No Exit

[Marcus Bryant]

http://amconmag.com/article/2010/feb/01/00006/

No Exit
America has an impressive record of starting wars but a dismal one of ending them well.

By Andrew J. Bacevich
The American Conservative

President Obama’s decision to escalate U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan earned him at most two muted cheers from Washington’s warrior-pundits. Sure, the president had acceded to Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s request for more troops. Already in its ninth year, Operation Enduring Freedom was therefore guaranteed to endure for years to come. The Long War begun on George W. Bush’s watch with expectations of transforming the Greater Middle East gained a new lease on life, its purpose reduced to the generic one of “keeping America safe.”

Yet the Long War’s most ardent supporters found fault with Obama’s words and demeanor. The president had failed to convey the requisite enthusiasm for sending young Americans to fight and die on the far side of the world while simultaneously increasing by several hundred billion dollars the debt imposed on future generations here at home. “Has there ever been a call to arms more dispiriting, a trumpet more uncertain?” asked a querulous Charles Krauthammer. Obama ought to have demonstrated some of the old “bring ’em on” spirit that served the previous administration so well. “We cannot prevail without a commander in chief committed to success,” wrote Krauthammer.

Other observers made it clear that merely prevailing was nowhere near good enough. They took Obama to task for failing to use the V-word. Where was the explicit call for victory? “‘Win’ is a word that Obama avoided,” noted Max Boot with disapproval. The president “spoke of wanting to ‘end this war successfully’ but said nothing of winning the war.” Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard read off the same talking points. “The personal commitment of the president to pursue the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda until they are defeated was not there,” he lamented. “…To have rallied the country and the world, Obama needed to indicate he would lead a fight to win in Afghanistan, with the help of allies if possible, but with the armed forces of the U.S. alone if necessary. He didn’t say anything like that. He didn’t come close.”

Oddly enough, the military leaders to whom Krauthammer, Boot, and Barnes all insist that Obama should defer also eschew the V-word. McChrystal and McChrystal’s boss, Gen. David Petraeus, have repeatedly said that military power alone won’t solve the problems facing a country such as Afghanistan. Indeed, the counterinsurgency doctrine that Petraeus revived and that McChrystal is keen to apply in Afghanistan in effect concedes that violence alone is incapable of producing decisive and politically useful outcomes. Expend as much ammunition as you want: what today’s military calls “kinetic” methods won’t get you where you want to go. Acknowledging that battle doesn’t work, counterinsurgency advocates call for winning (or bribing) hearts and minds instead. And they’ll happily settle for outcomes—take a look at Iraq, for example—that bear scant resemblance to victory as traditionally defined.

That the post-Cold War United States military, reputedly the strongest and most capable armed force in modern history, has not only conceded its inability to achieve decision but has in effect abandoned victory as its raison d’être qualifies as a remarkable development.

Since 1945, the United States military has devoted itself to the proposition that, Hiroshima notwithstanding, war still works—that, despite the advent of nuclear weapons, organized violence directed by a professional military elite remains politically purposeful. From the time U.S. forces entered Korea in 1950 to the time they entered Iraq in 2003, the officer corps attempted repeatedly to demonstrate the validity of this hypothesis.

The results have been disappointing. Where U.S. forces have satisfied Max Boot’s criteria for winning, the enemy has tended to be, shall we say, less than ten feet tall. Three times in the last 60 years, U.S. forces have achieved an approximation of unambiguous victory—operational success translating more or less directly into political success. The first such episode, long since forgotten, occurred in 1965 when Lyndon Johnson intervened in the Dominican Republic. The second occurred in 1983, when American troops, making short work of a battalion of Cuban construction workers, liberated Granada. The third occurred in 1989 when G.I.’s stormed the former American protectorate of Panama, toppling the government of long-time CIA asset Manuel Noriega.

Apart from those three marks in the win column, U.S. military performance has been at best mixed. The issue here is not one of sacrifice and valor—there’s been plenty of that—but of outcomes.

A seesawing contest for the Korean peninsula ended in a painfully expensive draw. Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs managed only to pave the way for the Cuban Missile Crisis. Vietnam produced stupendous catastrophe. Jimmy Carter’s expedition to free American hostages held in Iran not only failed but also torpedoed his hopes of winning a second term. Ronald Reagan’s 1983 intervention in Beirut wasted the lives of 241 soldiers, sailors, and Marines for reasons that still defy explanation. Reagan also went after Muammar Qaddafi, sending bombers to pound Tripoli; the Libyan dictator responded by blowing up Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland—and survived to tell the tale. In 1991, George H.W. Bush portrayed Operation Desert Storm as a great victory sure to provide the basis for a New World Order; in fact the first Gulf War succeeded chiefly in drawing the United States more deeply into the vortex of the Middle East—it settled nothing. With his pronounced propensity for flinging about cruise missiles and precision-guided bombs, Bill Clinton gave us Mogadishu, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo —frenetic activity with little to show in return. As for Bush and his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the less said the better.

What are we to make of this record? For Krauthammer, Boot, and Barnes, the lessons are clear: dial up the rhetoric, increase military spending, send in more troops, and give the generals a free hand. The important thing, writes William Kristol in his own assessment of Obama’s Afghanistan decision, is to have a commander in chief who embraces “the use of military force as a key instrument of national power.” If we just keep trying, one of these times things will surely turn out all right.

An alternative reading of our recent military past might suggest the following: first, that the political utility of force—the range of political problems where force possesses real relevance—is actually quite narrow; second, that definitive victory of the sort that yields a formal surrender ceremony at Appomattox or on the deck of an American warship tends to be a rarity; third, that ambiguous outcomes are much more probable, with those achieved at a cost far greater than even the most conscientious war planner is likely to anticipate; and fourth, that the prudent statesman therefore turns to force only as a last resort and only when the most vital national interests are at stake. Contra Kristol, force is an “instrument” in the same sense that a slot machine or a roulette wheel qualifies as an instrument.

To consider the long bloody chronicle of modern history, big wars and small ones alike, is to affirm the validity of these conclusions. Bellicose ideologues will pretend otherwise. Such are the vagaries of American politics that within the Beltway the views expressed by these ideologues—few of whom have experienced war—will continue to be treated as worthy of consideration. One sees the hand of God at work: the Lord obviously has an acute appreciation for irony.

In the long run, however, the nattering of Kristol and his confrères is unlikely to matter much. Far more important will be the conclusions about war and its utility reached by those veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan who will eventually succeed Petraeus and McChrystal on the uppermost rung of the American military profession.

The impetus for weaning Americans away from their infatuation with war, if it comes at all, will come from within the officer corps. It certainly won’t come from within the political establishment, the Republican Party gripped by militaristic fantasies and Democrats too fearful of being tagged as weak on national security to exercise independent judgment. Were there any lingering doubt on that score, Barack Obama, the self-described agent of change, removed it once and for all: by upping the ante in Afghanistan he has put his personal imprimatur on the Long War.

Yet this generation of soldiers has learned what force can and cannot accomplish. Its members understand the folly of imagining that war provides a neat and tidy solution to vexing problems. They are unlikely to confuse Churchillian calls to arms with competence or common sense.

What conclusions will they draw from their extensive and at times painful experience with war? Will they affirm this country’s drift toward perpetual conflict, as those eagerly promoting counterinsurgency as the new American way of war apparently intend? Or will the officer corps reject that prospect and return to the tradition once represented by men like George C. Marshall, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Matthew B. Ridgway?

As our weary soldiers trek from Iraq back once more to Afghanistan, this figures prominently among the issues to be decided there.
__________________________________________

Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University. His new book Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War is due out in the spring.

[Winehole23]

What conclusions will they draw from their extensive and at times painful experience with war? Will they affirm this country’s drift toward perpetual conflict, as those eagerly promoting counterinsurgency as the new American way of war apparently intend? Or will the officer corps reject that prospect and return to the tradition once represented by men like George C. Marshall, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Matthew B. Ridgway?Who? Not a chance. It's their meal ticket and the fear-addled, cravenly safety-focused American masses demand it. Even though it doesn't work.

We are the new Rome. Pride ever goeth before a fall.

[EVAY]

If they are mindful of the tradition of George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower, then they must be mindful of the 'nation-building' characteristics that each of them engaged in after World War II. The Marshall Plan essentially rebuilt western Europe (mostly Germany, but some of the others as well) with American dollars in the American image. Eisenhower, as president, continued that tradition (begun under Truman) in Japan.

In both Iraq and Afghanistan, the generals in charge have eventually concluded that without a significant 'nation-building' component to the U.S. presence, no permanent peace will attain.

That reality is, I believe, the more significant lesson of the last half-century or so of American military endeavors. And this author misses it.

[boutons_deux]

Nation-building in Germany and Japan happened ONLY after full cessation of hostilities and after each warrior-state was officially and militarily defeated.

Hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan are continuing and neither the Iraq or Afghanistan govt are openly combatting the American invader. The US is fighting insurgencies, warrrior-states.

And you missed it.

[EVAY]

Nation-building in Germany and Japan happened ONLY after full cessation of hostilities and after each warrior-state was officially and militarily defeated.

Hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan are continuing and neither the Iraq or Afghanistan govt are openly combatting the American invader. The US is fighting insurgencies, warrrior-states.

And you missed it.

No, B-D, my point was not the timing of either the former or the current nation building relative to the 'cessation of hostilities'. My point was that the military minds, more than the political minds, have seen quite clearly the need for improvement in living conditions and the attainment and/or maintenance of a successful state in order for peace to obtain and be maintained.

One would reasonably expect that military minds would want to focus more on the 'battle' aspects of their missions. Yet it was military minds in the late 40's and 50's (Marshall and Eisenhower) who developed and/or led the economic rebuilding of former foes. Today's military minds, in areas where there is unlikely to be a formal 'cessation of hostilities', have come to the same conclusion. It has been the congress who have generally said 'it is not the U.S.'s business to engage in nation-building in other countries, and it is not our military's job to do it in any case.

As to your point that neither Iraq or Afgahanistan is openly combating the U.S. NOW, I think you would have to admit that there was a time when they did, and that our folks are certainly get shot at by SOMEBODY over there.

I understand that you are opposed to the U.S. presence in both countries.

I'm not thrilled about it either, and I was always opposed to invading Iraq (whose governmental forces fought longer than the Afghan government's forces in the initial phases of the wars), but that is really beside the point as far as I am concerned. The point is that guys who have seen war 'up close and personal' (which I have not, I don't know about you) are the very guys who are saying we are gonna get further with a plow than a sword right now.
I think, that in the context of the article's point that we can't easily get out of wars we get into any more, that is the more cogent point.

It would seem to me that your opposition to war in general would welcome that recognition among the military's highest officers.

[Cry Havoc]

I've said this before:

For all our failings, The United States is the most peaceful world power that has ever existed. Europe is so hypercritical of the US, yet just a little over half a century ago they were all killing each other.

[Ignignokt]

Would you gentlemen like some towels?

[Winehole23]

If they are mindful of the tradition of George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower, then they must be mindful of the 'nation-building' characteristics that each of them engaged in after World War II.

The Marshall Plan essentially rebuilt western Europe (mostly Germany, but some of the others as well) with American dollars in the American image. Eisenhower, as president, continued that tradition (begun under Truman) in Japan.Using the military, or vast State Department and civilian resources? I don't think the author overlooks this.



Since 1945, the United States military has devoted itself to the proposition that, Hiroshima notwithstanding, war still works—that, despite the advent of nuclear weapons, organized violence directed by a professional military elite remains politically purposeful. From the time U.S. forces entered Korea in 1950 to the time they entered Iraq in 2003, the officer corps attempted repeatedly to demonstrate the validity of this hypothesis.


In both Iraq and Afghanistan, the generals in charge have eventually concluded that without a significant 'nation-building' component to the U.S. presence, no permanent peace will attain.True, but neither war was sold to the American people as such, nor did the initial plans for war include it, nor is there any present commitment to enhancing the State Department that reflects it now, the state of mind of the generals notwithstanding.

But, if we limit ourselves to what conclusions US commanders eventuallycame around to, you make a good point.

[Winehole23]

The point is that guys who have seen war 'up close and personal' (which I have not, I don't know about you) are the very guys who are saying we are gonna get further with a plow than a sword right now.There is no political will (in either Congress or the American people) consistent with this opinion, yet does seem to be one for permanent counterinsurgency, which is the model that has replaced the Marshall Plan, the airy and noble opinions of our military commanders totally notwithstanding.

[DarkReign]

Leaving our sensibilities to our military commanders invites only perpetual war, IMO. It is their business and for now it seems, business is good.

[EVAY]

Using the military, or vast State Department and civilian resources? I don't think the author overlooks this.




True, but neither war was sold to the American people as such, nor did the initial plans for war include it, nor is there any present commitment to enhancing the State Department that reflects it now, the state of mind of the generals notwithstanding.

But, if we limit ourselves to what conclusions US commanders eventuallycame around to, you make a good point.

Well, that IS my point. I agree wholeheartedly that congress has rarely, if ever, been supportive of nation building. Congressional Republicans were furious with the Marshall Plan, and more recently, accused Bill Clinton of 'nation-building' in Bosnia as something we shouldn't do. In fact, congressional Republicans have always been against nation-building until the Iraq situation.

I just think that it is notable that US military commanders have come to a conclusion at odds with the history of military commanders in general, and civilian leaders of recent history. It seems to me that the counter-insurgency wars have taught our military commanders a lesson that was not available, or not learned, until after WWII, but that HAS apparently been learned now, and I think we will be better off for it. When even military generals are calling for nation building and are willing to use their soldiers to do it, I think that is a major change.

[baseline bum]

I've said this before:

For all our failings, The United States is the most peaceful world power that has ever existed. Europe is so hypercritical of the US, yet just a little over half a century ago they were all killing each other.

That's like saying Saddam Hussein was the most peaceful dictator because he wasn't Pol Pot, Suharto, or Hitler.

[Winehole23]

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

[Ignignokt]

That's like saying Saddam Hussein was the most peaceful dictator because he wasn't Pol Pot, Suharto, or Hitler.

That's like saying Saddam never practiced ethnic cleansing.

[baseline bum]

That's like saying Saddam never practiced ethnic cleansing.

I'm at a loss; I name four dictators who obviously committed genocide and gtown comes to restate my point that Hussein was one of them.

[Ignignokt]

I'm at a loss; I name four dictators who obviously committed genocide and gtown comes to restate my point that Hussein was one of them.

If that's what you meant. Then Pol Pot was peaceful because he wasn't Hitler, Sadaam or Pinochet. Ofcourse that's silly. But CH distinction of America should be noted. Even with starting disasterous wars, we've always had humanitarian purposes, and we never intended on taking over the territory for good.

[Ignignokt]

You'd have to be silly to compare the American Empire to the others. No other empires went to war on behalf of other multinational charters request to restore peace.

No empire has wasted resources on behalf of other people, and for no gain.

[Winehole23]

gtown may think comparing Sadaam to dictators who were worse amounts to a defense of him. And/Or, he seeks to create that impression by slyly misstating your point. gtown is a past master of the misleading recap.

[Ignignokt]

gtown may think comparing Sadaam to dictators who were worse amounts to a defense of him. And/Or, he seeks to create that impression by slyly misstating your point. gtown is a past master of the misleading recap.

his comparison wasn't specific. That statement could be said towards many people and there would be so many different conclusions. Go back to giving MB all your praise.

[baseline bum]

Even with starting disasterous wars, we've always had humanitarian purposes, and we never intended on taking over the territory for good.

:lmao

[Ignignokt]

:lmao

I know, we totally have like 57 states now since our ascension to becoming a superpower.

Vietnam, Bosnia, Granada, Afghanistan, Iraq, Puerto Rico and Japan.

[Winehole23]

Hit the showers, gtown. Leave the conversation to the adults and go back to handing out towels in the more fully relaxed atmosphere that so obsesses you.

[baseline bum]

I know, we totally have like 57 states now since our ascension to becoming a superpower.

Vietnam, Bosnia, Granada, Afghanistan, Iraq, Puerto Rico and Japan.


That wasn't nearly as funny.

[Ignignokt]

Hit the showers, gtown. Leave the conversation to the adults and go back to handing out towels in the more fully relaxed atmosphere that so obsesses you.

Rofl! not a whole lot of discussion going on here cept for patting on the back, "Good Boy" self masturbatory threads with you and MB.

[admiralsnackbar]

Rofl! not a whole lot of discussion going on here cept for patting on the back, "Good Boy" self masturbatory threads with you and MB.

Dang... you just set yourself up for Wino's gay jokes, chief! :lol

Quit while you're, uh, behind.

[Winehole23]

Rofl! not a whole lot of discussion going on here cept for patting on the back, "Good Boy" self masturbatory threads with you and MB.EVAY has the best post so far, and I don't think I said word one to MB.

There's a conversation to be had here for anyone interested in it. It's too bad your homoerotic musings and over the top spitefulness keep interfering with your ability to contribute.

[exstatic]

I know, we totally have like 57 states now since our ascension to becoming a superpower.

Vietnam, Bosnia, Granada, Afghanistan, Iraq, Puerto Rico and Japan.

We have 50 states when we started with 13. Tell Spain, France, and Mexico they can have back the large swathes of territory we've appropriated from them over the years.

[jack sommerset]

I thought this would be a thread about gay rights.

[Marcus Bryant]

Leaving our sensibilities to our military commanders invites only perpetual war, IMO. It is their business and for now it seems, business is good.

Right. Empire building has its rewards.

[spursncowboys]

There is no political will (in either Congress or the American people) consistent with this opinion, yet does seem to be one for permanent counterinsurgency, which is the model that has replaced the Marshall Plan, the airy and noble opinions of our military commanders totally notwithstanding.
The Marshall Plan was a rebuilding strategy. It was a way of rebuilding Europe and thwart communism. BTW many England used their monies from this to create their socialized health care system.
Counterinsurgency is a way of fighting, not maintaining. It started from the author of "Eating Soup with A Knife". I think counterinsurgency is just an update of the Marshall Plan.

[spursncowboys]

There has never been any proof that the military commanders ever pushed for war, so as to have something to do. It is pretty shitty for anyone to insinuate without any evidence. Contrary to popular belief- most people in the Military do not want to be at war. The Presidential candidate who got the most votes from military commanders, from both parties, was Ron Paul.

[spursncowboys]

We have 50 states when we started with 13. Tell Spain, France, and Mexico they can have back the large swathes of territory we've appropriated from them over the years.
MExico will give it back to SPain and Spain to all the indians. Then we give all our land to the indians. Then the indians will give it back to the older tribes. Meanwhile Europe will give it back to Rome, who will give it back to Greece. Right?

[Winehole23]

Civilians give the orders, true, but if the military brass was against the growth, or the interventions, the opposition has been rather meek to say the least.The conceit the generals were somehow stifling the urge to war all along was undermined by their repeated requests for more weapons and more equipment.

And lately, more troops.

[Winehole23]

I thought this would be a thread about gay rights.Disappointed?

[Winehole23]

Why did you think so, jack?

[Winehole23]

Maybe you should start a gay themed mini-forum. That way you could avoid this kind of confusion.

[Winehole23]

MExico will give it back to SPain and Spain to all the indians. Then we give all our land to the indians. Then the indians will give it back to the older tribes. Meanwhile Europe will give it back to Rome, who will give it back to Greece. Right?ex was teasing gtown about all our military actions being motivated by high-minded altruism without any thought to our own benefit or advantage. It wasn't a straight take. Either your bs detector is faulty, or your bs generator went haywire. Hard to tell which. Maybe it's both.

[Ignignokt]

We have 50 states when we started with 13. Tell Spain, France, and Mexico they can have back the large swathes of territory we've appropriated from them over the years.

Were we an empire then? Are you retarded?

And France yeah.. we took over their territory with money. Get lost, Stupid, or Get stupid, Lost.

[Winehole23]

Liberal interventionism seems to be gtown's civil religion. Yours too, for that matter, SnC. Beats me what's so conservative about cramming our way of life and our system of government down everybody's throat.

[Ignignokt]

ex was teasing gtown about all our military actions being motivated by high-minded altruism without any thought to our own benefit or advantage. It wasn't a straight take. Either your bs detector is faulty, or your bs generator went haywire. Hard to tell which. Maybe it's both.

:lmao

I wonder how many electoral votes Bosnia will receive for 2012..

[Winehole23]

We have military installations in how many countries, gtown?

[Ignignokt]

Liberal interventionism seems to be gtown's civil religion. Yours too, for that matter, SnC. Beats me what's so conservative about cramming our way of life and our system of government down everybody's throat.

Oh thank's bud. I didn't see where in any of those statements did i say i was for liberal intervention, neoconservatism, or whatever you want to call it.

[Ignignokt]

We have military installations in how many countries, gtown?

You want to say that mutually agreed and beneficial installations are a mark of a blood thirsty empire?

[Winehole23]

How many foreign installations do we allow in ours?

[Ignignokt]

How many foreign installations do we allow in ours?

What? You want the Mexican Army, Airforce to protect us from the Puerto Ricans?

[Winehole23]

Oh thank's bud. I didn't see where in any of those statements did i say i was for liberal intervention, neoconservatism, or whatever you want to call it.How many of the interventions were you against? To hear you tell it, it was all self-sacrificing, and all of it justified.

[Winehole23]

What? You want the Mexican Army, Airforce to protect us from the Puerto Ricans?You miss the point. How many other countries host US military installations?

[Winehole23]

You want to say that mutually agreed and beneficial installations are a mark of a blood thirsty empire?I never said we were bloodthirsty. But we are undeniably an empire. That there is no direct acquisition of territory is beside the point. We project our power globally. You dispute this?

[Ignignokt]

How many of the interventions were you against? To hear you tell it, it was all self-sacrificing, and all of it justified.

Nam and Bosnia.

I didn't say it was all self sacrificing, and all justified, just that we've been the only country to do such a thing. Ex Bosnia.

Why do you hate reading comprehension?

[Winehole23]

So then, you were speaking exclusively to Iraq? I can see that. You did not say it directly, but that makes sense.

[Ignignokt]

I never said we were bloodthirsty. But we are undeniably an empire. That there is no direct acquisition of territory is beside the point. We project our power globally. You dispute this?

Shaky definition of an empire.

Under this definition.. the Vatican, Russia, Saudi Arabia, China, and possibly now India fall under this definition.

[Ignignokt]

So then, you were speaking exclusively to Iraq? I can see that. You did not say it directly, but that makes sense.

I gave bosnia as an example.


Douche who hates reading. Exhibit A

[Winehole23]

You gave Bosnia as an example of an intervention you were against.

It is true that it is also an example of "humanitarian" intervention, ideologically speaking at least, but this ignores the realpolitical dimension of our action there, and you did not explicitly raise it in the context you cite now.

[Winehole23]

I appreciate your effort to unpack your comments, gtown. Sometimes they are not exactly clear to begin with.

[Ignignokt]

You gave Bosnia as an example of an intervention you were against.

It is true that it is also an example of "humanitarian" intervention, ideologically speaking at least, but this ignores the realpolitical dimension of our action there, and you did not explicitly raise it in the context you cite now.

Yeah I did, it's in the bold.


Nam and Bosnia.

I didn't say it was all self sacrificing, and all justified, just that we've been the only country to do such a thing. Ex Bosnia.

Why do you hate reading comprehension?

[Winehole23]

Shaky definition of an empire.

Under this definition.. the Vatican, Russia, Saudi Arabia, China, and possibly now India fall under this definition.China, the Vatican, Saudi Arabia and India project military might worldwide? I was unaware of this. Can you give any support for this strange thesis?

[Ignignokt]

China, the Vatican, Saudi Arabia and India project military might worldwide? I was unaware of this. Can you give any support for this?

You said, power. That can mean influence. You should make your statements a little more clearer.

[Winehole23]

Yeah I did, it's in the bold.Ex=example. Got it. I thought you were using a Latin preposition. The lack of a period threw me off.

[Winehole23]

You said, power. That can mean influence. You should make your statements a little more clearer.Contextually, I used the word right after my question about US military bases worldwide. You ignored the frame to mount a captious semantic argument, as you often do.

[Winehole23]

Nam and Bosnia. Those are the only two? Are we to take it that you are otherwise 100% for US military interventions, wherever and whenever they have happened?

If so, you are undoubtedly a liberal interventionist, per my comment upstream.

[Winehole23]

Well, that IS my point. I agree wholeheartedly that congress has rarely, if ever, been supportive of nation building. Congressional Republicans were furious with the Marshall Plan, and more recently, accused Bill Clinton of 'nation-building' in Bosnia as something we shouldn't do. In fact, congressional Republicans have always been against nation-building until the Iraq situation.True.


I just think that it is notable that US military commanders have come to a conclusion at odds with the history of military commanders in general, and civilian leaders of recent history. It seems to me that the counter-insurgency wars have taught our military commanders a lesson that was not available, or not learned, until after WWII, but that HAS apparently been learned now, and I think we will be better off for it. When even military generals are calling for nation building and are willing to use their soldiers to do it, I think that is a major change.If we don't commit the type and number of forces necessary to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, plus whatever technical and civilian resources (i.e., soft power) are needed to sustain the civil society, we are stuck with a straight, notionally endless war of counterinsurgency, despite the noble intentions of our commanders.

Have we committed US forces and soft power adequate to the task?

Will we do so?

The answer would seem to be no.

[Winehole23]

Fact is, we cannot, are unwilling/unable, or cannot politically sustain the level of security required for civil society to thrive in Iraq or Afghanistan. The all-volunteer character of the military practically insures that we can't, and the political will to alter this limitation does not exist.

[Winehole23]

Neither does the political will exist to expand our foreign aid and assistance to Iraq and Afghanistan on the scale of the Marshall Plan.

What then are we to do, given that our commitments to security and civil assistance will never be up to snuff?

[Winehole23]

To say absolutely nothing of the fact that that our prolonged military presence is resented, both for being foreign and for propping up widely disliked, corrupt regimes.

[sabar]

War is perpetual. Everyone likes war. It keeps an ungody number of people employed in a countless number of fields. It projects power and keeps you on the top. The same reason that the alpha male routinely displays their authority in a pack of animals. They can nip any challengers in the bud before they get caught off-guard and keep an eye on things. Spread their influence, ideals, customs, thoughts, prejudices. Do it all under the guise of helping for bonus points.

You could write a book on why the most powerful will keep waging war; however some common sense quickly shows why it seems like it must occur.

Nothing will change until society becomes enlightened enough to shun all violence. People have waged war as long as they have organized, and they will probably continue to do so until their species is obliterated.

I doubt there is a conspiracy. People probably genuinely think their war is just for whatever reason. A million little justifications to hide the gruesome reality of war. Deep down though, people just project their instinctive aggression onto their nation.

Europe and friends are the pups nipping at the big dog. They'd do the same "global security" act to the world if they had the power. You could say that they already do through their military alliances with us.

[jack sommerset]

Disappointed?

Yes I was disappointed. I thought it was some cute gay way of saying the ass was not for exit only. I'm still waiting for some gays in here to stand up and let the peope of ST know they are gay.

[Winehole23]

It's not really pertinent here or in the other thread where you urged posters to declare their homosexuality.

Why don't you start your own thread about it, instead of hijacking somebody else's? Again.

[jack sommerset]

It's not really pertinent here or in the other thread where you urged posters to declare their homosexuality.

Why don't you start your own thread about it, instead of hijacking somebody else's? Again.

:lol Don't be gay. Nobody is hijacking threads. You and Ignignokt are the only ones really talking in here and you asked me a questions and I answered it. In fact this is the second time I suggested it 2 years. I know you are gay, It's cool. Serioulsy. I really don't care. Watch me move on. You can have this thread all to your little self.

[DarkReign]

Yes I was disappointed. I thought it was some cute gay way of saying the ass was not for exit only. I'm still waiting for some gays in here to stand up and let the peope of ST know they are gay.

You seriously arent going to last long here, and thats tough to do at ST. Your blatant, outspoken hate for homosexuals borders on the psychotic.

Its one thing to crack a gay joke or even declare that you dont agree with their lifestyle, but youre one ideologue away from spraying a Rainbow crowd with a submachine gun.

Youre either a self-hating closet homo or a seriously disturbed and petty soul not worth the air you breathe.

Either way, youre useless.

[Winehole23]

I know you are gay, It's cool. Serioulsy. I really don't care.Why do you keep bringing it up if you really don't care?

It doesn't really bother me that you call me gay, and I doubt it would bother me much if I actually were gay. If I was gay, I'd just tell you, Jack. That you keep insisting I am is just weird.

[spursncowboys]

ex was teasing gtown about all our military actions being motivated by high-minded altruism without any thought to our own benefit or advantage. It wasn't a straight take. Either your bs detector is faulty, or your bs generator went haywire. Hard to tell which. Maybe it's both.
Probably both.

[ChumpDumper]

Jack is a little too interested in learning who is gay.

I guess a message board is safer than public restrooms or parks.

[spursncowboys]

Liberal interventionism seems to be gtown's civil religion. Yours too, for that matter, SnC. Beats me what's so conservative about cramming our way of life and our system of government down everybody's throat.
I don't know what the obsession with pointing out what defines a conservative. When I think of the cramming down of throats, I think of Cuba, with money from SOviets, to overthrow as many central and south american govts as possible. The SOviets in every country they controlled. China, SE Asia, etc. I don't think creating an environment where people can vote is cramming something down their throat. Time and time again, it has proven beneficial to America and the world when a country's leaders are elected. The Rhineland would not have been in such a long peace time if not for America.

[DarkReign]

Jack is a little too interested in learning who is gay.

I guess a message board is safer than public restrooms or parks.

You know, I didnt really want to go further with this than I already did, but this made me :lol.

[jack sommerset]

I have no clue why you guys think I hate gays. I mention gays and some guys go off half cocked. I hear everything from "Jack is a gay hater, Jack is really gay, Jack is obsessed with gays, Jack will be kicked off because his take on gays, if you don't care about gays why do you mention it" etc, etc, etc...... Chill out peeps. It's going to be OKAY. I promise.

Again, I don't hate the gays. I said it would be interesting if people who are gay on ST would let us know when talking about gay issues in the political forum. You don't want to do this, thats cool. I said it once a few weeks ago and mention it again today for the 2nd time and this is what I get. Relax.

[jack sommerset]

Why do you keep bringing it up if you really don't care?

It doesn't really bother me that you call me gay, and I doubt it would bother me much if I actually were gay. If I was gay, I'd just tell you, Jack. That you keep insisting I am is just weird.

I thought you were gay. You are not. Okay.

[clambake]

I have no clue why you guys think I hate gays. I mention gays and some guys go off half cocked. I hear everything from "Jack is a gay hater, Jack is really gay, Jack is obsessed with gays, Jack will be kicked off because his take on gays, if you don't care about gays why do you mention it" etc, etc, etc...... Chill out peeps. It's going to be OKAY. I promise.

Again, I don't hate the gays. I said it would be interesting if people who are gay on ST would let us know when talking about gay issues in the political forum. You don't want to do this, thats cool. I said it once a few weeks ago and mention it again today for the 2nd time and this is what I get. Relax.

terrible effort.

[ChumpDumper]

I think Jack is showing he rather likes the gays, or is at least quite curious about them.

[jack sommerset]

I think Jack is showing he rather likes the gays, or is at least quite curious about them.

Nice opinion! Wrong but I like the effort.:toast

[clambake]

i think jack is feeling some shame and embarrassment.

[ChumpDumper]

Nice opinion! Wrong but I like the effort.:toastNo, you proved you are curious about them by cruising-- I mean, asking the gay posters here to identify themselves.

[jack sommerset]

No, you proved you are curious about them by cruising-- I mean, asking the gay posters here to identify themselves.

LOL at you telling me how I feel about a subject!

I thought it would be interesting on some subjects not curious. I will add "Jack is curious about the gays" along with


"Jack is a gay hater, Jack is really gay, Jack is obsessed with gays, Jack will be kicked off because his take on gays, if you don't care about gays why do you mention it" etc, etc, etc...... Chill out peeps. It's going to be OKAY. I promise.

Again, I don't hate the gays. I said it would be interesting if people who are gay on ST would let us know when talking about gay issues in the political forum. You don't want to do this, thats cool. I said it once a few weeks ago and mention it again today for the 2nd time and this is what I get. Relax.

[ChumpDumper]

That's pretty much the definition of curious, jack. You had an interest in gays and you acted on it.

:tu

[clambake]

"jack the cruiser". you won't be able to shake this.

just ask "flaglot".

[jack sommerset]

That's pretty much the definition of curious, jack. You had an interest in gays and you acted on it.

:tu

Wrong again. I'm not aroused or eager to hear the gay perspective like u imply.

You gave your opinion about me regarding the gays but I know me and I'm telling you I am not curious but it would have been interesting. Kudos to you for trying.:toast

Hopefully you can give more opinions in the future and perhaps even admit when you are wrong.

[clambake]

Wrong again. I'm not aroused or eager to hear the gay perspective like u imply.

You gave your opinion about me regarding the gays but I know me and I'm telling you I am not curious but it would have been interesting. Kudos to you for trying.:toast

Hopefully you can give more opinions in the future and perhaps even admit when you are wrong.

you don't stand a chance on this one, jack......the cruiser.

[ChumpDumper]

Wrong again. I'm not aroused or eager to hear the gay perspective like u imply.You are the one who asked for it, as well as the identities of any gays on the board.

[jack sommerset]

You are the one who asked for it

You sound like a rapist.

[ChumpDumper]

You sound like a rapist.I wasn't talking about rape. I was talking about your stated interest in gays and request for their identities.

[jack sommerset]

I wasn't talking about rape. I was talking about your stated interest in gays and request for their identities.

I don't know about all that. You said "I asked for it". That's what some rapist say when they "misinterpret" what their victim says.

I say I am "interested". You say I am "curious" implying that I am eager and aroused. I'm not. You clearly misinterpreted what I meant.

[clambake]

I don't know about all that. You said "I asked for it". That's what some rapist say when they "misinterpret" what their victim says.

I say I am "interested". You say I am "curious" implying that I am eager and aroused. I'm not. You clearly misinterpreted what I meant.

how are you going to find mr. right by pretending you're not interested?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know about all that. You said "I asked for it". That's what some rapist say when they "misinterpret" what their victim says.i was not talking about rape. I was talking about your stated interest in gays and request for their identities on this board. It's quite easy to follow the conversation if you aren't being defensive.


I say I am "interested". You say I am "curious" implying that I am eager and aroused. I'm not. You clearly misinterpreted what I meant.I made no such implication, but your inference speaks volumes.

[jack sommerset]

you are being defensive.

Rapist say that too.

[ChumpDumper]

Rapist say that too.I didn't even say that.

Why are you lying about what I posted?

In your rush to play the rape victim, you made yourself a liar.

[jack sommerset]

I didn't even say that.

Why are you lying about what I posted?

In your rush to play the rape victim, you made yourself a liar.

You deliberately misinterpreted what I said, rapist do that.

[ChumpDumper]

You deliberately misinterpreted what I said, rapist do that.You expressed interest in gays and wanted to know which posters were gay.

You do that.

I don't know why you want to portray yourself as a rape victim or if it has anything to do with your interests in gays; that's up to you.

[jack sommerset]

You expressed interest in gays and wanted to know which posters were gay.

You do that.

I don't know why you want to portray yourself as a rape victim or if it has anything to do with your interests in gays, that's up to you.

Remorse, that's a start for you.

[ChumpDumper]

Remorse, that's a start for you.I expressed no remorse.

[jack sommerset]

I expressed no remorse.

You did. You stopped telling me i'm curious, eager, prying and aroused about the gays.

[ChumpDumper]

You did. You stopped telling me i'm curious, eager, prying and aroused about the gays.I never said you were anything but curious, which you obviously are as evidenced by your posts inquiring about them.

You should probably stop lying about what I posted. It reflects even worse on you re: the gays and your alleged hatred of liars.

[jack sommerset]

I never said you were anything but curious, which you obviously are as evidenced by your posts inquiring about them.

You should probably stop lying about what I posted. It reflects even worse on you re: the gays and your alleged hatred of liars.

Yes you did. You said and I quote


You expressed interest in gays

Nothing about "curious" You are a liar.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes you did. You said and I quote

Nothing about "curious" You are a liar.
I think Jack is showing he rather likes the gays, or is at least quite curious about them.
Out of the words you listed in this post:
You did. You stopped telling me i'm curious, eager, prying and aroused about the gays.Curious was the only one I actually posted.

Therefore, I told the truth.

You lied.

And you are curious about the gays.

[ChumpDumper]

And interested.

[clambake]

jack the cruiser is playing the larry craig card.

[ChumpDumper]

jack the cruiser is playing the larry craig card.Did Larry Craig say he had been raped like jack has been intimating?

[jack sommerset]

You expressed interest in gays and wanted to know which posters were gay.

You do that.

I don't know why you want to portray yourself as a rape victim or if it has anything to do with your interests in gays; that's up to you.

Really....... There is no talk of "curiosity" on this post.

[ChumpDumper]

Really....... There is no talk of "curiosity" on this post.Really, I quoted and linked it.

You are curious and interested.

It's only a big deal now because you are trying so hard to deny it.

[jack sommerset]

Really, I quoted and linked it.

You are curious and interested.

It's only a big deal now because you are trying so hard to deny it.

Dude, you have so many signs of a rapist. I said "NO" I am not curious about the gays. You said "Bend over bitch, you said you were interested in me!" Yes you are a liar.

[ChumpDumper]

Dude, you have so many signs of a rapist. I said "NO" I am not curious about the gays. You said "Bend over bitch, yes you were interested in me!" Yes you are a liar.You were the one who asked the gays to identify themselves for you.

You are raping yourself continuously by lying about that.

[jack sommerset]

You were the one who asked the gays to identify themselves for you.

To all of us, liar


You are raping yourself continuously by lying about that.

nope

[ChumpDumper]

To all of us, liarYou were the only one who asked.


nopeYep.

[jack sommerset]

You were the only one who asked.

Liar. I asked the gays to identify themselves to EVERYONE, not just myself.

You said, in your rapist world "You were the one who asked the gays to identify themselves for YOU" meaning me.

Please show me where I asked gays to identify themseves only to me, liar.

[ChumpDumper]

Liar. I asked the gays to identify themselves to EVERYONE, not just myself.Yes, you were the only one who aasked or expressed any interest in that.


You said, in your rapist world "You were the one who asked the gays to identify themselves for YOU" meaning me.You, meaning you, wanted them to identify themselves to you, meaning you.


Please show me where I asked gays to identify themseves only to me, liar.I don't have to. I never said it you only asked for yourself, but you were indeed the only one I can recall who expressed any interest in knowing and the only one who asked.

[jack sommerset]

I don't have to. I never said it you only asked for yourself, but you were indeed the only one I can recall who expressed any interest in knowing and the only one who asked.

Obviously you don't have too. But here is the quote from YOU, in this thread

"You were the one who asked the gays to identify themselves for YOU" meaning me. Thats what you said. I asked the gays to identify themselves to everyone

You lied.

[ChumpDumper]

Obviously you don't have too. But here is the quote from YOU, in this thread

"You were the one who asked the gays to identify themselves for YOU" meaning me. Thats what you said. I asked the gays to identify themselves to everyone

You lied.You, meaning you, are included in everyone. You, meaning you, are the only one who asked, and you, meaning you, were definitely asking for you, meaning you.

I told the truth.

[jack sommerset]

You, meaning you, are included in everyone. You, meaning you, are the only one who asked, and you, meaning you, were definitely asking for you, meaning you.

I told the truth.

You lie. You deliberately singled out me when I was referring to everyone. Spin it all you want, you lied.

[ChumpDumper]

You lie. You deliberately singled out me when I was referring to everyone. Spin it all you want, you lied.You, meaning you, are included in everybody and you, meaning you, were the only one who asked and you, meaning you, were the only one interested in knowing.

You asked for you.

You singled out yourself by asking and being the only one interested.

[jack sommerset]

You, meaning you, are included in everybody and you, meaning you, were the only one who asked and you, meaning you, were the only one interested in knowing.

You asked for you.

You singled out yourself by asking and being the only one interested.

Whatever, liar......... I was at Hooters tonight. I was picking up a to go order. I heard a song while waiting and I cannot figure it out for the world..

[Halle Berry]

I am gay
thanks for sharing.

[velik_m]

Whatever, liar......... I was at Hooters tonight. I was picking up a to go order. I heard a song while waiting and I cannot figure it out for the world..

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2008/7/18/633519385864626383-denial---aint-just-a-river-in-egypt.jpg

[clambake]

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2008/7/18/633519385864626383-denial---aint-just-a-river-in-egypt.jpg

:rollin

[ChumpDumper]

Whatever, liar......... I was at Hooters tonight. I was picking up a to go order. I heard a song while waiting and I cannot figure it out for the world..You edited this 7 hours later to put in the word "liar"?

:lmao

[Oh, Gee!!]

did I mention I was at Hooters?







looking at chicks?




cuz I like chicks!!!!




I'm not gay!!!!




You're gay!!!!

[clambake]

sounds about right. probably a bunch a guys at hooters, huh jack?

[DarkReign]

Liar. I asked the gays to identify themselves to EVERYONE, not just myself.

So youre asking on behalf of the forum? You think because you have interest/curiosity about who-is-what, that everyone else does?

Dont project your interests onto others. I, for one, have no interest in knowing who is gay on this forum or any other.

Why?

Because I do not care...unlike you. Weirdo.

[jack sommerset]

So youre asking on behalf of the forum? You think because you have interest/curiosity about who-is-what, that everyone else does?

Dont project your interests onto others. I, for one, have no interest in knowing who is gay on this forum or any other.

Why?

Because I do not care...unlike you. Weirdo.

Thank you for sharing. Now I "care". I'm sure some douchebag will try to convince me that I care now.:lol

You say I think everyone would be interested. No I didn't. I sure some a-hole will try to tell me I did.

"Dont project your interests onto others" :lol This is a public forum. Thats what some people do here.

You fuckers amuse me.

[Winehole23]

Some people call for others to declare their sexual orientation. Others do not.

[clambake]

jack is an odd cruiser.

[ChumpDumper]

Thank you for sharing. Now I "care". I'm sure some douchebag will try to convince me that I care now.:lol

You say I think everyone would be interested. No I didn't. I sure some a-hole will try to tell me I did.

"Dont project your interests onto others" :lol This is a public forum. Thats what some people do here.

You fuckers amuse me.So why did you ask in the first place?

Aside from your personal interest and curiosity, of course.

[jack sommerset]

So why did you ask in the first place?

Aside from your personal interest and curiosity, of course.

:sleep

[clambake]

check out the expression of your smiley, jack.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Thank you for sharing. Now I "care". I'm sure some douchebag will try to convince me that I care now.:lol

You say I think everyone would be interested. No I didn't. I sure some a-hole will try to tell me I did.

"Dont project your interests onto others" :lol This is a public forum. Thats what some people do here.

You fuckers amuse me.

Scratch me off your list of posters who want to know jackie..I mean jack

[Winehole23]

Disappointed?Found it amusing that the answer to this question was yes (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3973403&postcount=66).

[Winehole23]

...

[Winehole23]

Fact is, we cannot, are unwilling/unable, or cannot politically sustain the level of security required for civil society to thrive in Iraq or Afghanistan. The all-volunteer character of the military practically insures that we can't, and the political will to alter this limitation does not exist.At some point conscription will have to be revisited, as the war on terror amplifies. All-volunteer makes the rest of us free riders in the war.

[rjv]

i thought this was about jean paul sartre, existentialism or absurdist theater

[Marcus Bryant]

At some point conscription will have to be revisited, as the war on terror amplifies. All-volunteer makes the rest of us free riders in the war.

Perhaps that's how this thing finally ends.

At least once upon a time the plutocrats actually believed in seeing their own flesh and blood serve and die for the state, instead of seeing their progeny send the children of the poor and working class to die on the battlefield. Or, Bush41 could actually initiate a war with some understanding of what it was like to be shot at, escape death, and see other Americans die while to Clinton, Bush43, and Obama it's something the generals tell them about via PowerPoint.

[Winehole23]

Perhaps that's how this thing finally ends.Gotta draw the line somewhere. Requiring citizens to do military service might be that place.