karashebi ([info]karashebi) wrote,
2005-08-05 02:14:00
  • Previous
  • Memorize
  • Share
  • Next
  • Mood: tired

I don't know...

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/050808ta_talk_packer

The New Yorker's often known for blowing things like these out of proportion, and personally I'm inclined to think that they're more than a little premature. At the same time, one has to ask oneself, in a war with virtually no true set parameters and no palpable, clear-cut goals, how does one declare victory or defeat?

War against Saddam Hussein? --Relatively clear-cut victory, though the Iraqi court may overturn that.
War against Taliban? At least in Afghanistan, a relatively clear-cut victory.
War against Al Qaida? I'm going to let the jury wait a bit on that one. I remain rather skeptical.
War against Terror? ...

How does one decide?

While I have seen a 're-invisioning' within the last several months and especially recently, I am not sure this equates to an admission of defeat. Tactical retreats and alteration of tactical protocols are rather common in military maneuvers. It is premature to say we have failed... if anyone could ever decipher what we were trying to accomplish in the first place.

*shrugs* Right now, I think I'm going to stick to worrying about the US Troops, Afghanis and Iraqis in the line of fire. I'm a lot more concerned for their safety than what a particular oaf might be doing in the white house right now.

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    switch
     
    Help
  • 12 comments

[info]wolfbrotherjoe

August 5 2005, 11:42:46 UTC 6 years ago

I don't think it's possible to know if we've won the War against Terror for a generation yet.

[info]karashebi

August 5 2005, 16:48:09 UTC 6 years ago

I don't think it will ever truly be possible to say if we 'won' a war that had no true starting point, no clear goals, no set parameters of engagement and no exit stratagem. The very idea of winning or losing a phantom war is ... quite frankly comical to me, and has been ever since the "War on Terror" was established. It was a brilliant political ploy to create a bully pulpit from which to drum up a semi-annual supply of political capital, such as 'we don't vote a president off during wartime' (A surprisingly effective use of the tactic).

I don't know that it will ever be possible to say if we won this 'war.' All I see are corpses. Fewer Americans than in past wars, yes, but I still see corpses and a legitimate (if screwed up) government smashed. *shrugs* I have a hard enough time considering pyhhric victories like Iraq victories. Without some sort of paradigm to judge the "War on Terror" with, I'm quite frankly stumped.

Meh, my cynicism has hit an all time high. I'm too cynical regarding that oaf to be anything other than quietly disgusted with the man. I can't even say 'if Kerry had been here it would be different.' I have too much self-respect to lie through my teeth like that. They were both unacceptable choices.

[info]wolfbrotherjoe

August 5 2005, 17:09:19 UTC 6 years ago

It's simple. Have we destroyed the society that creates and supports terrorism? Do we have a government that does not support terrorist groups and instead actively works against them, thus reducing the maximum size of terrorist groups to a controllable couple dozen, instead of hundreds?

[info]karashebi

August 6 2005, 07:49:49 UTC 6 years ago

*blinks* No more than previously. Terrorist Groups are amorphous that way. They find new bases of support. Damaging them does not equate to winning a war, but battles. Their organizations and practices remain quite prevalent. I see no lull in their tactics, and even if one organization dies, more replace it like the heads of a hydra.

I see neither sign of victory nor clear defeat, only bloodshed.

[info]wolfbrotherjoe

August 6 2005, 10:40:05 UTC 6 years ago

You missed what I said. I didn't say, "If we destroy terrorists." I said, "If we destroy the government and society support of terrorists." You're also forgetting that I said, "We won't know for at *least* a generation."

A terrorist group located in a country that is hostile to it is limited to somewhere around 20 members... and cannot really be international very effectively. They're essentially left rather 'alone'.

A terrorist group located in a country that is not hostile to it can be much larger, and can operate internationally much easier. And some countries support terrorist groups in order to avoid responsibility and retaliation for the actions of said terrorist groups which are what the country desires, but does not want responsibility for.

Just killing terrorists would never solve the problem.

[info]arturus_magi

August 6 2005, 08:55:57 UTC 6 years ago

The former Iraqi government did actively work against them, and the new one has no means to resist them.

The new Afghani government, similarly, has no means to resist, although it is at least an improvement for an actively supportive one.

Al Qaeda has more support now than when we started, and access to more territory.

<checks Magic 8-Ball> "Outlook not good."

[info]wolfbrotherjoe

August 6 2005, 10:47:38 UTC 6 years ago

I'm rather curious what you have to say about these issues:

here

and here

[info]arturus_magi

August 8 2005, 06:43:14 UTC 6 years ago

Well, on the topic of http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/sib/5_05/saddam_3.htm : Mutually Assured Destruction. Israel is as much a terrorist organization as the Palistinean Liberation Front and it's supporters. The choice of tactics leave much to be desired, but this is hardly an appropriate comparison (or hypocracy in the extreme, considering how the US supports the Israeli regime).

I'll have to leave commenting on the other link for later. Time is something I don't have in significant supply right now.

[info]wolfbrotherjoe

August 8 2005, 11:25:33 UTC 6 years ago

Rrrrright. Just never mind. I don't feel like getting into a discussion with someone like you at the moment. Some other time, perhaps.

[info]phoenix_seraph

August 7 2005, 05:32:05 UTC 6 years ago

"Have we destroyed the society that creates and supports terrorism?"

No, for we are one of those societies which creates and supports terrorism.

There was a marvelous article in a British newspaper during the senior Bush's reign as president in which it was noted that most if not all U.S. newspapers used different terms for the same activity dependent upon whether we committed them or our enemies committed them:

our enemies committed sneak attacks, but we committed pre-emptive strikes

our enemies supported terrorists, but we supported freedom fighters

etc.

This is appropriate for us to recall on the 60th anniversary of the day in which the United States became responsible for the single largest willing annihilation of a civilian population in known history.

[info]wolfbrotherjoe

August 7 2005, 06:06:33 UTC 6 years ago

HA!

Yeah, because we have to totally and completely ignore context.

[info]phoenix_seraph

August 7 2005, 05:26:02 UTC 6 years ago

By changing the parameters to particular ideological "conflict", thereby creating a perpetual us/them binary, this administration has quite effectively re-created the us/them binary of the Cold War in which anything remotely "them" (in that case, "commie") was labeled as anti-"us" (and anti-U.S.).

Brilliant of the administration. Evil, immoral, and tawdry, but brilliant.
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…