Originally Posted by jeckyl

When this war started, I immediately predicated everything that has, would happen (this was back in February of 2003, a month before the invasion). The reason is because I had just finished Che's book on Guerrilla Warfare........
http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/slatta/...nts/che.htm#11

Dr. Guevara as an authority on guerilla warfare is like quoting Bill Clinton on the managing of interns.

Guevara: the Argentine physician famed for his love of torture, the hero-to-be who got run out of Africa for fouling up Cuban activities there, who rode the coattails of others and screwed up every venture he managed to touch, and after being run out of most of South America gets himself killed by the Bolivians. He plagerized Sun Tzu and folk now think he's a prophet. Had the Bolivians not killed him he would have been just another Castro puppet destined for re-education in a Cuban forest for delusions of grandeur. Instead he got his sorry butt killed and the Commies decided that he would make a great martyr for the cause.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

Dr. Guevara as an authority on guerilla warfare is like quoting Bill Clinton on the managing of interns.

Guevara: the Argentine physician famed for his love of torture, the hero-to-be who got run out of Africa for fouling up Cuban activities there, who rode the coattails of others and screwed up every venture he managed to touch, and after being run out of most of South America gets himself killed by the Bolivians. He plagerized Sun Tzu and folk now think he's a prophet. Had the Bolivians not killed him he would have been just another Castro puppet destined for re-education in a Cuban forest for delusions of grandeur. Instead he got his sorry butt killed and the Commies decided that he would make a great martyr for the cause.

Steve,

I was not supporting him in this post or saying that he was the first one to do anything. I simply said that his manual outlines modern insurgencies and is the exact methods that are practiced today. Now, I will be the first to admit that I have not read all of Sun Tzu's book "The Art of War" (maybe I will now), but what I have read, this is a manual for battle that has to do with leading an army, which is totally not what they are about. Sun Tzu says that one needs to defend positions until they can advance, while territory is not the aim of the modern foes. They want to hit us and run. Their goal is to be a constant pain in our side for as long as we are willing to be there. We should know, we used this same method against the Sandinista in Nicaragua when we paid the Contras to attack the churches, electrical plants, hospitals, etc. We trained Bin Laden and Co. to do the same thing in Afghanistan against the Soviets.

As far as the story of Che, I really must say you are off the mark on that one, but that is okay, because that was not the intention of this comment. With that said, if you read his book, you can map out the entire Iraqi resistance and see where, how, and with whom they will hit us. That is why when we rolled in, they dropped their uniforms and walked away. That was not the way the Iraqi people would successfully defend themselves from our aggression and occupation. They made a very purposeful decision to use opportunity instead of being forced on a battle field. This is what that book says they should do. And you can tell that it will last as long as we are there in the way we are. I would like to point one thing out (just for the record) while we can always defeat governments, we have yet to take over one single group of poor people since that book was published. We have lost every one of those battles (and yes, Rome proved that you can win those battles).

You want to know how we can beat the people over there that want to attack us again, and for that matter, this entire so called War against Terror. Rent the movie Munich (2005) or look at Mossad. So long as we fight like Al Quaeda is another nation, we don't have a chance to win this thing. We (and I think I already posted this) need to transform our entire military, put 100,000 teams of six on the ground world wide with the best training and technology we have, and help them track down every member of Al Qaeda and simply kill them. No major battles, just simple hits.

One thing we all need to consider as we discuss this, and try to influnce each other. We are talking about this here in the comforts of our homes, and emailing political representatives, and getting ready to vote on an election. Our friends (I can say that for real) are over there and risking their lives. Our #1 concern (regardless of your politics) should be not to waste lives, and to do what ever is the most effective. Where I think Iraq is foolish to begin with, it is not because there aren't people out there who want to cut my head off, they are there, it is simply that they are not in Iraq. Of course, some of them in Iraq hate us too (between Clinton and Bush we have caused the deaths of well over 1 million people there, many of them being innocent children), but the leaders of the organization who really are trying to kill us are not on the battle fields, and we will not find them like this. I think we all should agree that these people should be the #1 target. You kill all of them, the war is over, plain and simple. This is not a people's movement like the Iraqi resistance to US occupation has become, Al Quaeda is a fundamentalist organization with a heirarchy and clear leadership. We need to cut the head off that snake.

Wow Barb, that's an absolutely beautiful and heart breaking video. Thanks for sharing it. chels :#1:

Thanks Barb, for sharing. A picture is worth a thousand, and more, words. Regardless of our politics, or what side of this war we fall on. Lets never forget those young men and women who are placing their lives on the block for us. Bring them home from Iraq, but do it in a manner, that insures their safety. Once home provide the appropriate support they will need. Never forget our troops.

I also agree with jeckyl. We can't win this war with conventional wisdom. It should be treated for what it is. A bunch of murderer's that needs to be stopped. It's a police issue, and could be handled by a highly trained group of Delta Force like units sent on covert operations around the world. Never forget 9/11.

Originally Posted by jeckyl

Steve,

......

As far as the story of Che, I really must say you are off the mark on that one, but that is okay, because that was not the intention of this comment.

We can agree to disagree. At one time (long ago and far away) he was an annoyance to me, and I have no respect for him or his memory.

Originally Posted by jeckyl

...... So long as we fight like Al Quaeda is another nation, we don't have a chance to win this thing. We (and I think I already posted this) need to transform our entire military, put 100,000 teams of six on the ground world wide with the best training and technology we have, and help them track down every member of Al Qaeda and simply kill them. No major battles, just simple hits.

The War on Terror - which is not limited to just al-Qa'ida, but A-Q is a major target - is a multi-faceted, multi-approach effort involving a lot more than DoD and its entities. That being said, the tools and tactics are many, and not just what the Fourth Estate publicizes.

Originally Posted by jeckyl

One thing we all need to consider as we discuss this, and try to influnce each other. We are talking about this here in the comforts of our homes, and emailing political representatives, and getting ready to vote on an election. Our friends (I can say that for real) are over there and risking their lives. Our #1 concern (regardless of your politics) should be not to waste lives, and to do what ever is the most effective

On this we both wholeheartedly agree.

Originally Posted by jeckyl

You kill all of them, the war is over, plain and simple. This is not a people's movement like the Iraqi resistance to US occupation has become, Al Quaeda is a fundamentalist organization with a heirarchy and clear leadership. We need to cut the head off that snake.

Killing them all only makes them martyrs for the next generation, as whatever their actions they will be truncated to only display whatever “the cause” wants to exploit. The saying “one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter” holds true, whether that person be Che Guevara, Patrick Henry, Menachem Begin, Emiliano Zapata, Simon Bolivar, or any al-Qa'ida member.

The systemic reasons for disenfranchisement, separation and exploitation must be eliminated within a society; otherwise all that happens is an interruption of the cycle of violence for a finite period of time. Until those systemic reasons are addressed – which normally cannot occur until eviction of the persecutors and stabilization of the environment and economy – lasting peace is a myth, and the cycle of violence spins around before you know it. In the long term, it is better to do this right than do it fast, or our great-grandchildren will be inheriting another problem of probably greater consequence because we were hasty.

Steve,

The good thing is that it seems like we both agree with the goal in the sense of terrorists, and it is the tactics that we are disagreeing with (though maybe not as much as this thread would lead one to believe). We are closer than you think. I think the only real philosophical difference we may have is that I support the right of self determination, regardless of politics or geographical placement (I could be wrong about this as well). There is at least one person you named (Zapata) that I think you are whole hardly wrong about. He was a great man who helped Mexico break from the dictatorship of Porfirio Díaz who ran one of the most unequal governments of Latin America that history would ever see. I don't see any way to say he was wrong if we hold any of the values of this country true to our heart (there would be no way of saying that Saddam was bad and Diaz was not, they are true equals in what they did and how they did it... Fulgencio Batista is also in this group). But all of this would be better in another thread where we could really lay out our philosophical beliefs about what makes a good society and when one is situated in a way to justify an armed revolution.

The thing to consider is that many times conservatives and liberal will argue about how to conduct the war on terror, and like the debates about energy, we all have the same goal in mind yet different methods to get there. The truth often rests in the middle, with a little of this and a little of that. The great thing with how this country was constructed is that it forces 535 people to get together and figure this out. When one party gets absolute control, you often find hasty decisions with bad consequences. I say this (of course) knowing that I have the right answers and if I just ruled the world, everything would be perfect (sarcasm inserted here).

545

Know what you believe and then use your freedom as an American to defend your position. A friendly exchange is advised. Use intelligent argument. However, to be wishy-washy is dangerous to everyone. IMHO

Originally Posted by jeckyl

Steve,

The good thing is that it seems like we both agree with the goal in the sense of terrorists, and it is the tactics that we are disagreeing with (though maybe not as much as this thread would lead one to believe). We are closer than you think. I think the only real philosophical difference we may have is that I support the right of self determination, regardless of politics or geographical placement (I could be wrong about this as well). There is at least one person you named (Zapata) that I think you are whole hardly wrong about. He was a great man who helped Mexico break from the dictatorship of Porfirio Díaz who ran one of the most unequal governments of Latin America that history would ever see. I don't see any way to say he was wrong if we hold any of the values of this country true to our heart (there would be no way of saying that Saddam was bad and Diaz was not, they are true equals in what they did and how they did it... Fulgencio Batista is also in this group). But all of this would be better in another thread where we could really lay out our philosophical beliefs about what makes a good society and when one is situated in a way to justify an armed revolution.

The thing to consider is that many times conservatives and liberal will argue about how to conduct the war on terror, and like the debates about energy, we all have the same goal in mind yet different methods to get there. The truth often rests in the middle, with a little of this and a little of that. The great thing with how this country was constructed is that it forces 535 people to get together and figure this out. When one party gets absolute control, you often find hasty decisions with bad consequences. I say this (of course) knowing that I have the right answers and if I just ruled the world, everything would be perfect (sarcasm inserted here).

Yep - overall there's little difference.

Yes, Zapata was definitely a "freedom fighter" in my book, but to the government then in power, he was a "terrorist" - that was the point I tried to make.

Am looking forward September (back in TV for 2 weeks - part of the 2 in / 10 out commuting pattern I'm on). We need to discuss this issue over a cold one...

Originally Posted by SteveZ

Yes, Zapata was definitely a "freedom fighter" in my book, but to the government then in power, he was a "terrorist" - that was the point I tried to make.

In a forthcoming manual on counterinsurgency strategy written by David Kilcullen, a former Australian Army officer who is now an adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has something to say about the Iraq war. Kilcullen, who helped Petraeus design his 2007 counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, called the decision to invade Iraq "stupid" -- in fact, he said "fX$?!ing stupid" -- and suggested that if policy-makers apply the manual's lessons, similar wars can be avoided in the future.

"The biggest stupid idea," Kilcullen said, "was to invade Iraq in the first place."

Has anyone read the book The Three Trillion Dollar War: by Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard Economist Linda Bilmes on the true cost of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq? I can't find it on the Sumter County Library System and was wondering if anyone on TOTV has read it and can comment.
Thanks!