He knew how to kick ass.
No matter what you think of the Iraq war, there are some interesting points here. And it’s from a research fellow at that bastian of liberal thinking, the Hoover Institution.
For all the good we’ve done around the world, we in the west have a lot to be ashamed of.
White Guilt and the Western Past: Why is America so delicate with the enemy?
There is something rather odd in the way America has come to fight its wars since World War II.
For one thing, it is now unimaginable that we would use anything approaching the full measure of our military power (the nuclear option aside) in the wars we fight. And this seems only reasonable given the relative weakness of our Third World enemies in Vietnam and in the Middle East. But the fact is that we lost in Vietnam, and today, despite our vast power, we are only slogging along–if admirably–in Iraq against a hit-and-run insurgency that cannot stop us even as we seem unable to stop it. Yet no one–including, very likely, the insurgents themselves–believes that America lacks the raw power to defeat this insurgency if it wants to. So clearly it is America that determines the scale of this war. It is America, in fact, that fights so as to make a little room for an insurgency.
Certainly since Vietnam, America has increasingly practiced a policy of minimalism and restraint in war. And now this unacknowledged policy, which always makes a space for the enemy, has us in another long and rather passionless war against a weak enemy.
This story is recommended reading by Dvorak.org AND rushlimbaugh.com.
Is this the apocalypse?
Maybe somebody somewhere has brought this up, but if so I haven’t seen it: what we’re basically talking about here is the difference between tactical warfare and strategic warfare. To oversimplify, tactical warfare addresses the enemy’s ABILITY to fight, whereas strategic warfare addresses the enemy’s WILLINGNESS to fight. Bombing a ball-bearing factory is tactical, but fire-bombing Dresden was strategic. During WWII we started tactically, but actually ended the war (and won) strategically. This was mostly due to the influence of Gen Curtis Lemay, who didn’t seem to mind killing civilians to achieve a military goal. These days, we’re conducting tactical warfare only, and trying to kill as few civilians as possible. (Theoretically.) In modern times, it may actually be impossible to win ANY war this way.
I thinks its time we find the cure for cancer and go ahead and thaw “The Duke.” He will unleash one hell of a can of kick ass.
Hoover Instution is not liberal! (did i miss sarcasm?) They support a beligerant foreign policy. They support flat taxes. They are against all social welfare.
In current parlance that makes them neocons.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hoover_Institution
Greg: I knew it! I almost put something after the Hoover description so people would know I was being sarcastic for those that don’t realize that practically everything I write has at least a hint of sarcasm, skepticism and several more ‘isms in it. I didn’t because I didn’t want to seem condescending. Except, of course, for those cases where I do.
As Eideard said in another post, we need some sort of punctuation to denote sarcasm and related.
If WW II happen today, the liberals would have pooped their pants after the masive losses at Normady. There would have been calls from withdrawl. Sean Penn would have visited Hilter and Nancy Pelosi, would be calling for the Presidents impeachment. On can only Hope that China doesn’t have any plans to invade, because I really think the libs would let them.
Dave,
For a second I thought I was on the wrong website, glad that got cleared up.
This war and WW2 are so different….that was a war that had meaning, there was actually a threat to the world.
This is different…there’s nothing in Iraq worth dying for.
gc, I guess I should point out that Normandy had to happen when it did because Eisenhower had no choice if he wanted the US to have a part in post-war governance.
At the time of Normandy, Zhukov had already forced the Nazis to retreat 1,000 miles. Instead of linking up with the Red Army on the Elbe, it might have been further west.
And it was the Left that pushed the US to join the war, not Republicans, not Prescott Bush. That family’s traditions are consistent. Even Churchill wanted the invasion to go through Romania because — oh, what’s that? — he was heavily invested in the Ploesti oil fields.
History does repeat itself.
For all the author’s insightful historical analysis of “white guilt” (some of it very good), his description of the present state of affairs seems almost mind-boggling. He says, “If there is still the odd white bigot out there surviving past his time, there are millions of whites who only feel goodwill toward minorities.”
I can’t help but wonder what rock he’s been living under that isolates him enough to reach that conclusion. The author really should explore the internet once in awhile. Forums and blogs are a “safe” environment where, under cover of anonymity, people feel liberated to express their true feelings. Racial undertones and outright hostility seldom make it past one’s internal “political correctness” filters in face-to-face conversations. However, those feelings easily spill out and find reinforcement in a world where few people use their real name. Indeed, in some ways that’s good because freedom by anonymity lets us see what ideas are really out there, and also lets us know how far we still need to go.
Racial hostility is a problem that will continue to simmer (and occasionally boil) for years, no matter how anxious the author is to declare “mission accomplished.”
“This war and WW2 are so different….that was a war that had meaning, there was actually a threat to the world.”
No difference, the left of today would be against any war, especially if the other side was in power.
Moss- the left of today is not the same as democrats of the 40’s. They weren’t worried with pleasing fringe groups for votes and truly had the best interest of the counrty in mind. Can you really say the same thing about Ted Kenndey , Howard Dean, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, I think not. They are so bitter and jealous of the Republicans and their inablility to get elected, that they would do anything, regardless of the harm it would do to the country to get elected
#8
You’re right – I’ll make sure I poop my pants when I kick your ass. Get a grip.
If it was a repub president and a democratic congress then it would be the dems who would have a fit. If it was a Democratic Pres and a Republican congress, it would be the repubs that would crap.
Oh no, those people are truly evil if they support a flat tax. Heaven forbid somebody be morally opposed to one of the great pillars of communism: the progressive income tax.
Sounds the Alarm – my point was to state the change in politics and the american public from the 40’s. In WW II both parties and the american public supported the war and the cause, even with the large numbers of american deaths. Now a days, pols are just looking to stick it to the other side and will be against the other party, no matter the cause. Americans have been used to quick, push to kill conflicts and have no stomach for a real war.
Mike,
Its not their tax policy that makes them evil. Look at the list of fellows. It is their morally ambiguous actions in Iraq that makes them evil. Their tax policy just makes them fiscally irresponsible.
Lol.
#16 In WW II both parties and the american public supported the war and the cause, even with the large numbers of american deaths.
But that was only after Pearl Harbor. FDR wanted to get the US in the fight, and was trying to support Churchill as much as possible, but Americans were opposed to being drawn into another European War. Thus, all the conspiracy theories that FDR had prior knowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor, and let it happen – just to get Americans pissed-off enough to join the war.
#16 Now a days, pols are just looking to stick it to the other side and will be against the other party, no matter the cause.
I couldn’t agree more.
#16 Americans have been used to quick, push to kill conflicts and have no stomach for a real war.
This has “chicken or the egg” aspects, to my mind.
First Gulf War, Bush & Powell carpet-bombed the hell out of ’em, and went in with overwhelming force – with a minimum of causalties, and then pulled-back after the open-field battles were won. No house-to-house fighting in Baghdad or Faluga, that time.
Clinton lobbed cruse missiles at Sudan & Aftghanistan, and tried to use airpower as much as possible against the Serbs.
Have the “push-to-kill” conflicts made us less likely to stomach a real war, or has our lack of enthusiasm for intervening in conflicts which don’t directly affect us [even though we are told repeatedly that we are “at War”] lead to the dependence on “push-to-kill”??
Mr. Steele reflects his true colors in his article particularly in the last sentences:
“If there is still the odd white bigot out there surviving past his time, there are millions of whites who only feel goodwill toward minorities.
This is a fact that must be integrated into our public life–absorbed as new history–so that America can once again feel the moral authority to seriously tackle its most profound problems. Then, if we decide to go to war, it can be with enough ferocity to win.”
He is essentially a neo-KKK using an idea of goodwill to promote and accomplish his evil deeds. He’s basically a Karl Rove using his pseudo-intellectual cleverness to validate his fucked-up goals. He doesn’t even talk about the morality of war! He takes our war stance as a given! Mr. Steele is a white man with a brown terrorist mind. He has no clue to what is moral except his willingness to win a war that will destroy the cultures of non-white people. He starts with the premise that our war was justified which is false by all accounts. Even Bush has admitted that WMDs was not the reason for going to war with Iraq! BUT, he said it was! Contradiction. What this author and the Right cannot face is the truth which is that America is WEAK. America will never win a war on terror because as written in The Art of War, the one who wins is the one who yields. Amerika is on the offense. BUSH IS ATTACKING. Bush is the rabid dog. An idea is like a cockroach. IT IS INDESTRUCTIBLE.
I would look at a government’s fiscal irresponsibility in the terms of over-spending, not it in terms of under-taxing. But I guess a good liberal would say it’s never possible to spend too much on social programs, as long as there is somebody left to squeze the blood from.
In any case, your so-call “neocons” are far more liberal than they are conservatives outside of sending troops off to war.
There is nothing immoral about war. Some people need to be killed.
#19 Mr. Steele is a white man with a brown terrorist mind.
I thought Shelby Steele sounded familiar.
Look at the picture in his bio, david:
http://www.hoover.org/bios/steele.html
If WW II happen today, the liberals would have pooped their pants after the masive losses at Normady. There would have been calls from withdrawl. Sean Penn would have visited Hilter and Nancy Pelosi, would be calling for the Presidents impeachment. On can only Hope that China doesn’t have any plans to invade, because I really think the libs would let them.
Comment by gquaglia — 5/3/2006 @ 7:24 am
Today, the neo-cons would be naturally allied to the fascists.
In WW II both parties and the american public supported the war and the cause, even with the large numbers of american deaths.
On September 12, 2001, both parties and 90% of Americans supported war against the Taliban and Afghanistan if they didn’t turn over bin Laden. Where the whole thing fell apart for Bush is when he was outed for lying to America. As more of his lies fell apart, Americans felt more and more betrayed. People will not support bullies, cheats, liars, or thieves; all the things the Bush Administration is about.
I think the author’s analysis of the US’s state of mind is pretty much correct, but it’s a side show next to the tactical mistakes (as defined by #3) made in Iraq.
We’re bogged down in Iraq because of Rumsfeld not committing enough troops. In an effort to save money and prove his transformation theories, Rummy overrode the Powell doctrine and went in with too little force.
The Bush administration were so worried about a drawn out war, and the difficult political challenges that would suppose, they drew up a minimalist plan that assumed everything would go their way, and no nation building would be necessary. They completely ignored all the lessons the military has learned from and since Vietnam, as embodied in the Powell Doctrine.
The administration has actually proven their ability to keep their supporters on their side (up until about now), so they were unnecessarily worried about the domestic political dynamic as they drew up a plan to fuck everything up militarily. Most of these misdirected concerns and errant planning are documented in the book “Cobra II”.
I think these facts override any applicability that the “white-guilt” mentality and analysis would have on the Iraqi conflict. Especially since the use of “our full potential” force and the resulting civilian deaths would backfire in winning Iraqi hearts and minds. More troops would also look suspicious right now and probably cause more problems (insurgents and resentment) than they solved.
Our only hope lies with the Iraqi government getting its act together. Sigh.
T.C. Moore,
Most of the problems would go away if Bush simply set a timetable for troop withdrawl. Problem is, a peaceful Iraq is not in Bush’s agenda.
Everbody else,
A lot of people here seem… is ignorant the correct word?? of Liberalism. The best description I can find comes from (Since we are all talking about WW2) Roosevelt.
Cripes!
#22. T.C. Moore,
Mr. Steele is a white man [in black skin] with a brown terrorist mind.
Can we start this thread over and actually talk about the article?
sheesh.
But let me get in one last dig…
The “Four Freedoms” are a mirage on the horizon of all leftists. No matter how much money you spend or international treaties you sign, Utopia always recedes into the distance.
People have to provide for themselves. Not only is it an indispensable component of their self-worth, but the rest of us grow tired of those who “cannot help themselves” because they are retarded fuck ups.
( I’m talking about help beyond temporary assistance, or for the elderly and indigent. I am a compassionate motherfucker, after all.)
If there are no consequences for being stupid, then I don’t wanna be smart.
As for the freedom from fear, why don’t you ask Saddam, or the rulers of Sudan, or Milosevic’s corpse what they think about Roosevelt’s vision.
Maybe someday we will all get along. Africa will provide for itself, and its leaders will stop screwing their own people. But there will always be a Leviathan, sleeping on a stash of guns.
Someone will always have guns.
I am so deeply touch with the loss of our dear Julia Campbell.How can that beast done such a thing to a woman who has done so much for my dear country?I am a filipino and I am very much ashame of what he/she has done to her.If only I can have a hand at the culprit, I will have to peel him/her alive and pour salt to him/her entirely.But no matter what I will do it wont bring back dear Julia.To the american people,I am so sorry.