Enough said

[tw]

Originally posted by Elspode
I don't disagree with a word you say Griff, and I fully acknowledge the evil thing that war is.

I wish there was a better way to do what needs to be done, and I can't think of it.

The lessons of how it can be done without war have been demonstrated numerous times. But because there was no war, then a public informed by hype newscasters such as Liza Thomas Laurie never learns how powerful and successful diplomacy really was.

In a previous post, I noted how Milosevik was disarmed and removed from power without all out war. A man whose objectives, like Saddam, were regional domination while avoiding all conflict with major powers. Milsovik's methods were also torture, concentration camps, racial hatred, massive police state, and massacres even by taking people right out from under the protection of 200 Dutch soldiers. Milosevik's power was equally as strong and absolute.

How was Milosevik defeated? Weapons far more powerful than (but not as immediate as) Third Corp, 7th British, and 1st Marine Division. Instead we used Richard Holbrook. Gen Wesley Clark, Canada's Gen Rose, the UN, and other were used. Selective military force such as the British French Rapid Reaction Force and a short Nato air war in Kosovo were also used, when necessary, to add the explanation point to a sentence. Rumania and Bulgaria cooperated extensively. Even Greece was forced to cooperate.

Serbia was conquered without major invasion - without the hundreds of American casulties and without forcing the US economy into recession. We instead used diplomacy to defeat a dictator. It is done too often. Public did not see because smart bombs did not explode.

How well understood is Richard Holbrook's diplomatic campaign? I suspect many here don't even know what Holbrook did let alone know who Holbrook is. For that matter, what is known of the so successful diplomatic campaign by Carter and Clinton that kept 50 or 60 plutonium bombs out of N Korea. Again, diplomacy had been so successful in avoiding war and halting nuclear proliferation - without military invasion. I note military action because Clinton was planning for military action against N Korea when Carter called with a solution. Diplomacy.

War is diplomatic failure. War is what happens when a silly American president says no one is allowed to negotiate with that rouge nation. Unfortunately too many people want results now (also called preemption). They regard negotiation as collusion or collaberation.

We are still fighting for a solution in Serbia as was ongoing a decade ago. Hard liners call that a defeat because the results were not immediate and final - like an all out invasion. But the result is far less expensive, required no outright invasion (and resulting injury to the domestic economy), and does not get the big press. Without big press, too many don't understand how successful diplomacy can be. War is always a failure of diplomacy. That diplomatic failure is too often directly traceable to ignorance of what the other side really wants, impatience, AND some Neanderthal need to solve problems before those problems could even exist.

[Rucita]

Originally posted by Elspode

I wish there was a better way to do what needs to be done, and I can't think of it.

Then maybe the problem is you don't have imagination enough...

[Elspode]

Yeah, that's probably it...