|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
 Posted - 07/30/2004 : 09:27:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
I think the "new kind of war" that they are talking about is a distinction between fighting another nation and fighting the ephemeral concept called terrorism.
The tactics and technology are all very important, but that's just a description of the tools.
How would congress issue a formal decleration of war against "terror"? There is a distinct difference between fighting another nation and trying to fight an idea.
You could, literally, sustain a war against an idea indefinitely.... all you have to do is alter your definition slightly from time to time. A war against a nation ends when they surrender, not so a war against a concept.
I'd have to ask about how the war on poverty and war on drugs is going. Those are pretty esoteric concepts. Only the latter has any troops assigned to it.
Terrorism isn't so much a concept as a military tactic. But indeed, war against an opponent which does not hold places, is much different than an opponent that does. A hybrid of this would be Vietnam where a government held the northern part and insurgents (terrorists, guerillas, etc) infiltrated the rear and caused havok.
When a nation stoops to fight an idea with bullets, it creates martyrs. One must defeat an idea with dissent, reasonable discource, and education. The idea here is a form of radical fundamentalist religion. The tactic the religious group uses is terrorism.
I agree that using the military to fight a criminal organization is different than fighting a nation. Fighting a criminal organization takes much longer to ferret out and dispatch.
Actually, this is a discussion I got into recently with a friend. How do you fight an idea? It's not a thing that is easily defeated, because the idea survives - it's not a thing that can be 'killed'.
Are we currently fighting a war of ideaology in Iraq or are we fighting for a specific thing? Was that the problem with Viet Nam? Were we fighting a war of ideaology, i.e., to stop the spread of communism or were we fighting to maintain a free South Viet Nam? If it was the ideaology, do we then have a clearly defined enemy? Is this what makes ideaological wars so difficult to fight? Are we fighting terrorism and terrorists, which are essentially non-identifiable?
Is a war of ideaology what our 'leaders' mean by a 'new kind of war' or is it that we are fighting a faceless enemy? Is Iraq a 'humanitarian war' (I know that's an oxymoron) or is it a 'religious war' is it about crude oil and economic control? Are we fighting now to affect domestic economics in a foreign country? Is this a change in the reasons we fight wars. Weren't WWI and II about our foriegn policy rather than about our domestic policy?
Additionally, I am concerned about the 'scare tactics' that seem to be used to justify why we've gone into Iraq. Is this part of the new kind of war concept? |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2004 : 10:19:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Trish
Actually, this is a discussion I got into recently with a friend. How do you fight an idea? It's not a thing that is easily defeated, because the idea survives - it's not a thing that can be 'killed'.
(Note: the following is based on my own opinion)
I believe you fight an idea by logical discourse and education. It's also a fight that you can lose and grow from. It's not a thing that is easily defeated. But it is a thing which can be minimized through an appropriate response. The idea of racism is still present, but it is minimized through education and reasoned discourse.
The main problems I have seen with countries which suffer from a high level of radical religious fundamentalism is poor literacy levels, poverty, and lack of examination of the religious document being referenced by the following masses.
quote:
Are we currently fighting a war of ideaology in Iraq or are we fighting for a specific thing? Was that the problem with Viet Nam? Were we fighting a war of ideaology, i.e., to stop the spread of communism or were we fighting to maintain a free South Viet Nam? If it was the ideaology, do we then have a clearly defined enemy? Is this what makes ideaological wars so difficult to fight? Are we fighting terrorism and terrorists, which are essentially non-identifiable?
We are fighting a war based on the rigid thinking of one individual who had something personal against the Iraqi government. We were fighting a war to disarm a rogue government who alledgedly had tons of WMDs. However, compelling evidence which refuted the administration's claims were ignored pre-invasion. The inflexible nature of the administration caused the war.
Vietnam was a lesson in interference in the operation of the military in a war by the government. (Usually a bad idea.) The purpose of the war was to keep a free South Vietnam from being overrun by the North Vietnamese Communists. The war was conducted as an exercise to keep Communism at bay. The methodology of failure was that Congress hampered the military's operational conduct of the war. I saw a program on Discovery about bombing targets. Congress deemed that targets above a certian parallel were off limits. (In war, it is ill advised to put legitimate military targets off the strike lists because they reside in a particular part of the country.)
quote:
Is a war of ideaology what our 'leaders' mean by a 'new kind of war' or is it that we are fighting a faceless enemy? Is Iraq a 'humanitarian war' (I know that's an oxymoron) or is it a 'religious war' is it about crude oil and economic control? Are we fighting now to affect domestic economics in a foreign country? Is this a change in the reasons we fight wars. Weren't WWI and II about our foriegn policy rather than about our domestic policy?
I think it's more of the actions of a violent criminal organization which has coined the "new type of war". It's more of a faceless enemy which gladly trades their own life in order to cow a population. An enemy which has no homeland to defend. No places of importance to destroy. A hydra of leadership. (cut off one head, many step in to fill the void.) An enemy which uses the crudest of tactics to advance an ideological ideal.
quote:
Additionally, I am concerned about the 'scare tactics' that seem to be used to justify why we've gone into Iraq. Is this part of the new kind of war concept?
"Of course the people don't want war... that is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Sound familiar?
While one can imagine any one of the Bush administration using these tactics, it was said by Hermann Goering during the Nuremburg Trials in 1946. It is the tactics used to stiffle dissent which really concerns me. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
