posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 09:31 PM
reply to post by adifferentbreed
I would say it would depend on your definition of win. If your definition of win is to destroy your enemy utterly, every last man, woman and child,
you could wage nuclear war on everything between the Red Sea and the Hindu Kush. However it would just lead to further conflict with other parties.
Such a "victory" is hollow indeed.
If your definition of war is surrender, reconciliation and lasting peace... well thats a bit harder, and not always achievable, especially with an
enemy that is made up of loosely aligned groups with no singular leadership or direction. A consensus of surrender from all groups would be highly
In response to the OP.
"The War on Terror/Oil", is really just another guerrilla/low intensity conflict with a new name and shiny paint job.
Guerrilla warfare is impossible to defeat without support from the local population. This was learned in Malaya when the British & Australians fought
a Guerrilla war after WW2. The Insurgents were minority Chinese Malayans, who had little to no support from the local people, they wouldn't hide
them, feed them, supply them willingly. This was exploited wherever possible.
The views of the people on the ground are simple and important. The United States is seen as a foreign invader who have setup a puppet government who
are viewed as collaborators. It didn't work with the Vichy Government and the Germans, it is also unlikely to work now. The Vichy & Germans also
labeled the French Resistance as Des Terroristes. Todays terrorist, is tomorrows patriot hero.
This conflict is a tragedy of errors and ridiculous assumptions, a result of not learning from the past and repeating the same mistakes continually
while expecting different results.
"Liberation under terms" will always be resisted. When the US finally withdraws, we will see a massive power struggle in the region. I would not be
surprised to see a neighboring country take advantage of the chaos and swallow the region in question under the guise of humanitarian action and to
quell violence near their borders. Syria or Iran most likely, hell maybe both. They will be considered with far less hostility than the US, but the
result as it was with the Syrian occupation of Lebanon will likely be similar. Which means more conflict in the future.
This region will be in conflict for another century or more in my opinion. It may never be stable.