[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Very few people dispute the notion that Afghanistan was a good move, and the US was not attacked by Afghanistan.

The justification for war is the smoking gun. Smoking gun clearly existed in Pearl Harbor, the invasion of Kuwait, and 11 September. It never existed in Vietnam, Somalia, or Iraq. In each 'smoking gun' case, no doubt, both in America and among all American allies, that war was justified. The invasion of Afghanistan was so justified that most every nation in the world would have sent troops.

But back then, American principles garnered respect. Back then, in each case, America had a leader with sufficient intelligence rather than only political extremist rhetoric. Today America has even undermined world support for war in Afghanistan. Our leader is that "immoral" - a word defined from military principles rather than from a religious perspective.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Iraq may have been a bad move, but that doesn't mean withdrawal from the entire board is a better one.

If that was true, then the withdrawal from Somalia was just as bad for exact same reasons. If that was true, then the American withdrawal from Vietnam caused massacres and a holocaust. That was the reasoning by war hawks who would have America still fighting the Vietnam war? Of course they were wrong. They failed to comprehend even the basic purpose of war.

UT must learn what is the fundamental purpose of war: to create a settlement at the political negotiation table. That is what happened in WWII. That is what happened in Vietnam. That is what happened in Korea. That is what happened in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Serbia with results far beyond what anyone expected. That is necessary in Iraq.

Victory - at the negotiation table - is not possible when your president did not even know what countries bordered Israel. To fight a war on some mythical idea that we will destroy the insurgency is bogus - rubbish - the mentality of military types who never even learned basic military doctrine - also found in Vietnam victories measured by body counts. An Iraqi insurgency created by America because, again, wacko extremists in the White House masking as military smart have no idea of another concept even taught in a primer on war:

Hence what is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations. And therefore the general who understands war is the Minister of the people's fate and arbiter of the nation's destiny.

Said another way, 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Management who would continue war in Iraq for the next ten years chasing a mythical victory. Under current strategy as even defined in a most simplistic primer of war, America will be fighting in Iraq for at least one decade - until someone has enough balls to say "enough".

Currently the destiny of America is another defeat - in Iraq. The insurgency has at least doubled in only one year. The number of terrorist attacks is now about 50 per day. An Iraqi army of 20,000 built by Americans could only field 1500 troops. And now that number decreased to 500 troops. Whole Iraqi battalions deserted when deployed in Falluja, et al. Recently, the 2000th American died. Now the number is over 2,100 and growing faster every month - just like Vietnam. This is what the mental midget president calls victory? How did we turn "Mission Accomplished" into a 'bleeding to death' war. America is losing the war in Iraq as defined in Sun Tzu lessons on how to defeat a militarily superior force.

I asked this question before. I said "enough" in The Vote: 90 to 9.

Do we massively deploy troops to Iraq or do we get out? The current situation is not winnable - as was obvious so many years ago. It should now be obvious even to those without military training. You the reader must decide whether America does [a] ... massive American deployment to a war once declared "Mission Accomplished", or do we cut our losses so that many more thousands of Americans - soldiers in the field and civilians around the world - are not killed.

Amazed how many in the Cellar would not touch "enough". How can one so hate America as to not be decisive? Do we continue to waste best Americans in a war that can only be won by deploying 0.5 million or more troops? As demonstrated by history so many times, either we go in, win the war decisively (as in WWII, Kuwait, the Balkans, and Korea) or we get out (as in Somolia). Those are the only winning options in Iraq. Up front, UT - do you have a solution? Let's here it.

Meanwhile, who will address this concept of "morality"? Who will have mental fortitude to commit themselves to one of the only two winning options?