[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Uh,...make that, someone on the other side of the table, who could listen for their side.

WWI ended with both sides negotiating an end to the war. In WWII, Churchill and FDR in the White House decided negotiation at war's end would be different. A lesson they took from history. Churchill and FDR stated quite bluntly the purpose of WWII - the strategic objective: unconditional surrender.

When negotiations break down, then war starts, only because both sides could not come to agreement. When the war is ended, both sides are now (hopefully) taking from all new perspectives. War is only to change those perspectives.

In WWI, both sides were ready to sue for peace - the Germans moreso. Negotiations were conducted with all parties in 'changed mindsets'.

In Vietnam, Paris negotiations eventually were about abandoning S Vietnam to the North without letting lesser informed Americans know we had lost. We lost because we went to war on lies - without a strategic objective and without a smoking gun justification.

In WWII, negotiations were more one sided - the allies dictating all major (but not all) terms.

Meanwhile, Afghanistan is far from ended. The country is so dangerous that literally half of Afghanistan cannot be visited even by the Red Crescent. The country is so dangerous that most all NATO troops remain in the large cities - green zones. Posted was an example of a safer place in Afghanistan entitled Understanding terrorism on 20 Jul 2005:

The road between Kandahar and Kabul is slowly becoming much like Vietnam's Highway 1. One town on that highway is Qalat. From The Economist of 9 July 2005:

Zabal is a safer part of Afghanistan. Red Cresent aid workers can travel in Zabal. So when did this war end?

Similar to what happened in Vietnam when most Americans never really understood the purpose of war - the reason for a strategic objective - the reason why leaders should be learning about the world instead of boozing - the reason why your leader should know the names of adjacent nations instead of taking an 18 month crash course from Wolfovitz and Rice - the reason why George Jr starts wars without exit strategy which is the Vietnam mistake all over again.

There is this thing called morality which we have not even discussed. Morality is not about ethics. But another concept that demonstrates why these hawks advocate wars for reasons not based in military doctrine and lessons of history. Too many hawks just know that bombs cause damage and therefore would have won the Vietnam war. These paper hawks never bothered to first learn even that N Vietnam had almost no useful targets. And yet these hawk also know that if we beat the crap out of their forces or capture more insurgents, then we will win the war. Body counts and captives prove victory? Not from lessons taught in war colleges.

A victory strategy was being conducted by the 101st Airborne in Mosul when its commander, Maj. Gen. David H. Petraeus as demonstrated in 101st Airborne Scores Success in Reconstruction of Northern Iraq. Meanwhile someone without first learning from history, Paul Bremer, was conducting a campaign to lose the war. Unfortunately, too many have not learned military doctrine and therefore did not understand Petraeus' warnings and why Bremer literally threw away a military victory.

Recently US claims to have captured hundred of insurgents in a latest military sweep in Iraq. Sounds more like 'search and destroy' which only killed or captured mostly innocent civilians making insurgent recruiting productive.

Amazing how many so quickly advocated war in Iraq without even learning from a basic military primer; without learning the purpose of war. For example, notice blaring silence from Urbane Guerilla. Suddenly we are discussing things taught in war college. Things that a leader should have learned long before god tells him to be president.