Quote:
|
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
I beg to differ on WW II, TW.
No negotiation table, unconditional surrender.
|
Unconditional surrender were conditions before talks at a WWII negotiation table could start. Even with unconditional surrender, negotiations included who is to be jailed for trial, guidelines for how occupation is conducted, placement of the conquered army, the future status of an emperor, and much 'nation building' that George Jr insisted America must not do. All wars end in negotiations no matter how one sided those negotiations might be.
Meanwhile, UT, there is no end of the war in Afghanistan - as indicated by no negotiations, continued conflict, etc. The purpose of war is to take the conflict back to the negotiation table. Nothing new about that long and well understood principle. And that is my point. If one does not even understand a most basic concepts, then how is one suppose to even understand what justifies war?
Since the Iraq war was entered without any 'smoking gun' and without a strategic objective, then the Iraq war also has no exit strategy and no benchmark to work toward. Classic mistake also made by Westmoreland in Vietnam. The exit strategy was to surrender Vietnam back to the Vietnamese complete with talks at a negotiation table. As Iraqi insurgency doubles about every year, then the American involvement may continue until Americans sue for peace - ask for a negotiation table - just like in Vietnam.