You're right, we (Canada and America) do have far more in common that not. Close allies and friends that have bled together all over the world to defend our common ideals. We (you and I) also have more in common than we first suspected.
You're not as liberal as you think you are my friend. You said you were a pacifist, but if you're willing to fight to defend either yourself or the weak, then by definition you are not. You agree that too much government is never a good thing, so by (American) definition, you're not even liberal. I suspect from our discussion that American 'Liberals' are far more radical than Canadian 'Liberals.'
What you said about communism is also 100% accurate. On paper it looks great. The problem is, (like you said) once you take away the motivation of self improvement, the lazy factor kicks in full gear, and advancments come to a screeching halt.
Sending a lower amount of troops than the first gulf war actually makes a lot more sense than you think. Back in '91, the U.S. was still unsure of itself because of our losses in Vietnam. Iraq at the time had the third most powerful ground military in the world (Behind the U.S. and the Soviet Union). They were well equiped with modern Soviet equipment, and it's always easier to defend than it is to attack. We thought it was going to be a very tough fight. That's not how it turned out. We smoked those guys faster than anybody could have imagined. 100 hour ground war, and just over 100 losses! We went in there with a 50kg sledge hammer expecting to find a brick. What we ended up slaping the shit out of was an over ripe piece of fruit.
When we finished Saddam's military in Kuwait, the people of Iraq rose up against Saddam thinking we were going to move into Iraq and take him out then. (It's a debatable mistake). Those are the people that animal gassed and mass murderd.
Now fast forward to 2003. Iraq had been sanctioned into the ground, and since the Soviet Union collapsed (soon after the '91 war), they didn't have any new equipment. What they did have was falling apart. Sending another half million men in there would have been a waste for several reasons.
1. Money. It would have cost billions more than it did
2. Holding back reserve strength would allow us to move men in and out of the AO more often which would help keep our military members fresh and ready.
3. Why use 500,000 personnel when you can get the job done in 3 weeks with less than half that number?
4. We expected the people in Iraq to party in the streets when we came (and they did), so we wouldn't necessarily need a huge police force in the area (but we would have one availiable for the long term if we did, because we had so much left in reserve)
5. The Iraqi military had no will to fight us, and we knew that. (I've been privy to radio intercepts) When we went in, they offered minimal resistance. We had no intention of imprisoning them all, and thought we were being the good guys by patting them on the back, and sending them home.
So, a smaller force really made a lot more sense than the media gives the U.S. government credit for. Everything militarily did went by the numbers during the 'major combat oporations' phase of the war.
The insurgancy was expected and planned for before the liberation began. Nobody thought it would last this long, but arguably, it would not have if the media had not given it so much attention. Those guys are holding on by the skin of their teeth just in the hopes that the media and the liberals will help them win like they helped the North Viatnamese.
The insurgants have not been able to accomplish a single goal of theirs, and every goal the Coalition has established has gone acording to plan and (almost) schedule. Why the press tells everybody we're losing the war, I have no idea. If you look at it on a scoreboard, you would laugh at how great the effort is going over there.
The finess you're talking about is there. For 10 years we tried to do it the easy way. Remember the inspectors, and remember the run around they were always given before they were kicked out completely? The United Nations passed 16 resolutions saying that Iraq must disarm, or face military retribution. When Iraq said F-off, what did the U.N. do? They passed another resolution, only this time they said "or else." Whoopty Freakin Do Saddam said, and though us the bird again. Every time the same thing. It's like those parents who keep saying to their kids "Don't make me tell you again.... I'm not going to say it again.... Don't make me tell you again...." Forever, and the kid keeps right on doing whatever it is they were doing. Eventually, somebody has to step up to the plate and say this far, and no further. That is what we did. 10 years of trying to use diplomacy is not an 'All force, no finess" type of action in my opinion.
The coalition was stronger than it was given credit for. America has the most money, and the most powerful military. We do a majority of the heavy lifting because it's easier for us. I think it's a shame that the 63 nations that helped enforce the U.N. resolutions are maginalized like they are. In '91 we had the majority of the forces on the ground also, but nobody seems to remember that. About our allies 'jumping ship,' .... Some yes, but most left because they had fulfilled their stated obligations. The goal was to remove Saddam, and disarm (by force) Iraq. When those two goals were accomplished, it came down to a national choice for all those countries weather or not they wanted to stick around and help Iraq get back on their feet. In the end they all made their own choices, for their own reasons, but they didn't just cut and run because they lost faith with the cause. The mission was accomplished. All that was left was the rebuilding. We chose to stay, because we felt it was the right thing to do. Most of our allies are still right there beside us too.
France, Germany, and Russia decided to get into a pissing contest, and compair wanker sizes with the U.S. for some debatable reasons. Canada opted to not send forces, but she did so with honor, and I respect her decision. France, Germany, and Russia did it with no honor, and simply wanted to show the world that their will was stronger than American will. (along with some hefty finacial reasons for keeping Saddam in power)
I'm mostly done, thought I know I've not addressed all of your comments. The last thing I would like to mention is the differance between the American revolution and the terrorists of today. Americans were fighting for freedom from an opressive king. The modern terrorist organization fight in order to establish an opressive king. I think that differance alone is enough to be rattled by hearing somebody compair an American freedome fighter to a terrorist. We fought on a field of battle against unspeakable odds. What those men did in the 1700's was incredible. And they did it without cutting off peoples heads, and setting IED's.
The terrorists we're fighting in Iraq are scum by even their own peoples standards. Their governments have disowned them, and their religious leaders have condemed them. They are alone, unjust, losing miserably, and portrayed in the media as some sort of robust and noble civilization that can never be defeated. I say nuts to that. They want to scrap, then let's scrap. Like you said ealier, you may not want to start the fight, but you're sure as hell not going to lose one either. America did not start this fight, they did. And now they're paying the price, and I see that as a good thing all around.
/soapbox :cool
