Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad
From my post (three up):
It seems very obvious to me that the big #1 overall strategic objective is to win the global war on terror, which is politically correct shorthand for preventing Islamic fundamentalists from destroying large sectors of civilization.
|
Oh come now. There is no monolithic worldwide terror organization that also requires the “Man from U.N.C.L.E.”. Where is James Bond when we need him most? Again you are posting wacko extremist rhetoric. ‘War on terror’ is spin and myth to even justify more "Pearl Harbor" attacks on other nations. No wonder the PNAC included references to American that might even unilaterally attack India, Germany, or Russia. UT- you are promoting those myths.
Islam fundamentalism was never a problem until Christian Crusaders decided to invade their nations. Did you even learn from history? Did you learn from another post why even Secular Turkey is now moving towards fundamentalism? Or did you automatically assume 'might makes right'?
Do you now say the strategic objective in Iraq is terrorism? No wonder America created the Iraqi insurgency. We needed to create an enemy so that we could then have a strategic objective?
Why was the strategic objective also a "military overthrow of Saddam's government"? UT completely confuses 'shock and awe' with strategic significance. UT, there was zero strategic significance to 'shock and awe'. And if every Iraqi everywhere in the world witnesssed it live, still, it has zero strategic significance. However you are saying exactly what my most extremist friends are saying. "If we show them big muscles, then they will be our friends".
Which is it UT? Why do you post two completely different topics as if both are strategic objectives AND both are a same thing? Or do you – exactly like George Jr – change “the message” when convenient?
“The message” is a "political agenda" justified by extremist political agendas such as “America does not do nation building”. Which is it UT? Do you advocate for America? Or do you push the "political agenda" of extremism? They are mutally exclusive. Do you promote for America (and demand a strategic objective) or do you promote a political agenda (ie ‘war on terror’ and 'no nation building')?
A war without nation building is a defeat no matter how good the military is. But again - this should be common knowledge to those not dumb enough to believe George Jr. Those who promote for America demand a strategic objective. If necessary, impose benchmarks on a scumbag lying president.
So what is the strategic objective? First UT invents a fictional enemy to create a “war on terror”. Later, UT defined the objective as a military overthrow – as if military operations alone can win a war. (For those who don’t understand by now, military operations alone don’t win wars). UT, where does a political agenda and a limited tactical objective combine to become a strategic objective? It does not. The scumbag president has you spinning because you don’t even know what the troops need – a strategic objective. Deja vue Vietnam.
UT, you were asked to provide a strategic objective for “Mission Accomlished”. You posted a war against a mythical enemy – as if a war without a definition of victory is an objective.
No wonder the troops need Democrats to impose benchmarks on George Jr. Even UT cannot define a strategic objective. Those are sound byte myths. Spin to rally the wackos like Don Quixote conquering windmills. If ‘war on terror’ is a strategic objective, then no strategic objective exists, and no exit strategy exists. No wonder troops were too few, could not stop massive and predicted looting, and why Rumsfeld even lied about armor being delivered. Every problem created by 'the message' from a political agenda - and no strategic objective.
And its one two three; what are we fighting for? I don't give a damn. Next stop is ....
Another war where a missing strategic objective was replaced by political agenda lies.