[quote]vroom wrote:
The problem is that it isn’t the government or the populace that the war is being waged against. Killing off civilians in Iraq won’t improve the situation.[/quote]
Those civilians are giving aid and comfort to the insurgents. Do you think the insurgency would be able to operate if it was denounced and opposed by the population?
Trying to wage war without killing a single civilian is completely ridiculous. It’s sure sounds good in principle, but you’re castrating yourself if you try to actually implement it.
When Nazi Germany was being carpet bombed in WWII, do you think we managed to avoid killing any civilians? I find this attitude that every innocent should be spared really odd. If you don’t want to shed any blood, don’t wage the damn war to start with. Wait until they show up in your back yard… Maybe you’ll be able to ask them to spare you because you’re innocent too?
We don’t get to choose the form of the enemy. If it takes the form of a multi-national ideological movement, then that’s what we have to fight.
Damaging the populace always increases the support for the enemy, at least at first. In the same way that if I punch you in the face, you’re most likely to react with anger. If I punch you in the face, then break both you knees and threaten to shoot you in the gut, you’ll probably cry uncle.
Again, I’ll point to WWII Japan; a nation of people for whom honor is paramount. Still, they preferred to surrender rather than risk more Hiroshimas and Nagasakis. Even if a large component of insurgents are ready to die for their cause, it’s likely that the population itself is not so keen on martyrdom and would eventually stop supporting them.
[quote]I’m arguing that as technology evolves, it will become possible for one fanatic to wipe out a nation. Perhaps targeted nanotechnology and/or biological agents. Perhaps personal sized miniature nukes. Who knows. The problem is, more concentrated power makes smaller groups more and more powerful.
Give it another 200 years.[/quote]
Aren’t you arguing against yourself here? Do you really want to give time to those groups to grow more powerful and to acquire better weapons? Do you think that negotiating with a nuclear capable Al-Qaeda would be an improvement?
If they had such weapons available, do you think they would hesitate in using them?
They already hate us. Let them hate us more if they want. At least they’ll hate us for a valid reason.
Until they wake up and realize that it’s their own government and tribal and religious leaders that are keeping them in the stone age, they’ll never be able to build a civilization with which we can engage in meaningful commerce.
Waging a quick, harsh and brutal war is not being ruthless; in fact, in retrospective it’ll probably appear more humane. It would certainly send a clear message that targeting the West is counter-productive.
I’m talking about stepping up the war because doing it “nicely” doesn’t work. We removed a dictator and offered them a democracy; and all they could do with it is give themselves an Islamic Theocracy with a civil war to boot? Fine, we’ll stop the civil war and we’ll run the place for 20-30 years until you’re ready to take over an join civilization.
I think my way would, in the long run, work better than yours. You’ve got a civil war because the Sunnis, Shia and Kurds can’t get along? Blow away the Sunni triangle and then ask the Shia and Kurds if they want to play nice; or if you must remove another player?
You assume there is a way to get there. Their might not be. Have you considered that? Also, when do you stop looking for a way? A year? Two? Ten? Maybe Iran gets the nuke during that time and comes in to take over… what then? Do you also back down and retreat?
If everyone involved thought as you do, it might work. The problem I have with your reasoning, is that you’re assuming an educated, logical and reasonable enemy who has as much to lose as you do.
That is not the case.
I’ll give you an example. When you see popular rallies in the West, what do you see mostly? Peace rallies. People walking against this or that war; people who want peace.
When there’s a rally in the Arab world, what do you see? People with signs that say “Death to America” “Israel = Satan”; they burn GWB in effigy; they attack buildings. Hell, they burned the fucking Pope in effigy because he repeated the words of a Byzantine emperor…
You really think the people in the street over there are “just like us?”
You’re dead wrong. Did bombing Germany and Japan make them mortal enemies for generations? No. The exact opposite. Germany and Japan now enjoy some of the most vigorous economies on the planet and are both allies. I don’t see why Middle Eastern countries could not follow the same path. Give them a righteous ass-kicking, show them that either they stop that stupid shit, or yes, we will wipe them off the fucking planet. Of course, we have no intention of actually killing 200 million to a billion people; but like I said, once you kill enough, they’ll back down. No one fights a hopeless battle to the death.
Most of their ideas haven’t changed since the 700s. Do you really think you’ll make them into secular liberals by talking to them nicely? They’ll spit in your face and laugh at your weakness. You really should learn a bit more about their culture. Their social mores are nothing like ours.
I gave my ideas a couple of times about how to go about it. My first one is to drastically increase troop presence, impose martial law and forcibly restore the peace. Unfortunately, I don’t see how that option is possible. The US won’t reinstate a draft and NATO members won’t pick up the slack, since Bush told them to go fly a kite in 2003.
So, given that we can’t have more troops, we need to have less enemies. We have humongous stockpiles of NBC (Nuclear-Bio-Chemical) weapons which we’re afraid to use. We probably shouldn’t use chemical weapons, since Bush blabbed incessantly about Saddam using them. Bio weapons are a bit hard to contain, so that leaves nuclear. The US probably still has a few neutron bomb lying around. They’re expensive to make and even more expensive to maintain. They kill living being while leaving infrastructures mostly intact, and they have no (or little) lingering radiation problems.
Pick the side you want to give the country too, and nuke the other one into submission. Sunni and Shia hate each other with a passion, so whatever side is spared probably won’t hate you that much.
Why won’t it change? It changed before, it can surely change again. I’ll tell you this, if we don’t change the way we wage war, we better get used to losing. Your great-great-great grandchildren will most likely kneel on a mat five times a day to pray in the direction of mecca.
He sees the light! Alleluia.
I don’t understand the need people have to “play by the rules” when the opposing side doesn’t. Ever played a game honestly with someone that cheats constantly? Did you ever win?
I’m proposing my solutions to current conflicts. I’m tired of these endless wars going on and on while we have terrible weapons stored in warehouses gathering dust. If they’re so ready to die for their cause, who are we to argue?
Because we haven’t yet made it clear that we won’t stand for those ideas.
I don’t think the problem is that they’re unaware of “our ideas.” The problem is that they know your ideas and they hate them.
Take this example: The nineteen 9/11 hijackers lived for months, and in some cases years in the US. They were not only exposed to our ideas, they lived our way of life for weeks on end. Did anyone of them think that he might want to live here with his family? Apparently not. They still boarded those planes and slammed the WTC and Pentagon.
What more do you want to tell those people? Are you ready to convert to Islam in the name of peace?
If you’ll stop repeating that and give me concrete, pragmatic ways of achieving those goals, I’m all ears.