• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NKorea warns of war if punished for ship sinking

MSgt said:
Sometimes it is. Our wars after WWII have been garbage. Attitudes who have a will to "win" will always defeat an attitude that tries to get out of it. Let the military do their job without civilain interference and our wars would look different.
Click to expand...

Desert storm was Garbage? We totally anialated the Iraqi military, ejected them from Kuwait and only lost a couple hundred men. Bush Sr showed us how to fight a war.
 
USA-1 said:
Sounds like you advocate a military state. Civilians are screwing up everything.
Click to expand...

I don't see where he advocated that. There is a difference in telling the military where to fight battles and what the end goal is, and allowing them to use their expertise to achieve it, and creating a "military state."

In the end, its not civilian leadership that bleeds when bad judgment is used in planning. It is the people on the ground who do. It took a General(Petraus), not a civilian to find a way to clean up Iraq.
 
NolaMan said:
I agree, I think MAD is a worthless theory. That said however, I do not think that NK has really shown itself to be irrational. In what way do you think they have done this?



Well, the North Korea navy is so pitiful, I have doubts that a ship would be a viable option. Maybe a suicide mission with a plane, but why would they need to do that if they could just overrun SK in a conventional manner? Doing that would most likely expose them to less of a retaliation than if they went nuclear immediately in such a manner.



I don't see any benefit NK would gain from using a weapon in this scenario at all.
Click to expand...

Again, the nuke could be used for potential black mail and coercion for a number of situations.

It is thought that if war on the peninsula were to break out that the North would be able to push deep in to the South before the front was stabilized and the tide turned. The length of time this would take is dependent on a lot of thing, most importantly mobilization times for the Marines out of Okinawa, carrier battle groups being deployed or reconfigured, target identification and coordination of B-2s out of Guam and a massive deployment of Army personnel, just to name a few.

This article is a little outdated but none the less highlights some important aspects to consider when analyzing the North's capabilities and likely strategy.

North Korean Defector's Testimony <--- Link. It doesn't appear in standard URL format and could easily be overlooked, wierd.
 
USA-1 said:
Desert storm was Garbage? We totally anialated the Iraqi military, ejected them from Kuwait and only lost a couple hundred men. Bush Sr showed us how to fight a war.
Click to expand...

Bush Sr. was also a WWII vet. We'll not have people of that generation leading us anymore. But Desert Storm was an incomplete war, for all its initial success. Why the sanctions and no-fly zones for a decade+ if all was solved by Bush Sr.?
 
NolaMan said:
I agree, I think MAD is a worthless theory. That said however, I do not think that NK has really shown itself to be irrational. In what way do you think they have done this?
Click to expand...

This comment is just one of many that Kim-Jong-il has made to prove his irrationality.

¢¹ Kim Jong-il once went so far as to declare 'the world does not deserve to exist without the DPRK', and should North Korea implode, "we will take the rest of the world with us".
 
WI Crippler said:
Bush Sr. was also a WWII vet. We'll not have people of that generation leading us anymore. But Desert Storm was an incomplete war, for all its initial success. Why the sanctions and no-fly zones for a decade+ if all was solved by Bush Sr.?
Click to expand...

Without derailing this thread, the Gulf War was not an incomplete war. We completed our objectives and at the pleas of the Saudis, as well as fear of the disinegration of the coalition, we chose not to go to Baghdad.
 
WI Crippler said:
Bush Sr. was also a WWII vet. We'll not have people of that generation leading us anymore. But Desert Storm was an incomplete war, for all its initial success. Why the sanctions and no-fly zones for a decade+ if all was solved by Bush Sr.?
Click to expand...
I agree he should have done more but the goals were accomplished with minimal casualties. Most people thought Saddam would have behaved and cooperated after being spanked so badly. They really couldn't predict what happened after we pulled back.
 
Polynikes said:
This comment is just one of many that Kim-Jong-il has made to prove his irrationality.

¢¹ Kim Jong-il once went so far as to declare 'the world does not deserve to exist without the DPRK', and should North Korea implode, "we will take the rest of the world with us".
Click to expand...

I think the question of rationality in terms of that statement would hinge on the context in which it was said. For example, if he is directing that towards a domestic audience trying to hype up NK "prestige", then the qoute does not really come across as irrational (in my opinion at least).

Take a step back and look at this scenario from someone in thet Middle East or North Korea. Bush (allegedly) told Nabil Shaath that, "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did."

Now imagine Ahmadinejad makes a similiar statement just with different places. I have no doubt we would jump all over it as evidence of the "irrationality" of the Iranian leadership. I think actions (not statements) are the best determination of rationality.
 
Polynikes said:
Without derailing this thread, the Gulf War was not an incomplete war. We completed our objectives and at the pleas of the Saudis, as well as fear of the disinegration of the coalition, we chose not to go to Baghdad.
Click to expand...

Hindsight is 20/20. Had we gone in we could be in the middle of a 20 year war.
 
USA-1 said:
Sounds like you advocate a military state. Civilians are screwing up everything.
Click to expand...
Maybe to simple folk.

I advocate a nation where civilians decide to go to war and then get the **** out of the way so we can win them.

WWII: "The Greatest Generation." Two atomic bombs over Japan and Germany's Dresen. Decisive victory.

Korean War: Restrictions and rules by civilains far removed. Civilians controlled the conduct of combat lines and in the end slashed a line across Korea and called it "victory."

Vietnam War: Restrictions and rules by civilians far removed. Politicians refused to even call it a war, because "conflict" had a better ring to it. After stringing it out, by demanding the military give up land it took the day before and with no end of supply from untouchable Cambodia, we gave up and left.

Somalia: Restrictions and rules by civilians in the UN who were afraid to fight for the needy and instead opted to pretend that the enmy would just stop being mean. We tucked tail and ran after everybody else did.

Bosnia: Restrictions and rules by civilians and in the end the country was made safe for human trafficing and weapons runners.

Afghanistan War: Civilians controlled that war and today seek "alternate" ways to get out.

Iraq War: Civilains insisting that their plan for war trumped the military's living CENTCOM plan. Civilians insisting that virtually every rule of occupation 101 is ingored. And Fallujah II? That was the result of civilians insisting that we abandon Fallujah I on the ten yard line.


All of these have something in common. And don't try to state that they are less than conventional, because our wars before the World War were non-conventional. We have a history of winning non-conventional wars. What is in common is that all were places where the military was tossed in before the civilian communuity grew a conscience. Of course, after this conscience was realized, we find ways to remove our military with "victory" being a non-issue. All it took for Afghanistan and Iraq was a few reporters in country right? All of a sudden the thirst for revenge and the desire to have other men kill for them gave way to criticizing what war is.

Now, let's look at the Gulf War and the turn around in Iraq.

What names come to mind in the form of leadership during the Gulf War? Is it Bush or is it General Schwarzkopf and General Powell? What names come to mind in the form of Iraq's early misery? Rumsfeld, Cheney? What about after the turn around? Is it General Petraeus? Just these two wars shows us what damage civilians can do even without using the rest of the later half of the twentieth century. If you want war, send the military and get the **** out of the way. Civilians have only proven to make our wars linger on as they deliberate whether or not to be there. Whining about the destruction the military causes seems to trump the fact that the war would already be over had they let the practitioners do their job. Nothing is more dangerous to our troops than civilians who know "exactly" what to do. How many of you perform your own operations? Surely, your surgeon doesn't know what he's doing either.

By all means, let's pretend that war with North Korea is something we can hug out. In the end, it's only our troops that have to deal with a dug in and prepared enemy. None of the civilians that allowed them to prepare with their nonesense will be there.
 
NolaMan said:
It was the military's idea to use nuclear weapons against China, which would have been an even worse idea. In this case, it is good that the civilians put a stop to that.
Click to expand...

And why is this? The "Greatest Generation" placed an exclamation mark on their victory with a nuclear bomb. But civilians don't like great anymore do they? They demand perfection. Our wars have been "unwinnable" because civilains interfere. A few waterboarding cases has us branded as Nazis. Former generations didn't have to contend with such things did they? They simply bombed out cities. Victory is always forgiven.
 
MSgt said:
Maybe to simple folk.

I advocate a nation where civilians decide to go to war and then get the **** out of the way so we can win them.

WWII: "The Greatest Generation." Two atomic bombs over Japan and Germany's Dresen. Decisive victory.

Korean War: Restrictions and rules by civilains far removed. Civilians controlled the conduct of combat lines and in the end slashed a line across Korea and called it "victory."

Vietnam War: Restrictions and rules by civilians far removed. Politicians refused to even call it a war, because "conflict" had a better ring to it. After stringing it out, by demanding the military give up land it took the day before and with no end of supply from untouchable Cambodia, we gave up and left.

Somalia: Restrictions and rules by civilians in the UN who were afraid to fight for the needy and instead opted to pretend that the enmy would just stop being mean. We tucked tail and ran after everybody else did.

Bosnia: Restrictions and rules by civilians and in the end the country was made safe for human trafficing and weapons runners.

Afghanistan War: Civilians controlled that war and today seek "alternate" ways to get out.

Iraq War: Civilains insisting that their plan for war trumped the military's living CENTCOM plan. Civilians insisting that virtually every rule of occupation 101 is ingored. And Fallujah II? That was the result of civilians insisting that we abandon Fallujah I on the ten yard line.


All of these have something in common. And don't try to state that they are less than conventional, because our wars before the World War were non-conventional. We have a history of winning non-conventional wars. What is in common is that all were places where the military was tossed in before the civilian communuity grew a conscience. Of course, after this conscience was realized, we find ways to remove our military with "victory" being a non-issue. All it took for Afghanistan and Iraq was a few reporters in country right? All of a sudden the thirst for revenge and the desire to have other men kill for them gave way to criticizing what war is.

Now, let's look at the Gulf War and the turn around in Iraq.

What names come to mind in the form of leadership during the Gulf War? Is it Bush or is it General Schwarzkopf and General Powell? What names come to mind in the form of Iraq's early misery? Rumsfeld, Cheney? What about after the turn around? Is it General Petraeus? Just these two wars shows us what damage civilians can do even without using the rest of the later half of the twentieth century. If you want war, send the military and get the **** out of the way. Civilians have only proven to make our wars linger on as they deliberate whether or not to be there. Whining about the destruction the military causes seems to trump the fact that the war would already be over had they let the practitioners do their job. Nothing is more dangerous to our troops than civilians who know "exactly" what to do. How many of you perform your own operations? Surely, your surgeon doesn't know what he's doing either.

By all means, let's pretend that war with North Korea is something we can hug out. In the end, it's only our troops that have to deal with a dug in and prepared enemy. None of the civilians that allowed them to prepare with their nonesense will be there.
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying and agree to an extent, but Article II Section II of the US Constitution clearly spells out that the President (ie civilians) will be in control of the military. That is just the way that it is.
 
MSgt said:
And why is this? The "Greatest Generation" placed an exclamation mark on their victory with a nuclear bomb. But civilians don't like great anymore do they? They demand perfection. Our wars have been "unwinnable" because civilains interfere. A few waterboarding cases has us branded as Nazis. Former generations didn't have to contend with such things did they? They simply bombed out cities. Victory is always forgiven.
Click to expand...

Well, at that point, we no longer had a nuclear monopoly, and surely we do not want to send a clear message to Russia that the use of nuclear weapons is not a big deal. If we start using weapons like that in Asia, Russia might have decided to go ahead and start using them in Europe.
 
Polynikes said:
Without derailing this thread, the Gulf War was not an incomplete war. We completed our objectives and at the pleas of the Saudis, as well as fear of the disinegration of the coalition, we chose not to go to Baghdad.
Click to expand...

Well we may have achieved the minimal objectives of getting Saddam out of Kuwait. In that we did complete the mission. However we did not solve the problem of Saddam Hussein. We boxed him into a corner and stood idly by as he exacted his revenge against his own citizens he felt betrayed him. IIRC, some of the folks in the southern cities were wary of us coming in the second time, because they believed we were going to liberate them the first time and we left the battlefield. In that, I see it as incomplete.

Bringing it into the discussion here, IMO we've cut short the efforts since WWII when it came time to make the tough decisions on whether or not to press on. Up until the Iraq war, we've always chose to come home when things got bad, or minimal goals were achieved. North Korea, Vietnam, and Somalia are the prime examples. I fear Afghanistan may be on that list too because I don't see us encouraging infrastructure, which is what is needed most IMO. Iraq already had that, which is why it was able to be turned around easier once we turned the solution over to a general.
 
Intermission...

.


 
j-mac said:
Where's the administration on this? Where's Obama condemning this action that killed 46? I'll tell you where, kissing Calderon's arse that's where! :doh

What a weak coward Obama is.





j-mac
Click to expand...

I think it's time to level all of Pyongyang. A message needs to be sent to Kim Jong ********er. He and his horde of lunatics need to be presented with the consequences of their actions.
 
USA-1 said:
Desert storm was Garbage? We totally anialated the Iraqi military, ejected them from Kuwait and only lost a couple hundred men. Bush Sr showed us how to fight a war.
Click to expand...

All the wars to choose to argue about and you chose the one that has given us more trouble than it should have. I would state that the Gulf War was the exception, but civilians even managed to screw that up too. Bush Sr. showed us how to fight a war by getting the **** out of the way. He used his former military experience and acknowledged that war is a military man's profession. It was not Bush scheming that ejected Hussein. It was the military and their uninterfered planning. However, did we defeat our enemy? No. Civilians (Bush Sr.) chose to draw the line at the Iraqi border and **** it up. They re-defined "victory," threw a parade, and called it a win. Meanwhile, it wasn't over. Clinton would go on to bomb Iraq 4 separate times over the next 8 years while we sat around and "contained" the enemy as if we were never going to deal with him. Osama Bin Laden would use the "starving children" of Iraq to excuse 9/11. Finally, when we went to finish the Gulf War in 2003, it was called "invasion" by the critics instead of merely a continuance of what was not finished in 1991.

Look at it this way, what if President Roosevelt drew the line at the German border and called it victory? How would that have sat in 1945? We see a different minset today. We insist on fighting wars on good manners just so we can state "we aren't like them." What bull ****. Even the Gulf War was an event that was lingered out far beyond its expiration date. The military wanted baghdad in 1991. Civilians insisted on a decade of population oppression under a UN umbrella. What happened in Iraq from 2003 on is of civilian creation. So much for a Gulf War "victory."

There is no substitute for killing your enemy or utterly destroying his will to fight. We have insisted on doing neither ever since the Korean War and the result has been far more blood shed and more treasure than is necessary. You see the problem is that civilians, as well intentioned as they are, are absolutely beyond stupid when these affairs are concerned. What is the politicians job? Diplomacy? It is their job to figure out ways not to go to war. Upon their failure, they send the troops to bring success. But because they know they have failed, they interfere with military affairs in a hopes to be apart of the success the military has proven to be able to bring. Of course, this only places hurdles in front of the military and makes the job harder. Meanwhile, civilians who elect their favorite Washington moron insists that that failed moron figure out "alternate" ways to end the war. The irony is that it is their elected morons who ****ed things up to begin with, **** things up during the operations, and will only bring false "victory" in the end. When all is said and done, it is the military man who lingers along in the combat zone or is asked to go back later and do what he should have been allowed to do in the first place.

Korea is unfinished business. Of course, like Iraq in 2003, it will be labeled an act of aggression and an invasion by the global critics. And before long the reporters will manage to provide the average civilian a sense of fasle conscience as he insists that politicians find a way out.

"Winning" isn't an American objective anymore.
 
Last edited:
NolaMan said:
I get what you are saying and agree to an extent, but Article II Section II of the US Constitution clearly spells out that the President (ie civilians) will be in control of the military. That is just the way that it is.
Click to expand...

It doesn't state that the conduct of daily warfare or military tactics are to come out of the White House. It also doesn't give civilians license to demand impractical results and then scream "defeat" at every step in their fractured plans. I wonder how much the politicians interfered in military affairs prior to WWII? Victory after victory came from known generals on the battle field and their troops. Never were politicians featured. International organizations, diplomats, and politicians have been the "leaders" of war since 1945. Witness the results. Look at it like this...

General Schwarzkopf and General Powell were the first household names since McArthur and Patton where it was clearly understood that war was in the military's hands. Of course, Bush and his crew of international misfits saw fit to preserve the enemy so we could merely fight him later didn't they? Until General Patreaus, the house hold name for the conduct of war wasn't General Mattis. It was Rumsfeld and Cheney. We can see clear distinction in the conduct of war and success when war is left to the practitioners. I will never subscribe to the retarded notion that civilians and their elected officials have a place in war.


I wonder how politicians would feel if we marched on Washington and started running the government, because we insist that we know "exactly" what to do.
 
NolaMan said:
Well, at that point, we no longer had a nuclear monopoly, and surely we do not want to send a clear message to Russia that the use of nuclear weapons is not a big deal. If we start using weapons like that in Asia, Russia might have decided to go ahead and start using them in Europe.
Click to expand...

My point was that we simply gave up and called it "victory." There was no victory. We are going to finish what we didn't finish before. Of course, a nuclear armed North Korea is what our troops face now. Thanks politicians. It's just one more example of how they make it harder for us.
 
Vader said:
I think it's time to level all of Pyongyang. A message needs to be sent to Kim Jong ********er. He and his horde of lunatics need to be presented with the consequences of their actions.
Click to expand...

I believe you are absolutely right. I would have erred on the side of caution in years past because of his nuclear status. But this asshole already has his population believing that he is defending them from the tyranny of the outside. He is the shining example of how to defy the greatest power in history. People shouldn't wonder why Iran wants the nuke. Kim has shown the world that any dictator or any other undesirable regime can do what he wishes under nuclear protection. With nuclear weapons, these nations can bully entire regions, attack neighbors, oppress their own poulations, slaughter them, and whatever else comes to mind. The rest of the "peace" loving world will remain powerless and full of BS as we insist the UN do something (The next sanction will see their shipment of Barbie dolls without their Kens.) Saddam Hussein did the same crap as he defied and defied the UN and proved to every second rate dictator and regime in the world that the UN is powerless without their American muscle. This makes us more the enemy, does it not?

We made a statement in 1945 in Japan and Germany to the entire world. That statement was ..."**** with us and you are finished. **** with our allies and you are finished." We have behaved as if we are scared to death to make statements ever since. Our allies are attacked and we look away even as we are. Our enemies are determined to be at war with us even as we pretend he is not. It's time to take out the trash.

The world's in need of another lesson, but one we will finish for a change under military leadership, not civilian. The civilian's job is to smooth it over with China. The military man's job is to kill the enemy when the green light goes green. Victory will come at the end of a trigger pull, not a civilian's handshake with the enemy.
 
Last edited:
I highly recommend the book "The Case for Goliath" by Michael Mandelbaum. The premise of the book is very relevant to this conversation.

"and I know it's hard on America, and in some small corner of this vast country, out in Nevada or Idaho or these places I've never been to, but always wanted to go...I know out there there's a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happily, minding his own business saying to you, the political leaders of this country, "why me? And why us? And why America?" And the only answer is, "Because destiny put you in this place in history, in this moment in time, and the task is yours to do." --Tony Blair.

America is the greatest force of good the world has ever known. Call it policing, call it interventionism, but deep down you know that without America, the world would be much, much worse off.
 
MSgt said:
My point was that we simply gave up and called it "victory." There was no victory.
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, the original mandate was simply to restore the border at the 38 parallel. We later changed that, (which was perhaps overreaching) and it resulted in coming into direct conflict with China, and almost being overrun. I think there is a balance that can be struck between the civilian leaders and the military, and I think we have done a pretty good job of that.

We are going to finish what we didn't finish before. Of course, a nuclear armed North Korea is what our troops face now. Thanks politicians. It's just one more example of how they make it harder for us.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is going to be war. I personally think a lot of what is going on is an internal power play with North Korea. Should a war actually occur, we will face the same problem as before. China will not allow NK to collapse and be replaced by a pro-western regime. Also, coming into conflict with China in such a way is not something we ought to be rushing into at this point either.
 
Polynikes said:
I highly recommend the book "" by Michael Mandelbaum. The premise of the book is very relevant to this conversation.

"and I know it's hard on America, and in some small corner of this vast country, out in Nevada or Idaho or these places I've never been to, but always wanted to go...I know out there there's a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happily, minding his own business saying to you, the political leaders of this country, "why me? And why us? And why America?" And the only answer is, "Because destiny put you in this place in history, in this moment in time, and the task is yours to do." --Tony Blair.

America is the greatest force of good the world has ever known. Call it policing, call it interventionism, but deep down you know that without America, the world would be much, much worse off.
Click to expand...

I actually own this book. Haven't read it yet.
 
NolaMan said:
If I recall correctly, the original mandate was simply to restore the border at the 38 parallel. We later changed that, (which was perhaps overreaching) and it resulted in coming into direct conflict with China, and almost being overrun. I think there is a balance that can be struck between the civilian leaders and the military, and I think we have done a pretty good job of that.
Click to expand...

I consider you a thinking man at this point just from the few posts I've experienced. I sense you are different from the average dumbass who doesn't seem to think things through as they offer one liners and bumper sticker wisdom. Throw in a few thousand posts and ignite true discussion. That being said..

I don't think we have at all. We have preserved problems to be dealt with at another date. In our entire history, we have never done this in our wars and conflicts until after WWII. Korea remains unfinished. Vietnam saw genocides. Iraq has been ripped apart. Do you realize no President since Bush Sr has had any real military experience? No understanding of military affairs? They have been products of later generations who have generally looked for ways or excuses out of military service. They have no sense of the separation that must be between military conduct and civilian leadership. Bush Sr. (as someone else unwittingly defaulted to) was the last to actually understand this, but screwed the pooch when defining "victory" for the practitioners. If only Hitler had today's politician to preserve his throne, right?

And consider that it took 3 years of Rumsfeld fallacy before Bush tapped into a good SECDEF. Gates allowed the commanders to conduct warfare and tapped into a cultural expert (Vali Nasr - I admire very much). Gates allowed Patreaus to do his job. General Patreaus used his insights and General Mattis' insights to engineer a 180 in Iraq.

Obama has proven to be smart in this regard. He has stayed out of it for the most part and given Patreaus the authority he deserves. Patreaus has mandated that the Marine Corps stay seperate from the NATO alliance so that we can do our job. Only time will tell if the Washington morons can manage to stay in their little cubby holes. Or will they eventually "come to the people's rally" as heroes and project their useless guidance into military affairs. My guess is the latter, unless we can pull off a win before. But Fallujah II was a result of us trying to beat the reporters and their cameras. This is the position the military is placed in.


NolaMan said:
I don't think there is going to be war. I personally think a lot of what is going on is an internal power play with North Korea. Should a war actually occur, we will face the same problem as before. China will not allow NK to collapse and be replaced by a pro-western regime. Also, coming into conflict with China in such a way is not something we ought to be rushing into at this point either.
Click to expand...

Well I half heartedly agree with you. I'm just 18 years tired of it. North Korea will linger along until Kim dies. After this, who knows. We are essentially rolling the dice and hoping for the best. We have done this before and paid dearly.

Though I do believe that China's economy movement will embrace less of the anti-western neighbor attitude as time goes by. Our economies are tied together as such to encourage an alliance of sorts over these small issues.
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
I consider you a thinking man at this point just from the few posts I've experienced. I sense you are different from the average dumbass who doesn't seem to think things through as they offer one liners and bumper sticker wisdom. Throw in a few thousand posts and ignite true discussion. That being said..
Click to expand...

I appreciate this statement.

I don't think we have at all. We have preserved problems to be dealt with at another date. In our entire history, we have never done this in our wars and conflicts until after WWII. Korea remains unfinished. Vietnam saw genocides. Iraq has been ripped apart. Do you realize no President since Bush Sr has had any real military experience? No understanding of military affairs? They have been products of later generations who have generally looked for ways or excuses out of military service. They have no sense of the separation that must be between military conduct and civilian leadership. Bush Sr. (as someone else unwittingly defaulted to) was the last to actually understand this, but screwed the pooch when defining "victory" for the practitioners. If only Hitler had today's politician to preserve his throne, right?
Click to expand...

I think the statement from Clausewitz that "war is politics by other means" comes into play here. I think often that the military ignores (or has the capability to ignore) political realities that I think have to play a part in the conduct of warfare. For example, in the first Gulf War, it was really politically impossible for GWB to go all the way to Baghdad and set up a new Iraqi government. Looking back, that has arguablely come back to haunt us, but at the time that was really his only real option in my opinion.

I do not disagree that many civilians have come to power recently that have little or no military experience. However, I would argue that perhaps they have a better grasp of political realities faced around the world, and can therefore act as a good counterweight to the military, which perhaps is ignoring political implications of scenarios all together.

For example, take the first Gulf War. It is not the military's job to worry about the political fallout that Arab states would have brought about had we continued all the way to remove Saddam. It is their job to plan on how to get rid of him and conduct the mission. However, that does not mean that a response from the Saudi's, Iranians, Egyptians etc, (in a non-military way) should be ignored, or not considered, as those responses can be just as devastating, even without the use of force. I think that is where the line is drawn, and that is why (to me) it can be a benefit that civilians keep the military in line, and the military keeps the civilians from just ignoring everything that comes along.

And consider that it took 3 years of Rumsfeld fallacy before Bush tapped into a good SECDEF. Gates allowed the commanders to conduct warfare and tapped into a cultural expert (Vali Nasr - I admire very much). Gates allowed Patreaus to do his job. General Patreaus used his insights and General Mattis' insights to engineer a 180 in Iraq.

Obama has proven to be smart in this regard. He has stayed out of it for the most part and given Patreaus the authority he deserves. Patreaus has mandated that the Marine Corps stay seperate from the NATO alliance so that we can do our job. Only time will tell if the Washington morons can manage to stay in their little cubby holes. Or will they eventually "come to the people's rally" as heroes and project their useless guidance into military affairs. My guess is the latter, unless we can pull off a win before. But Fallujah II was a result of us trying to beat the reporters and their cameras. This is the position the military is placed in.
Click to expand...

I don't dispute it is a tough position for the military, and I am not arguing that wars should be micromanaged from Washington. My point is just that civilian leadership has its role in keeping a solid balance within the military.

The comment on NATO for example is a huge politcal issue. While for Patreus it might be a no-brainer that that is the course we need to follow, it becomes a huge political issue (for the civilians to cover) when that actually occurs.

PS. I am also a big fan of Nasr, he was actually required reading in one of my graduate classes not all that long ago.

Well I half heartedly agree with you. I'm just 18 years tired of it. North Korea will linger along until Kim dies. After this, who knows. We are essentially rolling the dice and hoping for the best. We have done this before and paid dearly.

Though I do believe that China's economy movement will embrace less of the anti-western neighbor attitude as time goes by. Our economies are tied together as such to encourage an alliance of sorts over these small issues.
Click to expand...

Hopefully you are correct. I personally think it would benefit everyone to see the current North Korea leadership removed from power.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom