The impending Veto

[Undertoad]

Shorter tw: the most rampant and horrible and false anti-Americanism is justified because Bush sucks.

Y'know, I've posted this strategic overview from 2003 at least four times. But it's long, and tw cannot read. It doesn't matter anyway; tw's approach is not to debate credibly, to share facts and information and opinions so we all come away smarter. It's to harangue and lecture us so he feels good about himself.

No matter that he gets caught in mistakes time and time again such as "Jenin massacre" and "Hezbollah is not in Beruit" and "The Baghdad museum was looted" and etc.; if he can define the agenda, he can demand that only his view is valid. He can say that only his questions are important and also that only his answers are reasonable. It's a parlor trick, benefitting no-one.

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.

But I notice that some people don't believe in a global war on terror. Which in turn is weird, because it's directly in their face. Bush may be incompetent but unlike his detractors he has not forgotten what the long game is. If part of his incompetency is not reminding you or not communicating effectively enough, you're on the hook to figure it out for yourself. Work hard at it, it's important. Here's a nice big hint from our friends in London.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Shorter tw: the most rampant and horrible and false anti-Americanism is justified because Bush sucks.

Y'know, I've posted this strategic overview from 2003 at least four times. But it's long, and tw cannot read. It doesn't matter anyway; tw's approach is not to debate credibly, to share facts and information and opinions so we all come away smarter. It's to harangue and lecture us so he feels good about himself.

UT, that clearly is not a strategic objective. That is a good outline of principles upon which a strategic objective might be constructed. Remember that book that UG repeatedly claimed he would read? That also did not define a strategic objective. And yet it was even far more comprehensive in defining how to construct a strategic objective.

Let's take the Liberation of Kuwait as example. What was the strategic objective? Well I believe the UN may have defined it. In simple terms, Iraq was to be removed from Kuwait AND the region was to be made stable for the protection of Kuwait.

Step one was military. Swartzkopf's plan played out brilliantly because he said exactly what he needed and George Sr (despite opposition from Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc) gave Swartzkopf everything he needed - 7th Corp.

Because the strategic objective was clear and universally supported, then Europe (and most other world nations) bent over backwards to get those military forces out of Europe and to that battlefield. I cannot say enough about the cooperation America got from all its allies. Moreso, the United States paid nearly nothing to liberate Kuwait because George Sr was honest, the military objective was cleanly defined, and all recognized a clear and present danger.

Second part of that strategic objective was conditions for the peace. As noted repeatedly, military action does not win a war. It only moves the conflict to a negotiation table. And so the 101st Airborne need only one more day to get into position. French Airborne had already closed one door. Swartzkopf begged for that 'one more day'. He needed it to completely trap those 3 or 4? Republican Guard divisions.

What were conditions for Saddam's surrender? It should have included defanging of Saddam's Republican Guards (putting many of their weapons in stasis). But Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc failed to perform their job. Therefore Saddam was left with everything to even massacre maybe 20,000 Iraqis in Basra as the US Army only sat and watched five miles away.

Many foolishly said we should have moved on to Baghdad. That would have been foolish for so many reasons. Number one - it was not part of the strategic objective. Number two - we did not have to go to Baghdad to dethrone Saddam. Had Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc done their job, then Saddam would have fallen without the Republican Guard. As a result of not doing their jobs, eventually, America had to maintain no-fly zones in both north and south Iraq to protect Kurds and Shia from Saddam.

Meanwhile, UN did their job as required by the strategic objective. UN defanged Saddam of his WMDs by 1996.

I specifically remember George Sr's comments. He noted how everyone was so flamboyant after the military victory. And yet George Sr said he kept having this nagging feeling that something had been left undone. I have always wondered if George Sr suspected those strategic objectives had been left unfulfilled by his staff - not been accomplished. They failed to plan for the peace. Mistakes were made in Washington by members of George Sr's staff who failed to understand simple military principles such as that strategic objective.

UT - demonstrated is a strategic objective. Your citation is not a strategic objective. Using your citation, tell us: what is the strategic objective in "Mission Accomplished?

Is this obnoxious, blunt, politically incorrect, offensive, insulting, or condescending? No adult cares. It states facts and it demands basic technical answers. It is posted as any adult would who is honest, factually straight forward, without personal attacks, and who need not worry about a child’s emotions. It's not my job to worry about your emotions. So don't waste bandwidth posting them. Provided is an example of a strategic objective. Demonstrated is a strategic objective AND why a military victory was undermined by those who did not understand such basic concepts. Using the outline in your citation, construct what you believe is the strategic objective in "Mission Accomplished". What is the strategic objective of "Mission Accomplished"?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Not bad, not bad, that didn't hurt now, did it.