January 31, 2015

Fundamental Concepts - Winning at War [Weirddave]
— Open Blogger

Can the US ever win another war? It's a question that everyone should face up to, and facing up to it isn't easy. It isn't easy because the answer is hard and brutal, and we as a culture don't like to face hard and brutal truths if we can help it. I pray that if the time ever comes (and if history is any indication it will, sooner or later) we in the West are able to gaze into the abyss with unflinching eyes and do what needs to be done. There are two ways to win a war, through devastation and through occupation, although I'm not sure that a Democratic Republic will ever be able to pull off the second one ever again.

Occupation

This is what we tried in Afghanistan and Iraq. You defeat the enemy's armies in the field, and then you occupy his territory and change his culture to one that is friendly to your culture and country. Many people will tell you that this is impossible. It's not, as the British Empire can attest, but I do believe that it's impossible today. It's a generational commitment, and it has to be done by a culture that believes absolutely that it is superior to its enemies culture. The West has neither of those attributes anymore, which means that it's doomed to failure.

It almost worked in Iraq. I encourage everyone to read (fellow Moron) Mike Banzet's excellent book A Flowershop in Baghdad for an first hand account of the massive efforts we undertook in Iraq along these lines, efforts that were succeeding, albeit slowly. You can't change a entire culture's lifetime's experiences in a couple of weeks, it takes relentless, ongoing pressure and a commitment to see it through. An administration in 2008 dedicated to keeping our presence in Iraq and building on our progress, one that exploited the Green Revolution in Iran with an eye on it overthrowing the Mullahs(think Poland in 1989)...It could have worked. It would have worked, except for....

Look, I won't say that we don't deserve the service of the men and women in the military, people whose character and competence shine like a beacon to the world. They are us, the best part of us, and they wouldn't exist without this shining city on a hill. I will say that lately I have come to doubt weather or not any modern Republic can use such magnificent tools to effect positive change in the world anymore without wasting them. In 2003, on the eve of the invasion, I told my wife "If we do this, it's a generational commitment. At least 1 generation, and probably 2 or more", for reasons that I stated above. I have no confidence that the American people, and especially American politicians, are capable of carrying through on such a commitment anymore. We are victims of our own success, too pampered and cosseted to follow through. You have to be tempered in lean times, forged by the awareness that the wolf is always out there, waiting to resume his post at the door, to make such a commitment and keep it. Far too many of our number aren't, and even worse, believe that our national prosperity and comfort are not the result of hard work and sacrifice but are somehow the dispensation of some benign god, a fact of nature that will never end. History, for those few of us who bother to study it and not twist it, says otherwise.

Devastation

This one is a sure thing, but it's surely a godawful bloody thing. First of all, you have to realize that in any population of humans, the majority of the people just want to get along and live their lives. This means a small, dedicated group of committed people can drive the entire population in whatever direction they want. We're like schools of fish, swimming along, when suddenly a couple of fish turn and dart in a different direction and immediately everyone else does the same. If the people leading the population are bent on war, these people will be the firebrands and the warriors. Look at Germany leading up to WWII. The Nazis never numbered more than 10% of the population, and look at the whirlwind they reaped (Most estimates of the percentage of "radical" Muslims put them at 20-25% of the worldwide Muslim population. Chow on the implications of THAT for a while). The war faction in Imperial Japan was similarly composed of only a small percentage of all Japanese, and the same thing happened there.

So how do you defeat an enemy thusly comprised? You kill them. You kill them, and kill them, and kill them some more, and you keep on killing them, not just the armies in the field but also the civilians back home, until the entire population cries out "enough!". You have to kill the firebrands, utterly defeat the warriors, and get the civilian population to the point where anything, literally anything, even surrender to an enemy that they've been told will annihilate them, is better than one more day of war. It's bloody and brutal and closer to hell on earth than anything mankind has yet devised, but it's the only way. Please don't misunderstand me. I am not bloodthirsty, I'm not being flippant, I am not cavalierly calling for war. I am horrified beyond belief at the reality of the words that I'm typing, but my horror doesn't make them any less true.

And then.....

And then you help them up. They'll have been told that they have no future after losing the war, so you give them one. You rush in men and money and machines and you rebuild. You give them a future of peace and prosperity and joy. WWII ended in 1945. Within 20 years Western Germany and Japan were peaceful and rich. Eastern Europe (where the Soviets acted as conquerors) was not. It's not perfect, and hatreds will linger, but man is mortal and generations born to wealth and comfort tend to be less and less susceptible to them.

The big lie is that you can't change a culture from without. You can, but you either have to make and keep a long term commitment, or you have to have the will to destroy the enemy utterly. Right now, the West has neither of those things, so as we face off against an insurgent Islam that's determined to make us surrender to them, we're going to have to accept that the status quo isn't going to change. They're playing the other long game, one employed by a culture that's militarily inferior but culturally confident. Their strategy is to make life unpleasant for us until we voluntarily surrender our culture and adopt theirs.

So far I'd say it's working pretty well for them.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 05:15 AM | Comments (211)
Post contains 1152 words, total size 7 kb.

1 First?

Posted by: Turd Ferguson at January 31, 2015 05:07 AM (VAsIq)

2 Can? Yes. Will? That's the question.

Posted by: wisenheimer at January 31, 2015 05:10 AM (qnhj2)

3 Not with lawyers running the show.

Posted by: NCKate at January 31, 2015 05:11 AM (EBMYe)

4 In conjunction, Feeling Unwelcome at Mosques, 2 Women Start Their Own in L.A. New Entity Believed to Be the First of Its Kind in the U.S. http://tinyurl.com/p2paor5 This may not end well, but this is a tiny step towards change that is badly needed. It needs to come from other Muslims, and especially women. LOS ANGELES---When Hasna Maznavi would show up to pray at her Southern California mosque, even during off hours, the few men in the main hall would gently point her upstairs to a separate area for women. "I started to feel unwelcome," said the 29-year-old comedy writer and film-school graduate. To Ms. Maznavi and fellow Muslim Sana Muttalib, a 31-year-old lawyer, the traditional separation was more than physical. Muslim women across the country, they believed, seemed disconnected from their scholarly heritage, and too few had leadership roles in their mosques. So Ms. Maznavi and Ms. Muttalib decided to start their own mosque---one for women only. They will have a lot of hate thrown at them. The women may also be making history. While female-only mosques exist in China, Islamic scholars and Muslim leaders here said they know of no other such mosque in the U.S.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at January 31, 2015 05:11 AM (IXrOn)

5 Can people borrow Ace's time machine to post first? Just asking for a friend.

Posted by: Inquiring Mind Wants to Know at January 31, 2015 05:12 AM (YVJI3)

6 Dave You Auto-mispelled Devastation as detestation in the header of your second item. Good read though.

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at January 31, 2015 05:12 AM (fL+1V)

7 The United States will never win another non-defensive war in my lifetime and perhaps not even a defensive one.

You cannot win a war when one of the two dominant parties is more focused on slaughtering their domestic opponents than attacking outside threats.

Add in the democrat fetish for putting internationalist socialists up as their candidates and you are fucked in perpetuity.

Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077[/i][/b][/s] at January 31, 2015 05:13 AM (/4AZU)

8 This essay is both unflinching and wise. Unfortunately, our political class is neither of those things.

Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at January 31, 2015 05:14 AM (d2g9U)

9 You can rebuild a society and change it's thinking but FIRST: To crush your enemies, and see them fall at your feet - to take their horses and belongings, and to hear the lamentation of their women. Then we can talk

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 31, 2015 05:14 AM (LJcWW)

10 The Soviets didn't immediately act as conquerors in Eastern Europe. They courted the Czechs and the Romanians and even the Poles until a critical mass of citizens had come to believe communism was the fastest way out of the hole the occupation had left them in. Of course, not everybody was buying, so the Soviets were kind enough to send help in persuading the non-believers. But that was a few years after the war.

Posted by: spongeworthy at January 31, 2015 05:14 AM (3EGWz)

11 Posted by: artisanal 'ette at January 31, 2015 10:11 AM (IXrOn) They need to buy some body armor and steel neck sheilds. Islam is nuclear-powered patriarchy times a bazillion. It cannot abide this.

Posted by: eman at January 31, 2015 05:15 AM (MQEz6)

12 At its simplest, "War is a mere continuation of politics by other means" In the case of WWII, the Germans wants to dominate Europe and we didn't want them to. We were at an impasse from a political/diplomatic front. And then we made them pay an increasing cost for their desire to rule Europe by killing them and destroying their things. Eventually the cost to them was high enough that the German people gave up. And this is how wars are won - you make the cost of not agreeing to your terms higher and higher until it is a rational decision for your opponents to agree with you. Right now we do almost the opposite. We take historic efforts to only attack those directly taking up arms against us, to avoid damaging infrastructure, and then FFS we rebuild our enemy's country better then we found it.

Posted by: 18-1 at January 31, 2015 05:16 AM (5DM9u)

13 The Soviets didn't immediately act as conquerors in Eastern Europe. ??? All the anti-soviet types whom they summarily executed or send to the gulags might beg to differ

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 31, 2015 05:17 AM (LJcWW)

14 I wish Bush's gamble had paid off in spades. A stable, secular, democratic Iraq? A shining city in the Middle East (that's not Israel and therefore anathema to the Muslim world). But in hindsight....we should have burned Afghanistan to the ground, destroyed Saddam's military, killed the SOB, and loudly announced the same would fall on anyone who attacked US interests, or sheltered or sponsored the same. Then mobilize for Iran.

Posted by: Turd Ferguson at January 31, 2015 05:17 AM (VAsIq)

15 I'm pretty sure if you just call 'em peaceful enough times, everything will be cool.

Posted by: Barry Soetoro-Robinson at January 31, 2015 05:17 AM (MbqmP)

16 The US has the capacity to win wars. We do not have the will. We have too many people who believe the US is bad and deserves to lose.

Posted by: blaster at January 31, 2015 05:18 AM (Rx8ML)

17 You can't occupy if you don't first devastate. Crush, make them cry uncle, then talk. Victory always has to be total. Even the International Socialists i.e. Dems enderstand this.

Posted by: Feh at January 31, 2015 05:19 AM (g/zj9)

18 But in hindsight....we should have burned Afghanistan to the ground, destroyed Saddam's military, killed the SOB, and loudly announced the same would fall on anyone who attacked US interests, or sheltered or sponsored the same. Actually No, We should have kept Saddam's Military with some exceptions, rearmed them and used them. We should not have sit canned all the Sunni Leaders and Military. THAT was a huge mistake we made.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 31, 2015 05:19 AM (LJcWW)

19 >>I'm pretty sure if you just call 'em peaceful enough times, everything will be cool. Word.

Posted by: Pon Raul at January 31, 2015 05:20 AM (VAsIq)

20 You cannot win a war when one of the two dominant parties is more focused on slaughtering their domestic opponents than attacking outside threats. If you look at the Eastern Roman Empire, it endured for about a millennium after the fall of the Western Empire. But the seeds of its destruction were planted in a war with rampaging Islam when at the battle of Manzikert one faction decided they were better served by losing a war to gain political advantage at home. Sound familiar? And America doesn't seem capable of producing a Komnenos...

Posted by: 18-1 at January 31, 2015 05:20 AM (5DM9u)

21 Fantastic essay, Weirddave. And really, everyone should read Banzet's book.

Posted by: Lilredhen at January 31, 2015 05:21 AM (2LlXN)

22 Only one way to win wars: kill the leaders and the rambunctious troops, and dominate the losers culture. We can kill people, if allowed, but our culture sucks.

Posted by: MTF at January 31, 2015 05:21 AM (6RbuA)

23 Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 31, 2015 05:21 AM (LJcWW)

24 6 fixed, thx

Posted by: Weirddave at January 31, 2015 05:21 AM (WvS3w)

25 Great, if depressing, post, Dave!

What about the infiltration option? Kinda feel like that's what's happening here w/commies effectively spreading their message through media, academia, Obama, etc. and destroying/conquering us from within.

Posted by: Lizzy [/i] at January 31, 2015 05:22 AM (ABcz/)

26 Maybe it's too early in the morning, but I can't think of any occupation (without devastation) that worked. India, the example given in the post, is changed from English occupation, but it didn't adopt English culture the way Germany and Japan adopted ours.

Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at January 31, 2015 05:22 AM (T1Jm0)

27 The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving on.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 31, 2015 05:22 AM (LJcWW)

28 All the anti-soviet types whom they summarily executed or send to the gulags might beg to differ *** If you look at the Katyn Forest massacre for example, the Soviets did try to hide at least some of their atrocities. In fact up until recently you could still find leftists arguing that the Germans were behind that crime against humanity. OTOH, when the Soviets were moving into Poland, the intentionally let a Polish uprising against German occupation burn itself out so that they wouldn't have to deal with as many Polish patriots after the war...

Posted by: 18-1 at January 31, 2015 05:22 AM (5DM9u)

29
"The Soviets didn't immediately act as conquerors in Eastern Europe."

All the anti-soviet types whom they summarily executed or send to the gulags might beg to differ
Posted by: Nevergiveup




One would think the returning Russian POWs who got the same treatment might also have a quibble or two.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 31, 2015 05:23 AM (kdS6q)

30 Many happy warrior come to play, sad few warrior come to home.

Posted by: Confuzious at January 31, 2015 05:23 AM (VAsIq)

31 You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival. WSC

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 31, 2015 05:23 AM (LJcWW)

32 turd Correct. Military is for wrecking only. Wreck, assess damage, say "ok, we're done for a while," and get out. The burden is on the survivors to ask for help.

Posted by: Feh at January 31, 2015 05:23 AM (g/zj9)

33 Posted by: artisanal 'ette at January 31, 2015 10:11 AM (IXrOn) They need to buy some body armor and steel neck sheilds. Islam is nuclear-powered patriarchy times a bazillion. It cannot abide this. Posted by: eman at January 31, 2015 10:15 AM (MQEz6) I know. This is dangerous, but I welcome the bravery.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at January 31, 2015 05:23 AM (IXrOn)

34 adolfo India is where it is today because it adopted what was good in English rule.

Posted by: Feh at January 31, 2015 05:24 AM (g/zj9)

35 The thing about the devastation end of the game is that it can be mad much more terrible by the culture on the receiving end. The Emperorer of Japan had to hide his recording of a surrender announcement from a group of militants who were determined to prevent its broadcast. That was after we nuked them. One of them was quoted as how the Japanese should die to the last man so that they were spoken off with awe for a thousand years. I believe the enemy we face today is similarn in its love of death.

Posted by: Typo dynamofo at January 31, 2015 05:24 AM (1DiJX)

36
   Wars are fought and WON by following 2 pretty basic ideas.

1.  Destroy your enemy's capability to WAGE war.

2. Destroy his WILL to wage war.

  HOW this is done involves strategy, tactics and logistics.

  Failure in either basic principle results in failure to win, period.

Posted by: irongrampa at January 31, 2015 05:25 AM (jeCnD)

37 >>>Military is for wrecking only. Pfft. Just read Three Cups of Tea--it's sooooper easy for our soldiers to change hearts and minds.

Posted by: Our Military's Leaders at January 31, 2015 05:25 AM (VAsIq)

38 I believe the enemy we face today is similarn in its love of death. Posted by: Typo dynamofo at January 31, 2015 10:24 AM (1DiJX) Well I for one, have no problem giving that to them

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 31, 2015 05:25 AM (LJcWW)

39 I've said since 2009 that the US could be taken over by 5 guys with unloaded pistols at any time.  Whether they are from outside the US or from within the Govt. is the real question.  Maybe it has already happened.  How would things be any different right now if it turned out O'Bumbles was a member of "the other side"?

Posted by: dfbaskwill at January 31, 2015 05:25 AM (MVitU)

40 Islam is a fatal virus. Its DNA is the Koran, which incites murder and mandates supremacy.

Posted by: Feh at January 31, 2015 05:27 AM (g/zj9)

41 The USA suffers from a very bad USSR infection that it picked up a long time ago. Get rid of that first, then see if the USA can win wars.

Posted by: eman at January 31, 2015 05:27 AM (MQEz6)

42 I, too, just want to get on with my life and live it the way that I want with the family I'm starting with my wife. Which is why surrendering our culture, our civilization, or ourselves to the horrors and depredations of Islam and the anti-West left is something that I, nor the great unwashed, drunken, ewok abusing members of the Horde and those that sympathize with us from a safe distance will ever do. Unless they offer us lots of cute kittehs and Valu-rite. But mostly Valu-rite.

Posted by: Anonymous Scandi Hobo who doesn't want to be turned into jerky at January 31, 2015 05:27 AM (OxL9z)

43 Can the US ever win another war? The fundamentally transformed US just had 'fruitful' talks with the Muslim Brotherhood and they declared jihad, so I guess so. Not quite what you had in mind, though.

Posted by: t-bird at January 31, 2015 05:27 AM (FcR7P)

44
We should have kept Saddam's Military with some exceptions, rearmed them and used them. We should not have sit canned all the Sunni Leaders and Military. THAT was a huge mistake we made.
Posted by: Nevergiveup




Which was what was done in Germany, Japan and every other successful occupation. Decapitate the leadership, use the rest of the power structure to redirect the populace toward your own goals.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 31, 2015 05:28 AM (kdS6q)

45 This has been the subject of posts past, but we really need to change the perception of what is "manly" in Islamic culture, so they come to believe that rape and child-murder are the cowardly acts that they are. Of course, that would mean Western culture needs to rediscover what "manly" is...

Posted by: Turd Ferguson at January 31, 2015 05:28 AM (VAsIq)

46 For the left, if forces overwhelmingly retaliate, that's a disproportionate response, and that's wrong. If we use force "fairly," "An eye for an eye makes everyone blind," and that's wrong. See: Israel. To ever win a war again, the left must be made irrelevant.

Posted by: wisenheimer at January 31, 2015 05:29 AM (qnhj2)

47 The Soviets and the Chicoms are building more and modern Nuclear Weapons. The USA under Fredo is letting ours go to hell in a handbag.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 31, 2015 05:29 AM (LJcWW)

48 Which was what was done in Germany, Japan and every other successful occupation. Decapitate the leadership, use the rest of the power structure to redirect the populace toward your own goals. Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 31, 2015 10:28 AM (kdS6q) Yup

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 31, 2015 05:30 AM (LJcWW)

49 Dave has a way of taking difficult to grasp thoughts, and putting them into articles that make them easier to understand. Again, outstanding. Some, if not many of us here are no stranger to CDR Salamander, and his front porch crowd. A good place to gain insight into the further reaches of what is taking place in the world, and the US military. http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com And an outstanding article from his blog somewhat aligned with this post from Dave, here http://tinyurl.com/lvf5rjx

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at January 31, 2015 05:31 AM (fL+1V)

50 From the dawn of mankind through WWII, it was a universal truth that the strongest ruled. From time to time there would be a disagreement as to who the strongest was, but that question usually was quickly settled with a war. Sometime after WWII, the meaning of the word "war" was altered to something less than the life or death, all or nothing struggle it had been throughout history. So, when the question is posed "can the U.S. win another war?", we need to know just what that means.

Posted by: jwest at January 31, 2015 05:31 AM (9ZZd+)

51
For the left, if forces overwhelmingly retaliate, that's a disproportionate response, and that's wrong.
Posted by: wisenheimer



Not just the left.  Recall Colin Powell, Bush 1 and "The Highway of Death". War called on account of we're winning too much.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 31, 2015 05:32 AM (kdS6q)

52 At the beginning of the Iraq War, bot parties were on board with it, perhaps not enthusiastically but when you talk to the remaining old timers who remember World War II, people were not enthusiastic about that war either, although they accepted that it needed to be done.


Then Howard Dean got so much support during the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries that it became obvious that any Democrat who hoped to win the nomination would have to duplicate Howard Dean's position opposing the war in Iraq.  Overnight, opposition to the Iraq War became the position of the Democratic Party and therefore of the Media and the bien pensants.


When a Democrat came to power in the White House, he pulled all the American troops out of Iraq, essentially throwing away the sacrifice of the men and women who were killed or maimed there and the money and resources that were spent to take and pacify that country.


This is always going to happen in any future military conflict involving the United States. 


That means that the only realistic military policy available to the United States that has any chance of success is devastation.  That is the one thing that the Democrats cannot undo when they eventually return to power.  They might hold trials and punish Americans who carry out a campaign of devastation but they cannot bring back the slaughtered enemies from the dead. 

Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at January 31, 2015 05:32 AM (KDbAT)

53 I'm not convinced--we tried using these barbarians in a military that "we" controlled, and they continually betrayed us or turned tail. They should be allowed a token force for show. If they are threatened by a neighbor with a real military we'll destroy that one, too. Until they've lost their taste for war. I know, I'm dreaming.

Posted by: Turd Ferguson at January 31, 2015 05:33 AM (VAsIq)

54 Feeling Unwelcome at Mosques, 2 Women Start Their Own in L.A.
New Entity Believed to Be the First of Its Kind in the U.S.


This would make it the  YWIA, No?

Posted by: kindltot at January 31, 2015 05:33 AM (t//F+)

55 Nevergiveup Oh I agree. I'm for giving them what they ask for. The problem is, as we see in the reactions to American Sniper, we have a large group of people in our midst who will never let slip the dogs of war. I propose a policy of allowing the South to wage all future wars. It is there that men like Chris Kyle are still reared in some numbers. It would be a little like the Byzantines calling to Europe for Crusaders.

Posted by: Typo dynamofo at January 31, 2015 05:36 AM (1DiJX)

56 Oh I agree. I'm for giving them what they ask for. The problem is, as we see in the reactions to American Sniper, we have a large group of people in our midst who will never let slip the dogs of war. I propose a policy of allowing the South to wage all future wars. It is there that men like Chris Kyle are still reared in some numbers. It would be a little like the Byzantines calling to Europe for Crusaders. Posted by: Typo dynamofo at January 31, 2015 10:36 AM (1DiJX) Yeah I hear ya. Until we lose an entire America City, I doubt the left will wake up. And perhaps, not even then.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 31, 2015 05:37 AM (LJcWW)

57 When I watched that pansy Admiral dancing around parsing words in his brutal interview with Megan last night, I knew we were f---ed. Even our military is caving in to the regime. There is no one--certainly not the Republican Congress--who has the cojones to stand up to Obama and his thugs!

Posted by: AnnaS at January 31, 2015 05:38 AM (P+I7L)

58 We mean well, we can reason with them Posted by: democrats

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at January 31, 2015 05:38 AM (hcfn1)

59 The Soviets who live here will always try to undermine whatever the USA does. They will do it even if it is completely stupid to do so. It is their nature.

Posted by: eman at January 31, 2015 05:38 AM (MQEz6)

60 Dave--surely we're winning the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, the War on Women, the War on Blacks, the War on Undocumented Workers, the War on LGBTADSFFHDSUEQ, the War on Disco, etc. We can afford to lose the War on Terrorism, right?

Posted by: Turd Ferguson at January 31, 2015 05:38 AM (VAsIq)

61 That means that the only realistic military policy available to the United States that has any chance of success is devastation. That is the one thing that the Democrats cannot undo when they eventually return to power. They might hold trials and punish Americans who carry out a campaign of devastation but they cannot bring back the slaughtered enemies from the dead. Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at January 31, 2015 10:32 AM (KDbAT) You and I often disagree on some things, but not on this point. That is spot on

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 31, 2015 05:38 AM (LJcWW)

62 Even our military is caving in to the regime. There is no one--certainly not the Republican Congress--who has the cojones to stand up to Obama and his thugs! Posted by: AnnaS at January 31, 2015 10:38 AM (P+I7L) don't confuse "Our Military" with the weinnies in the Pentagon

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 31, 2015 05:39 AM (LJcWW)

63 Any new war will need the support of the media. The only way to actually manage a war the way it should be fought is to have the public radically on your side. Ideally, people would march in the streets and call for congressional investigations if the military left the hospitals and orphanages standing. "Why didn't you finish the job?"

Posted by: jwest at January 31, 2015 05:39 AM (9ZZd+)

64 You cannot expect to win a foreign war and change another culture when you are not even attempting to prevent invaders from changing your own.

Posted by: toby928(C) at January 31, 2015 05:39 AM (rwI+c)

65 Nevergiveup--sadly, the "weinnies in the Pentagon" have some influence in the way our military thinks.

Posted by: Turd Ferguson at January 31, 2015 05:40 AM (VAsIq)

66 Nice essay, Weirddave. You did forget one thing though. And that was- Shortly after 911 and Congress voting to give Bush war powers- there was suddenly a big push within gov't to bring in a lot of 3rd world muslims into the US. In essence, we, as Americans, went out of our way to install a Fifth Column within our own country. In the end, this is what will make us unable to win any future wars, esp. in the Middle East. It's the same as if shortly after planning D-Day we went out of our way to bring a lot of Nazis into the US, and called naziism one of the world's great ideologies, and needed to understand nazis cuz racism. Defensive war victory? Naw, bro. If you remember a few years ago, Obama and company were talking about a new "strategy" where we would "absorb" the damage of an atomic attack on an American city and not retaliate. Here's something I wrote about that at the time: https://naturalfake.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/americ a-the-quicker-picker-upper/ Yeah, it's old and from my crapblog.

Posted by: naturalfake at January 31, 2015 05:41 AM (KBvAm)

67 We did this in Europe, WWII


You are leaving out one factor.


Mohammedanism   It will not be crushed until it is crushed. Evil.  Evil

Posted by: Nip Sip at January 31, 2015 05:41 AM (0FSuD)

68 AnnaS General staff tend to be politicians. Obama has purged those whom he distrusted and those who wish to lead men to war. Your fey Admiral is what remains.

Posted by: Typo dynamofo at January 31, 2015 05:41 AM (1DiJX)

69 Chuck Hagel: White House Pressured Me on Gitmo Prisoner Releases Says the outgoing Secretary of Defense ... In a startling and blunt interview with CNN correspondent Barbara Starr, aired Friday on "The Situation Room," Hagel said despite the heat, he held his ground. whatev' newsmax.com

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at January 31, 2015 05:42 AM (IXrOn)

70 How could we ever win a war when our "rulers" believe that the concept of winning is "unfair"? In the next war we will be granted a participation trophy. The inscription will be in Arabic.

Posted by: thought monitor #34427 at January 31, 2015 05:42 AM (4Z0vT)

71 Nevergiveup--sadly, the "weinnies in the Pentagon" have some influence in the way our military thinks. Posted by: Turd Ferguson at January 31, 2015 10:40 AM (VAsIq) No they have some influence, a lot of influence, with how the Military acts in accordance with the Laws and the Constitution, but NOT the way we think.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 31, 2015 05:42 AM (LJcWW)

72 Another good one, Dave. These Fundamental Concepts posts really need to be collected in a separate category in the sidebar for easy access. And this is pretty close to the argument I make for why we keep spinning our wheels in space without going anywhere. The party in power proposes a new program and goal, then the government changes hands, that program gets cancelled, and a new one implemented. Rinse and repeat a few years later. That's why we need a private space industry, not a government space program. But I digress.

Posted by: rickl at January 31, 2015 05:42 AM (sdi6R)

73 You missed the third option:

Carve up Czechoslovakia. Declare peace.

Posted by: deadman at January 31, 2015 05:45 AM (Zf0v/)

74 71 " How could we ever win a war when our "rulers" believe that the concept of winning is "unfair"? In the next war we will be granted a participation trophy." In dollars and cents, winning wars is fast, cheap and easy. Participating is unending, expensive and difficult.

Posted by: jwest at January 31, 2015 05:46 AM (9ZZd+)

75 A decidedly anti-Americanism force is now in charge, one that is effete and submissive to the wrong in human nature. Modern America is ruled by people who would rather capitulate to evil than fight it. In their insane lust for power, they give in to our enemies while suppressing our freedoms. While they enjoy private security, they subject us to needless and expensive gropings in our own airports, institute illegal and invasive surveillance on innocents while allowing known terrorists to commit attacks and spend our tax money on frivolous programs that do nothing to guarantee our freedom. They even go so far as to release terrorists. In the past, this would be considered aiding and abetting the enemy (because that's what it is) and be worthy of removal from office and worse. But with their prevailing attitude that America is somehow the source of all evil in the world, nothing else can be expected from them. Logic and the concept of right and wrong is foreign to them, as foreign as the thought of the love of freedom and the notion of America as a nation of neighbors who share the same values of freedom and prosperity. Far more people share the latter belief than the former, yet we are and remain unrepresented. The solution to our current self-imposed problems isn't easy. For too long, we've allowed anti-American interests to flourish inside our country in the name of freedom, instead of driving them out. We need to push back against these people and make them know that we don't appreciate liars in our midst. If they don't like our society, they owe it to themselves to relocate that we may be allowed to live our values as we see fit. The world is full of oppressive societies and travel is inexpensive. The entire notion of civilization rests upon the God-given right of free people to surround themselves with others of like mind. Those who would sow discord have proven themselves unworthy of the name American. Some may call this discrimination. Indeed, that's what it truly is, the difference lies in that those who don't value truth and honesty don't value freedom. I don't want to be around them. They are my enemies and deserve to be treated as such.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t [/i][/s][/b][/u] at January 31, 2015 05:47 AM (0HooB)

76 Wars cannot be won if one refuses to acknowledge or identify the enemy. 

If you find yourself using terms like "kinetic military action" as a substitute for "battle" or "war,"  you're going to lose.

Posted by: Fritz at January 31, 2015 05:47 AM (dVmLD)

77 We won Iraq and were winning A-stan when Dubya left.

Posted by: formwiz at January 31, 2015 05:48 AM (3rwvI)

78 Great essay. I'll only offer this: The American people could win any war we found ourselves in. But we must recognize we have traitors in out midst. Next time, we need to deal with them. Thoroughly.

Posted by: EndOfPatience at January 31, 2015 05:49 AM (PVBzL)

79 a good read over at newsmax.com Vatican Outreach Hits Sour Note With Women VATICAN CITY -- A new Vatican outreach initiative to women hit a sour note before it even got off the ground: The sexy blonde on its Internet promo video came under such ridicule that it was quickly taken down. But the program is going ahead, and an inaugural meeting this week will study women's issues in ways that are utterly new for the Holy See. No, there is no talk of ordaining women priests. But the working paper for the Pontifical Council of Culture's plenary assembly on "Women's Cultures: Equality and Difference" speaks about opening the church's doors to women so they can offer their skills "in full collaboration and integration" with men. It denounces plastic surgery as a form of "aggression" against the female body "like a burqa made of flesh." And it acknowledges that the church has for centuries offered women "ideological and ancestral left-overs." This is dangerous territory for the all-male Catholic Church hierarchy, as even Pope Francis has faced criticism as being a bit tone deaf as far as women are concerned.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at January 31, 2015 05:49 AM (IXrOn)

80 Winning a war means killing lots of people, including non-military people, ie women, children. The US population doesn't have the will to do that anymore.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 31, 2015 05:50 AM (0LHZx)

81 what sexy blonde video? missed that one

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at January 31, 2015 05:50 AM (IXrOn)

82 "What about the infiltration option? Kinda feel like that's what's happening here w/commies effectively spreading their message through media, academia, Obama, etc. and destroying/conquering us from within."


That's why I think this post is a little too simplistic. As a few have already correctly pointed out - we have the military ability to win any war for the foreseeable future (and have for decades). It's about the political will behind the ability to use force.


And here's where the Left and Islam - both totalitarian ideologies at heart - are far beyond democratic republican societies. They are both playing the ultra long game and succeeding. Their vision of warfare is far more comprehensive than ours.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 31, 2015 05:51 AM (xSCb6)

83 As long as we as a people condone the existence of domestic traitors aligned with the international Communist/Socialist left wing or with the Muslim Brotherhood generically, we will never win a war again. While I will not go all-out and say we were stabbed in the back by the Jews and Communists as the WWI Germans said, we were certainly undermined here at home on numerous occasions by those who had made common cause with our enemies.

Of course there was certainly idiocy and malfeasance on the part of our general officers, but most of those dudes were doing the best they could in the face of gross negligence and stupidity on the part of the civilian political leadership which is supposed to make decisions based on professional advice from the uniformed crowd.

That's my one argument with Dan Bolger's book "Why We Lost." I don't think he dug enough into the high level mistakes, instead wanting to write a lower echelon history. He had taken his inspiration from a classic Korean War history, T.R. Fehrenbach's "This Kind Of War", a book we both love. But that war wasn't lost at the low levels. It was lost in the Division HQs up to the Pentagon and White House.

Posted by: SGT Dan's Cat at January 31, 2015 05:52 AM (7SRVX)

84 No they have some influence, a lot of influence, with how the Military acts in accordance with the Laws and the Constitution, but NOT the way we think. Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 31, 2015 10:42 AM (LJcWW) I agree, to a point. But they are trying to radically recreate and pussify the armed forces. They'll never change YOUR mind, but the recruit who comes in now, who doesn't come from a family steeped in military background, is going to have a totally different experience. If the weenies in the Pentagon make drill sergeants be nice and say "please" and allow more Bergdahl-type thinkers into the military....

Posted by: Turd Ferguson at January 31, 2015 05:53 AM (VAsIq)

85 45 Which was what was done in Germany, Japan and every other successful occupation. Decapitate the leadership, use the rest of the power structure to redirect the populace toward your own goals. Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 31, 2015 10:28 AM (kdS6q) After 9/11, Ann Coulter said "Invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." She was fired for that. But she was right.

Posted by: rickl at January 31, 2015 05:54 AM (sdi6R)

86 56, Infantryman had been my only profession in my short life, and there are just as many capable grunts from the Pacific Northwest, southwest, Midwest and northeast as the south. We don't deserve to win because our population doesn't want to fight. It's that simple.

Posted by: Beats27 at January 31, 2015 05:54 AM (V8L/P)

87 What needs to be emphasized to the pacifists is the fact that the concept of real war - total, unmerciful devastation and domination - would reduce the risk of ever going to war. If leaders and citizens of countries saw that defying the level of behavior set forth by the world's superpower resulted in a scorched earth policy of biblical proportions, their actions would be modified to avoid such a consequence. So, we smoke one small, insignificant country to set an example for the world.

Posted by: jwest at January 31, 2015 05:55 AM (9ZZd+)

88 I have long said the United States can not win a war when half the population (of the US) is on the side of the enemy you are trying to defeat. Secondly, you have to identify the enemy and what they fight for. If you are fighting crazed, lone wolves on the fringes of the Bell Curve it requires a different tactic than fighting a loose confederation of war lords fighting to expand their territory. If you are fighting an ideology, you have to discredit that ideology and re-enforce your own creed, culture, principles. We are doing none of these things in any of the three cases. Oh, and dear leader is insanely delusional, insanely dishonest, and can't be trusted. He fights for his own imperial ambitions and his own ideology.

Posted by: Hyper Fennec at January 31, 2015 05:55 AM (fw72F)

89 >>>She was fired for that. And that's why we'll never win.

Posted by: Turd Ferguson at January 31, 2015 05:55 AM (VAsIq)

90 We don't deserve to win because our population doesn't want to fight. It's that simple. Bullshit.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t [/i][/s][/b][/u] at January 31, 2015 05:56 AM (0HooB)

91 >>So, we smoke one small, insignificant country to set an example for the world. ---- A thousand times yes! Let me be clear--this is what I'm trying to get Iran to do for me!

Posted by: Anti-Semitic Barack Obama at January 31, 2015 05:58 AM (VAsIq)

92 92 Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t at January 31, 2015 10:56 AM (0HooB)

Sun Tzu through John Boyd disagree with you...

Smiling Bob McNamara agrees.

Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077[/i][/b][/s] at January 31, 2015 05:58 AM (/4AZU)

93 But we must recognize we have traitors in out midst. Next time, we need to deal with them. Thoroughly. *This* At any other time in our history, would John Kerry even be alive?

Posted by: wisenheimer at January 31, 2015 06:01 AM (qnhj2)

94 >>>>.You can't change a entire culture's lifetime's experiences in a couple of weeks, it takes relentless, ongoing pressure and a commitment to see it through.

Not with the American Government as it stands.  In reality, it can't even make a 2 year commitment simply due to the fact that between almost 1/3 to 2/3 of power shifts hands.  Different parties in power, different priorities.  And as history showed us with Vietnam, the Dems failed to uphold the treaty Nixon had in place.  (I can't remember the details of it off hand.)

Posted by: Dave C at January 31, 2015 06:01 AM (icW69)

95 I don't even know what you guys are talking about LOL.

Posted by: LIV at January 31, 2015 06:02 AM (VAsIq)

96 @77 The coming civil violence will be cathartic. I volunteer to lead a death squad. *cracks knuckles and thinks of Michael Moore*

Posted by: Df82 at January 31, 2015 06:02 AM (91edK)

97 3 Not with lawyers running the show. Posted by: NCKate at January 31, 2015 10:11 AM (EBMYe) Hey now. There are several Moron lawyers, myself included, that could have this sorted out in a couple of weeks.

Posted by: Insomniac at January 31, 2015 06:02 AM (AVWYi)

98 TFG mentioned that "we need to get away from being on a constant war footing" or something to that effect. I didn't hear any Repumpkins saying, "Well then, why don't you try winning a war instead?"

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t [/i][/s][/b][/u] at January 31, 2015 06:02 AM (0HooB)

99 "If you remember a few years ago, Obama and company were talking about a new "strategy" where we would "absorb" the damage of an atomic attack on an American city and not retaliate.

...

Posted by: naturalfake at January 31, 2015 10:41 AM (KBvAm)"



There is actually something good to be said for that policy.  Look at all the red/blue maps.   The Democrats are basically an urban party.  Every American city that was nuked would change the relative strength of the two parties, even if the policy of blithely ignoring the nuking of American cities did not have some influence on the political preferences of electorate.  For example, if Philadelphia were nuked, Pennsylvania would be a reliably red state in presidential elections.  Republicans tend to live in areas with lower population density where nuclear weapons tend to be less effective in mass slaughter. 



Since Islamic terrorists are likely to have a limited supply of nuclear weapons, they are likely to use them in more densely populated areas where they will achieve the highest body count for their efforts. 



Since he took office, President Obama has been trying to break down the bonds that caused us to wish to protect fellow Americans, even if we have political differences with them.  In this effort he has had some success, at least with me.  I am quite content for President Obama to have a strategy of allowing Islamic terrorists to nuke cities full of Democrats without response for the rest of Obama's term in office.

Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at January 31, 2015 06:02 AM (KDbAT)

100 At any other time in our history, would John Kerry even be alive? ---- Sure.

Posted by: Horse Breeder who knows good stock at January 31, 2015 06:03 AM (VAsIq)

101 95 Posted by: wisenheimer at January 31, 2015 11:01 AM (qnhj2)

I'm amazed in lieu of Ogabe winning that Jungle John didn't win in '04 were he black he would have...

an overt outright traitor was within .2% of Ohio's votes to gaining power in a time of war...

WASTF

Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077[/i][/b][/s] at January 31, 2015 06:03 AM (/4AZU)

102 I agree, to a point. But they are trying to radically recreate and pussify the armed forces. They'll never change YOUR mind, but the recruit who comes in now, who doesn't come from a family steeped in military background, is going to have a totally different experience. If the weenies in the Pentagon make drill sergeants be nice and say "please" and allow more Bergdahl-type thinkers into the military.... Posted by: Turd Ferguson at January 31, 2015 10:53 AM (VAsIq) Yeah no not really. The recruits are not being overwhelmed with weinies, homosexuals, transsexuals, and other non-desirables. The recruits, at least the Marine recruits I see, are still pretty gun ho all Americans. And while the DIs are not allowed to be as physical with the recruits as in days gone by, they are by no means pussy cats.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 31, 2015 06:03 AM (LJcWW)

103 >>>In reality, it can't even make a 2 year commitment simply due to the fact that between almost 1/3 to 2/3 of power shifts hands.<<<

Unless they're taxing you and me, or bankrupting our children.

Posted by: Fritz at January 31, 2015 06:04 AM (dVmLD)

104 There's a huge difference between Japan/Germany post WW2 and the crazies in the middle east. Japan/Germany were both economic powerhouses pre-war. It wasn't American nation building that turned them into what Japan/Germany became in the 50s/60s. They just reverted back to what they had been. On the other hand most of the mid-east is stick somewhere in the year 927 AD. And all the nation building in the world won't bring them into the 21st century.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 31, 2015 06:05 AM (0LHZx)

105 Nevergiveup at January 31, 2015 11:03 AM (LJcWW) I bow to your superior wisdom and experience. I'm just anticipating pressures from above for active recruitment of special snowflakes.

Posted by: Turd Ferguson at January 31, 2015 06:06 AM (VAsIq)

106 I'm just anticipating pressures from above for active recruitment of special snowflakes. Posted by: Turd Ferguson at January 31, 2015 11:06 AM (VAsIq) So far that is not what I am seeing and remember, no matter what the progressives say, most special snow flakes want no part of the Military and thank G-D for that!

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 31, 2015 06:07 AM (LJcWW)

107 >>>thank G-D for that! Amen.

Posted by: Turd Ferguson at January 31, 2015 06:08 AM (VAsIq)

108 What needs to be emphasized to the pacifists is the fact that the concept of real war - total, unmerciful devastation and domination - would reduce the risk of ever going to war. Which is why pacifism works hand-in-glove with barbarism.

Posted by: wisenheimer at January 31, 2015 06:08 AM (qnhj2)

109 OK warriors and warrioressess, I gotta go do stuff. Y'all have fun and try not to trash the place, 'k?

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t [/i][/s][/b][/u] at January 31, 2015 06:08 AM (0HooB)

110 There is actually something good to be said for that policy. Look at all the red/blue maps. The Democrats are basically an urban party. Every American city that was nuked would change the relative strength of the two parties, even if the policy of blithely ignoring the nuking of American cities did not have some influence on the political preferences of electorate. For example, if Philadelphia were nuked, Pennsylvania would be a reliably red state in presidential elections. Republicans tend to live in areas with lower population density where nuclear weapons tend to be less effective in mass slaughter.
Since Islamic terrorists are likely to have a limited supply of nuclear weapons, they are likely to use them in more densely populated areas where they will achieve the highest body count for their efforts.
Since he took office, President Obama has been trying to break down the bonds that caused us to wish to protect fellow Americans, even if we have political differences with them. In this effort he has had some success, at least with me. I am quite content for President Obama to have a strategy of allowing Islamic terrorists to nuke cities full of Democrats without response for the rest of Obama's term in office.
Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at January 31, 2015 11:02 AM (KDbAT)


It's not that simple. Even big cities and their environs have reasonably large amounts of people who are on our side. Hell, I'm pretty sure Ace lives in NYC, along with a few other Morons. I live in a rural part of a blue state, but if the capital was nuked, I'd be affected. You really want ISIS to start killing your internet tribe? I hope not.

Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at January 31, 2015 06:10 AM (ThxKk)

111 Just gonna throw this out there as a thought I've had repeatedly over the years. As a Horde, I think we mostly agree on the whole Words Have Meanings thing, and furthermore, that The Meanings of Words Have Effects in the Real World. That said, has anyone noticed that we haven't actually won a war since we went from having a War Department to having a Department of Defense ?

Posted by: sock_rat_eez at January 31, 2015 06:10 AM (OCcU9)

112 88 We don't deserve to win because our population doesn't want to fight. It's that simple. Posted by: Beats27 at January 31, 2015 10:54 AM (V8L/P) Our population is willing to fight. It's our traitorous leaders and media who are selling us out. Note how the video of the WTC jumpers is never shown, and how every time there is a new terrorist attack, there is much handwringing about "anti-Muslim backlash". They fear an enraged and righteous American public.

Posted by: rickl at January 31, 2015 06:10 AM (sdi6R)

113 "82 Winning a war means killing lots of people, including non-military people, ie women, children.

The US population doesn't have the will to do that anymore.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 31, 2015 10:50 AM (0LHZx)"



Not if it takes too long.  If you can get all the killing done in a week or maybe a week and a half, they will accept it and go back to watching the Kardashians or the Superbowl or Shark Week or whatever is the Next Big Thing.

Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at January 31, 2015 06:10 AM (KDbAT)

114 Good write up Weirddave.

Posted by: thathalfrican at January 31, 2015 06:11 AM (/gk1A)

115 It's difficult to win a war when you have one of two political parties dedicated to the belief that America is not special and in fact brought any suffering it undergoes upon itself. As long as the left's suicidal worldview persists among Americans in the number it does, we will not win any military conflict except short-term expeditions like Grenada or the Gulf War. If we were to find ourselves in a large-scale war, it would take a lot of destruction and American deaths before enough people on the left change their minds about this country.

Posted by: RedStick at January 31, 2015 06:11 AM (k6J0K)

116 Anyone read Jay Nordlinger's book on the Nobel Peace Prize? Truly fascinating look through history at how the definition of "peace" has changed even in just this short amount of time. Sometimes the "Peace at Any Cost" contingent has won, sometimes the "Peace through Strength". Of course we know which end of the spectrum wins these days.

Posted by: Turd Ferguson at January 31, 2015 06:12 AM (VAsIq)

117 If you can get all the killing done in a week or maybe a week and a half, they will accept it and go back to watching the Kardashians or the Superbowl or Shark Week or whatever is the Next Big Thing. ---- Ooh! The Superbowl's just around the corner!

Posted by: LIV at January 31, 2015 06:12 AM (VAsIq)

118 Which was what was done in Germany, Japan and every other successful occupation. Decapitate the leadership, use the rest of the power structure to redirect the populace toward your own goals. Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 31, 2015 10:28 AM

The reason this approach worked -- as you well know -- is that it had already been made clear to the enemy their prewar goals were no longer attainable. We made it abundantly clear to them that we would help them rebuild (note the word "help" -- we did not rush right in and fix everything up all nice in Germany and Japan for the locals while they sat around sipping tea and eating bonbons) if they accepted the inevitable, which is that we won and were planning to enforce our terms.

In the Gulf, we rushed to make all nice and pretty before the locals had learned the basic lesson: we won, they lost.

This is the fundamental property of ending a war the right way. You heap enough shit on the losers that they clearly comprehend the difference between resisting and accepting the inevitable.

Posted by: MrScribbler[/i] at January 31, 2015 06:13 AM (P8YHq)

119 112 Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at January 31, 2015 11:10 AM (ThxKk)

*I* don't want anyone attacked and was willing to support my wife going to Durka Durka round robin to act as a honey trap to kill Jihadis THERE....

Obama and the donks are the ones who feel morality says the US should absorb Megadeaths and pat those lovable scamps who hit us on the head...

You are granting the Hawks a level of control over events we no longer have my friend.

When Donk Idiocy hands you lemans you pray on getting at least lemonade, I didn't forget the lessons of 9/11 NYC did.

Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077[/i][/b][/s] at January 31, 2015 06:13 AM (/4AZU)

120 What scale of atrocity might trigger option #2, I wonder? Would a city in the West have to be melted, or it's population obliterated by biological or chemical means? I would like to hear from our party leaders about what the tipping point is for them or even better, I would like to have this excellent piece posed as a question to our Presidential candidates. I'm voting for the one that has the stones to hold up option #2 as a strong possibility, even without a triggering event.

Posted by: goon at January 31, 2015 06:14 AM (gNTQS)

121 The LIV can tell you Marshawn Lynch's stats by year going back to his high school days. But he doesn't know who his senator is and thinks free college is a wonderful idea, because, well how can something free not be awesome.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 31, 2015 06:14 AM (0LHZx)

122 "It's not that simple. Even big cities and their environs have reasonably large amounts of people who are on our side. Hell, I'm pretty sure Ace lives in NYC, along with a few other Morons. I live in a rural part of a blue state, but if the capital was nuked, I'd be affected. You really want ISIS to start killing your internet tribe? I hope not.

Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at January 31, 2015 11:10 AM (ThxKk)"



I am not happy about it.  I would very much prefer to live in a country that would never elect a feckless, socialist narcissist who hates them but that is not the country I live in.  It is not my policy.  It is Obama's.  I am just saying that I don't think it is worth fighting with him over it since there is a silver lining to that mushroom cloud.

Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at January 31, 2015 06:15 AM (KDbAT)

123 how can something free not be awesome. --- Naw, bro, I totally understand this. A girl gave me the clap for free, and that was not awesome. But free college? Sweet!

Posted by: LIV at January 31, 2015 06:16 AM (VAsIq)

124 124 Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at January 31, 2015 11:15 AM (KDbAT)

Focusing on the likely end game of a nuclear Iran and by Response SA is a drag man...let's legalize pot and gay marriage and hope it all works out...

//Your Intellectual Betters

Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077[/i][/b][/s] at January 31, 2015 06:16 AM (/4AZU)

125 The other component of this is a sizable chunk of the population has no allegiance to the US. See a US/Mexico game in Los Angeles as exhibit A.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 31, 2015 06:17 AM (0LHZx)

126 127 Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 31, 2015 11:17 AM (0LHZx)

America is an EBT card and a piggy bank not a nation...

Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077[/i][/b][/s] at January 31, 2015 06:18 AM (/4AZU)

127 ***lights match*** of course devastation works Sherman proved that back in 1864 when Georgia got uppity

Posted by: ncj at January 31, 2015 06:18 AM (PsbTM)

128 America is an EBT card and a piggy bank not a nation... Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at January 31, 2015 11:18 AM (/4AZU) ________ Sadly correct.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 31, 2015 06:19 AM (0LHZx)

129 Naw, bro, I totally understand this. A girl gave me the clap for free, and that was not awesome. Hell, you probably bought her drinks first, so it wasn't even free.

Posted by: Insomniac at January 31, 2015 06:20 AM (AVWYi)

130 What is the William T. Sherman quote about war being hell? I believe it's usually misquoted.

Posted by: Northernlurker at January 31, 2015 06:21 AM (xNkaN)

131 We won the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We lost the attempt to control the areas after the war was over. War isn't pacifying a location and rebuilding, that's occupation. War is the fight between armies until one is defeated and you occupy the territory.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at January 31, 2015 06:21 AM (39g3+)

132 131 Posted by: Insomniac at January 31, 2015 11:20 AM (AVWYi)

Look playa ya gots to pay to play...

I gets that, but me having to work for what I want on health and education?

Yeah bro not so much...

//LIV

Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077[/i][/b][/s] at January 31, 2015 06:22 AM (/4AZU)

133 I am not happy about it. I would very much prefer to live in a country that would never elect a feckless, socialist narcissist who hates them but that is not the country I live in. It is not my policy. It is Obama's. I am just saying that I don't think it is worth fighting with him over it since there is a silver lining to that mushroom cloud.

Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at January 31, 2015 11:15 AM (KDbAT)


I hear you, mostly. I think I'm a little fired up over previous fights with commenters who have openly called for the killing of *all* journalists, said that anyone living in a blue state is the enemy and should die, etc. I'm sorry if I gave you those opinions if they are not, in fact, your own.


I would also prefer to live in a sane world and I take comfort from the fact that the universe has gone crazy before, and yet the world still spins and humanity still remains.

Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at January 31, 2015 06:22 AM (ThxKk)

134 What is the William T. Sherman quote about war being hell? --- "young men think that war is all glamour and glory, but let me tell you, boys, it is all Hell!"

Posted by: Turd Ferguson at January 31, 2015 06:23 AM (VAsIq)

135 Hell, you probably bought her drinks first, so it wasn't even free. --- She bought the drinks. I mean, a MAN buying a WOMAN for drinks? I don't want to get accused of rape, man!

Posted by: LIV at January 31, 2015 06:26 AM (VAsIq)

136 What is the William T. Sherman quote about war being hell? --- "young men think that war is all glamour and glory, but let me tell you, boys, it is all Hell!" Posted by: Turd Ferguson at January 31, 2015 11:23 AM (VAsIq) Hell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS2IBMQIjDo Doesn't look too bad.

Posted by: naturalfake at January 31, 2015 06:26 AM (KBvAm)

137 "On the other hand most of the mid-east is stick somewhere in the year 927 AD. And all the nation building in the world won't bring them into the 21st century.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 31, 2015 11:05 AM (0LHZx)"



Korea had a GDP and per-capita income like an African country in 1950.  After 30 years it was a world class economic power house with a real, functioning democracy.  At least in the part that was blessed with American occupation. 



The control group that was kept under communism has to post guards at cemeteries to keep people from digging up corpses to eat.

Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at January 31, 2015 06:26 AM (KDbAT)

138 101 I am quite content for President Obama to have a strategy of allowing Islamic terrorists to nuke cities full of Democrats without response for the rest of Obama's term in office. Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at January 31, 2015 11:02 AM (KDbAT) No offense, but that statement is disturbingly close to what Michael Moore said after 9/11, when he couldn't understand why the muzzies attacked NYC because they didn't vote for Bush. For example, if Philadelphia were nuked, Pennsylvania would be a reliably red state in presidential elections. I've said many times that I would happily let New Jersey annex Philadelphia. I live in the Philly suburbs. I've run some simulations, and a Hiroshima-sized nuke detonated in the city would not affect me. At all. http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

Posted by: rickl at January 31, 2015 06:26 AM (sdi6R)

139 During the Vietnam War our pilots weren't supposed to shoot up MIGs while they were on the ground. We were to stay away from certain offensive assets of the enemy. Stay away from facalities that provided material support to the enemy. That sort of thinking got a lot of people on both sides of the war killed, needlessly. You would have thought that we had learned our lesson. No, we go back to rules-of-engagement mentality and we educate our enemies on how to beat us. If it were me running the show, the first thing I would teach the generals what an old Indian told me. Kill every person that takes up arms against you, then scatter whats left to the wind. That way you only have to do it once.

Posted by: fairweatherbill holding dominion over the nether regions at January 31, 2015 06:27 AM (J6jNv)

140 On a bright note, Moochelle recommends American Sniper. (I didn't read the reasons why, but that's got to stick in the craw of all the lefties calling for a ban of the movie).

Posted by: Turd Ferguson at January 31, 2015 06:28 AM (VAsIq)

141 On a bright note, Moochelle recommends American Sniper. (I didn't read the reasons why, but that's got to stick in the craw of all the lefties calling for a ban of the movie). Posted by: Turd Ferguson at January 31, 2015 11:28 AM (VAsIq) Yeah BUT the asshole could not resist the urge to complain "where are the stories about our Women Soldiers?" Why do these assholes always have to divide us and set one group against another?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 31, 2015 06:30 AM (LJcWW)

142 You heap enough shit on the losers that they clearly comprehend the difference between resisting and accepting the inevitable. That's why John Boehner has been such a delight to work with. No matter what happens in an election, he's a loser.

Posted by: Barack Almighty at January 31, 2015 06:31 AM (FcR7P)

143 I am quite content for President Obama to have a strategy of allowing Islamic terrorists to nuke cities full of Democrats without response for the rest of Obama's term in office.

Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at January 31, 2015 11:02 AM (KDbAT)

Wow...what a hero. Making the sacrifice for the rest of us?

Thanks, but I'll pass on your bravery.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 31, 2015 06:32 AM (Zu3d9)

144 Excellent post, WeirdDave.

In 2003, on the eve of the invasion, I told my wife "If we do this, it's a generational commitment. At least 1 generation, and probably 2 or more", for reasons that I stated above. I have no confidence that the American people, and especially American politicians, are capable of carrying through on such a commitment anymore.



Almost verbatim what I said to my wife at the same time.

Posted by: Jay Guevara[/i][/b][/s] at January 31, 2015 06:32 AM (oKE6c)

145 WeirdDave - If you are accepting edits - "The big lie is that you can't change a culture for from without."

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc at January 31, 2015 06:32 AM (F2IAQ)

146 Why do these assholes always have to divide us and set one group against another? --- Cuz assholes are gonna asshole.

Posted by: Turd Ferguson at January 31, 2015 06:33 AM (VAsIq)

147 "133 We won the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We lost the attempt to control the areas after the war was over. War isn't pacifying a location and rebuilding, that's occupation. War is the fight between armies until one is defeated and you occupy the territory.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at January 31, 2015 11:21 AM (39g3+)"



We won the war in Vietnam.  Unfortunately we lost the Vietnam War when the Democrats got veto proof majorities in both houses of Congress after Watergate.

Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at January 31, 2015 06:33 AM (KDbAT)

148 The control group that was kept under communism has to post guards at cemeteries to keep people from digging up corpses to eat.

Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at January 31, 2015 11:26 AM (KDbAT)



Maybe that's what "Barry" really meant by "shovel-ready."

Posted by: Jay Guevara[/i][/b][/s] at January 31, 2015 06:34 AM (oKE6c)

149

"You kill them. You kill them, and kill them, and kill them some more..."

 

But if we kill the most dangerous enemy we face, the Dems and the media, we go to jail.  How do we defeat someone who lives among us but longs for us to be humiliated and defeated?

Posted by: Ray Van Dune at January 31, 2015 06:34 AM (HuzS0)

150 "145 I am quite content for President Obama to have a strategy of allowing
Islamic terrorists to nuke cities full of Democrats without response
for the rest of Obama's term in office.


Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at January 31, 2015 11:02 AM (KDbAT)

Wow...what a hero. Making the sacrifice for the rest of us?

Thanks, but I'll pass on your bravery.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 31, 2015 11:32 AM (Zu3d9)"



You want to fight Obama on this, go ahead.  Be my guest.  I'm tired.



Have fun storming the castle.

Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at January 31, 2015 06:35 AM (KDbAT)

151 "where are the stories about our Women Soldiers?" Why do these assholes always have to divide us and set one group against another? Posted by: Nevergiveup --------------------------------- She could have latched onto this, truly heroic...: http://tinyurl.com/krs8bg8

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc at January 31, 2015 06:37 AM (F2IAQ)

152 We won the war in Vietnam. Unfortunately we lost the Vietnam War when the Democrats got veto proof majorities in both houses of Congress after Watergate. Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at January 31, 2015 11:33 AM (KDbAT) ________ Filibuster proof, yes. Veto proof, no. At least not in the Senate.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 31, 2015 06:40 AM (0LHZx)

153 But if we kill the most dangerous enemy we face, the Dems and the media, we go to jail. How do we defeat someone who lives among us but longs for us to be humiliated and defeated?

Posted by: Ray Van Dune at January 31, 2015 11:34 AM (HuzS0)


I think you said it yourself: humiliate them. Argue with them, don't let them run roughshod over us. Be a good example in your own life, so that people see the success of conservatism and the failure of leftism. We're essentially re-fighting the Cold War, and it'll take some time, but it is possible.

Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at January 31, 2015 06:40 AM (ThxKk)

154 The problem America faces is an infestation of Reds, most notably in Hollywood, academia, and the MSM. This problem is not new; it dates back at least to the 1930s, and would have impeded our war effort in WWII, and in fact impeded our preparations for war until June 22, 1941, after which the fierce moral urgency of pacifism became the fierce moral urgency of fighting Fascism.

Posted by: Jay Guevara[/i][/b][/s] at January 31, 2015 06:40 AM (oKE6c)

155 http://tinyurl.com/krs8bg8 Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc at January 31, 2015 11:37 AM (F2IAQ) Interesting story and yes she went outside of the chain of command.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 31, 2015 06:42 AM (LJcWW)

156 The media. The media, the media, the media. The media, the media, the media, the media, the media, the media, and the media. That's the battleground. That's the prize. That's the strategic fulcrum. End liberal control of the media and you end the relentless treason against America during wartime. End liberal control of the media and you end the Democrats' ongoing large-scale looting of the American people. End liberal control of the media and you end the culture war. I've said this before and I'm going to keep on saying it. Focus on the TV producers and executives who make the real decisions. Focus on the film directors and executives. Dig up dirt on them and feed it to their rivals then watch the beast tear out its own guts. Target them with protests and (yes) direct threats -- the way the Muslims have already figured out. The media are the enemy and the battleground. Fight them with every weapon fair or foul. No quarter, no mercy, no stopping until they are crushed.

Posted by: Trimegistus at January 31, 2015 06:44 AM (/eOcU)

157 And then..... And then you help them up. They'll have been told that they have no future after losing the war, so you give them one. You rush in men and money and machines and you rebuild. You had me til right there. Japan and Germany still had the people who built industry, they just needed a leg up after the destruction to REbuild. There is no rebuilding in muslim countries. As for making them peaceful, that makes me laugh at the thought. For centuries they have cycled from expansion to being pushed back but they always come back. Changing a true believer's religion has a spotty success rate. If you kill the leaders you might get a decade to a generation of relative peace but never expect to be free from the plague until you wipe it out. They set the rules. They get to vote when it is over.

Posted by: Bob from table9 at January 31, 2015 06:44 AM (WNERA)

158 See Diana West's book "American Betrayal". She notes that the FDR administration was chock full of Communists and Soviet agents, and argues that our WWII strategy was optimized for the benefit of Soviet war aims. Individuals in our government were already transferring nuclear technology to the Russians even before the Trinity test.

Posted by: rickl at January 31, 2015 06:45 AM (sdi6R)

159 Gardening thread is up, fellas. Have fun! I'll be back this afternoon (I know you were going to ask).

Posted by: Turd Ferguson at January 31, 2015 06:45 AM (VAsIq)

160 Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 31, 2015 11:40 AM (oKE6c)

The difference now is that the vast majority of those who actively support socialism are unaware of how they are being manipulated. Which speaks ill of their educations and intellects.

At least in the 1930s many weren't willing fools.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 31, 2015 06:46 AM (Zu3d9)

161 Not with the American Government as it stands. In reality, it can't even make a 2 year commitment simply due to the fact that between almost 1/3 to 2/3 of power shifts hands. Different parties in power, different priorities. And as history showed us with Vietnam, the Dems failed to uphold the treaty Nixon had in place. (I can't remember the details of it off hand.)

Posted by: Dave C at January 31, 2015 11:01 AM (icW69)



Bottom line: the Democrat Party simply is not fit to govern. Period. Not in any sense: economic, foreign policy, domestic policy, defense, not even the environment (because they're incapable of balancing cost with benefit). 


Hell, they can't even manage their party's finances, much less the nation's, and they can't blame THAT on Republicans.

Posted by: Jay Guevara[/i][/b][/s] at January 31, 2015 06:46 AM (oKE6c)

162 Democrats control the FSA. The Democrats can for example shut off the EBT cards in all of Illinois. Riots. Republicans faint. Democrats get what they want. The EBT cards start working again. In fact the Democrats really don't even have to do it. They just have to mention it to the GOP. Works just as well without all the fuss. The fun times will begin when the bluffs get called and the riots don't stop even when the cards start working again.

Posted by: eman at January 31, 2015 06:46 AM (MQEz6)

163 "140 101
I am quite content for President Obama to have a strategy of allowing Islamic terrorists to nuke cities full of Democrats without response for the rest of Obama's term in office.
Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at January 31, 2015 11:02 AM (KDbAT)



No offense, but that statement is disturbingly close to what Michael Moore said after 9/11, when he couldn't understand why the muzzies attacked NYC because they didn't vote for Bush.



For example, if Philadelphia were nuked, Pennsylvania would be a reliably red state in presidential elections.


I've said many times that I would happily let New Jersey annex Philadelphia.

I live in the Philly suburbs. I've run some simulations, and a Hiroshima-sized nuke detonated in the city would not affect me. At all.

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

Posted by: rickl at January 31, 2015 11:26 AM (sdi6R)"



Michael Moore and I agree on the political inclinations of most of the people in New York City although we part ways on how happy we are about those political inclinations. 



The difference is that before Barack Obama, I had these naive ideals of patriotism and joint participation in the American Project of E Pluribus Unum.  Today I am more of a subscriber to the idea of TWANLOC.

Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at January 31, 2015 06:46 AM (KDbAT)

164 The difference now is that the vast majority of those who actively support socialism are unaware of how they are being manipulated. Which speaks ill of their educations and intellects.

At least in the 1930s many weren't willing fools.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 31, 2015 11:46 AM (Zu3d9)



Not so sure about that. They were also manipulated, but mostly by the Soviets, not so much homegrown Commies, as we have now. Many had their eyes opened only by the signing of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, having bought into all the anti-Fascist propaganda of the Reds, and viewing the USSR as the bulwark against Fascism. That basically the dispute between the two was a religious schism was lost on the useful idiots.

Posted by: Jay Guevara[/i][/b][/s] at January 31, 2015 06:50 AM (oKE6c)

165 what sexy blonde video? missed that one

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at January 31, 2015 10:50 AM (IXrOn)


http://youtu.be/Pk4kOso5zrg

Posted by: Weirddave at January 31, 2015 06:51 AM (WvS3w)

166 Posted by: Trimegistus at January 31, 2015 11:44 AM (/eOcU)


Trimegistus 2016.

Posted by: Jay Guevara[/i][/b][/s] at January 31, 2015 06:51 AM (oKE6c)

167 "Peace through strength" applies in culture wars as well. 

VDH likes to say that wars resolve uncertainties.  They happen when states feel thuggish and think they might have a shot at marginal success vs. the consequences. 

Our timid cultural attitude encourages aggression just as lack of resolve at conferences and on the battlefield.  When we self-loathe or even just act embarrassed or humble in the face of the Assertive Others, we're showing our backs to the wolves and bears.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at January 31, 2015 06:51 AM (QKIQb)

168 147 fixed, thanks

Posted by: Weirddave at January 31, 2015 06:52 AM (WvS3w)

169 I disagree strongly with the post's categorizations. The first case is not occupation, it's colonization, or just simple conquest. It may be done incrementally or in one or more large bounds, it may be done for economic interest, territorial expansion, or in response to some threat, but it's generally not done with the expectation that you're ever going to leave. Occupation generally comes after you've completely flattened an adversary, they're no longer capable of resisting, and you want to make sure they stay down. Any reconstruction of the defeated state's civil society is entirely optional. Those occupations that drag on inconclusively usually end up being a political irritant to the occupier.

Posted by: JEM at January 31, 2015 06:52 AM (o+SC1)

170 Great writeup; a few comments. First, there's a more fundamental clash in play here; namely one articulated by the Egyptian philosopher Qutb in the mid 20th century. Basically this is a clash between types of government, whereas we separate church and state, and a Muslim theocracy, where the state and the religion are merged. The state has the authority to enforce religion, and the religion sets up the rules of government. They're at odds and cannot 'coexist'. Dave's first model (occupation) will have a hard time with this fundamental clash, and yes, it will take multiple generations of occupying and government building for there to be a sea change in how Muslims view govt in the long haul; their current Theocratic view has been in place for centuries. Another issue there is simply if you have radicals composing 20% of the Muslim population, and you had the will to tough it out, how on earth would you occupy that much land? Even the French can't deal with the 'no-go' zones in their own country. The second (annihilation) is also difficult; the issue here is twofold. First, identification. The examples used by Dave in WWII were great when the group occupied a land mass and openly wore uniforms to identify themselves. With the exception of ISIS, there's very little to identify land mass wise, and with the exception of their black flag, very little to distinguish them against the general population. So to go in and bomb everything worked well in Germany, where the population assisted in the war effort. But to do that now, you're annihilating a population like the Yazidi, which had nothing to do with supporting ISIS other than unfortunately being in their path of conquest. Second, as Dave points out, we don't have the will; namely that every war we've been dealing with as of late has been fought to a stalemate, or return to status quo; Korean, Vietnam, for example only established a N/S border, but nothing in the fundamental clashes were formally settled. First Gulf War only had the objective to remove Iraq from Kuwait. Eventually there will be a total all out war (to settle issues once and for all). We've had one about every 80 years (WWII in 1940's, Civil War in 1860's, Revolutionary war in 1770's). We're about due for another fundamental clash.

Posted by: Wamphyr at January 31, 2015 06:53 AM (9T7TV)

171 "The media are the enemy and the battleground. Fight them with every weapon fair or foul. No quarter, no mercy, no stopping until they are crushed.

Posted by: Trimegistus at January 31, 2015 11:44 AM (/eOcU)"



I agree with your basic premise but I don't think that your tactic of digging up dirt on media people is going to have much effect.  These people seem to be impervious to shame.  The only things that will work will be to put them in prison or take away their money.  Instapundit's proposal to repeal the Eisenhower era tax cut might be a good start.  I would also suggest that copyright protection ought to be the same as patent protection i.e. twenty years.

Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at January 31, 2015 06:55 AM (KDbAT)

172 17 The US has the capacity to win wars. We do not have the will. We have too many people who believe the US is bad and deserves to lose. Posted by: blaster at January 31, 2015 10:18 AM (Rx8ML) Yep. Hindsight is 20/20 but now I see that Bush's assumption back in 2003 - one I strongly supported - was quite flawed: Get rid of Saddam, made Iraq safe for democracy, and the Iraqis, and eventually the entire Arab world will embrace it. It made sense to me then because maintaining the status quo clearly hadn't worked. When people said, "we Americans fought for our freedom, nobody handed it to us" I pointed to Germany and Japan as examples of peoples who had been handed freedom - after they had been utterly crushed. But we were culturally confident after WWII. When half of America doesn't believe in American ideals, how can you spread them elsewhere? Right now, the Muslim terrorists vs. the US is like a fight between an inner city thug and Pajama Boy. The thug might be illiterate and stupid, but he's got muscles and he swaggers and he's out to beat Pajama Boy's head in. Pajama Boy is rich and pampered and went to fancy schools but can't throw a punch and really doesn't believe in throwing a punch at the thug, because, hey, white privilege. He thinks if he apologizes and hands over his cell phone he'll be fine.

Posted by: Donna &&&&&& V. (brandishing ampersands) at January 31, 2015 06:55 AM (+XMAD)

173 You had me til right there.
Japan and Germany still had the people who built industry, they just needed a leg up after the destruction to REbuild. There is no rebuilding in muslim countries.

As for making them peaceful, that makes me laugh at the thought. For centuries they have cycled from expansion to being pushed back but they always come back.

Changing a true believer's religion has a spotty success rate.

If you kill the leaders you might get a decade to a generation of relative peace but never expect to be free from the plague until you wipe it out.

They set the rules. They get to vote when it is over.


The book I linked in the OP argues pretty convincingly otherwise. Maybe Mike will see this post and add his $.02.

Posted by: Weirddave at January 31, 2015 06:56 AM (WvS3w)

174 172 Eventually there will be a total all out war (to settle issues once and for all). We've had one about every 80 years (WWII in 1940's, Civil War in 1860's, Revolutionary war in 1770's). We're about due for another fundamental clash. Posted by: Wamphyr at January 31, 2015 11:53 AM (9T7TV) You've read "The Fourth Turning", no?

Posted by: rickl at January 31, 2015 06:56 AM (sdi6R)

175 "Not so sure about that."

I'm with Jay.  There are some True Believers on socialism out there but how many people aren't going to suspect something's wrong with the idea that giving government a dollar turns it into $1.20?  I think most people buy into socialism because they're OK with bleeding their wealthier fellow citizens.

I deserve more.  Just ask me.  Don't really care how that happens, just give me more.  It's the fair and right thing to do.  If you're me.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at January 31, 2015 06:57 AM (QKIQb)

176 165 Today I am more of a subscriber to the idea of TWANLOC. Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at January 31, 2015 11:46 AM (KDbAT) Yeah, I'm right there with you.

Posted by: rickl at January 31, 2015 07:00 AM (sdi6R)

177 The book I lined in the OP argues pretty convincingly otherwise. Maybe Mike will see this post and add his $.02. Posted by: Weirddave at January 31, 2015 11:56 AM (WvS3w) I would like to be wrong because I would rather be at peace with them. Making war is expensive and occupying the world is expensive too. Just rather be left alone but that isn't in their plans.

Posted by: Bob from table9 at January 31, 2015 07:02 AM (WNERA)

178 I deserve more. Just ask me. Don't really care how that happens, just give me more. It's the fair and right thing to do. If you're me.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at January 31, 2015 11:57 AM (QKIQb)



Notice how commercials aimed at dirtbags invariably use the phrase "you deserve ______"?


What that demographic deserves is a horse whipping. "Deserve,"  "fair," and "justice" (most especially when preceded by an adjective) are also go-to bleats of the same people. They'd better hope they never get what they deserve, what would be fair, or what would be just.

Posted by: Jay Guevara[/i][/b][/s] at January 31, 2015 07:04 AM (oKE6c)

179 As for bombing innocent people ask the French if we bombed the shit out of their towns and countryside when the Nazis occupied it.

Posted by: Bob from table9 at January 31, 2015 07:04 AM (WNERA)

180 Good post. Good comments. Depressingly, the formerly Christian west is afflicted with such a severe case of cultural rot that I remain skeptical about the long-term prospects for man's grand experiment in liberty. Success in Iraq and Afghanistan required a long-term commitment to impose reform of the Islamic world, pressure on the Saudi's in particular, and the will to do such things only exists amongst conservatives. What do we as a people hold in common anymore? For what cause would "centrists" send their sons to fight? The left, as has been proven in some cases, would fight for the wrong side.

Posted by: Blue Collar Man at January 31, 2015 07:08 AM (Z+dCR)

181 Japan's GDP pre war was somewhat less than Italy's. It was respectable but by no means a "powerhouse" and not even in the same league as Germany or the UK or the USSR. And the US was nearly equivalent to Germany, the UK, and USSR combined. The Japanese just lavished a huge part of their GDP on the military, especially the navy and air forces.

Posted by: the guy that moves pianos for a living... at January 31, 2015 07:09 AM (M6Vhk)

182 174 Hindsight is 20/20 but now I see that Bush's assumption back in 2003 - one I strongly supported - was quite flawed: Get rid of Saddam, made Iraq safe for democracy, and the Iraqis, and eventually the entire Arab world will embrace it. It made sense to me then because maintaining the status quo clearly hadn't worked. When people said, "we Americans fought for our freedom, nobody handed it to us" I pointed to Germany and Japan as examples of peoples who had been handed freedom - after they had been utterly crushed. But we were culturally confident after WWII. When half of America doesn't believe in American ideals, how can you spread them elsewhere? Right now, the Muslim terrorists vs. the US is like a fight between an inner city thug and Pajama Boy. The thug might be illiterate and stupid, but he's got muscles and he swaggers and he's out to beat Pajama Boy's head in. Pajama Boy is rich and pampered and went to fancy schools but can't throw a punch and really doesn't believe in throwing a punch at the thug, because, hey, white privilege. He thinks if he apologizes and hands over his cell phone he'll be fine. Posted by: Donna &&&&&& V. (brandishing ampersands) at January 31, 2015 11:55 AM (+XMAD) I don't usually repost entire comments, but I agree with every particle of that.

Posted by: rickl at January 31, 2015 07:12 AM (sdi6R)

183 Fred Saberhagen wrote a series of science fiction stories about the "Berserkers".  These were self replicating artificially intelligent robots who had been built by warring alien civilizations.  The war was over and the alien civilizations had been destroyed but the robots kept replicating themselves and spreading through the universe long after the reason for their existence no longer existed.  Saberhagen's stories were about the encounters between these pointless destructive machines and human beings.


I have often thought of the political left in this country as being like the Berserker machines.  Most of the ideas and many of the organizations of the Left were created by the Soviet Union to weaken the United States and the West.  The Soviet Union is now gone but these zombie memes and organizations continue to exist and replicate while they work to weaken the United States and Western Civilization.

Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at January 31, 2015 07:18 AM (KDbAT)

184

my pet jawa is seeing chatter that the Jordanian pilot has been executed

 

I think he was anyway and that is why they couldn't show proof of life

 

lets see if the Jordanians make good on their threat to kill all terrorists in their custody

 

its one way to make sure they aren't blackmailed again

Posted by: ThunderB, Official Bergdahl Face Puncher at January 31, 2015 07:22 AM (zOTsN)

185 I have often thought of the political left in this country as being like the Berserker machines. Most of the ideas and many of the organizations of the Left were created by the Soviet Union to weaken the United States and the West. The Soviet Union is now gone but these zombie memes and organizations continue to exist and replicate while they work to weaken the United States and Western Civilization.

Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at January 31, 2015 12:18 PM (KDbAT)


I've had the same thought, just couched in MAD terms: we destroyed them, but they'd already launched weapons that would ultimately destroy us. It's just that they were people and propaganda, not ICBMs.

Posted by: Jay Guevara[/i][/b][/s] at January 31, 2015 07:22 AM (oKE6c)

186 Cracks in the Progressive narrative? I doubt it, but maybe. Lengthy, but worth the read: http://tinyurl.com/nzkwxpx

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc at January 31, 2015 07:26 AM (F2IAQ)

187 but [Democrats] cannot bring back the slaughtered enemies from the dead.
Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at January 31, 2015 10:32 AM (KDbAT)
******************
If we need the votes we can.

Posted by: Hon. Richard Daley at January 31, 2015 07:34 AM (TqyFL)

188 "And then you help them up. They'll have been told that they have no future after losing the war, so you give them one. You rush in men and money and machines and you rebuild. " Why? To make yourself feel better about what you've done? You've already justified killing and tormenting them to the brink of annihilation. Why is the next step 'now help them up and shape them into your ideal culture' rather than simply 'now actually annihilate them'?

Posted by: Crude at January 31, 2015 07:41 AM (/IrCS)

189 So, we smoke one small, insignificant country to set an example for the world.
Posted by: jwest at January 31, 2015 10:55 AM (9ZZd+)


Grenada vs. Nicaragua comes to mind. We proved that (1) the press cannot be trusted; (2) don't fuck around with crap like "staged escalation"; (3) overwhelming force gets it done quicker and with less blood; (4) the neighborhood gets real quiet when you blow away the shitbags without a second thought.

Too bad they don't teach this stuff at the (giggle) War College anymore.


Posted by: The dismayed ghost of Cap Wienberger at January 31, 2015 07:47 AM (TqyFL)

190 Imperial Japan was as or more fanatical than the islamic terrorists of today. It took not one but two atomic bombs to get their attention.

Posted by: Buffalobob at January 31, 2015 07:51 AM (w+5ie)

191 Part of the issue to is that for the first time in history everyone is connected. The next war will be fought with more views on You Tube than in the media. Then the people sitting at home and going to the Mall or some concert will have to see the horrible reality that is war. Will we still have the stomach to wage it...even when it's necessary?

Posted by: Diogenes at January 31, 2015 07:54 AM (08Znv)

192 Why? To make yourself feel better about what you've done? You've already justified killing and tormenting them to the brink of annihilation. Why is the next step 'now help them up and shape them into your ideal culture' rather than simply 'now actually annihilate them'? Solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant? I haven't justified anything. I've simply stated what is necessary to win at war. I think war should be the last resort, but when it comes, I want to win it. I also realize that there is going to be a world after the war, and I want it to be a world as friendly to my values as possible, so that it'll be a long time before the next war. I want to win it on my terms. Genocide is not in line with Western values.

Posted by: Weirddave at January 31, 2015 08:18 AM (WvS3w)

193 This is true Dave. War is won by combatants who do what is necessary to win. The US no longer is willing to do what is necessary to win any war. So, although we have the capability to beat anyone on the field of battle, we do not have the will.... and it will be the end of the country.

Posted by: Trunk Monkey, as Voiced by Brian Dennehy at January 31, 2015 08:22 AM (RNhbC)

194 195 So, although we have the capability to beat anyone on the field of battle, we do not have the will.... and it will be the end of the country. Posted by: Trunk Monkey, as Voiced by Brian Dennehy at January 31, 2015 01:22 PM (RNhbC) And that is entirely that fault of the Left, which teaches that Western Civilization is not worth defending. The Left must be destroyed first, before we can hope to defeat Islam.

Posted by: rickl at January 31, 2015 08:29 AM (sdi6R)

195 when 'murican soldiers carried 30 caliber rifles and 45 caliber handguns they tended to win wars, now correlation is not causation, but still......

Posted by: steve l at January 31, 2015 08:34 AM (R0MFk)

196 194 Posted by: Weirddave at January 31, 2015 01:18 PM (WvS3w)

Quite, if the enemy is kind enough to grant us a just Causus Belli then I will do EVERYTHING needed to make sure I never need a Just War Ruling again.

Whether the answer is the Marshall Plan or no stone atop another the answer is make it so your foe FEARS to incur your ire.

Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077[/i][/b][/s] at January 31, 2015 08:40 AM (/4AZU)

197 Great post, Dave.

Posted by: Dollar Store Sock at January 31, 2015 08:43 AM (c+gwp)

198 "They're playing the other long game, one employed by a culture that's militarily inferior but culturally confident." Understand this or perish. Our school of fish are led by connected International Socialists -a flavor of tyranny all but indistinguishable from National Socialism- who are playing their own wicked long game. It's pushed into orbit by a sizable amount of run of the mill fascists. "Progressives", they call themselves these days. Those who are strongly swimming along are a small army of pie in the sky suicidal idealists. Useful idiots. They get the agenda implemented in the last nooks and crannies. The masses are ignorant and lazy, but they're historically a dead weight. At the head of the pyramid of world power and chaos sits the God of this World. This is his world. He rules. 2 Corinthians 4:4 It is true. Crooked smile, cherubic face, babyish features, ancient lines, not human, flies to and fro, Prince of the Air, he's real. He's building an all controlling international police state buffeted by millions of pure evil black clad human bombs using humanity's vehicles - totalitarian religion and totalitarian government. Buckle up. The battle is on two planes - the temporal and the ethereal.

Posted by: KindleFire+SavetoReadingList at January 31, 2015 08:48 AM (PTSsY)

199 @195 - agreed to a point, but: a) When it came to Iraq we 'won' the invasion, but we failed to hold the occupation. Half the boots necessary for an effective presence in a country that size and casualty-paranoid generals pushing 'force protection'. b) A political leadership boisterous in public but indecisive, too trusting of lawfare-addled military brass, and with no understanding of the importance of the time factor. Nothing quite so typifies the GWB's approach to war as their diddling around forever coming up with tribunals to try detainees, but the dithering also applied to relieving field brass. c) Having weapons that can kill an enemy sitting in a parked car under a bridge without destroying the bridge may seem like a useful capability, but in the real world the failure to destroy the bridge and the town around it permits the people who live there and support the enemy to wash their hands of the consequences of their actions. You win wars not by killing the opposition in the field, but by rendering those that back them destitute and incapable of supporting them. d) Wars of convenience operate on a different scale than wars of necessity. Our nation will, if sometimes uncertainly, rally behind a brisk and successful war of convenience (Texas 1848, Spain 1898, etc.) It will not and should not support decade-long and indecisive wars of convenience. If you're going to fight one, make it quick, successful, and conclusive.

Posted by: JEM at January 31, 2015 08:56 AM (o+SC1)

200 Fundamental Concepts Number One: you don't negotiate with evil. What is Islam? A religion with a prophet who was a lifelong pedophile who delivered war, pillaging, rape and conquest to all who did not submit under the sword of Islam. From the first migration to the present, 1393 years and counting, of war. Proper discernment should kick in at some point. The Western World has to wake up to this threat every few hundred years. The Western World is stupid and forgets. Then it fights. Then it forgets. Islam is the vehicle for the one who is playing the millennial long game. Guidance and influence are all the gentle hands needed when power is limited but time is long. It's a battle for your souls. Who is burning?

Posted by: Black&White at January 31, 2015 09:27 AM (PTSsY)

201 "193 Part of the issue to is that for the first time in history everyone is connected. The next war will be fought with more views on You Tube than in the media.
Then the people sitting at home and going to the Mall or some concert will have to see the horrible reality that is war.
Will we still have the stomach to wage it...even when it's necessary?

Posted by: Diogenes at January 31, 2015 12:54 PM (08Znv)"



First off, people sitting at home and going to the Mall or some concert have a choice of what they see on You Tube.  They can watch carnage or cat videos.  There is a whole lot of carnage available to watch right now but more people choose to watch cat videos. 



Secondly violent snuff videos are recruiting tools for ISIS and other Islamic Terrorist groups.  It's part of that strong horse way of looking at the world.



Thirdly, time is a really important component when considering how the American people react to things.  If you kill a billion Muslims over a week and a half, that would have less impact on most Americans than if you kill one a day for a year.

Posted by: Obnoxious A-Hole at January 31, 2015 09:33 AM (KDbAT)

202 "Can the US ever win another war?" Depends how thee terms are defined. Remember 1999: What I heard from people on the Left was (a) silence, as though nothing was happening in the Balkans, then (b) that it wasn't a war, and (c) whatever was going on was NATO and not Clinton. But when Bush was president, I heard (a) the War on Terror was a "construct" that didn't actually exist, but (b) the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, which were ostensibly campaigns in this non-existent war, were WARS! Now, we're waging something against ISIS but it isn't WAR which is convenient because Obama can't lose a WAR if he says he's not waging one. Short answer, Dave: Yes, the US can win another war - but it would be very difficult when certain institutions and their followers use their words in such ways as to preclude success.

Posted by: FireHorse at January 31, 2015 09:41 AM (lHZsI)

203

The Soviets didn't immediately act as conquerors in Eastern Europe. They courted the Czechs and the Romanians and even the Poles until a critical mass of citizens had come to believe communism was the fastest way out of the hole the occupation had left them in.

 

Of course, not everybody was buying, so the Soviets were kind enough to send help in persuading the non-believers. But that was a few years after the war.

 

Posted by: spongeworthy at January 31, 2015 10:14 AM (3EGWz)

 

By "courted", you must mean "told the critical mass that any resistance to the Communization of their country will be met with summary execution, and then backed it up with a heap of summary executions."

Posted by: steveegg at January 31, 2015 10:04 AM (cL79m)

204 If US would stay out of wars the combatants would run out of amunition and food and quit fighting. US can't win a war because too many groups in US are on the other side. Since the Revolutionary War the US goes to war because a coalition of political groups thinks it will work out for them. The bankers (Federal Reserve) were the swing group for the last Iraq war.

Posted by: Huggy at January 31, 2015 11:26 AM (PGh+Q)

205 Weirddave, as usual, great piece. A lot of people talk about the tactical aspect of war, killing folks, blowing stuff up, and often give little thought to the strategic level of war, where the politicians and civilian authority need to do their homework but has lacked in the last 15-20 yrs. Ive not lost hope on USA yet.

Posted by: fastfreefall at January 31, 2015 12:01 PM (Ra++W)

206 So, TL;DR, we're fucked.

Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde, NC Chapter at January 31, 2015 12:09 PM (6fyGz)

207 2 things: 1.) In the 1940s, if we had tried to "liberate the Japanese people from their government," we would still be fighting that war today. No. We WENT TO WAR WITH THAT COUNTRY, kicked ass and won. That's what it's about. 2.) A lot of it depends on who the enemy is (are?). We fought a GHASTLY war with Japan, dropped nuclear bombs on them, and then a few short years later they couldn't get enough of baseball and Sinatra. They became our buddies overnight. Whereas, the Muslims will NEVER warm to us. They hold grudges forever. There are neighborhoods in Iraq that have been at war with other neighborhoods for centuries.

Posted by: RKae at January 31, 2015 12:11 PM (Nsl5R)

208 I just want the GIANT FIST from the end of Cabin in The Woods to break through the floor of the kaaba in Mecca.

Posted by: Bloodthirsty - me? at January 31, 2015 03:18 PM (IPrGu)

209 Thanks for participating all.

Posted by: Weirddave at January 31, 2015 07:42 PM (7TK5d)

210 28 The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving on. Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 31, 2015 10:22 AM (LJcWW) * * * * * * * * AHA! I see I have a fellow U.S. Grant fan here amongst the horde!

Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at January 31, 2015 09:11 PM (AcTdG)

211 "Far too many of our number aren't, and even worse, believe that our national prosperity and comfort are not the result of hard work and sacrifice but are somehow the dispensation of some benign god, a fact of nature that will never end."

This is bizarre, Christians understand that God is rational and His laws are rational meaning that whatever blessings we receive from Him are due to rational things LIKE hard work and sacrifice.

The problem is with Marxists and Liberals who think wealth and success are not only zero sum but due entirely to a stroke of luck. There is a significant portion of the population of Earth that can't make the leap from hard work and sacrifice to prosperity because they sincerely believe that wealth is stolen from others and that luck is the only determining factor for success.

Posted by: Ben(the original) at February 01, 2015 09:20 AM (DcG8N)

Hide Comments | Add Comment




What colour is a green orange?




212kb generated in CPU 0.52, elapsed 1.7644 seconds.
64 queries taking 1.6118 seconds, 449 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.