- This topic has 6 voices and 40 replies.
-
Posts
-
The wages of sin is death. How is that not an enemy? Romans 1 doesn't exactly sound like friends of God. (and let's bring this to CL because there's more theology to it than what should be discussed here in the alreadt hijacked thread topic)
Wow has this thread strayed from the original topic.My original point is that Iraq is better off now than before the war. The Iraqis have a chance to start over and make of t what they will. If they go down the same path they did with the Baathist's well then they risk the same thing happening again. I did not mean to start a divergence into a discussion of Just War Theory.The argument can be made, I have made it, that Afghanistan is a useless war. We achieved our objective in the first 90 days with the toppling of the Taliban and have been spinning our wheels there ever since because we are not ruthless enough to do what it would really take to reform Afghan society and culture. There is much more at work in Afghanistan than just Islam and the radicals it spawns. It is probably the closest thing to a criminal culture the world has ever seen and is so resistant to change that said change is almost impossible. To really change Afghanistan we would have to (to paraphrase) destroy the country in order to save it.
Iraq will eventually fall into Iran's sphere of influence if it hasn't already. We will lose Syria as well (not that we ever had it to begin with). We have already lost Egypt. The Middle East is disintegrating into radical Islamism. If Saudi Arabia ever fell to the Muslim Brotherhood along with Jordan, a nightmare scenario will occur. I don't think anything can stop that now.
The argument can be made, I have made it, that Afghanistan is a useless war. We achieved our objective in the first 90 days with the toppling of the Taliban and have been spinning our wheels there ever since because we are not ruthless enough to do what it would really take to reform Afghan society and culture. There is much more at work in Afghanistan than just Islam and the radicals it spawns. It is probably the closest thing to a criminal culture the world has ever seen and is so resistant to change that said change is almost impossible. To really change Afghanistan we would have to (to paraphrase) destroy the country in order to save it.
Funny how that is not the typical narrative we've been hearing from the news all these years. In the media, it was always that the Iraq War was the problem, and not really Afghanistan. Your comment is interesting, since the conventional wisdom wisdom after WWI seems to have been that the process of post-conquering reconstruction is vital to the success of war….perhaps only now (after Iraq and Afghanistan) we are beginning to realize the parameters by which reconstruction is even possible.
But wasn't that reconstruction only after total destruction and eradication of the enemy? (something we have not done in either Iraq or Afghanistan)
But wasn't that reconstruction only after total destruction and eradication of the enemy? (something we have not done in either Iraq or Afghanistan)
In the case of post-war Japan and Germany it was. We have not tried it anywhere else.As regards Afghanistan and Iraq what we saw in both places was mission creep Somalia style. Once the initial mission was accomplished ( and Bush was right, it was) we had to find something else to justify our presence. In both countries we turned to nation-building.
I would hope we would abstain from nation building in the future. It's none of our business how nations approach self-determination. We should only go to war when our national interests are threatened, and even then it should be thoroughly debated in Congress. The President should only have the authority to make defensive military decisions without congressional approval. Invading other nations as pre-emptive strikes should only be decided by Congress. I realize that there may be times when the President must act quickly, but since it takes time to ramp up for war anyway, there is time for Congress to do its job.
But wasn't that reconstruction only after total destruction and eradication of the enemy? (something we have not done in either Iraq or Afghanistan)
I think I misused that word “reconstruction”, as I was referring to what may amount to the construction of a puppet government which does not mesh with the autonomous desires of a nation. Attempting to impose a western-style or western-friendly government in areas of the world which are not included to do so from the ground up can be a labor in futility. If the people of Afghanistan want the Taliban back, what are we going to do in the long run? If the U.S. were to remain as babysitter in Iraq or Afghanistan for 20+ years, would this be sufficient? And at what cost? The notion of nation-building seems to be unpredictable. Post WWII-Germany may have been successful, but this may have been due entirely to the set of circumstances of that place and time.
Cultural factors play a huge, even decisive role in whether nation-building can be successful.Many people seem to forget that terror has a role to play in war and deterring war. Our enemies should be so terrified of what we would do if they attack us that they essentially police themselves to avoid the consequences of not doing so. Yes, these consequences may even include the wholesale destruction of cities, farmland, and infrastructure.I put it this way: How did Rome finally end the Carthaginian threat?
i would like to posit this in regard to the Iraq war. The Kurds in the north have, in fact, viewed America as a liberator. As this is positive news, the coverage of it in any media form has been limited in extreme. Why? well that question can only be answered above my pay grade. i do remember a couple of years ago, on 60 minutes they showed American soldiers walking around and saying they found it surreal to walk around with no body armor. So cheers to the Kurds for making the most of their opportunity. Does the liberation of saddams human guinea pigs rationalize, justify or explain the war. Hell, i dont know. Who can answer such questions? But i do think it was an inherent good.
Yes, that is true – the intent to go to war is separate from the good/bad that results from the war. I don't think the two are necessarily connected in a way that we can clearly assess them at this point in time. Historians of the future will have a better view of the positives and negatives that have resulted from the war.
