I truly believe that this is a world governed by the aggressive use of force. I believe that the United States should do what is necessary to defeat its enemies. I also believe that, after 9/11, if there is a one percent chance that a nation or group is a threat then we treat them as if that threat is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Having said that, though, I am questioning my view of war in the modern world.
A liberal friend of mine says repeatedly that aggressive war is obsolete in the modern world. I'm beginning to wonder if that is true. The American Civil War was won by the North when they began employing tactics that "civilized" countries today would consider war crimes. Sherman's march through Georgia was less a battle than it was a rape. By the same token, World War II was won because by the end of the war, Germany and Japan were incapable of fighting back. The Allies were more interested in winning and exacting revenge against the Axis than they were in avoiding civilian casualties. Not only did we crush their armies, we so devastated their nations that they lost their will to fight.
After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, though, I'm not sure that's possible. We pride ourselves on avoiding civilian casualties. We engage in measured responses rather than "total war". We attempt to be politically correct against enemies that blend into the scenery and do not share our concern for human life.
As a result, we put our own fighting men and women at more risk than they would be otherwise. Such an approach to war makes complete victory almost impossible. How do you achieve complete victory when you cannot, for fear of public opinion, crush your enemy? Limited war only serves to further motivate our enemy and get our troops killed a few at a time. It causes war to be neverending and the public loses patience.
However, the alternative is to engage in acts that would result in outrage here and abroad. The United States has the military might to defeat any nation on the planet even without resorting to nuclear weapons. We will never use that power, though.
Some may say that's a good thing. I don't necessarily agree. The point, though, remains. Perhaps, in the modern world, for a nation that strives to be politically correct, war is obsolete.
7 comments:
To my way of thinking, if a nation is more concerned with being politically correct than it is in a continued existence, then maybe war is obsolete. In the current case, I think that the men and women we have in the military have gone way beyond what was needed not to overstep the bounds of reasonable vigilance and the liberals who are going on and on and on about torture and illegal detentions in Gitmo and secret prisons and our vicious killers in the military would better try to figure out which direction Mecca is for when they convert. For the rest of us I think we are doing just fine the way we are. Our military are doing us proud as a nation and if the MSM don't see that, then they are functionally blind. We already knew they were blind when it came to supporting patriotism (see Natalie Maines for an example).
I think better technology, which can pinpoint targets more accurately, has also helped change the perspective on war. Many now believe that war doesn't have to include sacrifice, nor does it necessarily have to be a bloody, total affair. We have been lulled into the notion that all we have to do is target a few safehouses here and there, and our problems with the enemy will be solved, with the least amount of difficulty, troop deaths or civilian casualties.
It's a delusion, but WW2 is now a distant memory, and the mistakes of Vietnam continue to be resurrected when war is debated, no matter the irony that the biggest mistake of Vietnam was eschewing total war for a "target and run" approach--which, in fact, lengthened that war considerably.
For those countries that strive to be "politically correct," war is obsolete. However, it seems more and more countries are anything BUT "politically correct." Look at the current world situation:
* North Korea will test-launch their new long range missile within a matter of weeks if not days, which will provoke a response from the United States.
* Iran is going full-bore with their uranium enrichment program, ostensibly for "peaceful purposes only" - but we know better. IF they develop a nuclear warhead, that will provoke a response by either the United States or Israel.
* The Sunnis in Iraq are stoking the fires of religious violence, hoping they will come out on top after the dust settles. Hint: They WON'T. The violence in Iraq puts our troops in more danger every day.
In a nutshell, those are three "hot spots" that could trigger WWIII if not controlled or contained. North Korea and Iran are NOT going to exercise any "self-control," so ANY "control" must come from outside.
I do know one thing - I would not want to be President of the United States over the next 10 - 20 years simply because the world is becoming more volatile and unstable virtually on a daily basis.
I agree with you,Steve in that I think the USA should use every weapon in their arsenal, exception being nuclear, if that is what it takes to win a war we are involved in..This political correctnesss, be kind to the enemy...is getting us nowhere.. I am ready to see us use all of our power and might, kinda like Russia did when they marched in the streets of Russia, showing their almighty army and weapons..To hell with what people who have no dog in the fight, and what they think..Let's do it, and soon. otherwise we are wimps, and I won't stand still for that as most American won't.. except the dang liberals and their bloody, bleeding hearts, which is lie, from start to fiinish..They never bled for anything that did not give them the power in this counry..As the guy said on Flight 93..LET'S ROLL!!!!!!!
I suppose we could all wish that war was obsolete but history proves otherwise. what has changed is some folks' definition of war, a prime example being the ridiculous notion of a "proportional response", lately being pontificated by Kofi, the elite effite, and leftist blogs everywhere re: Israel and Hezbollah. I would assume a proportional response would be for the Israelis to wear wired vests while entering Palestinian eateries, schools, and markets. Or caching thousands of missiles in bunkers in civilian neighborhoods to casually launch into Arab cities however indiscriminately they may fall. And, of course, Olmert should tell the world daily that Islam is the source of the world's problems and should be eradicated from the planet. This would be truly proportional. Should Americans start hijacking Arabic airlines and flying them into their palaces? WWKS (what would Kofi say?)
Blue Ridge
Has War Become Obsolete? : The type of wars fought in the past may be obsolete, but don't let your persuasive Liberal friend propagandize your principles. Now, that America is the greatest military threat in the world the Liberals (Communists) want to make America look like a bully. They want to bring America to its knees in order to replace our way of life with theirs. Strategy must play a more important part in the wars we are involved in today. For instance, every day the Democrats drone on saying " America should get out of Iraq, we should bring our troops home today." While ignoring the fact that Iran's leader has stated his goal is to destroy America and Israel, and he will soon have the nuclear capability to do it! Now, Iran sits on the border of Iraq and we have troops and bases there, does it make sense to leave and give the country to the Terrorist State of Iran? Or, does it make more sense to stay right there... right next to Iran. You've heard keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer. In advent of an attack on America or Israel by Iran, how nice it would be if we had bases on their border with anti-nuclear defense systems. If there were never any WMD in Iraq before... it would be one hell of advantage if America had them there when Iran starts firing away!
I think that war will never be obsolete, as long s mankind has existed there has been war..but I do believe that a country who feels in peril by an enemy, should not wait to be attacked, but attack first, because with every country having nuclear weapons, it is a dangerous world, and I had rather blow the enemy to kingdom come, than them do it to us..The view the left takes is one that will get a country defeated, and badly, if war happens. I do not want to live under their rule.
Post a Comment