Morality

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

I hear you but I have a hard time calling dictated terms, "negotiations".

There is clearly and obviously no war in Afghanistan right now.

I wonder if the troops over there know that?

Even the pols who said there weren't enough troops to do it correctly, never demanded more troops.

When the Administration was battling the Pentagon over staffing before the invasion, what politician in his right mind would call for sending more men and boys off to war? Even if they felt it would be better for the military it would look bad to the mothers and wives.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I hear you but I have a hard time calling dictated terms, "negotiations".

Perhaps, but at least there was someone on the other side of the table, who could speak for their side, being dictated to.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Perhaps, but at least there was someone on the other side of the table, who could speak for their side, being dictated to.

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

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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

Heh. But I meant speak, as in "we agree to all of your terms", and their people would accept it.

[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.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The Iraq war suffers from an adminstration that doesn't lead, and can't state its objectives to save itself. The actual strategic objective of the war is to replace the US bases lost in Saudi Arabia, create a pro-US state in the middle of the middle east, and to create a Democratic example for the rest of the Arab world as a basis for reform. But you can't state those objectives up front, you have to come up with something palatable to everyone.

Where did you discover these objectives? Do you have an inside scoop from the pentagon or something? I would tend to agree with you that this is why we are really there, but the phoney excuses given for the current engagement are hardly palatable, either.

We are going to have to re-instate the draft to ahieve the agenda you outlined. I don't know where you get the idea that things are so rosey in Iraq, either. Casualties continue to mount and many of our soldiers are now on their third tour of duty over there. Moral amongst our troops is way down.

My friend Lisa's husband is going to be deployed over there on Monday and among his group of soldiers 16 have gone AWOL, including one E7 with 17 years in the military. 36 came up positive for drugs. They'll be going anyhow.

The stated reasons for being in Iraq are obviously becoming unpalatable to our troops, along with everyone else.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by marichiko

Where did you discover these objectives? Do you have an inside scoop from the pentagon or something? I would tend to agree with you that this is why we are really there, but the phoney excuses given for the current engagement are hardly palatable, either.

That's the original neo-con take on it. Even before W was elected, the PNAC encouraged the idea of permanent US bases in the ME, and placed Iraq at the top of their to-do list. I also like denBeste's strategic overview, which I've pointed to several times. W's pre-war speech to the AEI referenced some of these things as well, but it was not sound-bitten by the media very much.

I don't know where you get the idea that things are so rosey in Iraq, either. Casualties continue to mount and many of our soldiers are now on their third tour of duty over there. Moral amongst our troops is way down.

Well, I read the numbers about Iraqi troop readiness, and agreed with the bloggers that covered it, that the media got head-faked by one number and ignored the important numbers that show that the Iraqis are coming along. Very uneven, but making progress.

I understand that the Iraqis themselves were the first line of defense during the October constitutional election, for most polling places. A day that saw almost no violence.

Yesterday there was interest in a meeting between the Iraqi government and insurgent leaders. Wow.

And now there will be a trial of Hussein AND another election, and hopefully the country will crystallize around all that as well.

Oops, AP reports the White House is spinning to say they were the first with a troop reduction plan.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Nobody seems to give a crap about actual victory. Even the pols who said there weren't enough troops to do it correctly, never demanded more troops.

Exactly how much authority do you believe Congress has once they give the President the opportunity to start a war? They can, in theory, cut off funding and stop a war, but they cannot force the deployment of more troops. Certainly the Democrats, as a minority party, could not effect any change. The only chance would have been if a significant number of Republicans would add their voice, and noone was sure that this was the wrong decision since the 'professionals' seemed to go along with it.

In the end, the buck stops at the Joint Chiefs and the Commander-in-Chief. If they plan badly, or worse, allow a good plan to be compromised, then everyone suffers. In the Army's case, the troop total was reduced at the insistence of the White House, who thought they could occupy on the cheap. Almost every single one of their predictions was wrong, including the restoration of an oil economy to pay for the reconstruction.

Now we all pay.

[Undertoad]

What means did the administration use to drop these bags? Do they have an Air Force or an Intelligence Agency?

[xoxoxoBruce]

I'll resist saying "Black Helicopters".
Hmmm.... no I won't.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

What means did the administration use to drop these bags? Do they have an Air Force or an Intelligence Agency?

I don't know about the bags, but one of the first things they did after 9-11 was set up their own intelligence agency that answered to Rumsfeld.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

What means did the administration use to drop these bags? Do they have an Air Force or an Intelligence Agency?

You know, Ted Koppel retired because tw didn't answer this question.

[richlevy]

Did anyone see a clip of this? I watched the final bit about torture last night. Poor Donald did not hold up very well.

http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cf...SFELD-11-30-05

But that press conference _ an appearance with the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace _ was also notable for something more important than vocabulary.

Asked what U.S. soldiers should do if they find the forces of the legitimate Iraqi government torturing prisoners, Rumsfeld said that wasn't the soldiers' responsibility.

But Pace responded, "It is the absolute responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene, to stop it."

Rumsfeld intervened, "I don't think they have an obligation to physically stop it; it's to report it."

Pace politely _ and rightly _ differed. "If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it."

For a very twisted view of an ugly current reality, it was pretty funny. Pace very quietly and gently corrected Rumsfeld, as if Rumsfeld was a little slow. For a moment it looked like a scene from "Of Mice and Men".

It will be interesting to see how long Gen. Pace keeps his job. He's certainly got the balls for it.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by richlevy

For a very twisted view of an ugly current reality, it was pretty funny. Pace very quietly and gently corrected Rumsfeld, as if Rumsfeld was a little slow. For a moment it looked like a scene from "Of Mice and Men".

There's always a little something slightly more depressing than the last...

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

You know, Ted Koppel retired because tw didn't answer this question.