Moral Or Immoral?

[Al Kufr]

I was reading William Linds lates article called Learning Curve were he says that using mroe firepower agianst the insurgents wont lead to victory in Iraq. this is his argument.

"The briefing stated at the outset that the keys to success in wars like that in Iraq are "Increased Lethality and Improved Protection."

Well, no. We already have vast advantages over our Fourth Generation opponents in both lethality and protection, yet we're losing. That suggests there is rather more to Fourth Generation war than lethality and protection. Indeed, we have so much of both of those qualities that they may work against us more than for us. Recently, the lethality of U.S. Army attack helicopters was turned on a crowd of young men and boys gathered around a burning Bradley, with catastrophic results for our image among Iraqis. And our Force Protection already seals us off from the people we are supposed to be helping, turning us into an alien and threatening presence. At the mental and moral levels of war, we may need less lethality and protection rather than more.

This points to the big disappointment in all of what I heard at the conference. It was all focused on the physical level of war, to the virtual exclusion of the more powerful mental and moral levels. At the mental level, there were a few mentions of PSYOPS, but even these were misconceived as what we say. Real PSYOPS are what we do, like stepping on the heads of detainees. Only one briefing grasped this essential point.

Of the moral level of war, which John Boyd argued is the most powerful level, there was nothing. Worse, there was no discussion of the central dilemma in Fourth Generation war, that what wins at the physical level tends to lead to defeat at the moral level. Goliath may mop the floor with his smaller, weaker opponents, but in doing so he makes himself universally hated.

In classic Second Generation fashion, the assumption behind almost all the briefings was that if we can only accumulate enough tactical victories, we are certain to win strategically as well. Vietnam should have put an end to this simplistic belief, but the lessons of Vietnam were filed and forgotten almost as soon as that war was over."

So my question is, is it moral to NOT use massive ammounts of firepower against the enemy so in the LONG RUN we can have more support from the local population and MAYBE have less people supporting the insurgents and shooting at us?

By the way if you dont know what incident on Haifa Street hes talking about click this:

http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/incident_on_haifa_street.htm

[Oakes]

I've resolved long ago to ignore Lind when it comes to foreign policy; he needs to stick to military tactics. If you remember, you quoted him as saying that the physically weak have the moral high ground in war. You also quoted him saying "To kill an opponent who is much weaker than yourself is unnecessary and therefore cruel." This fits in perfectly with the requirement of "due proportion" in Just War Theory. Check out the free recording of Yaron Brook's talk on Just War Theory, the altruistic theory of war.

To summarize the theory, there are two parts:

1. "When do we go to war and with whom?"

(a.) The war must have a "just cause" and "good intentions" (it must have some element of altruism -- note Bush's strong emphasis on freeing the Iraqis).

(b.) The war must be the last resort (every other conceivable avenue short of force must be tried: appeasement, UN sanctions, obtaining sincere promises, etc -- note how we have dealt with Iran, Syria, N. Korea, etc).

(c.) The war must be declared by a "proper authority" (the UN).

2. “How do we wage war?”

(a.) The damage done to the enemy must be in proportion to the threat they pose (certain weapons are regarded as "unfair" due to their technological sophistication).

(b.) Enemy civilians must be protected, even at the cost of American solders' lives (note Hiroshima is considered immoral even though it significantly shortened the war; also note the many examples in the current war of sacrificing the safety of our troops to save civilians).

Now, I don't really get the "moral, mental, physical" distinctions so you'll need to explain that more. I see war as a combination of political and military operations. Ayn Rand's philosophy helps us immeasurably with the political side, while John Boyd and Thomas Barnett instruct us on the military side.

The political side is what Yaron Brook talks about. His version is the exact opposite of Just War Theory: [1a] The war must be in our self-interest, [1b] it must be first resort if need be, [1c] it must be done regardless of world opinion, [2a] no mercy must be given to the enemy, and [2b] civilians must be killed in the interests of our troops.

“2b” addresses what you wrote about. You think civilians should be spared and catered to in order to win over their moral support. This is wrong. Our self-interest demands not that we put on a show for them, but that we stick to our moral convictions. Every time you resolve not to shoot at a garrisoned mosque for fear of angering the locals, you only prove to them how cowardly you are. But when you convince them that killing an American leads to the death of everyone within a mile of the killers, they may still hate you, but they won’t dare hurt you.

It is moral weakness, not moral strength, that emboldens our enemy.

[Al Kufr]

I've resolved long ago to ignore Lind when it comes to foreign policy; he needs to stick to military tactics. If

Actually this is about tactics NOt foreign policy

If you remember, you quoted him as saying that the physically weak have the moral high ground in war.

He didnt say he believed that they have the moral high ground, he said that people VIEW it as if they have the moral high round becuase as he says thats "human nature" to see things that way.

Now, I don't really get the "moral, mental, physical" distinctions so you'll need to explain that more. I see war as a combination of political and military operations

"Colonel John Boyd, the greatest American military theorist of the 20th century, observed that war is waged at three levels: the physical, the mental and the moral. The physical level — killing people and blowing things up — is the least powerful level. The mental level, where maneuver warfare is largely waged — getting inside the other guy’s head — is more powerful than the physical. But the moral level is the most powerful level of all. It is here that guerrilla war is waged, and it is here that sparing enemy lives can pay great dividends. An enemy whose homes are bombed, families killed and soldiers slaughtered gets angry. He wants revenge. The conflict becomes a blood feud, and it cannot be settled until our blood is spilled along with his." — William S. Lind

[Oakes]

Actually this is about tactics NOt foreign policy

I draw the line on whether it is a moral question. Whether or not we should use troops as sacrificial pigs to appease the locals is certainly a moral question. Whether or not we should use 500lb. or 1000lb. bombs is not a moral question.

He didnt say he believed that they have the moral high ground, he said that people VIEW it as if they have the moral high round becuase as he says thats "human nature" to see things that way.

He still suggests that we should shoot ourselves in the foot to appear like good guys. If the enemy civilians judge us that way, that's their problem.

"Colonel John Boyd, . . . along with his." — William S. Lind

To repeat, the resolve to win at any cost is what breaks the enemy's will to fight, not the resolve to capitulate and appease. How do you explain Iraq? We've been following your policy of sparing civilians to the letter, and look where we are now.

[BrentRolfe]

To repeat, the resolve to win at any cost is what breaks the enemy's will to fight, not the resolve to capitulate and appease. How do you explain Iraq? We've been following your policy of sparing civilians to the letter, and look where we are now.

But Oakes, the vast majority of the Iraqi people have no wish to fight at all, never have had. They just want to live......look after their families, have birthday parties, get a little money, etc.etc.etc.......just like everyone else anywhere in the world.

I absolutely agree with you that the resolve to win at any cost is the ultimate weapon, and more importantly perhaps, the ultimate deterrent. But the US has often persued wars with a "tour of duty" mentality and the objective of a rational soldier then becomes to stay alive until they can go home (to their families, birthday parties, a little money!). It was that way in Vietnam. We would never have defeated Hitler under this scenario.

So again, I agree, once you start a war, you need to finish it. But you have a domestic political system that makes that very difficult at the best of times....and almost impossible if you are the aggressors.

War (as opposed to peace-keeping or policing) is moral in self-defense (or in defense of allies), ONLY! The Iraq invasion was never in self-defense and the US is now paying the price......the domestic equivocation that will ultimately lead to another uneasy withdrawal with more enemies made than friends won.

[Al Kufr]

But Oakes, the vast majority of the Iraqi people have no wish to fight at all, never have had. They just want to live......look after their families, have birthday parties, get a little money, etc.etc.etc.......just like everyone else anywhere in the world.

Most men-especially men from non-Western cultures and less developed areas- take great pleasure in waging war(van Creveld, Peters)

Anti-war sentiments only prevelent in Western/westernized cultures.(Bozeman)

http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/ppt/walters_future_warfare.ppt

and almost impossible if you are the aggressors.

I dispute any asseriton that we dont have the right to attack any nation in the mideast.

[Al Kufr]

I draw the line on whether it is a moral question. Whether or not we should use troops as sacrificial pigs to appease the locals is certainly a moral question. Whether or not we should use 500lb. or 1000lb. bombs is not a moral question.

To repeat, the resolve to win at any cost is what breaks the enemy's will to fight, not the resolve to capitulate and appease. How do you explain Iraq? We've been following your policy of sparing civilians to the letter, and look where we are now

"recent reporting had focused on the loss of Falluja or Ramadi or Samarra or Baquba or the way the "Sunni Triangle" was blinking off the American map of Iraq. What was remarkable about the incident on Haifa Street was that a part of Iraq only hundreds of yards from one of our most fortified strongpoints was blinking off as well—so much so that when our commanders decided to take out a disabled vehicle or offer payback, they chose to do so from the air.

Though headlines about bombing runs over Falluja are increasingly commonplace, the use of air power is certainly one of the great missing stories in our ongoing war in Iraq. I've seen a single, modest AP piece by Robert Burns featuring the subject—but no overviews at all; no strategic discussions of the subject even as our military comes to rely ever more on air power for attacking in urban Iraq; and certainly no legal or moral discussions of the programmatic bombing of heavily populated urban areas. Nothing.

Here, then, is a vision of Iraq's future (and ours) not to be found in the latest National Intelligence Estimate: Barring some spectacular negotiated deal, we "take," which would mean "flatten," Fallujah. (For comparison, just consider what happened to the old city of Najaf, blocks of which are now in rubble after a couple of weeks of fighting which ended dramatically with a 2,000 pound bomb being dropped on a hotel near the holy shrine of the Imam Ali.) Imagine further whole swaths of urban Iraq being turned into free-fire zones and transformed into rubble—and an ever larger insurgency.

And yet here's the counterintuitive way you have to think about American airpower in Iraq: Watch where the bombs and missiles are falling—starting with Falluja and ending up on Haifa Street—and you can map almost exactly where American power is blinking off. The use of air power, in other words, is a sign of American weakness. Its use maps our inability to control Iraq. To the extent that you can monitor our air power, you'll know much about what's going badly in that country, in part because the resort to air power in a guerrilla war means the surefire alienation of the contested population. It means that you've given up on "hearts and minds," to use a classic Vietnam-era phrase, and turned to the punitive destruction of bodies and souls."

He still suggests that we should shoot ourselves in the foot to appear like good guys. If the enemy civilians judge us that way, that's their problem.

To me the question is about using massive ammounts of firepower or sending in maneuver forces to attack the threat. is it moral to send in troops rather then sending lots of firepower that WILL make people angry, this is why i think maneuver forces should be considerd:

"In contrast, a war of maneuver that is relatively bloodless makes peace easier. After the 1940 campaign, the Germans found the French population [to be] largely indifferent and seldom hostile. Part of the reason is that the German Blitzkrieg inflicted little physical damage on France. In contrast, the Allied campaign to retake France in 1944, with its typical American emphasis on bombing and mass firepower, inflicted tremendous damage. Not infrequently, German troops had to protect shot-down Allied aircrews from enraged French civilians — a point which German propaganda used to good effect."

"the theme of saving lives has an important subtext: a small unit, a squad or even a fire team, that is properly trained in modern, post-machinegun techniques can be just as effective as a much larger unit, while offering the enemy fewer targets. The German Army, which excelled in drawing lessons from its combat experiences, found as early as World War I that the only difference between a squad attacking a machinegun position and a company doing so was in the number of casualties suffered. Not surprisingly, by 1918 the Stosstrupp, a squad-sized unit, was the basic German tactical building block. In contrast, in most Marine infantry units today, the squad is regarded as merely a subset of the platoon, seldom trained for independent action. The result, in combat, is likely to be a lot of dead Marines, Marines whose deaths could have been avoided if tasks were assigned to smaller units."

http://members.aol.com/posteritypress/ombcbhtm.htm

By the way our soldiers arenot trained in Post Machine gun tactics, its like they are still in WWI.

[BrentRolfe]

Most men-especially men from non-Western cultures and less developed areas- take great pleasure in waging war(van Creveld, Peters)

Anti-war sentiments only prevelent in Western/westernized cultures.(Bozeman)

http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/ppt/walters_future_warfare.ppt

Well then, Bozeman is just plain wrong in my experience.

I dispute any asseriton that we dont have the right to attack any nation in the mideast.

Do you mean at any time for any reason?

Well then, dispute away

I think Kofi got it right.

[BrentRolfe]

Most men-especially men from non-Western cultures and less developed areas- take great pleasure in waging war(van Creveld, Peters)

Anti-war sentiments only prevelent in Western/westernized cultures.(Bozeman)

http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/ppt/walters_future_warfare.ppt

I dispute any asseriton that we dont have the right to attack any nation in the mideast.

Further thoughts;

"non-Western cultures"......so most Chinese, African, Asian, Carribean men take great pleasure in waging war?

Clearly vanCreveld, Peters are just plain wrong. Perhaps some (not most) single males between ages of 16 and 25 like the idea of waging war. But that group get into more motor car accidents, more fights, more arrests too. That is a comment on youth, not on race or geographical location, or culture.

Do vC and Peters distinguish between age groups of the men they have (I presume) studied?

What do they consider war?....e.g....a generally non-lethal tribal fight is not a war.

The concept of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (and its variants in all religions) has been around for millenia and is still quite well observed and very well understood. Just because it started out with religious overtones doesn't make it any less of a "Golden Rule" for secular societies to observe. This is quite consistent with Objectivist thinking.

Unfortunately, many have corrupted this sentiment to "he who has the gold makes the rules" or worse "he who makes the rules gets the gold". Neither of these bastardisations is Objectiv-"istic"? ?

[Oakes]

But Oakes, the vast majority of the Iraqi people have no wish to fight at all, never have had.

I don't care. If killing them will help the mission at all, they should be killed.

BTW the majority of them may not want to fight, but that doesn't mean they don't support the enemy.

To the extent that you can monitor our air power, you'll know much about what's going badly in that country, in part because the resort to air power in a guerrilla war means the surefire alienation of the contested population.

"Contested population"? This is the problem. They keep engaging this with the altruistic mindset that the war is for the sake of the civilians. It should be for America's protection. Using airpower is NOT a sign of weakness if it succeeds in saving American lives that might have been lost had we rolled in with ground forces.

is it moral to send in troops rather then sending lots of firepower that WILL make people angry

I don't care if it angers people. It will send the message that hurting Americans is a futile and sucidal endeavor.

"In contrast, a war of maneuver that is relatively bloodless makes peace easier. After the 1940 campaign, the Germans found the French population [to be] largely indifferent and seldom hostile. Part of the reason is that the German Blitzkrieg inflicted little physical damage on France. In contrast, the Allied campaign to retake France in 1944, with its typical American emphasis on bombing and mass firepower, inflicted tremendous damage. Not infrequently, German troops had to protect shot-down Allied aircrews from enraged French civilians — a point which German propaganda used to good effect."

This isn't a good example. We were freeing an ally from the occupation of an enemy. Special care should be taken in such a case.

"the theme of saving lives has an important subtext: a small unit, a squad or even a fire team, that is properly trained in modern, post-machinegun techniques can be just as effective as a much larger unit, while offering the enemy fewer targets.

This is a good point, though I don't see how it applies to the current duscussion.

[MisterSwig]

Of the moral level of war, which John Boyd argued is the most powerful level, there was nothing. Worse, there was no discussion of the central dilemma in Fourth Generation war, that what wins at the physical level tends to lead to defeat at the moral level. Goliath may mop the floor with his smaller, weaker opponents, but in doing so he makes himself universally hated.

We don't need to worry about the moral level, if the enemy is no longer alive to be moral or not.

We mop the floor with the bad guys and see if there are enough people alive who want to change their minds about their attitude toward us. If not, we continue mopping up the floor. It's not our job to sacrifice ourselves in the effort to save an enemy force-based nation from their own mistakes. It is our job to make sure that we are not threatened by them. That's it.

[Al Kufr]

"non-Western cultures"......so most Chinese, African, Asian, Carribean men take great pleasure in waging war?

Clearly vanCreveld, Peters are just plain wrong. Perhaps some (not most) single males between ages of 16 and 25 like the idea of waging war. But that group get into more motor car accidents, more fights, more arrests too. That is a comment on youth, not on race or geographical location, or culture.

Do vC and Peters distinguish between age groups of the men they have (I presume) studied?

What do they consider war?....e.g....a generally non-lethal tribal fight is not a war.

who said anything about race?

who said anything about geographical location?

It has to do with ideas i.e culture, thats the driving factor.

"do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

i dont want to meet any masochists that believe this crap

[Al Kufr]

I don't care. If killing them will help the mission at all, they should be killed.

BTW the majority of them may not want to fight, but that doesn't mean they don't support the enemy.

Im not saying they shouldnt be killed i want them dead just as much as you want them dead. what im talking about is HOW we kill them.

"Contested population"? This is the problem. They keep engaging this with the altruistic mindset that the war is for the sake of the civilians. It should be for America's protection. Using airpower is NOT a sign of weakness if it succeeds in saving American lives that might have been lost had we rolled in with ground forces.

I know what you mean,but I think i figured out the answer to my question, air power is not enough to occupy any nation you need ground forces anyways. The places where we just use air power are being controlled by the guerrillas, so either way we WILL have to send ground troops nomatter what. The moral is the practical and the practical is the moral.

This isn't a good example. We were freeing an ally from the occupation of an enemy. Special care should be taken in such a case.

Yes, but it wasnt taken. WE bombed the crap out of everything in WWII because we were fighting a WWI attrition style war not a maneuver war.If we wanted to take care of ourt ally we would have used maneuver war not massive ammounts of bombs.

And two, who said people in Iraq are not potential allies? If we were to invade Iran where we have lot of pro american support, would we bomb the place the same way? I say we shouldnt.

This is a good point, though I don't see how it applies to the current duscussion.

It applies becuase of how our armed forces are organized and trained,if we really want less dead soldiers and marines we would start training them better that way they would be more effective on the ground.

[MisterSwig]

It applies becuase of how our armed forces are organized and trained,if we really want less dead soldiers and marines we would start training them better that way they would be more effective on the ground.

If we wanted to protect the lives of our citizens and soldiers, we would stop pretending like it was August 5, 1945--the day before Hiroshima. We would stop relying on infantry, tanks, sophisticated military strategy, and occupation of enemy territory. We would simply construct an ungodly, massive air force with a large supply of the best bombs we have. And we would threaten to use our largest, most destructive weapons.

The message to our enemy would be clear: Mess with us and we will flatten your cities and cripple your nation.

[Al Kufr]

If we wanted to protect the lives of our citizens and soldiers, we would stop pretending like it was August 5, 1945--the day before Hiroshima. We would stop relying on infantry, tanks, sophisticated military strategy, and occupation of enemy territory. We would simply construct an ungodly, massive air force with a large supply of the best bombs we have. And we would threaten to use our largest, most destructive weapons.

The message to our enemy would be clear: Mess with us and we will flatten your cities and cripple your nation.

Then why have an army, or navy why not just nuclear weapons and nothing more?

And I dont know how many times ive recommended this book, but ill do it again even nobody seems to listen.

Phantom Soldier: The Enemy's Answer to U.S. Firepower

If you want to find out how effective U.S firepower is then look at the war in Kosovo, how much did NATO(the U.S.) hit during that war? NOTHING, but it sure dropped lots of bombs, the serbian army escaped unharmed. All this technology we depend on can be undermined by these simple fourth generation forces.

"We know now that Serbia lost only 14 tanks, 12 self-propelled artillery pieces, and 6 to 10 towed artillery pieces. Moreover, after the ceasefire in June, viewers of CNN watched incredulously as a virtually untouched, well-victualed, well-disciplined, defiant, Serb army drove out of Kosovo. According to news reports, more troops left Kosovo intact than were assumed to be in Kosovo before the bombing started"

http://www.defense-and-society.org/fcs/comments/c348.htm

"After being struck by more bomb tonnage than Ike used against the Nazis at Normandy, the third-rate Serbian army was able to withdraw from the field in fighting shape. " -David Hackworth

Look at operation anaconda, how effective was all that bombing against al qaida?And how effective were our ground forces? the ground forces were much better against al qaida than the bombs were.

Answer: nothing beats boots on the ground.

[BrentRolfe]

who said anything about race?

who said anything about geographical location?

It has to do with ideas i.e  culture, thats the driving factor.

i dont want to meet any masochists that believe this crap

ok China, is a non-Western culture

so is the Carribean

and African cultures also

I think in the absence of any real argument you are deliberately missing the point.

"i don't want to meet any masochists that believe in this crap".......um, please explain how this concept is masochistic? It is neither masochistic nor altruistic....perhaps you just don't understand the language?

[Al Kufr]

ok China, is a non-Western culture

so is the Carribean

and  African cultures also

I think in the absence of any real argument you are deliberately missing the point.

China is non western? HOT DAMN, i thought karl marxs was a german, but i guess communism was invented by the chinese not some westerner.

Being western has nothing to do with being in the west, its about ideas, so you are the one who is missing the point. All those cultures have had LOTS of contact with the west.

"i don't want to meet any masochists that believe in this crap".......um, please explain how this concept is masochistic? It is neither masochistic nor altruistic....perhaps you just don't understand the language?

I can see you didnt get the joke....If you think about it REEEEEEAAL HARD, you may get it.

[Oakes]

Im not saying they shouldnt be killed i want them dead just as much as you want them dead. what im talking about is HOW we kill them.

Actually, I was talking about civilians in that quote, and you do not want to kill civilians.

I know what you mean,but I think i figured out the answer to my question, air power is not enough to occupy any nation you need ground forces anyways. The places where we just use air power are being controlled by the guerrillas, so either way we WILL have to send ground troops nomatter what. The moral is the practical and the practical is the moral.

I have nothing against using ground forces. I am for whatever will satisfy the mission best. I was simply defending the usage of airpower when that is deemed the better option.

If we wanted to take care of ourt ally we would have used maneuver war not massive ammounts of bombs.

I agree.

And two, who said people in Iraq are not potential allies? If we were to invade Iran where we have lot of pro american support, would we bomb the place the same way? I say we shouldnt.

Until we've defeated the opposition in these countries, their civilians are nothing but targets to further that mission. You do not spare them in hopes that they become allies in the indefinite future. We should protect the pro-American minority when possible, but not let their protection be a detriment to our success.

We would stop relying on infantry, tanks, sophisticated military strategy, and occupation of enemy territory.

I agree with Al Kufr's criticism of this. You have justly defended the usage of nuclear arms, but they aren't always the best option. We still need troops and traditional military hardware to get what planes can't see and bombs can't reach. Which leads me to...

Answer: nothing beats boots on the ground.

Both of you are saying we need one and not the other. Nukes are good for eliminately the civilian base of support and creating an impact on enemy morale, as well as for flattening cities swarming with insurgents (like Fallujah).

[Al Kufr]

Im not saying we shouldnt use airpower, im saying we shouldnt depend on it, its not as effective as people on the ground.

And also, when it comes right down to it, the americzn soldiers lives are always above everybody elses.

[MisterSwig]

Then why have an army, or navy  why not just nuclear weapons and nothing more?

You have an army to protect your homeland--and to support the air force's bombing operations, which means deploying special units to find hidden enemy anti-aircraft units. You have a navy to protect your coastlines--and to support the air force's bombing operations, which means maintaining our carrier groups.

We could probably get away with having very little actual army and navy personnel, as long as we had the biggest and baddest air force in history. Most of our army and navy could be in reserve units. Whatever overseas land operations were necessary could probably be carried out by special marine groups, like the SEALS.

Using the army for invasion should be a last resort. It's too costly, and we have much better means of inflicting hurt on the enemy. If we have to go to war against a nation, then using the air force to bomb that country into surrendering should be the first option.

Certainly, our goal should not be to make that country free. Our first goal should be to make that country absolutely fear and respect us as lords over their existence. It should be made clear to them that we will completely level their civilization, if they don't surrender.

I'm not going to respond to all of your concretes, because you are avoiding the primary moral issue here, which is the purpose of war. The purpose of war is to act in your own self-interest by thoroughly annihilating the enemy or causing him to surrender unconditionally. Offering surrender terms is optional and should only be done when it is in your self-interest to do so. After nuking Iran, we should demand many changes before accepting their surrender.

The purpose of war is not to make the enemy like you.

[Al Kufr]

You have an army to protect your homeland--and to support the air force's bombing operations, which means deploying special units to find hidden enemy anti-aircraft units..

That is so unrealistic and you clearly do not understand anything about warfare.

Why would you need special units to find hiden enemy units? I thought all you needed was one bomb, ONE NUKE. And I guess you agree with my point that nothing beats having actuall units on the ground.

We could probably get away with having very little actual army and navy personnel, as long as we had the biggest and baddest air force in history. Most of our army and navy could be in reserve units. Whatever overseas land operations were necessary could probably be carried out by special marine groups, like the SEALS.

Who needs a big ass airforce? all you need are nukes right? Who needs a hundred bombs, why risk the pilots lives why not just send in ICBMs?

Using the army for invasion should be a last resort. It's too costly, and we have much better means of inflicting hurt on the enemy. If we have to go to war against a nation, then using the air force to bomb that country into surrendering should be the first option.

I agree with this point, but inflicting damage on an enemy doesnt always involve physical destruction you know.

Sun tzu said you need "a strategic value system that focuses one's own attack on his adversary's plans as best policy, attacks his alliances as second best policy, attacks his adversary's military forces as third best, and only attacks fortified cities when there is no alternative"

Set the pre conditions for victory before going to war, by maneuvering strategicly.

I'm not going to respond to all of your concretes, because you are avoiding the primary moral issue here, which is the purpose of war. The purpose of war is to act in your own self-interest by thoroughly annihilating the enemy or causing him to surrender unconditionally. Offering surrender terms is optional and should only be done when it is in your self-interest to do so. After nuking Iran, we should demand many changes before accepting their surrender.

The purpose of war is not to make the enemy like you.

Thats great, i agree with all that, too bad you cant present your surrender papers to anybody because our enemys are highly decentralized enemy. And nuked people cant sign surrender papers.

And what you are looking for in this war is what Clausewitz called " a DECISIVE BATTLE with a superiority of numbers and conditions that will promise a quick strategic victory." To bad our enemys doesnt work that way, they arent seeking a decisive battle, so you may show up for the fight but they wont.

"The attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center dispelled the notion that 4GW is simple "terrorism." But one can sympathize with our political and military leaders, because 4GW is a strange form of warfare, one where military force plays a much smaller (though still critical) role than in earlier generations, supporting initiatives that are more political, diplomatic, and economic. As important as finding and destroying the actual combatants, for example, is drying up the bases of popular support that allow them to recruit for, plan, and execute their attacks. Perhaps most odd of all, being seen as too successful militarily may create a backlash, making the opponent's other elements of 4GW more effective."

"The distinction between war and peace will be blurred to the vanishing point. It will be nonlinear, possibly to the point of having no definable battlefields or fronts. The distinction between 'civilian' and 'military' may disappear."Distinction between war and crime is blured.

"Similarly, because practitioners of 4GW will be transnational groups without territorially-based armies, much of their activity will probably resemble "guerilla warfare" or "low intensity conflict." These highly irregular practices have enabled groups that are weak, militarily, to defeat larger, stronger forces, and they have deep roots in the history of war. The word "guerilla" itself, for example, dates back nearly 200 years to Napoleon's occupation of Spain.

Until recently, however, such "special" operations more often harassed than decided—"sideshows" (as T. E. Lawrence once termed them) in wars fought mainly along 1st, 2nd, or 3rd generation lines. Examples could include operations by colonial militias and guerillas during the Revolutionary War, Nathan Bedford Forrest's cavalry raids, partisans during WWII, and the tactics practiced in the early stages of most "national liberation" wars in the 20th Century, including Vietnam. In all of these, though, conventional forces delivered the final, deciding blows."

"There was a 4GW component to the Vietnam War—the ultimately successful campaign by North Vietnam to turn US public opinion against the war. Once this was accomplished, and the US withdrew, the South could be finished off by conventional means. Similarly, the goal of the mujaheddin in Afghanistan was not to defeat the Red Army in some decisive battle, but to persuade the Soviet leadership to withdraw it, and al-Qa'ida appears to have achieved similar results in Spain. "

"Unlike Clausewitzian warfare, that is, a conflict between opposing wills much like a boxing match between nations, 4GW more resembles a boxer versus a viral infection."

"I'm not going to respond to all of your concretes, because you are avoiding the primary moral issue here, which is the purpose of war."

I agree, so whats the best way to make him surrender, ground troops or lots of bombs? I gave you those concretes to show you what i think is the right answer.

[BrentRolfe]

I can see you didnt get the joke....If you think about it REEEEEEAAL HARD, you may get it.

Correct, I didn't get it first time through, but I do now and it's quite good so my apologies for the comment about understanding the language....you may understand it better than me

Re Marx being a German (i.e. westerner) however, I don't get your point.

The original topic was, paraphrased slightly, that the majority of men in non-Western cultures enjoy war.....this is just patently silly. But perhaps we just disagree on the terms majority, non-Western, culture, men, enjoy and war?

I think it is more likely that....many...young (18-25 year old) men...living in the USA and the UK...enjoy the idea....that war....is an adventure..um, like in a movie.

[Oakes]

Certainly, our goal should not be to make that country free.

I don't agree. WWII Japan is a model for how we should deal with our enemies. We decimated civilian populations and won the war, but we didn't leave. We occupied them and forced them to accept an American-inspired constitution. And as Brook notes, we didn't lose a single soldier to insurgents there.

Ultimately disconnectedness from the globalizing world is what causes threats like North Korea and Iran. Freedom is the only way to make them connect.

[Thales]

Thats great, i agree with all that, too bad you cant present your surrender papers to anybody because our enemys are highly decentralized enemy. And nuked people cant sign surrender papers.

I still disagree with you on this. It's states that are the problem here. Rogue terrorists would have no where near the fire power, nor the support to do anything without states backing them. They provide the wealth, safe harbor, and training.

Remove that and you've removed the bulk of the problem.

In WWII we had two formidable forces to deal with, which stretched our capabilities. A very scary situation. Today we have a vastly superior military, but lack the will to take the fight to the enemy.

[MisterSwig]

Why would you need  special units to find hiden enemy units? I thought all you needed was one bomb, ONE NUKE. 

It would be an incredible waste of resources to drop a nuke on a few anti-aircraft units, when a combination of smaller bombs and elite ground units (with snipers) could do the job.

You say that I know nothing about warfare. But, I'm beginning to think that you are the one who knows nothing about it. You like to think you do, however. That much is clear.