War is Hell, and Obsolete

[Guest]

Our nation's security is our most fundamental need. Therefore, isolationism from, or involvement with the rest of the world has been our most continually vexing issue for 200 years. If you think debate is sharp about current issues, it pales compared to the frenzy over whether the US would remain isolationist. It was a major issue for Washington, Jefferson and Monroe. By the 1930's it completely dominated our foreign policy, and from the Cold War to Vietnam to Afghanistan, it still seems a central question.

But technology has made the question moot. As a powerful nation with a little geographic distance from potential threats, the key elements of our security are the sophisticated hardware defense systems we have in place, increasingly experienced and capable homeland security, and the best possible communications and intelligence network. If we keep these in place we can stop or minimize the effects of any attack. With those nations which pose the greatest threats, including nuclear capability, we must continue to negotiate and try to work together to stay away from the brink of conflict, as we have done successfully for the last half-century. But our attackers no longer wear the uniforms of a nation. Our response to them must be individualized targeting. Effective intelligence, drone attacks and small ground operations have almost entirely replaced territorial invasions as a means to stop attackers. We have finally adopted what the Israelis have been forced to do for decades, and we keep learning that it works.

It is never 'good' to take a life. The moral question becomes more controversial and emotional if there are lives lost collaterally. There is a current thread here decrying the death of the boy in Yemen, the result of a drone attack. It has become the constantly repeated but short-sighted argument used to criticize the nation and the President. Our enemies unceasingly protest and some of us are moved by their grief. I do not discount that grief. But that does not make our President a 'cold-blooded killer'. Nor does it make these tactics immoral.

Let us compare this new situation to the decisions to invade Iraq or Afghanistan. As in any large scale air and ground attack, there was certain knowledge that many people, ours and 'theirs' would lose their lives. There was no question in my mind that choosing to invade was 'bad' rather than to employ targeted small assaults. And especially with Afghanistan, I cannot imagine military leaders agreed that an invasion rather than targeted attacks would in the end be more likely to succeed.

For the simplest reason those were 'bad' choices, compared, for example, to what we think was Truman's 'good' decision to use the atom bomb; because there would be less loss of American lives. If we are only considering American lives for a moment, then the same logic certainly applies to drone and assault warfare. But in fact, our newest methods have resulted in far less death and destruction than any of our large scale ground or air attacks ever employed anywhere.

But there is a better reason. While we must protect ourselves, conventional warfare is now obsolete. It's very much like the British army, uniformed and lined up in front of Cornwallis. Yes, we must keep strong well trained armed forces to operate our security systems and protect against the possibility of invasion, but we must respond to terrorist attacks with anti-terrorist methods.

We've seen it repeatedly in our lifetimes. It's time to think differently, revise our defense expenditures and preparations, and get used to the fact that the use of conventional warfare is tragic, counter-productive, and avoidable.

[Guest]

ijustlovit: In all due respect I understand your point of view. However if you believe having an apologist as our leader will keep us safe then I might suggest you revisit history.

Dealing with other countries is no different than dealing with a bully, unless and until you face them down they will continue to poke at you and will never respect you.

There are so many countries that would love to see America fall and no matter how and what you say that will always be their agena, and not so hidden I might add.

Like you I hate war but to believe that the world can live without some blood-letting is to ignore the limits placed on nature.

[Guest]

People say "war solves nothing", and in a sense, they are right. Wars have never prevented new wars and cannot prevent terrorism. Taking too long a historical perspective dampens solutions because current measures have very little impact on remote events. The war on the Taliban won't affect German terrorists a hundred years from now. Nothing would. In the long run, there are no solutions.

War has failed to produce lasting peace, but so has any peace treaty ever signed. France and Germany fought some time after signing a peace treaty, and signed a peace treaty after fighting. War solves nothing, and peace also solves nothing. In the long run, nothing solves anything.

But, within reasonably short time frames, wars are remarkably effective. Germany and Japan were stopped by war, and so were the Arabs on multiple occasions. The Israeli war on Palestinian terrorism stopped the two Intifadas.

Peace, on other hand, changes nothing but only formalizes the facts established by war. After the Germans were utterly defeated, peace ensued regardless of whether a peace treaty had been signed. After Israel defeated Syria, there was peace even without a peace treaty.

War changes facts, and "peace" is really only a name for the resulting change.

[Guest]

the reality is when the USA is involved in a war, run by politicians instead of the generals there is no gain what so ever.

To be in a war and not do what it takes to win only increases loss of American lives and loss of respect around the world.

The need for the current administration to be liked around the world has transformed the US military capability into a joke world wide.

The very amusing part of it all is that while being a tepid military to keep the so called allies happy, they continue to play and drag the US along.

A very tell tale sign of lack of leadership and over riding self concern.

There is much, much, MUCH more we could to to our enemies world wide both technology wise and traditional ground war wise to shore up the future benefits and protection of the USA, it's military and it's populations.........but we do not. We have become nothing more than a paper tiger.

btk

[Guest]

Philip Slater: Why War Persists When War is Obsolete (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-slater/why-war-persists-when-war_b_65003.html)

Unfortunately, I do not believe war will ever become obsolete. Stupid yes, especially if your country is something like Georgia taking on Russia. But the Georgians still resist the power of Russia especially if they insult the pride of the leaders of Georgia. It is very hard to take the human element out of the decisions to go to war. There will always be countries like Georgia which have their Russias and vice versa.

Do believe that an insult to George Bush's father by Saddam Hussein in the 1990s was a major factor in the decision by Bush, Jr. to attack Iraq in the 2000s.

[Guest]

Philip Slater: Why War Persists When War is Obsolete (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-slater/why-war-persists-when-war_b_65003.html)

Unfortunately, I do not believe war will ever become obsolete. Stupid yes, especially if your country is something like Georgia taking on Russia. But the Georgians still resist the power of Russia especially if they insult the pride of the leaders of Georgia. It is very hard to take the human element out of the decisions to go to war. There will always be countries like Georgia which have their Russias and vice versa.

Do believe that an insult to George Bush's father by Saddam Hussein in the 1990s was a major factor in the decision by Bush, Jr. to attack Iraq in the 2000s.

You think it was stupid of the Georgian people to fight for their indepence from the "mother country". I can only guess what you would have been telling Thomas Jefferson.

Your Bush comment is ridiculous and only propagated by ardent haters.

[Guest]

Philip Slater: Why War Persists When War is Obsolete (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-slater/why-war-persists-when-war_b_65003.html)

Unfortunately, I do not believe war will ever become obsolete. Stupid yes, especially if your country is something like Georgia taking on Russia. But the Georgians still resist the power of Russia especially if they insult the pride of the leaders of Georgia. It is very hard to take the human element out of the decisions to go to war. There will always be countries like Georgia which have their Russias and vice versa.

Do believe that an insult to George Bush's father by Saddam Hussein in the 1990s was a major factor in the decision by Bush, Jr. to attack Iraq in the 2000s.

Do believe that an insult to George Bush's father by Saddam Hussein in the 1990s was a major factor in the decision by Bush, Jr. to attack Iraq in the 2000s.

You have been listening to or watching too many of the Dem radio/tv shows !!!

This is quite ridiculous and joins the ranks of the other inane theories from both sides that are for the fringes

[Guest]

The Bush comment is a fact. George 43 took revenge and jumped on a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. The US supported Iraq for many years when it was fighting Iran. Then we turned on Iraq. The US needs to learn that to win and impress an enemy we do like we did to Germany, kill them all let God sort them out. Remember, the victore is the one who writes the history books.

[Guest]

It seems to me "but for" the fact of the american Revolution we will stilll be paying homage to an english king. It seems that several countries have made attempts at ethnic cleansing and that it took a war to stop them, etc etc etc etc. Again I say to belive man can eliminate war is to ignore the limits placed on nature

[Guest]

You think it was stupid of the Georgian people to fight for their indepence from the "mother country". I can only guess what you would have been telling Thomas Jefferson.

Your Bush comment is ridiculous and only propagated by ardent haters.

There is a big difference between the Revolutionaries in 1776 and the Asian Georgians. Something akin to this would be if the US Georgia decided to take on an armed resurrection against the United States right now in 2012. There would be little if no chance of winning for the US Georgia.

The Asian Georgia could win but would need the United Nations, the US, and others behind them. Believe they got their independence-- or that of most of their claimed territory-- through the help of the international community. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(country)

And it seems that President Bush, Jr. could have been mad as hell about an Iraqi assassination plot against his father. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1019-05.htm


"During a campaign speech in September 2002, Bush cited a number of reasons -- in addition to alleged terrorist links and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) about why Saddam was so dangerous to the U.S., noting, in particular that, ''After all, this is the guy who tired to kill my dad.''

He was referring, of course, to an alleged plot by Iraqi intelligence to assassinate Bush's father, former president George H.W. Bush, during his triumphal visit to Kuwait in April, 1993, 25 months after U.S.-led forces chased Iraqi troops out of Kuwait in the first Gulf War and three months after Bush Sr. surrendered the White House to Bill Clinton." from above link.

[Guest]

I reject your dismissal of the Georgian's fight for freedom from Russia's grasp as stupid. No nation's fight for freedom is stupid, no matter the odds. We had help also in gaining our freedom. A little reading of history might be an aid to you.

I have to also reject the historical revisionism you and Figmo are advancing on the trigger for the Iraq war being a personal vendetta of some sort. Pure unadulterated hogwash. All you'll ever find to support this is the biased musings of a journalist with BDS. (Bush Derangement Syndrome)

[Guest]

I reject your dismissal of the Georgian's fight for freedom from Russia's grasp as stupid. No nation's fight for freedom is stupid, no matter the odds. We had help also in gaining our freedom. A little reading of history might be an aid to you.

I have to also reject the historical revisionism you and Figmo are advancing on the trigger for the Iraq war being a personal vendetta of some sort. Pure unadulterated hogwash. All you'll ever find to support this is the biased musings of a journalist with BDS. (Bush Derangement Syndrome)

Georgia already has its freedom from Russia. Their fights have been about enclaves of various ethnic populations. A trigger that has been starting wars probably since 3000 B.C. or longer. http://www.npr.org/series/93497143/russia-georgia-fight-over-breakaway-region

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_war

And its looks like the South Ossetia's wanted their freedom from Georgia and were backed by the Russians against the Georgians. It is more complicated than that but there are many groups in the world which use terrorism to fight for their independence from larger powers.

[Guest]

Georgia already has its freedom from Russia. Their fights have been about enclaves of various ethnic populations. A trigger that has been starting wars probably since 3000 B.C. or longer. Russia, Georgia Fight Over Breakaway Region : NPR (http://www.npr.org/series/93497143/russia-georgia-fight-over-breakaway-region)

2008 South Ossetia war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_war)

And its looks like the South Ossetia's wanted their freedom from Georgia and were backed by the Russians against the Georgians. It is more complicated than that but there are many groups in the world which use terrorism to fight for their independence from larger powers.

I agree somewhat, but there's a big difference in fighting for independence and fighting for your freedom.

In the Middle East there's fighting going on which has little to do with individual freedom.

This is why you really can't compare the American Revolution to almost any seemingly similar conflict, unless it's individual freedom that being fought for. Breaking away from Russia has many aspects similar to our rejection of British Rule.

[Guest]

How would some describe say the Green Revolution going on now in Iran. clearly Irians rights are being violated. what has the UN done to right that wrong?

This same scenario can be applied to a number of countries present and past in Africa Middle East and elsewhere were ethnic cleansing has occured.

Rome fell in part because its armies became mercenaries and pledge their loyalities not to Rome but to the generals that paid them.

Technology has not made war obsolete only more efficient

[Guest]

How would some describe say the Green Revolution going on now in Iran. clearly Irians rights are being violated. what has the UN done to right that wrong?

This same scenario can be applied to a number of countries present and past in Africa Middle East and elsewhere were ethnic cleansing has occured.

Rome fell in part because its armies became mercenaries and pledge their loyalities not to Rome but to the generals that paid them.

Technology has not made war obsolete only more efficient.

Technology played a huge part in the Green Revoltion as well as in the Revolt in Egypt. 2009 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%932010_Iranian_election_protests)

The pay for the legions seemed to be a problem all throughout Roman history from the little reading I have done on Roman History. Have read a lot of fiction based on Roman historical events. You just have to look at the Year 69 A.D.-- the Year of the Four Emperors-- to get an idea of how important paying the Roman Army was. That was about 400 years before the traditional date of the Fall of the Roman Empire.

[Guest]

So many military experts in The Villages.

[Guest]

So many military experts in The Villages.


I do have a B.A. in History but we covered very little military history that I can remember. None of the Professors seemed very interested in it at the University of Nevada, Reno.

Of course, they did have a monster of two courses at UNR on U.S. Civil War History. That seemed more for Civil War fanatics though which there are many around in my experience.

There are a lot of retired military in the Villages though and many of them do seem to be interested in military history. Have not really seen that many of them posting on TOTV.

[Guest]

I reject your dismissal of the Georgian's fight for freedom from Russia's grasp as stupid. No nation's fight for freedom is stupid, no matter the odds. We had help also in gaining our freedom. A little reading of history might be an aid to you.

I have to also reject the historical revisionism you and Figmo are advancing on the trigger for the Iraq war being a personal vendetta of some sort. Pure unadulterated hogwash. All you'll ever find to support this is the biased musings of a journalist with BDS. (Bush Derangement Syndrome)

Georgia did not fight for freedom from Russia's grasp that I can see in the last 20 years or so. They declared their Independence around when the Soviet Union broke up. Their fights with Russia now seem to be about an oil pipe line. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(country)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baku%E2%80%93Tbilisi%E2%80%93Ceyhan_pipeline

[Guest]

Obviously the military experts could go on ad nausiam about the the wars in history and our current world, but the intent of this thread was to suggest only that conventional warfare is now obsolete as a US national defense strategy.

Because of geography and wealth, we have the early warning and defensive systems to ward off wholesale attacks from other nations. When and where there might be incursions, my point is that we can far more effectively address them through good intelligence and targeted assaults, rather than large air and ground invasions.

The tragic failure to recognize this shift is the cause of our dilemmas in Iraq and Afghanistan. The strategy now employed by the Obama administration, while drawing down those two massive efforts, it less costly in every respect, and, in my opinion, in almost every case, the only justifiable aggressive strategy we should employ. If we are to commit to this course for the near future, while maintaining a strong back up armed forces, we will be able to effectively defend ourselves with a significantly smaller defense budget and sharp reduction in the loss of life and injury to our troops.

[Guest]

Obviously the military experts could go on ad nausiam about the the wars in history and our current world, but the intent of this thread was to suggest only that conventional warfare is now obsolete as a US national defense strategy.

Because of geography and wealth, we have the early warning and defensive systems to ward off wholesale attacks from other nations. When and where there might be incursions, my point is that we can far more effectively address them through good intelligence and targeted assaults, rather than large air and ground invasions.

The tragic failure to recognize this shift is the cause of our dilemmas in Iraq and Afghanistan. The strategy now employed by the Obama administration, while drawing down those two massive efforts, it less costly in every respect, and, in my opinion, in almost every case, the only justifiable aggressive strategy we should employ. If we are to commit to this course for the near future, while maintaining a strong back up armed forces, we will be able to effectively defend ourselves with a significantly smaller defense budget and sharp reduction in the loss of life and injury to our troops.

Agree about some of this. The CIA, predator drones, and the like are the best weapons to hunt down terrorists. If and when another war occurs though, we still might need a large force depending on the country/region involved.

[Guest]

Our nation's security is our most fundamental need. Therefore, isolationism from, or involvement with the rest of the world has been our most continually vexing issue for 200 years. If you think debate is sharp about current issues, it pales compared to the frenzy over whether the US would remain isolationist. It was a major issue for Washington, Jefferson and Monroe. By the 1930's it completely dominated our foreign policy, and from the Cold War to Vietnam to Afghanistan, it still seems a central question.

But technology has made the question moot. As a powerful nation with a little geographic distance from potential threats, the key elements of our security are the sophisticated hardware defense systems we have in place, increasingly experienced and capable homeland security, and the best possible communications and intelligence network. If we keep these in place we can stop or minimize the effects of any attack. With those nations which pose the greatest threats, including nuclear capability, we must continue to negotiate and try to work together to stay away from the brink of conflict, as we have done successfully for the last half-century. But our attackers no longer wear the uniforms of a nation. Our response to them must be individualized targeting. Effective intelligence, drone attacks and small ground operations have almost entirely replaced territorial invasions as a means to stop attackers. We have finally adopted what the Israelis have been forced to do for decades, and we keep learning that it works.

It is never 'good' to take a life. The moral question becomes more controversial and emotional if there are lives lost collaterally. There is a current thread here decrying the death of the boy in Yemen, the result of a drone attack. It has become the constantly repeated but short-sighted argument used to criticize the nation and the President. Our enemies unceasingly protest and some of us are moved by their grief. I do not discount that grief. But that does not make our President a 'cold-blooded killer'. Nor does it make these tactics immoral.

Let us compare this new situation to the decisions to invade Iraq or Afghanistan. As in any large scale air and ground attack, there was certain knowledge that many people, ours and 'theirs' would lose their lives. There was no question in my mind that choosing to invade was 'bad' rather than to employ targeted small assaults. And especially with Afghanistan, I cannot imagine military leaders agreed that an invasion rather than targeted attacks would in the end be more likely to succeed.

For the simplest reason those were 'bad' choices, compared, for example, to what we think was Truman's 'good' decision to use the atom bomb; because there would be less loss of American lives. If we are only considering American lives for a moment, then the same logic certainly applies to drone and assault warfare. But in fact, our newest methods have resulted in far less death and destruction than any of our large scale ground or air attacks ever employed anywhere.

But there is a better reason. While we must protect ourselves, conventional warfare is now obsolete. It's very much like the British army, uniformed and lined up in front of Cornwallis. Yes, we must keep strong well trained armed forces to operate our security systems and protect against the possibility of invasion, but we must respond to terrorist attacks with anti-terrorist methods.

We've seen it repeatedly in our lifetimes. It's time to think differently, revise our defense expenditures and preparations, and get used to the fact that the use of conventional warfare is tragic, counter-productive, and avoidable.
Good, thoughtful post. I agree.

[Guest]

the reality is when the USA is involved in a war, run by politicians instead of the generals there is no gain what so ever...But that's our Constitutional system of government, Billie. We're not a military dictatorship. There are plenty of examples of those around the world these days, very few working well for the benefit of the citizens they govern.