• 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!

Exclusive: Rumsfeld unloads

apdst said:
It's irrelevant. My point is, you fight wars to win, you don't fight wars not to lose.
Click to expand...

No one fought it to lose. They merely fought the wrong war. What was needed was different than what we did in WWII. And we should not have been there to begin with.
 
Boo Radley said:
No one fought it to lose. They merely fought the wrong war. What was needed was different than what we did in WWII. And we should not have been there to begin with.
Click to expand...

That's not what I said.
 
apdst said:
What happened in Iraq was, "freaky-deaky"

This, is shock and awe.

highres_30018945%20copy.jpg
Click to expand...

That is not "shock and awe" especially in the modern sense. Shock and Awe is meant primarily to demoralize the enemy by showing them the absolute superiority of our airpower and ability to strike the enemy anywhere precisely, thus hopefully destroying their will to fight, what you're showing is total destruction and an attempt to complete destroy the enemy's ability to fight. It is in fact the total opposite of shock and awe.
 
apdst said:
They're wrong, just like, "politics", is wrong.
Click to expand...

You're a Clausewitz expert? I have the Michael Howard and Peter Paret translation right in front of me, which is the most recent translation and the one most Clausewitz scholars regard as the best available English translation. It uses the words "continuation" and "politics."

Vietnam was the first war that the United States fought, where political decision took priority over tactical decisions. That's not a winning combination.
Click to expand...

I think it's a lot more complicated than that. All wars are political in nature. Tactics should always adhere to a coherent strategy. Even with a war like Vietnam, if you took politics and politicians out of the equation, how would it have been fought? What would have been the end game? What would be the point of the war? To win? To win and beat whom and to what extent exactly, and to what end?

The decision to go to war in Vietnam in the first place was just dumb. You can't fight and win wars with broad objectives like "rolling back Communism." You can't fight ideas or ideologies with force, the same way religious wars are pointless and we can't really fight "terrorism."
 
Last edited:
Wiseone said:
That is not "shock and awe" especially in the modern sense. Shock and Awe is meant primarily to demoralize the enemy by showing them the absolute superiority of our airpower and ability to strike the enemy anywhere precisely, thus hopefully destroying their will to fight, what you're showing is total destruction and an attempt to complete destroy the enemy's ability to fight. It is in fact the total opposite of shock and awe.
Click to expand...


That's exactly what we did in Hamburg, pictured above.
 
Boo Radley said:
You said:



As no one fought it to lose, what is your point then?
Click to expand...

Keep reading it, you'll figure out what I really said. Hint: "not", is the operative word in that sentence.
 
apdst said:
That's exactly what we did in Hamburg, pictured above.
Click to expand...

Except our airpower wasn't absolutely untouchable, it wasn't precise, and the attacks were designed to destroy the ability to fight economically, not necessarily their will to fight. Its the difference between strategic bombing and shock and awe. Of course the effects and definitions can overlap sometimes, but I think there's a clear difference between the air campaign over Hamburg in WW2 and Baghdad in 2003.
 
StillBallin75 said:
You're a Clausewitz expert? I have the Michael Howard and Peter Paret translation right in front of me, which is the most recent translation and the one most Clausewitz scholars regard as the best available English translation. It uses the words "continuation" and "politics."
Click to expand...

The quote I posted is the won I read in, "On War". It could be wrong, since there are several translations of the work.



I think it's a lot more complicated than that. All wars are political in nature. Tactics should always adhere to a coherent strategy. Even with a war like Vietnam, if you took politics and politicians out of the equation, how would it have been fought? What would have been the end game? What would be the point of the war? To win? To win and beat whom and to what extent exactly?
Click to expand...

It would have been fought to win, not just reach a certain political stopping point. Factor out the politicians and places like Haiphong and Hanoi wouldn't have been off limits to American bombing.

The decision to go to war in Vietnam in the first place was just dumb. You can't fight and win wars with broad objectives like "rolling back Communism." You can't fight ideas or ideologies with force, the same way religious wars are pointless and we can't really fight "terrorism."
Click to expand...

We defeated Facism and Bushidoism during WW2. So, you're incorrect there.
 
apdst said:
Keep reading it, you'll figure out what I really said. Hint: "not", is the operative word in that sentence.
Click to expand...

That distinction doesn't mean much. No one fought not to lose either.
 
Wiseone said:
Except our airpower wasn't absolutely untouchable, it wasn't precise, and the attacks were designed to destroy the ability to fight economically, not necessarily their will to fight. Its the difference between strategic bombing and shock and awe. Of course the effects and definitions can overlap sometimes, but I think there's a clear difference between the air campaign over Hamburg in WW2 and Baghdad in 2003.
Click to expand...

Allied bombing during WW2 was most definitely designed to deprive the Germans of the will to fight, in addition to destroying war manufacturing and depleting the man power pool that the Germans had to draw on for soldiers and workers.
 
apdst said:
You're incorrect, too.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. We want to win, to end it, but could not figure out how to. Excessive civilian deaths were not acceptable. Nor was there any cause that would warrant such genocide. War is not a football game. What people will accept in a democracy is far less than you can get with a dictatorship. But we don't want to become such an oppressive government. this means, you have to weight when you choose to fight a war differently. You can just want to fight one. You need serious cause.
 
It would have been fought to win, not just reach a certain political stopping point. Factor out the politicians and places like Haiphong and Hanoi wouldn't have been off limits to American bombing.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying that in such a case, what would be the definition of "winning?" Like, what would the end game have been in Vietnam? And even if we did "win," would it have been worth it? We dropped more ordnance in Vietnam than all of World War II. You can't really bomb an enemy into submission when his will is indestructible, which is shown by the fact that the NVA kept on fighting even after sustaining inordinate casualty rates. In the end, everything we did in Vietnam was pretty much just bad policy, beginning with the decision to become militarily involved there.

We defeated Facism and Bushidoism during WW2. So, you're incorrect there.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But the Cold War wasn't won with military force (more like Communism killed itself), and we'll never defeat "terrorism." Terrorism is a strategy, it is a means to an end. You can't really "defeat" something like terrorism.
 
apdst said:
Allied bombing during WW2 was most definitely designed to deprive the Germans of the will to fight, in addition to destroying war manufacturing and depleting the man power pool that the Germans had to draw on for soldiers and workers.
Click to expand...

Exactly but our air campaign over Baghdad in 2003 did not have those goals in mind, hince why they are different and why Hamburg was not subject to shock and awe but rather strategic bombing.
 
apdst said:
Allied bombing during WW2 was most definitely designed to deprive the Germans of the will to fight, in addition to destroying war manufacturing and depleting the man power pool that the Germans had to draw on for soldiers and workers.
Click to expand...

Yeah, shock and awe. It really didn't effect soldiers all that much, but it did clog the roads with helpless, innocent, refugees.

Didn't work with the Jap military either. Fire bombing killed more civilians than the A bombs.

ricksfolly
 
Wiseone said:
Exactly but our air campaign over Baghdad in 2003 did not have those goals in mind.
Click to expand...

Didn't have to. The army was just a shell of what it used to be and only offered scattered resistance in places like Fuluga and other Sunni communities.

ricksfolly
 
ricksfolly said:
Didn't have to. The army was just a shell of what it used to be and only offered scattered resistance in places like Fuluga and other Sunni communities.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

Fallujah. And I agree strategic bombing wasn't required at all, but I'm just arguing the meaning of words.
 
StillBallin75 said:
we'll never defeat "terrorism." Terrorism is a strategy, it is a means to an end. You can't really "defeat" something like terrorism.
Click to expand...

Arab terrorism is more like retaliation, not as a strategy, because it's always a one man Sunni suicide attack on Shiite gatherings, rarely our soldiers. 90 pct of our casualties were from road bombs and accidents.

You're right about not being able to defeat them or even find them because they're already gone, real gone... Kaboom!!

ricksfolly
 
Boo Radley said:
No, I'm not. We want to win, to end it, but could not figure out how to. Excessive civilian deaths were not acceptable. Nor was there any cause that would warrant such genocide. War is not a football game. What people will accept in a democracy is far less than you can get with a dictatorship. But we don't want to become such an oppressive government. this means, you have to weight when you choose to fight a war differently. You can just want to fight one. You need serious cause.
Click to expand...

What democratic people expect out of a war is brevity. The only whiners over civilian casualties are the, "we souldn't be there", Libbos. They believe that the quicker we can lose a war, the sooner it will be over. the only problem, is that they couldn't be more wrong.
 
ricksfolly said:
Arab terrorism is more like retaliation, not as a strategy, because it's always a one man Sunni suicide attack on Shiite gatherings, rarely our soldiers. 90 pct of our casualties were from road bombs and accidents.

You're right about not being able to defeat them or even find them because they're already gone, real gone... Kaboom!!

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

Dude this isn't at all what I was talking about. I'm talking about terrorism in regards to the ill-named "War on Terror."
 
StillBallin75 said:
What I'm saying that in such a case, what would be the definition of "winning?" Like, what would the end game have been in Vietnam? And even if we did "win," would it have been worth it? We dropped more ordnance in Vietnam than all of World War II. You can't really bomb an enemy into submission when his will is indestructible, which is shown by the fact that the NVA kept on fighting even after sustaining inordinate casualty rates. In the end, everything we did in Vietnam was pretty much just bad policy, beginning with the decision to become militarily involved there.



Perhaps. But the Cold War wasn't won with military force (more like Communism killed itself), and we'll never defeat "terrorism." Terrorism is a strategy, it is a means to an end. You can't really "defeat" something like terrorism.
Click to expand...

"Terrorism", can be defeated, by simply taking away the terrorist's will to wage terrorism. It ain't rocket sience. The basic principles of warfare have been the same for a few thousand years, now. They haven't changed.
 
apdst said:
What democratic people expect out of a war is brevity. The only whiners over civilian casualties are the, "we souldn't be there", Libbos. They believe that the quicker we can lose a war, the sooner it will be over. the only problem, is that they couldn't be more wrong.
Click to expand...

This isn't even the problem. The root of the problem is that some wars are just dumb ideas. We should be worrying more about whether or not we fight the right wars and our leaders forming intelligent foreign policy.
 
apdst said:
"Terrorism", can be defeated, by simply taking away the terrorist's will to wage terrorism. It ain't rocket sience. The basic principles of warfare have been the same for a few thousand years, now. They haven't changed.
Click to expand...

A person who will blow himself up has a different mindset than one who is fighting to stay alive. But, share with us how you would do this.
 
StillBallin75 said:
This isn't even the problem. The root of the problem is that some wars are just dumb ideas. We should be worrying more about whether or not we fight the right wars and our leaders forming intelligent foreign policy.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Dumb is dumb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom