- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: US Marine captain writes stinging op-ed: 'We lost the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan'
Posted on 4/13/17 at 11:37 pm to Wolfhound45
Posted on 4/13/17 at 11:37 pm to Wolfhound45
I believe the "we could win, if we were just more brutal about it," line of thought is counterproductive. As I mentioned above, the only successful endgame of a war on terror is one in which Muslims no longer want to become terrorists. They currently want to become terrorists because they feel we threaten their way of life. Is going over there and killing more civilians going to change their minds? The more violent against them we are, the more we justify their beliefs in their own minds. Violence will never win this war.
The counterargument everyone always uses to this is, "Look at Japan! They hated us too, but we nuked them so hard they are our friends now." What people who use this argument don't seem to realize is that the Japanese were acting as members of a state, and that when the head of that state finally ordered them to lay down their arms and surrender, they did so. Our war aim was to force the Emperor to give that order. Our current enemies answer to no state, nor does Islam have any central governing authority. They are prompted to attack us not by authority, but by a gestalt. How is the military supposed to address that?
The counterargument everyone always uses to this is, "Look at Japan! They hated us too, but we nuked them so hard they are our friends now." What people who use this argument don't seem to realize is that the Japanese were acting as members of a state, and that when the head of that state finally ordered them to lay down their arms and surrender, they did so. Our war aim was to force the Emperor to give that order. Our current enemies answer to no state, nor does Islam have any central governing authority. They are prompted to attack us not by authority, but by a gestalt. How is the military supposed to address that?
2
Posted on 4/13/17 at 11:59 pm to WhiskeyPapa
Has any military ever defeated an insurgency? No idea.
Posted on 4/14/17 at 6:36 am to TheTideMustRoll
quote:
I believe the "we could win, if we were just more brutal about it," line of thought is counterproductive. As I mentioned above, the only successful endgame of a war on terror is one in which Muslims no longer want to become terrorists. They currently want to become terrorists because they feel we threaten their way of life. Is going over there and killing more civilians going to change their minds? The more violent against them we are, the more we justify their beliefs in their own minds. Violence will never win this war.
The counterargument everyone always uses to this is, "Look at Japan! They hated us too, but we nuked them so hard they are our friends now." What people who use this argument don't seem to realize is that the Japanese were acting as members of a state, and that when the head of that state finally ordered them to lay down their arms and surrender, they did so. Our war aim was to force the Emperor to give that order. Our current enemies answer to no state, nor does Islam have any central governing authority. They are prompted to attack us not by authority, but by a gestalt. How is the military supposed to address that?
Bears repeating.
Posted on 4/14/17 at 6:40 am to LSU1NSEC
quote:
Has any military ever defeated an insurgency? No idea.
Yes.
Malayan Emergency
MALAYAN HISTORY
WRITTEN BY: The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica
LAST UPDATED: 8-14-2003 See Article History
Malayan Emergency, (1948–60)
, period of unrest following the creation of the Federation of Malaya (precursor of Malaysia) in 1948.
After World War II the Federation of Malaya was formed through the unification of several former British territories, including Sabah and Sarawak. The negotiations included special guarantees of rights for Malays (including the position of sultans) and the establishment of a colonial government. These developments angered the Communist Party of Malaya, an organization that was composed largely of Chinese members and was committed to an independent, communist Malaya. The party began a guerrilla insurgency, and on June 18, 1948, the government declared a state of emergency. British efforts to suppress the uprising militarily were unpopular, especially their relocation of rural Chinese into tightly controlled “New Villages,” a measure designed to deny the rebels a source of food and manpower. Under the leadership of British high commissioner Sir Gerald Templer, however, the British began addressing political and economic grievances. In the early 1950s several measures, including local elections and the creation of village councils, were introduced to facilitate independence. In addition, many Chinese were granted citizenship. Such actions decreased support for the insurgency, which had always been limited. By the mid-1950s the rebels had become increasingly isolated, but the emergency was not formally declared over until 1960."
LINK
Posted on 4/14/17 at 7:27 am to TheTideMustRoll
Never said more brutality. Never have, never will.
Use your argument with someone else.
Use your argument with someone else.
Posted on 4/14/17 at 7:50 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
Two front war. Ask Hitler how that worked out for him.
I'd rather ask FDR/Harry Truman.
But then, I've never been cursed with a defeatist mindset, either.
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News