WAR: The Only Way to Win

I couldn't agree with you more, this was absolutely terrific. You are a seasoned pro!

One does wish that Bush et al had at least read Machiavelli at least in its children's version! I often wonder if there is anybody in Washington who had simply asked whether there they were going to Itaq because they so much loved the Iraqi people that something had to be done to save them from Saddam's clutches or was it for some reason connected with American security. If it was for the altruistic reason of saving the Iraqis then we can only applaud the sacrifice of the young Americans who are falling like nine pins in Iraq. But if the reason was for the security of America, then Sun Tzu or even Machiavelli would have advised using Saddam to fight Bin Laden and his loosely held cohorts.And because there was no love lost between Saddam and the Islamic fundamentalists, he would have been happy to do it - of course for a price, that being his continued rule in Iraq and a sort of secret modus vivendi between the Americans & his regime.Would that have been acceptable to any reasonable American administration except the present one? Yes, I do think so. Sun Tzu would have told Bush that if you have two enemies it is better to let them fight each other,rather than putting your own army in harm's way.
Ivar Tabrizi

Bill Maher would agree with that last sentence of yours, Mr. Tabrizi.

It saddens me to see a superpower wasting its resources on a war that any West Point graduate could have predicted to be unwinnable. And what saddens me more is the sight of Pizza Hut delivery vans gleefully racing to the American camps in Kuwait!!! An army, however superior in sophisticated weaponry, cannot win aginst an enemy who are focused, however evil their agenda maybe. And while fighting they do not wait around for deliveries of Pizzas. The Vietcong too did not, with evident results!

I think you may not have understood what I was saying. I DO NOT think the war is unwinnable. It can be lost if we do not overcome our political correctness and stop pussy-footing around. We need to show the Islamic fascists our "shock and awe" that was promised at the start of our wars. We can absolutely win, just like we were winning in Vietnam, and just like we were in the first Gulf War. The one thing that can be our demise, just as it was with Vietnam, is a collective lack of courage by our politicians and media, which correlates to our war strategies that are unnecessarily influenced by Washington elites. Unbind the hands of our military leaders and let them do what they do best.

Well...

I respect your opinion. The way I see it... you're never going to win against terrorism. Terrorism has been around forever. You can fight and fight and fight until your blue in the face, but it's going to continue happening. I'm not saying that war is pointless, because there would be A LOT more terrorism going on if we didn't defend anything. But the fact of the matter is, it's not going to stop. Whether it be in a community or whether it be a nation.

You are right in a way. The First Gulf War was done very professionally and Bush Sr had the sense to stop the war at the right time and not go into Iraq. The Iraqis were beaten. But in this war, things have gone out of control. First and foremost an exit strategy was never even thought about but left to the events. Secondly, the Army was not prepared for the Shia-Sunni divide. And they exacerbated it by forcing an election on a people who are not used to democracy but only group, tribal and religious loyalties. And by bringing the Shias into power, inadvertantly the US has made a complete contiguous axis of Shias stretching from Iran into Syria and southern Lebanon. The Gulf Arabs used Saddam, as a bulwark against the Shias. Now that wall is gone.

I have known this region for almost 3 decades. It is disastrous to go into a ground war here especially in Iraq and Syria.The British could not do it even though they were around for decades here. Now it is a bit difficult.And since the reality is that the Army would never be given full control to do their operations, it is the politicians who will have to extricate themselves from this mess.

This is very good.

Is that an oxymoron?

anthony b, It is very popular today to be a monday morning quarterback on the war and Bush. It's turning into some sort of sport. People can quote many of the well written past philosophy on wars and sound very clever. I actualy think the President can write his own since he stands in excellent company regarding warfare, ancient or modern. Don't be fooled by his folksy way of speech. Harry Truman was a plain spoken man as well. Alexander, Ceaser, Patton. That exclusive club knows one thing. Bring the fight to your enemy. There is a new big dog on that street called the middle east and it is the United States. When countries like Iran and Syria and Pakistan look over their backyard fence, what is it that they see? The big dog on the block, right there in all their faces. It would be wise to be on their best behavior. We are not going anywhere fast. We are still in Korea, are we not? This is a nasty world out there and we did not ask for this struggle. We were the ones attacked! At most this is vision and extraordinary courage to tackle what may be the ultimate struggle, even defined in the Bible. And the least of it is putting ourselves in center square retaliating against a murderous sneak attack by a subculture within a religion which knows no national borders. Only a desire to rid the world of all infidels which to them includes us.

We tried suntzu's way for years. We supported Saddam and Isreal has always been our point man. It's time to do it ourselves with our closest friend the UK. The above written by myself was actualy a responce to this letter. Being new I misplaced it in order.

I'm not questioning Bush's motivations for the wars. I think it is very necessary to do what he is doing. I'm not playing "Monday morning quarterback" either. We do need to bring the fight to the enemy, but it needs to be done in a way that will make them reconsider resisting. His intentions to avoid civilian casualties were admirable, however, they are not effective in this war we are fighting.

on your piece. Actualy it was Ivar Tabrizi that I responded to below yours and just mistakenly placed it. However as you made some interesting comments I'd like to adress one issue. That is civilian casualties. I could'nt agree with you more Publius on the very nature of war. I believe it should be avoided at all costs but when it comes down to it as being the last resort it should be fought all out, takeing no quarter. That being said, we have developed into such an advanced society, militarily as well that what we have now is a version of that belief that we should win at all costs. Call it shock and awe light. That version was good enough to win the war. We won it ! We took over a country and spared its civilians and intrastructure. Now it is the peace we must win and that must be done as in Korea, turning over the task to Iraq while we maintain a long presence in the region. We are'nt going anywhere. This is a 21st century reality. My only hope Publius is that if it ever came down to a war which threatened our very existance that we would fight it with all the abandonment and ruthlessness necessary to justify the true meaning of war. When McArthur was stopped in Korea from putting the Chinese in their rightful place, the very nature of war was changed forever. Vietnam was the biggest casualty of this new kind of policy. Of course, with nuclear weapons, it was inevitable that war be recalculated. Now we need to come back more to the middle and strike a proper balance and apply it to each wartime situation.

Shock. And. Awe.

Oh. Boy.

I know I got in on this a little late. I think I gave it a 9 back then, but got sidetracked and forgot to comment. Better late than never though!! Excellent article Pub!! Should be published!!

...were you say that spearing lives of inosent women and childern will loose the war for you, you are wrong brother.
Even if some muslim killed the jesus long time ago and god knows if that's true or not.

He would still go into they villiage and give them bread and water in order to unite people.

And that my frineds is called MERCY. the only way to stop the war.

If they don't want you help then leave idiots alone and mind your own business and teritory before we unite that soon to, them f..@#$%&* borders.

Somebody said them borders of each counrty of this world will go down but the people first need to read some book of Bonton and how to cooperate with each other.

Milan Grbic

excellent article full on truth!!!

Great reading, to bad many will take it the wrong way. Peace is usually derived from strength. Something that is not mentioned to often anymore, Chamberlin from Great Britain, tried talking and signing treaties with Germany, before WW2. The rest is history.

You huys are out of your f@#$% minds with this war stuff give me a F@#$% break people.

Milan Grbic