Is the troop ‘surge’ working?

[IntruderLS1]

Alright, we're officially talking in circles. Lets hold off until somebody else jumps in. Maybe they can clarify things for one or both of us.

 

[dt3]

Alright, we're officially talking in circles. Lets hold off until somebody else jumps in. Maybe they can clarify things for one or both of us.

*Jumps*

Saying there's no correlation between Bushido and Jihad would be wildly inaccurate in my opinion. They were both long-ingrained beliefs and impacted the cultures of their respective people immensely.

Can you find a Japanese person today willing to be a kamikaze? I doubt it.

What did it take to defeat the ideals of Bushido? A long, concentrated effort on both the military side and the political side of things. It didn't happen over night.

I think you can apply the same lessons to Iraq. The most important part, however, is getting the people to buy into it. That's where the difficulty is.

Why did the Japanese buy into our system? Because they faced utter annihilation otherwise. We showed them an extreme example of our capabilities AND the will to use it.

Now is not the time to be waivering in Iraq, now is the time to be strong and show them we'll stick through this.

 

[UncleBacon]

donnie that might be one of the better posts you've ever written

 

[UncleBacon]

I'd rep ya but I have to spread the rep around first

 

[GraceAbounds]

A war on ideals will take a long time. The war is not going to be won by retreat or wishful thinking. This war will only be won by determination, understanding the nature of the enemy and the dire consequences of failing to understand or refute them. Unfortunately much of America is spoiled. We have a large generation of people that were brought up with a 'right now' mentality, which can be seen by debt trends, instead of a mentality of hard work and perserverance - which is what it is going to take to succeed.

 

[Tim]

I see your point on this Scott... but I think the main difference is how each of these cultures lived and died.

Bushido is defined as a unique philosophy that spread through the warrior class from the Muromachi period. Not every citizen practiced this philosophy, it was reserved for the warrior class. Where as Islamic fundamentalists are following a religion. A religion practiced by the vast majority of citizens is quite different than a philosophy practiced by a warrior class.

How's that for a "back on track" jumping off point?

 

[dt3]

donnie that might be one of the better posts you've ever written

I'd rep ya but I have to spread the rep around first

Don't wanna ruin your average anyway

 

[IntruderLS1]

I see your point on this Scott... but I think the main difference is how each of these cultures lived and died.

Bushido is defined as a unique philosophy that spread through the warrior class from the Muromachi period. Not every citizen practiced this philosophy, it was reserved for the warrior class. Where as Islamic fundamentalists are following a religion. A religion practiced by the vast majority of citizens is quite different than a philosophy practiced by a warrior class.

How's that for a "back on track" jumping off point?

I would submit the idea that Radical Islam is this part of the worlds warrior class.

I don't pretend to be an expert on Japanese history, but I am under the impression that (what I'm calling) Bushido was in fact a national religion. I know it was taught in school to all children, and men and woment alike had a specific role to carry out in society.

 

[Tim]

Saying that we can defeat them in Iraq solves nothing. What about Iran, Afghanistan, Egypt, Sudan, Africa, Pakistan, etc...... There are Islamic fundamentalists all over the globe. It would be like the mayor of NYC saying he was going to wipe out all the roaches in the city. It can't be done. You may be able to control the spread, but you can never wipe it out completely. What about the Crusades? Both Muslim and Christian faiths are still in tact after centuries of war. You cannot wipe out a religion, the most you could hope for is driving them "under ground" and fueling their recruitment rate.

What do you think would happen if Christians were under attack? Would they be wiped out or do you think it would only make them stronger and more determined???

 

[dt3]

Saying that we can defeat them in Iraq solves nothing. What about Iran, Afghanistan, Egypt, Sudan, Africa, Pakistan, etc...... There are Islamic fundamentalists all over the globe. It would be like the mayor of NYC saying he was going to wipe out all the roaches in the city. It can't be done. You may be able to control the spread, but you can never wipe it out completely. What about the Crusades? Both Muslim and Christian faiths are still in tact after centuries of war. You cannot wipe out a religion, the most you could hope for is driving them "under ground" and fueling their recruitment rate.

What do you think would happen if Christians were under attack? Would they be wiped out or do you think it would only make them stronger and more determined???

We don't need to destroy Islam. We need to destroy extremists who use Islam as their justification for terrorism.

As I said in my first post, it takes a combined military-political action to do that. First, we have to take the fight to them and defeat them militarily.

Then we have to rebuild, to ensure it doesn't regress to being a terrorist breeding ground again. This is done by improving their quality of life, stabilizing their government, and enforcing the rule of the law, among many other things.

It's not a simple or quick process. It takes time, money, and unfortunately lives to accomplish. And it certainly isn't a guaranteed success.

But one thing is certain, and that's that the process takes a commitment to success every step of the way. There's no room for wavering or quitting. That just adds fuel to the fire. The enemy must know, in no uncertain terms, that there is absolutely no chance for them to be victorious.

 

[IntruderLS1]

We're not worried about the entire world at the moment. We're working in Iraq. When we're done in Iraq, the example being set in that country will reinforce the idea that Turkey has already established. The idea will gain more traction.

Also, we're not waging a war on Islam. We're waging a war against extreemism. If we were declaring war on a religion, I would agree with you in a second. We're not even close to that point however. (Thank God)

 

[IntruderLS1]

LOL Dang you Donnie. You beat me to it.

 

[dt3]

LOL Dang you Donnie. You beat me to it.

Hey, you said jump, I jumped

 

[Homer]

I'd rep ya but I have to spread the rep around first

i did it for you .

 

[Tim]

We're not worried about the entire world at the moment. We're working in Iraq. When we're done in Iraq, the example being set in that country will reinforce the idea that Turkey has already established. The idea will gain more traction.

Also, we're not waging a war on Islam. We're waging a war against extreemism. If we were declaring war on a religion, I would agree with you in a second. We're not even close to that point however. (Thank God)

Let me see if I can clarify my position a little better for you.

I know we are not waging a war on Islam. It is only the radicalized individuals that infiltrate their religion. But, they are using that religion as their base of hatred and ideology. So as we continue to attack their religion (as seen through their eyes) we fuel their hatred and drive more people to become radicalized. This is world wide, this is not isolated to Iraq. All you have to do is see the arrests world wide of terrorist to see that. There is Denmark, Germany, Great Briton and even here at home in the US. If we "win" in Iraq, how will that stop terrorism? How would that protect us here at home? The attacks and violence that we are seeing in Iraq has everything to do with our occupation and sectarian violence and nothing to do with people wanting to swim here and destroy America. The longer we stay, building Shiite militias and standing by as a nation divides, the more hatred we stir up worldwide. How can that be beneficial to our security here at home? The NIE pointed out the greater risk we now face, the GAO just released it's report stating the surge has not helped, scores of retired Generals point out the fact that we are not more secure now...
How many active units are in the US right now protecting us here at home?

I'm not suggesting we just run and hide so we don't "piss" them off. I want to see us handle it properly. You don't send in 160,000 ground troops to fight a small percentage of the population that are potential terrorists. They will just hide among the rest of the population. You take away their ability to do you harm. You find their resources and training camps and destroy them. You use law enforcement and good intel to find them and bring them to justice... just like they are doing in Germany, Denmark, and here in the US. You don't bring in earth moving equipment to eradicate termites from your home.

 

[dt3]

Let me see if I can clarify my position a little better for you.

I know we are not waging a war on Islam. It is only the radicalized individuals that infiltrate their religion. But, they are using that religion as their base of hatred and ideology. So as we continue to attack their religion (as seen through their eyes) we fuel their hatred and drive more people to become radicalized. This is world wide, this is not isolated to Iraq. All you have to do is see the arrests world wide of terrorist to see that. There is Denmark, Germany, Great Briton and even here at home in the US. If we "win" in Iraq, how will that stop terrorism? How would that protect us here at home? The attacks and violence that we are seeing in Iraq has everything to do with our occupation and sectarian violence and nothing to do with people wanting to swim here and destroy America. The longer we stay, building Shiite militias and standing by as a nation divides, the more hatred we stir up worldwide. How can that be beneficial to our security here at home? The NIE pointed out the greater risk we now face, the GAO just released it's report stating the surge has not helped, scores of retired Generals point out the fact that we are not more secure now...
How many active units are in the US right now protecting us here at home?

I'm not suggesting we just run and hide so we don't "piss" them off. I want to see us handle it properly. You don't send in 160,000 ground troops to fight a small percentage of the population that are potential terrorists. They will just hide among the rest of the population. You take away their ability to do you harm. You find their resources and training camps and destroy them. You use law enforcement and good intel to find them and bring them to justice... just like they are doing in Germany, Denmark, and here in the US. You don't bring in earth moving equipment to eradicate termites from your home.

I see your point, to an extent. I absolutely think we should bomb their camps whenever we can. But didn't Clinton try that? It certainly didn't stop September 11th.

But we absolutely can't just wait for them to come here and hope to god we find them in time. Sometimes you have to take the fight to them.

Even if you don't think the Iraq war was justifiable, at least they're fighting us over there instead of here on our own soil. At least these terrorists aren't running around the world free to do harm to civilians. At least over there they're attacking an armed enemy capable of fighting back.

I'm not suggesting that Iraq is distracting all terrorists from attacking abroad, because that's obviously not the case. It is however tying up their resources and manpower, as well as drawing a lot of their top leadership out of hiding.

 

[Tim]

I see your point, to an extent. I absolutely think we should bomb their camps whenever we can. But didn't Clinton try that? It certainly didn't stop September 11th.

But we absolutely can't just wait for them to come here and hope to god we find them in time. Sometimes you have to take the fight to them.

Even if you don't think the Iraq war was justifiable, at least they're fighting us over there instead of here on our own soil. At least these terrorists aren't running around the world free to do harm to civilians. At least over there they're attacking an armed enemy capable of fighting back.

I'm not suggesting that Iraq is distracting all terrorists from attacking abroad, because that's obviously not the case. It is however tying up their resources and manpower, as well as drawing a lot of their top leadership out of hiding.

That's the whole point... we aren't any safer by fighting them over there. Al Qaueda is still plotting and planning the next attack, Iraq isn't changing that. If we were fighting in Iraq before 9/11, how would that have prevented the attack? If there is anything that has prevented an attack here at home, it has to do with tighter security at the airports, better law enforcement and people keeping a better watch for something that wasn't thought about before 9/11. Just remember that we didn't go into Iraq with the thought of making us safer from terrorist attacks. Hell, the terrorists weren't even there. Iraq was about removing WMD's from Saddam's control so he couldn't use them against us. So if you want to say that Saddam hasn't attacked the US since we invaded Iraq, then you would be correct. I would support that statement 100%, even though he wasn't a threat to us in the first place.

 

[dt3]

That's the whole point... we aren't any safer by fighting them over there. Al Qaueda is still plotting and planning the next attack, Iraq isn't changing that. If we were fighting in Iraq before 9/11, how would that have prevented the attack? If there is anything that has prevented an attack here at home, it has to do with tighter security at the airports, better law enforcement and people keeping a better watch for something that wasn't thought about before 9/11. Just remember that we didn't go into Iraq with the thought of making us safer from terrorist attacks. Hell, the terrorists weren't even there. Iraq was about removing WMD's from Saddam's control so he couldn't use them against us. So if you want to say that Saddam hasn't attacked the US since we invaded Iraq, then you would be correct. I would support that statement 100%, even though he wasn't a threat to us in the first place.

While I don't agree completely with everything in this article, it does a good job of summing up my feelings:
Family Security Matters

 

[IntruderLS1]

Let me see if I can clarify my position a little better for you.

I know we are not waging a war on Islam. It is only the radicalized individuals that infiltrate their religion. But, they are using that religion as their base of hatred and ideology. So as we continue to attack their religion (as seen through their eyes) we fuel their hatred and drive more people to become radicalized. This is world wide, this is not isolated to Iraq. All you have to do is see the arrests world wide of terrorist to see that. There is Denmark, Germany, Great Briton and even here at home in the US. If we "win" in Iraq, how will that stop terrorism? How would that protect us here at home? The attacks and violence that we are seeing in Iraq has everything to do with our occupation and sectarian violence and nothing to do with people wanting to swim here and destroy America. The longer we stay, building Shiite militias and standing by as a nation divides, the more hatred we stir up worldwide. How can that be beneficial to our security here at home? The NIE pointed out the greater risk we now face, the GAO just released it's report stating the surge has not helped, scores of retired Generals point out the fact that we are not more secure now...
How many active units are in the US right now protecting us here at home?

I'm not suggesting we just run and hide so we don't "piss" them off. I want to see us handle it properly. You don't send in 160,000 ground troops to fight a small percentage of the population that are potential terrorists. They will just hide among the rest of the population. You take away their ability to do you harm. You find their resources and training camps and destroy them. You use law enforcement and good intel to find them and bring them to justice... just like they are doing in Germany, Denmark, and here in the US. You don't bring in earth moving equipment to eradicate termites from your home.

We just fundamentally disagree Tim. I understand where you're coming from, I just don't see the world the same way.

As far as protecting us at home, the last time I checked the U.S. armed forces consisted of something just under 2 million active and reserve men and women. As a master of percentages, what does that tell you about the 160,000 we have deployed in Iraq?

We agree that we're not in a war against Islam. We agree that we're just taking down the extremists who feed on the poor and dejected Muslims around the world. In my way of thinking, it doesn't matter if the extremists feel that we're attacking Islam. The West knows we're not, and the educated in the Middle East know that we're not.

I 100% disagree with your statement that worldwide terrorism is spawning from our occupation of Iraq. Radicals have been attacking us for almost 40 years. Their excuses always change, and today they say "Iraq" but tomorrow it'll be something different.

Muslims are moving out of Africa and the Middle East in droves in search of economic and social opportunity. I believe deeply that if we can create a stable, successful Iraq, the good people of the area will be encouraged to throw off their oppressors and old ways to step into the future.

We both have to make certain assumptions about our beliefs. We talked about this a little in the Draft thread. I personally feel that there is historical evidence and current willpower in America that we will succeed there. You look at the same information I do, but draw from a different angle.

Only time will tell. I am optimistic.

 

[GraceAbounds]

I share in your optimism Scott.