RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,176598,00.html

Mr. Lind is stating the obvious correctly.

I recall many a time when the remark was made that "We can't win a war with one hand tied behind our back!" We've tried to fight with even less than that, so far, in this global war on Islam.

A national draft is the only logical response for dealing with a major global war. Taxes should have been raised; and civilian consumption should have been curtailed while the military was built up.

But our military "professionals" despised the idea of training and leading conscripts . Our civililians might have rebelled at the idea of deferred consumption.

"War on the cheap" has become very expensive. Now the recession is forcing most Americans to begin deferring consumption anyway.

NO DRAFT. There's gotta be a better way to raise the troop levels. Maybe if guys like Mc Cain would vote YES to a good GI Bill, maybe more would enlist.

I pretty much like Lind's perspective on most issues and this one is no exception. He has consistenly nailed the Iraq/Afghan debacle for what it is, a losing proposition for America. Until we realize the concepts of 'limited warfare' are bankrupt and have no place in our arsenal of offensive and defensive warfare capabilities, we will continue to blunder around the world with meaningless and useless wars that accomplish nothing. Well, they do accomplush a few things I guess. Like wasting valuable and precious lives, and bankrupting our country.

S/F Gordon

Sending troops off to war has to be a last resort. It does not seem Iraq was a major threat at the time. A-stan was where the order was given for 9/11. We should have finished the job there. Iraq was a mistake of epic proportions, and only the hardcore neo-cons will insist Iraq was a threat and needed to be invaded. So much B.S...

I don't know about you guys but "USA-the country that starts wars but doesn't finish them" doesn't sound very apealing. I think "USA- the country that does what it has to and finishes what it starts" sounds better. We might have made a mistake when we went into Iraq, I don't know enough details to say so for sure, but we have to finish what we start. If not for anything else do it for the Vets, does anyone know how many Vietnam Veterans have a hard time in life knowing that the men they lost there died for absolutly nothing. We have not even had close to that many casualties but we're ready to give up? Arn't we still the same country that came out of the world's largest war with flying colors, and guess what Mr. Lind... We were fighting on two fronts then too(did you learn that at princeton?), and I bet It's harder to move troops from Europe to the Pacific than it is to move troops from Baghdad to Kabul.

quote:

Originally posted by Third_Armored:
I don't know about you guys but "USA-the country that starts wars but doesn't finish them" doesn't sound very apealing. I think "USA- the country that does what it has to and finishes what it starts" sounds better. We might have made a mistake when we went into Iraq, I don't know enough details to say so for sure, but we have to finish what we start. If not for anything else do it for the Vets, does anyone know how many Vietnam Veterans have a hard time in life knowing that the men they lost there died for absolutly nothing. We have not even had close to that many casualties but we're ready to give up? Arn't we still the same country that came out of the world's largest war with flying colors, and guess what Mr. Lind... We were fighting on two fronts then too(did you learn that at princeton?), and I bet It's harder to move troops from Europe to the Pacific than it is to move troops from Baghdad to Kabul.

The choice presented by WW II was win or be occupied. Which to my mind is no choice at all.

We could walk away from Iraq, as we walked away from Vietnam, and in twenty or thirty years, except for those who fought there and died there, who would know the difference?

Afghanistan is not a war we choose, the Taliban and Al Qaeda choose it for us. And while we "could" walk away from that one, who is to say they wont try another 9/11?

In other words, we couldn't "walk away" from WW II and to my mind we can't walk away from Afghanistan.

Iraq? If we were wrong to go there in the first place, why weaken ourselves, weaken our war in Afghanistan by staying? There is such a thing as cutting off your nose to spite your face. At this point in time, if we "win" in Iraq, it will simply make Iran happy. Whether we leave or stay, we've already "lost." I for one see no reason why Americans should continue to die, when at least by my defintions we can't win.

Mark This.

If we had poured resources into Afghanistan, instead of withdrawing most of our forces and most of our money, we wouldn't be fighting them there now. We really would have "won."

Dave

Wars are not won by the numbers of deaths sustained. Wars are won when simple tenets of war are applied.

First, never initiate a war when you already know doing so will lead to defeat. Without going through all the details, we had more than enough relevant evidence that clearly demonstrated we could not win a war in Iraq. We knew the military, political and religious history of the area and what had happened to any country who became involved in wars of choice in the middle-east...from the Crusades to the British, French, Germans, Russians...they all experienced the results of misguided ideological interference...they got their butts handed to them. Instead, we had a new group of the 'Best and the Brightest' (a book by David Halberstam...if you haven't read it, you should as there are many parallels with today) who have made the same errors...they allowed ideology dictate their decisions instead of rational thought.

So the question for America is; do we allow previous bad decisions dictate the terms of future decisions? The rational answer should be no. Better to admit mistakes were made, rectify them and move on. But to think or believe any member of our armed forces died for nothing is an insult. I can only speak for myself but my service was not a waste of time and for nothing. My job was to make sure I did my job, supported my fellow Marines, watched their six...and if I had died doing so as so many did in Nam, I would have done so knowing my efforts were in keeping with a code of honor that surpasses any propaganda offered by those who have little idea about what combat is like...it would have been so because I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution...meaning I followed orders, upheld my part of that oath and if my life was part of the deal I knew my fellow Marines knew they could depend on me...I was watching their six. NO American serviceman or woman dies for nothing if they have been true to their oath. The politics of war are for other people not for men and women in uniform, few politicians have any idea or truly understand what sacrifice means.

S/F Gordon
______________________________________________

quote:

Originally posted by Third_Armored:
I don't know about you guys but "USA-the country that starts wars but doesn't finish them" doesn't sound very apealing. I think "USA- the country that does what it has to and finishes what it starts" sounds better. We might have made a mistake when we went into Iraq, I don't know enough details to say so for sure, but we have to finish what we start. If not for anything else do it for the Vets, does anyone know how many Vietnam Veterans have a hard time in life knowing that the men they lost there died for absolutly nothing. We have not even had close to that many casualties but we're ready to give up? Arn't we still the same country that came out of the world's largest war with flying colors, and guess what Mr. Lind... We were fighting on two fronts then too(did you learn that at princeton?), and I bet It's harder to move troops from Europe to the Pacific than it is to move troops from Baghdad to Kabul.

Grachus, I agree with your opinion about Afganhistan. As for Iraq, maybe we were wrong to go there but which is worse, letting a murderous dictator stay in power or removing the dictator and letting anarchy reign? Since the latter has occured we atleast owe it to the Iraqi citizens to stay there long enough to put up a stable government and get ahold of their country. I think that Iraqis finally living in peace is a good enough justification of our fallen soldiers.

I believe we should have a draft before we call it quits a leave Iraq/Afganhistan.

quote:

Originally posted by Third_Armored:
Grachus, I agree with your opinion about Afganhistan. As for Iraq, maybe we were wrong to go there but which is worse, letting a murderous dictator stay in power or removing the dictator and letting anarchy reign? Since the latter has occured we atleast owe it to the Iraqi citizens to stay there long enough to put up a stable government and get ahold of their country. I think that Iraqis finally living in peace is a good enough justification of our fallen soldiers.

I believe we should have a draft before we call it quits a leave Iraq/Afganhistan.

I will be perfectly honest with you, while I wish harm to no people and no nation, I have problems working up that much sympathy for the Iraqi people. I know this will get be flamed, and it's bad karma...

Not only that, I'm sure if I was there and saw innocent people suffering, I wouldn't be so callous. There are Many dictators in this world. I'm all in favor of giving aid, arms, training and money to those people who want to overthrow their dictators. I'm in favor of sending food to Darfur. What does that have to do with sending my neighbors off to risk their lives to do their job for them?

I'm not in favor of the war in Afghanistan because I think the Taliban was the worst government in the world at that time - I'm in favor of the war in Afghanistan because they attacked us. The decision to place Americans in harms way has to be based on more than a dislike (no matter how justified) for a particular regime.

If that was the basis of going to war, we might as well all sit down and play a high stakes game of Risk, because surely there are a lot of bad people in this world.

Dave

You do have a good point about not putting Americans in harms way just because we don't like the regime but I think we are so close to success (putting up a stable government/military) in Iraq that it would be stupid to pull out now.

and another thing Mr. Lind said in his article was that the only source of troops for Afganhistan is Iraq, what about all the extra troops In Iraq during the "surge" can they go to A-stan?