsewhere at the decisive point and time on the battlefield. ...


Maneuver (http://us.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/wiki/Maneuver_warfare) – Place the enemy in a position of disadvantage through the flexible application of combat power. Maneuver is the movement of forces in relation to the enemy to gain positional advantage. Effective maneuver keeps the enemy off balance and protects the force. It is used to exploit successes, to preserve freedom of action, and to reduce vulnerability. It continually poses new problems for the enemy by rendering his actions ineffective, eventually leading to defeat. ...


Unity of Command (http://us.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/wiki/Unity_of_command) – For every objective, seek unity of command and unity of effort. At all levels of war, employment of military forces in a manner that masses combat power toward a common objective requires unity of command and unity of effort (http://us.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/wiki/Unity_of_effort). Unity of command means that all the forces are under one responsible commander. It requires a single commander with the requisite authority to direct all forces in pursuit of a unified purpose.


Security (http://us.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/wiki/Operations_security_(OPSEC)) – Never permit the enemy to acquire unexpected advantage. Security enhances freedom of action by reducing vulnerability to hostile acts, influence, or surprise. Security results from the measures taken by a commander to protect his forces. Knowledge and understanding of enemy strategy, tactics, doctrine, and staff planning improve the detailed planning of adequate security measures.


Surprise (http://us.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/wiki/Indirect_approach) – Strike the enemy at a time or place or in a manner for which he is unprepared. Surprise can decisively shift the balance of combat power. By seeking surprise, forces can achieve success well out of proportion to the effort expended. Surprise can be in tempo, size of force, direction or location of main effort, and timing. Deception can aid the probability of achieving surprise. ...


Simple (http://us.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/wiki/Simplicity) – Prepare clear, uncomplicated plans and concise orders to ensure thorough understanding. Everything in war is very simple, but the simple thing is difficult. To the uninitiated, military operations are not difficult. Simplicity contributes to successful operations. Simple plans and clear, concise orders minimize misunderstanding and confusion. Other factors being equal, parsimony is to be preferred.
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country"
---General George S. Patton

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

First of all, let me say just how impressed I am that you’ve dug up a thread from over four years ago then necro replied to it in such detail.
That shows a level of psychological discord rarely seen here.

Anyhoo.


Now that it's 2011, Iraq has been won and the reigns are being passed to the Iraqi people, a little perspective on your diatribe is in order.

Here, in your first paragraph, you lost your entire argument. Here you display such a glaring flaw in your logic, such a crippled and stunted thought process, that there is no real reason for me to bother in dismantling the rest of your ill informed points. For after the above paragraph you then go onto write;


I'm assuming you're referring to Vietnam (what other war?) which was more of a withdrawal than a "defeat". I don't recall any surrender papers being signed by either side.

No surrender papers were signed by either side to end the Iraq war, Cheryl.

Point of fact is that major combat operations continued long after the stupidity of the “Mission accomplished” fiasco.

Doubtless you have a ready made, double standard, hypocritical response to show the difference, instead of just fessing up to the fact that you shot yourself in the foot as you stepped off the LD. That you have proven yourself to be totally, illogically and profoundly wrong from the very beginning of your time here.

Again, another example.


"Diplomacy" is usually the step right before military action. We tried diplomacy for 12 years in Iraq while Saddam thumbed his nose at U.N. inspectors. As for Afghanistan, why waste diplomacy on an enemy that planned and carried out 9/11 from that particular country?

Apparently the US “wasted” diplomacy on the Sunni tribes in Anbar province. Ironically then, it worked out pretty well for the Iraq war didn’t it?

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf)
More: http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/no-lies-about-iraq/ (http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/no-lies-about-iraq/)

Your quoted websites start with Fox and end with your personal blog. Says it all really.


Thank you, Ayman al Zawahri.

Really? 100,000 sperm and you’re the one who made it?

Up until that offensive remark, I was prepared to accept your presence. See, by cyber law we must maintain a certain quota of fvcktards per quarter and you fit the bill perfectly.

But now, you can apologise for offensive remark in your very next post or I will ban you permanently.

You wont of course, which means I will ban you and that all your efforts in gaining the privilege of membership and then carefully crafting your long winded response will only so much wasted effort.

Oh dear, how sad, never mind. :)

[Atlantic Friend]

Actually, I don't find this article ranking very high on intellectual honesty. Peters does throw himself a lot of softballs, and rearranges the "myths" in such a way he can "debunk" them with a one liner.

I wish he'd have stuck to writing thrillers.

[JCR]

99 % of all articles titled "(number) myths about (xy)" are bullsh!t
Plain and simple.
They represent the personal opinion of the author at best and at worst are propaganda.
This often used title alone is a dead giveaway about the author considering his audience to be tools at best and stupid at worst.

And reading up on Peters I must say if he didn't exist, anti-americans should invent him.
What a clown.

[SFC MAC]

Ngati Tumatauenga;5877423]First of all, let me say just how impressed I am that you’ve dug up a thread from over four years ago then necro replied to it in such detail.
That shows a level of psychological discord rarely seen here......




Why, thank you for contributing your own necro response, sweetpea. I came across your little missive while surfing for the original article.

+

Nice try on the ad hominems. (Is that all you've got?) You failed.

You're pretty full of yourself. You practice that puffery in front of a mirror because it gets good reviews? Gawd, what a display of pathological narcissism.

+

I laid out a point-by-point refutation of your 'argument', based on my experience, facts, and first hand knowledge, which I discussed on my blog. All of which has been documented in declassified documents and open source reports. You respond with sneering bullsh!t. It's much easier than actually engaging in constructive dialogue. Which says everything, really.


Since you're going to ban me anyway--that's probably de rigueur for you Charles Johnson types---, I'll simply add one more thing in response to your cute little "sperm" quote: The best part of you ran down the crack of your mama's ass. See? Others can play that insult the ****** reproduction joke game, too.

+

Apologize for what, hurting your widdoo feweeings? What a pansy. For comparing your narrative to the standard Al Zawahri talking points? They're so similar, it's uncanny. Al Qaeda uses the same "America caused this" crap in their propaganda videos.


I see that this site already met it's quota of fvcktards with your presence.

-

Now go back to playing with yourself, Ngati. What's with the faux African moniker, anyway?



Editor note, I restored it to the original post. A good post on what not to do.

[Corrupt]

I see that this site already met it's quota of fvcktards with your presence.
Now go back to playing with yourself, Ngati. What's with the faux African moniker, anyway?
Nice meeting you, goodbye.


First of all, let me say just how impressed I am that you’ve dug up a thread from over four years ago then necro replied to it in such detail.
Damnit didn't read the date of the OP. Saw it being discussed and assumed it was new. Ah well, here's my take on it anyway.


Myth No. 1: War doesn't change anything.
I'd say this particular myth is indeed false. I would however point out that many wars do not change anything and simply replace one despot for another, or end in a stalemate with no real change until round two. I would also argue that "But of one thing we may be certain: a U.S. defeat in any war is a defeat not only for freedom, but for civilization" is just patriotic chest beating, rather than an argument of any substance.


Myth No. 2: Victory is impossible today.
I'd say that this myth stands for the exact reason he says it's wrong. I question the will of the US and it's allies to prosecute the wars to their end, simply because the populations are becoming increasingly sick of seeing their troops come home in boxes for little to no perceivable progress. Increasing numbers of people are starting to ask when the troops will be coming home and to quote Burke, I venture to say no war can be long carried on against the will of the people. Unless both the people and the politicians are willing to stay there until the job is done, then victory is indeed impossible today.


Myth No. 3: Insurgencies can never be defeated.
Agree that this is false, although I question whether the insurgencies in Iraq/Afghanistan can be defeated because of the reasons I gave in myth 2.


Myth No. 4: There's no military solution; only negotiations can solve our problems.
It utterly depends on the situation.


Myth No. 5: When we fight back, we only provoke our enemies.
Again, it utterly depends on the situation.


Myth No. 6: Killing terrorists only turns them into martyrs.
I agree, to an extent. While killing a few random insurgents in a ditch with a coalition airstrike doesn't produce the global news story that getting OBL did, they do probably have fathers/sons/brothers who will be upset and angry that their relation has been killed, perhaps galvanising more of them to take up arms against us, whether directly or indirectly. Whether we can do something about this is a different question. Nobody would want to stop coalition troops receiving fire from getting every possible type of support they need, it would be naive to believe that kill counts don't feed the enemy at least some new recruits.


Myth No. 7: If we fight as fiercely as our enemies, we're no better than them.
The fact our troops are required to provide proper medical aid for wounded prisoners, abide by rules of engagement etc, indicates that we don't sink to their level anyway.


Myth No. 8: The United States is more hated today than ever before.
I'd agree this one is false. I'd say the hatred comes more vocally from different areas of the world and different classes of society maybe.


Myth No. 9: Our invasion of Iraq created our terrorist problems.
Again, I'd agree this is false, although it did possibly exacerbate them.


Myth No. 10: If we just leave, the Iraqis will patch up their differences on their own.
This is definitely false, it'd be years of civil war before another dictator ends up in Saddams empty palace.


Myth No. 11: It's all Israel's fault. Or the popular Washington corollary: "The Saudis are our friends."
Yup, this one is false.


Myth No. 12: The Middle East's problems are all America's fault.
Likewise this is also false

[SFC MAC]

@corrupt:
Nice meeting you as well.

[Indiana Jones]

Now go back to playing with yourself, Ngati. What's with the faux African moniker, anyway?
Not overly interested in getting embroiled in this little discourse you gentlemen are having, but since I am a smartarse, I feel compelled to point out that you're looking on the false continent.

[RSone]

Ngati Tumatauenga is the Maori name for the New Zealand Army.

[SFC MAC]

@Indiana Jones,
Pardon me, smartarse. Rather the tongue-twisting Maori moniker.

[RSone]

@Indiana Jones,
Pardon me, smartarse. Rather the tongue-twisting Maori moniker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Army
I prefer the tradition over simplifying it for the linguistically challenged..

[Corrupt]

I prefer the tradition over simplifying it for the linguistically challenged..

We didn't all have the misfortune to be born in a backward nation whose language has no real international importance, necessitating us to learn other more useful methods of communication ;)

[Hollis]

.....


Since you're going to ban me anyway--

Now go back to playing with yourself, Ngati. What's with the faux (correction) Maori moniker, anyway?

No he did not ban you, I did. Have a nice day.


Maybe come back when you have grown up. Minimum age here is 12.

[RSone]

We didn't all have the misfortune to be born in a backward nation whose language has no real international importance, necessitating us to learn other more useful methods of communication ;)

No, it's the world's fault for making us stoop to such a menial language as English to communicate with the barbarian masses. Would do you cocky bastards some good to learn more than one language. :P

[tercio67]

We didn't all have the misfortune to be born in a backward nation whose language has no real international importance, necessitating us to learn other more useful methods of communication ;)

Tsk, tsk, tsk ... would you like me to point out the words from that very same language, originating out of that backward nation, currently used in your mother tongue?

[Corrupt]

No, it's the world's fault for making us stoop to such a menial language as English to communicate with the barbarian masses. Would do you cocky bastards some good to learn more than one language. :P

Voulez vous parlais francais? Oder vielleicht Deutsch?


Tsk, tsk, tsk ... would you like me to point out the words from that very same language, originating out of that backward nation, currently used in your mother tongue?

Do you have some sixth sense for the Dutch being mentioned on this site?

[Hollis]

Tsk, tsk, tsk ... would you like me to point out the words from that very same language, originating out of that backward nation, currently used in your mother tongue?

I was pretty impressed with the language in Wales. They had words with the length that could circle the world.

[tercio67]

I was pretty impressed with the language in Wales. They had words with the length that could circle the world.

Now, now, don't confuse language with a speach impediment p-)

[RSone]

I was pretty impressed with the language in Wales. They had words with the length that could circle the world.

kindercarnavalsoptochtvoorbereidingswerkzaamhedencomitéleden
meervoudigepersoonlijkheidsstoornis

The Welsh aint got **** on us Dutchies p-) We've started using spaces in compound nouns though.

[Indiana Jones]

Voulez vous parlais francais?


Cringe....In another day and age.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIAdHEwiAy8

C'est "parler français". Enough smartarsery for today.

[Corrupt]

Cringe...

Sorry if I haven't used French in five years. ;)

Besides I'm British. Just talk loudly, slowly and gesture a lot and you'l get the point across.

[Hollis]

Sorry if I haven't used French in five years. ;)

Besides I'm British. Just talk loudly, slowly and gesture a lot and you'l get the point across.

Should have said you are from Quebec, they would have accepted the faux pas.

[Indiana Jones]

Good on ya mate. ;)

[JCR]

kindercarnavalsoptochtvoorbereidingswerkzaamhedencomitéleden
meervoudigepersoonlijkheidsstoornis

The Welsh aint got **** on us Dutchies p-) We've started using spaces in compound nouns though.

Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetzausführungsverordnung ;)

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Now go back to playing with yourself, Ngati. What's with the faux African moniker, anyway?

SFC Cheryl McElroy US ARMY (RET), thirty years as an USA intelligence analyst and you couldn't even figure out where the name comes from? rofl

If you cant get that simple thing right, what else have you fvcked up in your ranting and raving about yellow cake uranium, et al?

Bitch be trippin'.... :)

[panzrman]

SFC Cheryl McElroy US ARMY (RET), thirty years as an USA intelligence analyst and you couldn't even figure out where the name comes from? rofl

If you cant get that simple thing right, what else have you fvcked up in your ranting and raving about yellow cake uranium, et al?

Bitch be trippin'.... :)

If I can find my AKO password, I'll look her up in the directory and see if "she" even exists. And maybe it is just me, but the ANZAC bit might have been an additional clue? :)

[Atlantic Friend]

Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetzausführungsverordnung ;)

German and Welsh were made to cheat at Scrabble.