All is Fair in Love and WAR -- What Happened to Fighting a War to WIN?

Am I the only one that finds the concept of war to be an absolute joke this day in age?

As most of you know, I am TOTALLY against the war in Iraq and the future war in Iran. I feel that, like Vietnam, they are NOT wars that are meant to be won. Instead, they are wars for PROFIT and NOTHING ELSE.

However, if my country takes it upon itself to fight a war on my behalf, then dammit, I want them to fight it to WIN IT!

Why is it that we, The United States, are sitting on top of the largest and possibly most advanced military in the world and we are fighting what amounts to a guerilla style war? We have the air and technological capabilities to win virtually ANY war without ever setting a single vulnerable troop on the ground. If we so desired, we could have turned Iraq and the evil "terrorists" that occupy it to glass within the span of a couple of days. Yet, we have guys over there on the ground fighting a battle in an area they are not familiar with and against an army that is vastly superior to them in the art of "dirty" warfare.

Why?

Could it be because the longer this "war" goes, the more money is being made by those that are responsible for the "war"? This is the only thing that makes sense to me.

I know there are plenty of you out there who sit on the PC side of the fence who would scream war crimes and human rights violations at the first hint of a bit of napalm being dropped. What sense does this make? Is it not just as bad to kill innocent people a bit slower with the use of hand to hand combat? Is it not a "crime" to put our men and women in harms way when it is not necessary?

Whatever happened to the saying "war is hell"?

War, no matter how you look at it, is an AWFUL thing. However, any country that goes into a war unwilling to do what is necessary to WIN that war is doomed from the beginning.

This current "war on terror" as it is being fought now is totally unwinnable. The truly sad thing about this, other than the fact the war should have never STARTED, is that it doesn't have to be an unwinnable war. This "war" could be stopped pretty effectively within the period of a week if we were actually fighting to win. This is obviously not the case.

The fact that people around the world can sit back and watch how this war is being fought and after hearing about the countless Halliburton (and other big private contractos) contracts that are paying out in spades over there and STILL not realize that this is NOTHING MORE THAN A WAR FOR PROFIT baffles me. How can this be anything BUT a war for profit?

Have you witnessed any terrorism in your area lately?

Do you have trouble sleeping at night because you are up worrying about what Osama Bin Laden is up to?

If you really are worried about terrorism (IE: if you think it actually exists as we are told it does), what could be worse than showing these "terrorists" that we aren't willing to go in and wipe them from the face of the Earth with EXTREME prejudice with the use of our FULL capabilities and without sacrificing our good men and women to them?

What are we accomplishing with this "war" other than showing the rest of the world how a bunch of sand people with 50 year old guns and 100 year old technology can efficiently hand our butts to us?


What is the point of being the world's ONLY true remaining superpower (this is debatable) if we aren't willing to USE any of that power? Why are we fighting a 1920s war when we are sitting on top of 2000s technology? We have missles than can do everything BUT knock on the door before blowing it in from HUNDREDS (if not thousands) of miles away, yet we are fighting an unwinnable ground battle at the cost of thousands of American lives.

Why?
Why?
WHY?

Bush speaks of sending messages. This government is certainly sending them. Unfortunately, what those messages are saying is "America is soft".


This war for profit that is going on is PATHETIC!

It was NEVER MEANT TO BE WON! If it was, it would have been over a LONG time ago.


Wake up people!


If we are trying to win it, why are a bunch of *snip* (as the Bush loving war supporters tend to call them) who still live in the stone age kicking our arses all over the middle east?


If this isn't a war for profit, PROVE IT. Unleash the monster that is our Air Force and full military arsenal and get this crap over with.


Otherwise, pull out of there and let them fight the war they started and that will not end until they either come to terms about which silly beliefs they will all agree on or until Israel or the rest of the middle east is wiped off the face of the Earth.


Jasn

(removed racial slur)

[edit on 12-10-2007 by Jbird]

As far as I'm concerned, Vietnam and this new WAR ON TERROR are wars of sustenance. We're not meant to win because it would be a substantial blow to the corporate world, who seem to be doing so well as of late. I used to live in Oregon and the landlord of the place I was staying at was a voluntary 3 tour Huey pilot. He told me how they were sent to take a hill or a certain quadrant and they would. They were then given orders to draw back. Weeks later they were told to take that land again and so on and so forth making slow and intentionally impeded progress. I'm sick of our fellow citizens being used as human shields for a corporate game of risk.. Enough is enough.

reply to post by SimiusDei



war is not only about battlefield engagement.

a successful campaign was done in the rapid crushing of Saddam
& the Iraqi forces/Republican Guards, in both 1991 and 2003...
those two phases of the war was won...


what remains, and why the action continues, is because of several reasons,
one of which is that the whole military and mercenary/contractor
battle force arrangement is being re-tooled from top-to-bottom,
(i would envision company sized (non military) units to be a hybrid
form of 'trooper/bounty hunter', which will track down & eliminate
militant factions & terrorist groups world wide)
the actual volunteer military forces will be relegated to policing duties,
much like the U.N. peacekeepers are today.

second, if the war strategy was shortsighted enough to merely liquidate
the enemy territory with existing technology/weaponry....
then there would be little reason to develop newer tactics, different weapons for a special or unique situation (think non-lethal weapons here),
our planners & tacticions would win the immediate battle but lose to a adaptive and changing enemy- - - who employ IEDs for example,
instead of engaging in decisive firefights with any sizeable U.S. force
...instead of sporatic, squad sized skirmishes that happen mainly by accident!
war & conflict engagement is constantly evolving, changing.

third, if the cliche' "turn the desert into glass" happened...
then the resources such as the oil fields would be unapproachable,
and like Chernoble, destined to be buried under a slab of concrete and steel for several generations.
Let alone the world condemnation for nuking the M.E. and slaughtering
millions of civilian Iraqis to attend to the insurgents, who are also invading/occupying their native land.



don't think that these are moral justifications or rationalizations for the
U.S. presence in Iraq & Afghanistan...(or some 170 nations worldwide)
or a plan for continual conflict by the war profiteers,
these are just elements to consider







[edit on 10-10-2007 by St Udio]

How would you localise your strikes to hit only enemy targets and avoid civilian targets if your war was purely airiel? Hell even throw in artillery and such and you still cant isolate the enemy fully.

Wouldnt eliminating the entire population of a country in an airiel or artillery strike be labelled genocide?

As the above mentioned, turning the desert into glass eliminates the use of the land and natural resources aswell.

Out of couriosity, what in your opinion, was the last war the US fought to win?

You answered your own question. You stated that you are against the war. We are in America. We vote. You say we should fight to win. Do you vote to win. A politician decides when we go to war but at the same time he has to do it and keep from getting voted out of his career.

A lot of people say "Ya, let's go to war." then numbers of people start saying "we can't do that in war." They vote against a politician. They in return tell the military to change tactics and prolong the situation or eventually defeat the justification for declaring War. Hence "You Lose!" By your own inability to be comitted with your vote. And the Politicians desire to be a career politician.

Simple as that. It is You the citizen that loses the "War!" and not our troops.

TO win wars what we need to do is put Richard Marcinko in charge of all of our military. we need a real warrior lead warriors. not Patreus the little pus nuts diplo dunk.

EIther that or we take a tissue sample of Patton and clone him and have him kick some real ass.

reply to post by InSpiteOf


1. I would NOT attempt to localize my attacks. In this particular type of "war" the "terrorists" (b.s. word) are intermingled with, and protected by in some cases, the civilian population. Two words, collateral damage.

2. I feel it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to fight any "war" without civilian casualties.

3. World War II was ended pretty effectively.



Jasn

As a side note, the global media is the WORST thing that ever happened to war.

reply to post by arloray


Since we live in a system where the election of our "government" is no longer really left in the hands of the populace, your entire statement is incorrect.


In this crap two party system we currently live in, how can anyone feel we, the people, truly have a choice anymore?

Take Ron Paul for example; Though he may not have the largest following in the country (largely due to the media blackout of him at every possible turn), he certainly has a VERY respectable following. Yet, there is very little chance of him even being allowed on the ballot. Not to mention the 20+ other people in the country who would like to run for president. Yet, when it comes election time, 2 cookie cutter candidates will be chosen FOR US to vote on. How is that a fair and balanced election? All that is is more of the same old crap.


Jasn

The terrorist are streaming across our own southern border every single day while the Government pursues straw terrorists across the other side of the globe. It makes much more sense to deal with the terrorists on your own continent before taking them out on another one. We need to take the money being wasted in Iraq and build a 40 foot high and 20 foot deep border fence with land mines for a hundred yards and marine snipers to take care of the survivors.

As for Iraq. I do not understand why they do not surround a terrorist stronghold, allow the women and children to leave, then level it. We should also send CIA teams into Iran to train anti government terrorist to give them some of their own medicine. When they have to fight on their own land, they will not have as much time to make problems in Iraq.

reply to post by groingrinder


The CIA has already made quite a habit of doing that which is the only reason this crap lie is still going on today.


THink of how much better the world COULD be without the U.S. and Israel World Police Force.



Jasn

I've saw a few of your posts and usually there a good read with good ideas and substance. This post however is quite ridiculous, are you saying that the army should just carpet bomb Iraq and kill everyone? The conventional war in Iraq was finished before it even started, the Iraqi army was a complete joke and fell apart from the first signs of resistance. This is where the Iraqi police should have been retained to keep order and a plan should have been implemented for Iraq to run as a country. No plans were implemented and Iraq fell into chaos and the Gorilla war followed to kick out the dummies.

Originally posted by SimiusDei
1. I would NOT attempt to localize my attacks. In this particular type of "war" the "terrorists" (b.s. word) are intermingled with, and protected by in some cases, the civilian population. Two words, collateral damage.

Excuse me, its not collateral damage when you specifically target civilian area's, people, and assets.

Thats a war of attrition, that a bloody genocide. WHat you are advocating is the slaughter of an entire population

2. I feel it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to fight any "war" without civilian casualties.

Your right about that, but not localizing your targets and firing indescrimiately wont just cause civilian casualties, it will cause total loss of all civilian life.

3. World War II was ended pretty effectively.

I dont really follow what this has to do with my post, or yours for that matter, can you clarify?

As a side note, the global media is the WORST thing that ever happened to war.

This is true for all wars. If the media is a propaganda machine in peace time, well then it must be a whole factory district during war.

reply to post by paul76


No, what I'm saying is that we should NEVER have been there in the first place. However, since our "leaders" decided to take us over there (for profit), they should fight the freaking thing to win. Right now they are basically fighting another Vietnam where the ONLY thing that will ultimately come will be the continued growth of American casualties.

It's a senseless and STUPID war. However, if we continue to show EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD how easily we can have our butts handed to us in a guerilla style war, then we can only expect to pay for that when some REAL terrorists decide to come knocking.

While I feel INCREDIBLY sorry for the poor civilians in the Middle East, if I have to choose between the life of 1 American and the lives of 100,000 iraqis then I'm going with the 1 American life.

If we, the people, would stand up AGAINST these continued wars for profit, we could stop all this crap completely. However, most of us just sit here and accept everything we are told as justification for this "war".


Was Iraq EVER a threat to the United States? -- No
Is Iran? - No
Do we fight battles for Israel? -- Yes
Should we? -- No
Is this war a war for profit? -- Yes
Do I care more about my fellow Americans or Iraqis? -- Sorry, but my fellow Americans win that one.


Unfortunately, they are fighting a very effective guerilla style war. They are also mixing perfectly with the innocents of Iraq and, in some cases, are even harbored by them.

So, even though we shouldn't even be there, now that we ARE there, we might as well do it right. If the civilians are intermingling with them, then YES, that's just collateral damage.



Personally, I think the only "terrorists" over in Iraq are the ones who are keeping this war going. The Iraqis, the insurgents and the United States military are only pawns. Sad, but true.

And now having said that, we can't agree all the time hahah.


Kill em all and let Allah/God/The Tooth Fairy sort them out.


Jasn

reply to post by InSpiteOf


True, but picking and choosing your targets in a guerilla style war where the "enemy" is TOTALLY intermixed with the civilian population is NOT AN EFFECTIVE OPTION.

Your way of looking at it is the exact reason we are losing as many men/women over there as we are.

The military has to constantly worry about what they do, if they are being fired on and they fire back and kill civilians because the ones that are shooting at them are firing from a civilian crowd the military personnel have to worry about being court martialed for firing back. They are currently in a NO WIN situation and THAT is not how you fight a war to win.

The dilemma is this,

If are being fired at from a crowd of 100 people and only 20 of those people are the "enemy" and the other 80 are civilians that are caught in the middle, do you let yourself be a sitting duck to save 80 civilian lives or do you kill all 100 people to make sure you take out the "enemy"?

You kill all 100 of them because your JOB is not to be a target dummy.



Jasn


By the way, I mentioned WWII because that was the last war we even REMOTELY won and that was done in a VERY effective manner. Though there were MANY ulterior motives for us being in that war, we DID indeed fight it to win and, naturally, we won.

Originally posted by SimiusDei
True, but picking and choosing your targets in a guerilla style war where the "enemy" is TOTALLY intermixed with the civilian population is NOT AN EFFECTIVE OPTION.

I agree, but the wholesale slaughter of civilians isnt either.

Your way of looking at it is the exact reason we are losing as many men/women over there as we are.

Not to mention the deficiencies in equipment. Not to mention the homefield advantage. Not to mention home supply line advantage. Etc.

My way of thinking is not the only reason US lives are being lost.

The military has to constantly worry about what they do, if they are being fired on and they fire back and kill civilians because the ones that are shooting at them are firing from a civilian crowd the military personnel have to worry about being court martialed for firing back. They are currently in a NO WIN situation and THAT is not how you fight a war to win.

No one wins in war.

If are being fired at from a crowd of 100 people and only 20 of those people are the "enemy" and the other 80 are civilians that are caught in the middle, do you let yourself be a sitting duck to save 80 civilian lives or do you kill all 100 people to make sure you take out the "enemy"?

I dont know about you, but anytime there is gunfire in the middle of a civilian area, the civilians run for the freakin lives. Hard to take cover in a crowd of felling civilians isnt it? Not to say it always works out that US soldiers are able to identify and eliminate enemy combattants in a fleeing crowd of civilians, but the scenario you put forth does have more than one solution.

By the way, I mentioned WWII because that was the last war we even REMOTELY won and that was done in a VERY effective manner. Though there were MANY ulterior motives for us being in that war, we DID indeed fight it to win and, naturally, we won.

Gotcha.

My point still stands, you are advocating a "final solution" to the Iraq war, slaughter the entire population in order to kill the few insurgents. Im sorry, but thats just not acceptable. Every soldier and commander responsible for such slaughter would be facing war crimes hearings.

The issue is that this is a guerilla war as you acurately pointed out. Historically there is one way to win a war of this type, alienate the civilians from the insurgents. March death sqauds from town to town and fire on women and children indescriminately as happened in El Salvador. Make it known to the civilians that any support of the guerilla 's will result in their death. Ration or cut food and medical supply lines from outlying towns and villages so supplies cant get to the guerilla fighters.

Of course, this option is no better than your idea of turning the dessert into glass. SO what is the solution? Well I have no idea if this will work, but try working WITH the civilians to enhance their lives, give them what they need, food, water, medical supplies, and most of all, freedom to walk down the street without fear of gunfire.

I know i know, damn hard to do during wartime and it wont work with all civilians. But you have to start somewhere. Wholesale slaughter is not the answer.

Also, im sure you've considered it and it may have been mentioned in another post, but who says the US administration had any intention of winning this war let alone winning it in an expediant manner?

You lose all credibility when you encourage two things ...

1) you support the use of nuclear weapons as a good means to end wars quickly.

Any use of a nuclear weapon is not acceptable, and, we should never be forgiven for dropping TWO of them. It is a disgusting piece of u.s.american history. What is the difference between gassing and burning citizens and vaporizing them? They are still innocents ... by your definition, you support us being attacked with nuclear weapons if the opposing side feels it would end the war swiftly. Remember, Iraq never attacked us, so, if their people wanted us out, technically, they would be using them in defense, just as we supposedly did.


2) You say 1 u.s.american is worth more than 100,000 of them

what a crock of the ship's poop deck. You sir, need a class on ethics and morality. Each life is equal. Just because they have a different color skin or live in a different place, doesn't make them any less of a human being, any less good, loving, family-oriented, moral. So, would you feel the same way if you had family living there? Collateral damage, right? You do know there are born and raised in the u.s.a. people who have close family that live there. Maybe grandparents. THINK before you speak. Don't let a little blind ignorance run over your reason and compassion.

Others say you usually make sense ... well, this thread you are disappointing me not only as a fellow u.s.american, but as a fellow human being. I am sure it must be just an emotional rant ... and you must not mean you condone nuclear weapons and genocide.

Yes, Iraq is like a Vietnam. I support the troops, bring them home to their families ... have them protect our borders. Don't make them live with the guilt of killing millions of innocent people and making millions more suffer from nuclear radiation because you think life is 'rainbow six' or some other video game scenario. Just because you are not over there, never visited ... doesn't mean they don't exist or are worthless. They have zoos, and museums, they lived their lives ... and I guarantee they would rather go on living it.

Basically, if we did what you said, the Iraqis were better off under Saddam because at least they would be alive. You would kill them all for the sake of convenience. We put the man in control and armed him ... then we tried and executed him. The only justification we can try to make out of this illegal war is that we removed the tyrant we put in power, to free the people. If you kill them all YOU are worse than Saddam. No ifs, ands, or buts.


Think about it long and hard. Think about radioactive fallout. Think about losing family members dieing because they were citizens in the wrong place at the wrong time. Just THINK. Have a heart.

Originally posted by SimiusDei
Why is it that we, The United States, are sitting on top of the largest and possibly most advanced military in the world and we are fighting what amounts to a guerilla style war? We have the air and technological capabilities to win virtually ANY war without ever setting a single vulnerable troop on the ground.

The US tried what people like me already knew was a flawed theory under Rumsfeld and look where it has gotten the US and its allies Things only improved when more boots on the ground were put into Iraq. Gadgets that suck up huge amounts of tax payer dollars may be helpful but they will only get so far.

I know there are plenty of you out there who sit on the PC side of the fence who would scream war crimes and human rights violations at the first hint of a bit of napalm being dropped.

Flames throwers and gas would be better options for the war in Afghanistan. If NATO would come to the party in Afghanistan the enemy would be forced out into the open where the coalition could make use of American fire power without losing the hearts and minds war.

War, no matter how you look at it, is an AWFUL thing. However, any country that goes into a war unwilling to do what is necessary to WIN that war is doomed from the beginning.

That is indeed very true the US public became accustom to Gulf war one victory's when this doesn't happen they fail to stop supporting the war.
Much the same thing after the Battle Jutland in the UK . The UK public was shocked that the RN hadn't won an overwhelmingly victory without any losses.

No counter insurgency war can be won in a week period it takes years to win that kind of wars.

What is the point of being the world's ONLY true remaining superpower (this is debatable) if we aren't willing to USE any of that power?

Why do so many Americans fail to understand the nature of counter insurgency warfare ?
Expect for the likes RC drones and robots that can disarm IEDs the likes of body armour , armoured vehicles , body armour , knowledge of local customs and language are worth far more then the latest geek device that has come from some pork project.

Bush speaks of sending messages. This government is certainly sending them. Unfortunately, what those messages are saying is "America is soft".

Actually the message is that US military leaders have no backbone , civilian leaders are beyond incompetent and that the US is stupid enough to let the enemy tie down a large number of troops in Iraq. Certainly Iraq was never going to be the quick victory it was out to be. It was the kind of ideas that you put forward that made the war to spiral out of control.

reply to post by SimiusDei


World war 2 did not end. For that matter it didn't actually begin, either. It was a continuation of the first world war, a war that continues to be fought to the present day.

reply to post by SimiusDei

Well, this is a couple / three days out in this thread. I bow to your declaration of my incorrect statements. Mostly I agree with you entirely that we should fight to win and done expediently. Later you wrote something about "the world would be better without the U.S..." I would have to recomened a phschologist on that one.

True enough about voting seemingly becoming irrellavant. Both parties intermingling spitting out crap. Why vote for either one. They are of the same more and more.

Congress and the President tell the Military when to jump. They are elected officials and all that crap. Congress is the key though. "Why we don't fight to win?" answer "Congress!" You want to win and G.I. joe wants to kill before he gets killed. Why don't it get done? "Congress!"

Why does "Congress" stop the troops from doing their job? I can't give you a direct answer but if you are young instead of debating why we won't win and we can have pride in country and stand for something. I suggest you fight to destroy "Congress" You straighten out "Congress" You won't have to debate why we don't fight to win and why our votes mean less and less every election.