Quote:
So I'm with Walrus; separate politics from war, both will be more effective for it.
|
Tell me when you get to the 21st century. War has always been a political tool, to try and separate the two is foolish, to attempt to do so in the this day and age, where the relationship between political machinations and military muscle has never been closer is silly. The way in which forces operate is dictated by the environment they operate in, to try and disconnect it is to deny reality. Asymmetrical warfare is not a new concept, while the realities of it are only starting to hit home to the armchair crowd there are enough papers and discussions on the topic to fill a stadium, if there was a better way of doing it that was accepted by the US military establishment, they would be doing so.
Furthermore, this isn't world war two. This isn't the US in shining armour rescuing the world for fascism, this is, really, a morally bankrupt conflict, better than Vietnam only by virtue of scale. The forces aligned against the US are fighting in essence a downhill battle, they only have to destroy. While Hearts and Minds has become yet another addition to the political lexicon it doesn't yet seem to have sunk in. The British forces managed to hold a peace in soft hats though engagement and understanding, the US tries to win by force. Guess who is doing a better job.
The funny thing noone seems to be mentioning is that the US does not want 'free and fair' elections in Iraq. It'd be a disaster, Shia hardliners in power, Sunnis up in arms and the Kurds threatening to go off and form their own state properly. I'm looking with trepidation and what kind of dodgy dealings they're going to do to pull that off without a disaster.