posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 09:08 PM
To understand war you must understand human beings. To fully understand human beings is incomprehensibly difficult, if possible at all. However,
wars are fought over two basic things: resources and territory. Almost all wars can be linked back to these two basic concepts.
Fighting for resources is rather obvious - when one group of people is scarce on resources, they become more likely to resort to violence as a form of
procuring the resources they need to survive. In ancient times, these resources were as simple as food, water, basic materials (including salt), etc.
As time has gone on and economies have developed, the overall health of the economy is synonymous with survival. In an abstract sort of way, a
country that goes to war can salvage their economy due to the "let's get it done" mentality - a war cry can rally many to a job in a sort of
temporary communist society that can invalidate typical quantitative economics models. Even if the war, itself, fails to procure more resources, it
can salvage an economy, in theory. Prolonged wars, however, tend to negatively impact the economy, particularly when no imminent threat is perceived
by the nation's population.
Territory is a little different - while it can reference physical territory, it also means personal and regional territory, as well. Revolutions are
territorial wars where one group of people asserts it is no longer under the authority of a given power. Policing actions are also territorial wars -
asserting control or influence over a region. The rise of modern industry and mass production have ensured almost everyone can live comfortably
without worrying about basic needs. Wars over resources are far less frequent and likely with growing political interest and ideological views
ensuring plenty of territorial wars will start over the next chapters in human history.
As for what war solves?
It really depends upon what/who you are fighting. An ambiguous force like AQ is tricky to fight. Neither a standard army or special ops are going to
cut it, alone. You need the standard army to, sadly, take some sacrificial losses in order to expose the cells and structure for special operations
to take advantage of. You also need them to interface with the public and secure construction sights and the like.
Special-ops only procedures are what solidified groups like AQ in the middle east. While successful at aiding in the dissolution of the USSR - these
groups later came around to cause more problems for us and the countries they had power in. Special ops are a force-multiplier, not really a silver
We could also have done nothing - it is a perfectly valid option. I will admit I do not like that option, but people were either going to hate Bush
for not going to war or hate him for going to war - and neither option provided any kind of guarantees.
As for the economy - yes, the wars have had an impact on the economy. However, the major causes of the economic problem are not the wars - never was.
The problem was due to banking practices encouraged by the Federal Reserve and legislation, as well as poor consumer choices (buying houses they
could not afford - they teach you how to add, subtract, etc in school for a reason - you should be able to realize you can't afford mortgage payments
that are 60% of your income when you have a car payment, insurances, kids, a need to eat, etc). Banks were encouraged to be irresponsible by
legislation, and consumers notoriously neglect responsibility when it concerns credit.
The end result is predictable - and was predicted by many economists dating back to the 70s when legislation was being put into place and bad lending
and consumer habits started to take form. No one took note, however - stocks were climbing and the economy "had nowhere to go but up" due to market
bubbles driven by real estate inflation. Everything appeared not only great - but spectacular. Naysayers were shown stock reports and purchasing
power of the dollar versus other nations as evidence they were crazies on about conspiracies.
From the moment the inflating bubbles began to be noticed, there were not many politicians willing to repeal their inflammatory legislation that would
ultimately lead to a slow-down of the economy. No one wanted to pop the bubble, nor did anyone want to be responsible for dispelling the economic
wave everyone was enjoying (false as it was).
Wars are wars - they are going to happen, and none of them are ever going to be a particularly good idea, no matter how you go about it. Wars are
always necessary - when one side is committed to violence, it's not really practical to counter with anything but violence. Neither side is
particularly right or wrong - they just are on different sides of a fundamental disagreement that goes so deep as to require bloodshed.
I believe the decision to go to war was 'correct' and appropriate. As for the strategies and policies used... we can Monday-morning quarterback
until the end of baseball season, but every "if" is predicated on something that didn't happen and only exists in one's mind. Since no one of us
fully understands human beings - it all amounts to a guess. And that is all anyone does in a war - guess. At some point, action takes priority over
observation and you make your best guess at how to go about it. You either get lucky and end up in a documentary on how awesome your strategy was,
unlucky and become a blunder, or simply manage to survive to see another day.