The impending Veto

[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.

Uh... yeah. It's right there in the middle of my post. I guess you didn't read that, or didn't want to address it, for some reason. (Picking what you want to address is controlling the agenda; it's part of your little game.)

The den Beste piece (strategic overview) explains the thinking (although mistaken, it was thinking, it was a strategy) around why Iraq was part of that objective ("part of the war on terror", even if bin Laden was not directly connected to Iraq).

--

Talking about it using the phrase "Mission Accomplished" indicates a lack of intellectual honesty, to introduce bias into the question before it's asked. Mixing a event from a single phase with the notion of "strategic objective" is not exactly critical thinking, either. It needlessly muddles the question.

Nevertheless, the Mission of the fine folks onboard that aircraft carrier was the military overthrow of Saddam's government, and it was Accomplished well, with minimum US casualties, minimum Iraqi civilian casualties, and the desertion of most of the Iraqi army. It was rightly celebrated. In fact some say the phase went TOO easy, because the real enemy did not actually personally witness much "shock and awe", and thus was not strongly deterred by the idea that resistance would result in a 1000-lb bomb precisely guided onto their head.

The Frontline piece you like so well kind of begins the day after that mission was accomplished, doesn't it? That's lost time that can never be recovered.

But simply because "mistakes were made" doesn't mean there is no overall strategic objective; just because you can't see it (or aren't privy to it, or it's communicated to you poorly, or you don't believe it, or you fail to understand it) doesn't mean there isn't one.

[tw]

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

So there can't be a war on bowling because there are thousands of leagues not connect to each other, even though they are all bent on bowling?

Yeah, those damn crusaders messing with Moslems in 1095 AD, have hamstrung us from morally preventing retaliation 900 years later.

We'll use strategic objective and strategic significance, interchangeably even though they're different animals.

It's so nice to have all these terrifically complex matters distilled down to two choices. What a wonderful service.

The Marshall plan (nation building) made everyone think this is normal and required. While successful, it was an aberration, markedly different from the treatment of defeated, captured territory and populations in the past.

Bowling is not mythical just because it's not monolithic. It just takes balls.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Bowling is not mythical just because it's not monolithic. It just takes balls.

Now there's a quote worth repeating.

[TheMercenary]

tw is the ultimate conspiracy theorist. All evils in the world are "George Jr.'s" fault. Give me a frigging break.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Naw, all evils in the world are the fault of "George Jr." and TheMercenary.

Oh, and UG too, don't forget him.

Wait, I forgot Cheney.

[Undertoad]

I'm so far ahead of you, I anticipate your reaction and discuss it before you post it.

Just because you can't see it (or aren't privy to it, or it's communicated to you poorly, or you don't believe it, or you fail to understand it) doesn't mean there isn't one.

Emphasis mine.

Yep, there is no monolithic worldwide terror organization.

Unfortunately.

There is only an entire set of people, from London (where the above poster-holder picture was shot) to Paris (which is under riot alert tonight) to Moscow to Pakistan to Indonesia and every country in between, who agree on the organized use of terror and the Islamist reasons behind it, and use it all the time to kill innocent people.

Here's the map of this since 9/11.

Of course, al Queda #2 Ayman al Zawahiri disagrees; he sees it as pretty much one organization, which he is vice-president of:

Brian Ross today on new al Queda tape

In a new video posted today on the Internet, al Qaeda's number two man, Ayman al Zawahiri, mocks the bill passed by Congress setting a timetable for the pullout of U.S. troops in Iraq.

"This bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap," Zawahiri says in answer to a question posed to him an interviewer.

Continuing in the same tone, Zawahiri says, "We ask Allah that they only get out of it after losing 200,000 to 300,000 killed, in order that we give the spillers of blood in Washington and Europe an unforgettable lesson."

Emphasis mine.