For those of you not conversant in German, that means "war of annihilation". When Hitler invaded the USSR in 1941 he pronounced it such a war, and of course he imbued it with Nazi theories about race. Well, Adolf was right, what he set off was a [/i]Vernichtungskrieg[i], only it was his people who ended up among the annhilated. That was the "hidden" WWII", the war on the Eastern Front.
That war contains lessons for us, and we refuse to learn them at our own peril.
Wars have by their nature their own progression and their own logic. In our own Civil War--our first "total war"--we were willing to devastate the enemy but not annihilate him. Sherman destroyed property and infrastructure during his March to the Sea, but did not engage in the murder of civilians. His damage to the South's infrastructure weakened the Confederacy to the point where they became increasingly amenable to unconditional surrender, and once they did so the Union was reasonably humane. The whole Reconstruction debacle was avoidable, but that's another topic.
Ennyhoo, we are now fighting a war that will probably turn into a [i]Vernichtungskrieg[i] at best and a full-blown genocide at worst. And it will do so due to the ineptitude and in some cases outright cowardice of our elected officials. The Democrats preach a "cut and run" gospel, but unless the Republicans can effectively defend the good work done by General Petraeus we'll be left drifting politically and strategically.
This cedes the initiative to the enemy, and allows him to make a counter-attack which may provoke our ultimate response--which may well be the next Hiroshima.
We want to avoid that. We want to win this war with as few casualties as possible, but we may not be able to do so. We may have to wade into a war that results in massive casualties, and we must be aware that this is not a possibility but a probabilty.
Unfortunately, I think we're past the point where we can avoid such a war. We failed to recognize that, during the 1980s and 1990s, the forces of radical Islam were mobilizing. This war started with the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979, but we didn't recognize it until 09/11/01. Some of us still don't recognize it.
Our response so far has been quite restrained and proportional. But that has it's limits....
Vernichtungskrieg? How did that work out for the Nazis? Wink
It didn't, but only because they lacked the means to carry it out. We have the means, and I do not want to see us use them. But if we must then we must....
Nonsense. We are fighting relatively small groups of fanatics, not fully-armed states where the population is totally engaged in either fighting or industrial war production.
If there is one thing that Gen. Petreaeus's success has shown, it is that surgical precision and the building of alliances with former enemies brings more success than brute force.
Counterinsurgency theory is all about separating the population from the bad guys, and killing just the bad guys.
People who have been to Iraq tell me that we rely a lot on the local population, working with Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, interpreters, and other workers.
Of course some people have fantasies about killing millions of people, the apocalypse, etc.
A clarification is in order here. I used the German term "Vernichtungskrieg" because I did not want to use the more loaded term "genocide". And there is a difference between the two, one with which I'm comfortable.
In Milspeak the former is defeating the enemy in detail; if he still continues to try fighting he dies. The latter goes to mass murder, and I don't care for that regardless of justifications.
I don't see us doing the latter, but we seriously need to be prepared to do the former....
Originally posted by ipw533: A clarification is in order here. I used the German term "Vernichtungskrieg" because I did not want to use the more loaded term "genocide". And there is a difference between the two, one with which I'm comfortable.
In Milspeak the former is defeating the enemy in detail; if he still continues to try fighting he dies. The latter goes to mass murder, and I don't care for that regardless of justifications.
I don't see us doing the latter, but we seriously need to be prepared to do the former....
Vernichtungskrieg? How did that work out for the Nazis? Wink
It didn't, but only because they lacked the means to carry it out. We have the means, and I do not want to see us use them. But if we must then we must....
All it needs is a few total nutters like you on the levers of power and it's tatty-bye world as we know it. Mind you, you make a very ally impression. Maybe Tom Cruise would be interested in you for his next filum.
All it needs is a few total nutters like you on the levers of power and it's tatty-bye world as we know it. Mind you, you make a very ally impression. Maybe Tom Cruise would be interested in you for his next filum.
Well if he is then perhaps he'll make an offer--I could certainly use the money. But back to the real world and back on topic, I see increasingly see myself not as the "hero on horseback" that some you want to think I aspire to being but more like Cassandra from the play Antigone by Sophocles--someone who sees the coming train wreck but is cast aside by those who do or will not. And when said train wreck comes, please do not ask me why I didn't warn you, because I did. We ignored the warning, and the price of that ignorance will be all of us, including me, going off the rails together....
I've no children of my own--not the two-legged kind anyway--but I've four nephews. So far I've personally met two of them--my sister's boys. I know my brother's children from what my mother tells me about them, and I do look forward to one day meeting them. And while they are not my children I do feel protective over them.
I see the horrors coming our way. And if someone has to come home in boots splashed with blood, I'd rather it be an old fart like me than them. But, sadly, THAT is the fantasy. The reality is that those boys, who I'd much rather see fishing or playing football, will have to clean up the mess that we lacked the will to clean up. They will be the ones coming home in bloody boots, and they will do so because we were afraid, for whatever reason, to do the job ourselves.
I'm at an age now where unfortunately I can only watch and wait for events to play themselves out. And quite frankly, that's friggin' scary--because what I'm seeing down the road is worse than anything Steven King could dream up, and all I can do is sit and watch it happen.
I have a cousin who lives in Germany; she recently got married and has possibly started a family. So I probably have a grandnephew or grandniece out there somewhere.
They're on the other side of the firewall; when the fire comes, and I fear that it will, we will not be able to save them. All we will be able to do for them is avenge them, and our vengeance, once unleashed, will be horrible.
But that's down the road; we're not there yet. And we do not really have to go there. But the sad fact of the matter is that we probably will go there, simply because we refuse to accept that that is where the enemy is leading us. The price of our refusal to accept that now will be the future sacrifice of those now too young to have a vote in this. We either act now, or we accept that their blood and the blood they will need to spill will be that which we wear on our boots in our so-called comfortable retirement.....
i have 2 nephews one 21 one 25 one niece 23 and 2 grandnieces one 3 the other will be born in a few months... and no kids of my own yet...from my half sister she is like 10years older...she wasnt around when i was growing up...
This message has been edited. Last edited by: outlaws93,
Originally posted by ipw533: A clarification is in order here. I used the German term "Vernichtungskrieg" because I did not want to use the more loaded term "genocide". And there is a difference between the two, one with which I'm comfortable.
In Milspeak the former is defeating the enemy in detail; if he still continues to try fighting he dies. The latter goes to mass murder, and I don't care for that regardless of justifications.
I don't see us doing the latter, but we seriously need to be prepared to do the former....
I personally have little doubt that Gotterdamerung is the final outcome of all this. We'll all go down in flames together, like it or not.
But, I'm not willing to blame the Democrats for it all. After all, they did not hold the power nor make the decisions which got us to where we are today. It wasn't they who opted to fight a limited war, with limited resources applied to limited goals over a long period of time. It's not decisions made by the out-of-power Democrats which has handed the initiative to our enemies nor empowered and emboldened Iran.
If there must be blame, put it where it belongs: On the steps of the White House and account it to the ledgers of those who continued to support the President's strategy long after it became apparent it was failing. Those who put party and personal loyalties before the good of the nation deserve a monumental portion of well-deserved scorn.
But, that's the past and cannot now be undone, so the question for us is where do we go now?
Sadly, where we appear to be going is off the precipice and it looks like we'll be taking the whole world with us. Lacking the military power to enforce our will, an economy strong enough to support a larger military, allies who can (or will) actually help fight and politically divided at home, we're sitting ducks for whatever the enemy wants to do.
Worse, our only legitimate response to the next major outbreak of hostilities will be nuclear. We've left ourselves no other option.
Originally posted by stillkit: I personally have little doubt that Gotterdamerung is the final outcome of all this. We'll all go down in flames together, like it or not.
But, I'm not willing to blame the Democrats for it all. After all, they did not hold the power nor make the decisions which got us to where we are today. It wasn't they who opted to fight a limited war, with limited resources applied to limited goals over a long period of time. It's not decisions made by the out-of-power Democrats which has handed the initiative to our enemies nor empowered and emboldened Iran.
If there must be blame, put it where it belongs: On the steps of the White House and account it to the ledgers of those who continued to support the President's strategy long after it became apparent it was failing. Those who put party and personal loyalties before the good of the nation deserve a monumental portion of well-deserved scorn.
But, that's the past and cannot now be undone, so the question for us is where do we go now?
Sadly, where we appear to be going is off the precipice and it looks like we'll be taking the whole world with us. Lacking the military power to enforce our will, an economy strong enough to support a larger military, allies who can (or will) actually help fight and politically divided at home, we're sitting ducks for whatever the enemy wants to do.
Worse, our only legitimate response to the next major outbreak of hostilities will be nuclear. We've left ourselves no other option.
Good points well made, Stillkit.
I do, however, beg to differ on your final summary, since the "outbreaks of hostilities" hitherto have been caused by exactly those to whom you (correctly) apportion the blame for the present debacle. So far from being a foregone conclusion that there will be further outbreaks and that nukes are the only option, other sensible and reasonable choices can be made. One of them would/could be that the so-called "war on terror" is not the desperate endeavour and a matter of life and death, as certain folks with vested interests would have us all believe, but the normal (for unenlightened people) case of "mine's bigger than yours". The present conflicts have certainly exacerbated the situation, but it's still eminently manageable with diplomatic arm-twisting, without going into a frenzy about the end of the world and/or civilisation.
I do, however, beg to differ on your final summary, since the "outbreaks of hostilities" hitherto have been caused by exactly those to whom you (correctly) apportion the blame for the present debacle. So far from being a foregone conclusion that there will be further outbreaks and that nukes are the only option, other sensible and reasonable choices can be made. One of them would/could be that the so-called "war on terror" is not the desperate endeavour and a matter of life and death, as certain folks with vested interests would have us all believe, but the normal (for unenlightened people) case of "mine's bigger than yours". The present conflicts have certainly exacerbated the situation, but it's still eminently manageable with diplomatic arm-twisting, without going into a frenzy about the end of the world and/or civilisation.
Just a thought.
MsG
It may be manageable from our side, but the other side might not want to now. After all, they're much more powerful now than they were before we started our half-assed response to 9/11 and might see a chance to achieve a long-held goal: eliminate Israel.
