Thanks for your comments. They are vary helpful. I'm not sure I
understand this "Neo Con Dispensationalist principle" but I also have
to confess I don't understand the Neo Cons all that well. Do you think
the is a political philosophy here or is it just another name for
business interests who want no limits on their prerogatives and
profits? Who would you suggest reading o understand them better? How
much of what Bush does is connected with their philosophy? I guess the
most important questions for me are how much of the administrations
positions on environment are philosophical and how much pragmatic. As
several people have pointed out the collapse of cheap energy i.e., oil
and gas will have the most profound effect on peace and war, economics,
and even the nature of life itself in the very near future. The energy
corporations seem to be looking at this from the standpoint of just
maximizing profits with no attention to other consequences. Is this
just shortsighted self interest or a political philosophy?
Rick
robert luis rabello wrote:
Rick Littrell wrote:
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/
_______________________________________________
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/
