Dear Tom,
These are excellent points. In the case of France though the German
army was a bit more of a challenge than the Iraq army, the French
actually wanted us there.
You bring up something interesting, Rick. I would like to clarify,
however, that the German troops we Americans faced in France were far
from the crack, front line divisions that initially invaded Western
Europe. I have read somewhere that the best troops in the German army
were transferred to face the Soviets during the "Operation Against
Bolshevism" and in their place, second line divisions and reserves
filled the void. Field Marshal Rommel once described "Fortress
Europa" as "Cloud Cuckoo Land". Nonetheless, those German troops put
up a formidable fight. They were well equipped and led by an
outstanding officer corps.
In the case of Iraq, we were told that they constituted an "imminent
threat." I remember hearing about WMD warheads able to fire on "30
minute notice". We were warned about mushroom clouds over American
cities. When our troops invaded Iraq, the resistance the Iraqi army
actually mounted against us has to qualify for among the most inept in
history. They didn't even destroy a single bridge leading to Baghdad!
Perhaps SOME of the Iraqis wanted us there. Perhaps we had SOME good
will among the civilian population, at least initially. Our inability
to secure the place, coupled with an increasingly effective
insurgency, compounded by the inability of Iraqis to agree on a
government, essentially led us into the quagmire we now face in that
country.
Whenever I say: "I told you so", I now hear a list of
"accomplishments" and derogatory remarks about my allegedly "liberal"
perspective from the people who think we've done well with our current
Middle East meddling.
I don't agree about not being able to occupy with fire power. That is
no longer true. How many troops were lost invading Japan? He had more
than enough troops to occupy Iraq had he treated it as an enemy instead
of a victim of a dictatorship although he would have been an even bigger
war criminal than he is now.
Here I disagree with you strongly. American military planners are
trying very hard not to replicate Vietnam, and among the techniques
they espouse is the idea that "force multipliers" (such as
overwhelming air power) can make up for troop strength on the ground.
This serves to limit the number of possible American casualties, but
it has a few unintended consequences. The first, is that American
soldiers have to rely on brute firepower to accomplish their
objectives; a principle that serves the soldier well, but often does
so at the cost of civilian lives in urban areas. Other people in the
world interpret this as either cowardice (Why don't those Americans
just stand up and fight? This is a sentiment I've often heard from my
saintly mother in law, who doesn't understand that the job of a
soldier is to kill other people, not to die himself!), or excessive
force. I've written before that the military is, at best, a blunt
instrument. Bludgeoning the Iraqi insurgency into submission will
come at a high cost. We were not told that this would be the case
prior to the invasion, and much obfuscation has occurred since then to
deflect attention away from the truth of the matter.
In the case of Japan, there are several mitigating circumstances that
compound comparison of the conflicts. One of them is cultural.
Defeat for a Japanese of that era was utterly humiliating, and they
did not rise up against us when our forces arrived to occupy the
islands. (It would also be helpful to tabulate how many American
soldiers were involved in the occupation of that country.) Secondly,
the nation had been effectively reduced to rubble by massive aerial
bombardment, and the economy was in absolute shambles from the war.
Thirdly, the use of atomic weapons (not merely the threat of them)
crossed a threshold that had never been reached before. We didn't
have the ability at the time to utterly destroy the Japanese nation
with atom bombs, but their leadership didn't know that, and further,
no one else on earth was capable of retaliating against us at the
time. Additionally, Douglas MacArthur did a brilliant job as that
nation's administrator until an elected government could take his
place. That achievement is the shining moment of MacArthur's career.
No similar circumstances exist in Iraq. If we destroy the Iraqi
people with our own WMDs, we lose all credibility. (Do we have any
left?) The NeoCon belief that costs would be minimal has been
laughingly assigned to the scrap heap of unsupported, nationalistic
nonsense where the theory of a "master race", communism and a host of
other stupidities have been discarded.
As for North Korea, I think he had sense enough to know ... OK, the
people around him had sense enough to know, that the North Korean Army
could inflict unacceptable losses on us even if we won and we would risk
"complications" with China.
The North Koreans could put up a serious fight. Historically, they
have been brave and resourceful in battle. Their armed forces are
well equipped, and we would not face an army decimated by years of
aerial bombardment. Their long range missiles can reach the
northwestern U.S., and we might end up with Seattle, Portland,
Anchorage and Juneau in smoldering, radioactive ruins. I would be
very reluctant to engage them in combat, unless we were struck first.
He doesn't fight from principle. As many
in this group have pointed out, he is basically a bully.
I agree that Mr. Bush behaves like a bully. However, he DOES fight
from principle. It's a weird, NeoCon / Dispensationalist principle,
but from that perspective, everything he's done makes perfect sense.
robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=9782>
Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/