Hear me out...

[twyacht]

from FQ,
rather than ill intent against civilians with the exceptions that I've mentioned.

Unlike today, WWII was a TOTAL War. "Duty is Ours, Consequences are God's."
Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson 

Our "Duty" was to defeat the enemy at ALL costs! Our "intent" regarding civilian casualties became irrelevant to the goal; Win the damn War!

FQ
Now we do.

Like I posted, our track record of "victory" has sharply declined since we "know better" now...

Now the talking heads are asking "What is victory?" Not a question even considered in the past.

[tombogan03884]

Yes, this is more 20/20 hindsight  
 "Bombing the hell out of cities" was a waste of time, and the British had themselves as an example to learn from. Between the Blitz and the V weapon Terror raids they took everything Germany could throw at them, grumbled about the "bloody Hun's" and went about their business, the Germans were no different, 1,000 plane raids, around the clock bombing, it killed a lot of people, and was extremely annoying, but it did not have the capacity to break their will to resist, in fact on thinking about it I am surprised that Japan surrendered after only 2 A bombs. Tokyo suffered greater destruction from the fire bombing, 26 square miles of the city were reduced to ashes.
Path, the US were not blind to the dangers of daylight bombing, the decision was not based on enthusiasm, it was a calculated compromise based on a basic difference in strategies, the English were perfectly content to simply hit the right city since they seemed more interested in avenging the Blitz, also, their air craft lack the amount of defensive fire power ours carried so they adapted to avoid German fighters. US command felt they could accomplish more by using the Norden bomb sight to hit a particular factory while minimizing losses with heavy fire power arranged in the defensive "Box" formation that the British did not use.
The most effective tactics were the sweeps by fighter bombers and medium bombers that cleared the roads and rail roads by day and snarled traffic by destroying rail lines and bridges.
If you read Rommels account of the war in Africa it was not the British Army that defeated him, it was the Navy and air attacks destroying about 90% of the supplies shipped to him before they arrived, in conjunction with constant air attacks by the British Desert Air Force. With out that drain he would have been nearly unbeatable, bear in mind that  he never had more than 3 divisions (1 Corps) against the entire British 8th Army.

from FQ,
rather than ill intent against civilians with the exceptions that I've mentioned.

Unlike today, WWII was a TOTAL War. "Duty is Ours, Consequences are God's."
Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson  

Our "Duty" was to defeat the enemy at ALL costs! Our "intent" regarding civilian casualties became irrelevant to the goal; Win the damn War!

FQ
Now we do.

Like I posted, our track record of "victory" has sharply declined since we "know better" now...

Now the talking heads are asking "What is victory?" Not a question even considered in the past.

The question should ALWAYS be asked before committing troops, "What do I intend to achieve" Not asking that question is why we left Vietnam the way we did and will most likely face the same fate in Afghanistan. If you can not define a clear objective you have no business committing troops.

[JdePietro]

I'm gonna have to ask everyone to be patient, I'll try to respond best I can to everyone.


Tom, you are now delving into some history I am much better versed, I do however want to thank you for all you have expounded on previously.

Retired USMC Gen Anthony Zinni wrote of a doctrine with the same principles. I can't remember the name of the book I read but in his career he tried to justify nonsensical wars on the basis that the simple man just could not understand the complexity of victory. Again I have to point out the fatal flaw in assuming ignorance. I would not call our involvement with the Japanese during WWII as completely justified. President Theodore Rosevelt shared many views with the European empires of his time, he activily engaged in strengthening America by world conquest. The Spanish American wars, his conquest in Central America, the Manilla and Philipean conquest. Of course the latter two sealed our Japanese aggression. You can't exactly take over half of the Asian Pacific, deny the natives its resources and expect them to be ok with embargos. Thiis topic all on its own merits its on thread sticky-ed with pages of content. I mean I hate to sound cynical but if half of what I have studied is half true than the last war we fought in defense of the country was the War of 1812. 

You brought a great point about using the military in the same context as a self defense shooting. Now that right there should get some people up in arms. Its another glaring example of one set of rules for the people and one set of rules for the government. Before the assumptions is made, no I don't think there is any difference, I strongly dislike the UN and do not have a need for European approval.  I have a hard time understanding why the citizens of this country allow themselves to be fooled by the use of words. We should all strive to use the correct terminology when describing our enemies so as to not be drawn into conflicts outside of the scope of a self defense war.

More to come...

Some philosopher came up with a concept of "Just wars", this was basically the Idea the some wars are Self Defense shootings on a national scale while others are more akin to a Mafia hit.
During the 20th century the US engaged in 5 Major wars, (WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and Gulf war I ) of those only 2 1/2 can be called "Just wars" WWI, WWII (in Europe ) and Vietnam were not just wars defending US territory, or vital interests abroad, they were politically motivated maneuvers aimed at gaining influence on the world political stage while under cutting our competitors

[tt11758]

I don't know about removing words from pop culture, but how about we remove the words "Obama", "Pelosi" and "Reid" from the political arena as soon as possible?

[ericire12]

There is way too much reading involved in this thread..... I will have no part in it

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

 Anthony Zinni's book was "The Sling and the Stone", He spends most of the book pushing the benefits of "Engagement" and what he refers to as "4th Generation Warfare" While I believe the concepts do have a place in the tool box of international relations they are no more an all encompassing answer than Von Clausewitz, who's theories did not REALLY stand up to even all the events of his own time, (if you REALLY want to know how to fight a war ignore him and read either Musashi's "Book of 5 Rings" or the more readable "Art of War" by Sun Tzu ")
Zinni's idea that "us common people" cannot understand victory is a load of crap he foisted on the War College to get his star.
Granted it may be difficult for the WWII "total war" generation to understand limited wars for limited objectives, but there is nothing complex about "We want the North Koreans OUT of South Korea", nor do you need to know the secret Annapolis handshake to understand "We want the Iraqi's out of Kuwait". His theory to that effect is nothing more than a justification for fuzzy and lazy thinking at the command level.
There are some inaccuracies in your comments about the Pacific war,
First off, other than positioning Dewey at Hong Kong TR had nothing to do with the seizure of the Philippines, at that time he had resigned as Under Secretary of the Navy to join the Army where he served in Cuba.
The President who WAS in office (McKinley I think) did the Philippines a favor by declaring the Protectorate since there were warships of several European Nations in Manila Harbor just waiting to pounce on a juicy colony, including a German fleet that was larger than Dewey's, (If you want to know how THAT would have worked out look into the history of German East Africa)
TR did NOT share the European disdain for the Asian, in fact he was quite taken with Japanese and Chinese culture and was in fact a student of the martial arts. Remember, He got his Peace prize for convincing the Russians to accept Japans terms, not the other way around.
The objective of the Pacific expansion was not as has been falsely claimed, conquest and Empire, it was the opening of markets, and the establishment of Coaling stations to service the fleet protecting our trade, we had far more resistance and hostility from the British, Germans and French than we ever did from the locals.
Lastly, the embargo on scrap metal and later oil to Japan were not put in place because FDR got up on the wrong side of the bed. They were , like Iraq and Serbia, another noteworthy examples of economic sanctions being used ineffectually to control
 a militaristic Government, all that was required was for Japan to withdraw their invasion force from Manchuria.
So, all that being said, I firmly believe that the war against Japan was most definitely a "Just" defensive war.

 

[JdePietro]

Morally I divide war into three categories. From best to worst:
1) Trying to engage military assets while avoiding civilian damage as best you can, but knowing it will happen. This seems to be our approach today, though not historically. Actions must be judged in context..
2) Trying to engage military assets while not much giving a damn about civilian casulties, but not aiming for them either. Think Russia in Chechneya.
3) Deliberately targetting civilians and ignoring military or government assets. This is what I would call terrorism.
Just my .02
FQ13

While I appriciate your perspective on the subject it is not my intention to trade one mans definition for another and ignore actual definition. I had not clearly articulated in my previous replies but my reasoning in pointing out the military involvement is because our currently labeled "terrorists" are very much engaged in fighting out military.

[tombogan03884]

 Those aren't Terrorists we are fighting in Afghanistan, very seldom in Iraq either for that matter, they are militia based on tribal lines (in Afghanistan)  or divided between Sunni's, Shiites and Kurds (In Iraq ). that is where similarities between those 2 conflicts ends.
In Iraq we were dealing with a relatively modernized country that was used to being governed by a strong Central government, What needed to be done was remove SH and reestablish that government in a truly representative form. But it had to be done while keeping the 3 main groups from each others throats and preventing a civil war Al Queda (the true "terrorists" ) took advantage of what they thought was a target rich environment to try to kill Americans on one hand and incite the civil war on the other. Our military had to function on 2 levels, Keeping the peace between scared Sunni's and vengeful Shiite's on one hand and killing or capture AQ operatives drawn to what was in fact a baited trap meant to grind up the AQ organization.
In Afghanistan in contrast the mostly Arab AQ element that was disliked by the locals was hosted by the Taliban Govt. but pretty much all cleared out after the battle of Tora Bora. What we have been dealing with since is a country that has never had a strong central Govt. power has always rested with a shifting coalition of warlords and tribal leaders. The main reason they shoot at our troops is because it makes an interesting change from shooting at each other, in Afghan culture a man with out a weapon is not a man. Destroying the Taliban is not practical, "Taliban" is merely the name of a militia made up of Pashtuns who are the largest of the ethnic groups that make up Afghanistan AND Pakistan and have been the traditional rulers for over 400 years.
There are only 3 ways to deal with them
1) Do a deal that gives them a place in a coalition government, this would only be a face saving gesture as no Government in Afghanistan will retain any authority beyond Kabul unless the tribes WANT to obey it.
2) Implement a plan to kill every living thing in the 2 countries, This is the only way to break their will to resist, as with the VC you can not defeat a foe that will not give up, which these tough mountain folks won't do, (they haven't in the past 2,000 years they aren't likely to change now ) and since tribal territories cross national boundaries you would have to wipe out both countries as the Russians found out, otherwise they will just hop the border and operate from their cousins house in Pakistan.
3) the last option is to call a meeting of all the different factions and tell them, "You pissed us off so we have pounded you for eight years to show we ARE willing to fight the long fight, now we are going to leave, but be warned, If you ever piss us off again we will come back and kill every man, woman, child, goat, and camel in this f-cking country and then we will knock down every building and break every brick and destroy every grave, so that the Afghan people are left as nothing but a fading memory in history". Then bring our troops home to seal the borders and round up illegal aliens.
(this is the one I favor)

[twyacht]

Thanks Tom, for reasons two and three, I'll write in the T&T ticket.

Geez,,,, why can something so easy to type on a forum, not make it's way to the "professionals" in gov't???

Oh,wait,.....uh,.....er,....nevermind,...

[JdePietro]

That was my point from the beginning. The media labels anyone in the middle east fighting as terrorists, I know that to be incorrect, I know that many of these people are fighting for either country or resources and I find it incredibly gumptious of us to believe the lie or worse to repeat it.

Tom, I would like to thank you for all the knowledge you have bestowed, this was one of the best threads I have been a part of in a long time.

For me it still boils down to a word used incorrectly, in defamation of character, and it does not serve as a useful tool when describing someones actions or a group of people because it furthers the mindset that they indeed cause such emotion. People fight or cause fights for all sorts of reasons, some of those reasons are just and some are just evil. There is no gain to be had in fearing that which is evil, and it must not be hated because hatred can lead to evil on its own merits.