Thread: Fork: Homeland Security->War in Iraq

Some interesting questions posed by geoffreyt in the Homeland Security thread; I'd like to discuss them, but didn't want to hijack the thread, hence, this fork. His original comments: (numbers added by me, number refers to the sentence before it.)

Its like the defense spending we shell out our HARD earned tax dollars to fund. If we go to war, why don't we win? 1 Are we going simply to spend tax dollars we have not yet collected? 2 Why isn't the war won? 3 Are we a stupid people with lots of money to throw away? Why is the enemy still standing? 5 I thought the reason our country would go to war would be to vanquish the enemy. If this is so, why have we not won? 6 Are we unable to win with all our resources? 7 Rest assured Osama Bin Laden, if he had our resources, would have won years ago. 8 Have we no warriors in our country? 9

I would like to respond to this by the numbers.
1. The reasons for this are widely varied, and have almost nothing to do with the technology, training or troops. (which is what defense spending buys) I put it to you that the lack of a "win" is due more to politics and tactics (which are dictated by politics)
2. Evidently so. I agree that deficit spending is not wise.
3. As in the abovementioned point, politics, mostly. Also, not having a clear definition of "winning" doesn't help.
4. [omitted]
5. The enemy ISN'T standing. The enemy is slinking around hiding behind civilians, wearing civilian clothes and using civilians as a shield. If we were battling a standing army, the war would have been over in a couple of months, I imagine.
6. Define "vanquish" and define "enemy." If we simply wanted to destroy the country, with no regard for world politics, that could have been done in a few hours with no loss of human life (on our side, anyhow) and minimal cost. But you don't fight a cross-continental war in a vacuum, you do it on the stage of world politics. We are not fighting an organized military, we are not fighting a sovereign nation, we are fighting an IDEOLOGY. That's a pretty ephemeral thing to identify, let alone "vanquish."
7. The lack of a "win" in Iraq has nothing to do with resources.
8. I disagree. If he had our resources, his group would be large and easy to find. It is by the very nature of his small and poor operation that we cannot root him out.
9. I imagine you are saying this out of frustration at the political incompetence and fiscal irresponsibility of some of America's leaders, and that you don't really mean it. BUT, this is a pretty rude and disrespectful thing to say on a forum that has a large contigent of veterans on it, many of whom have made personal sacrifices to keep our nation safe.

No one's happy about the war, and how our country is trying to "fight fair" with a dishonorable enemy who violates all rules of conventional land warfare. But if we were to stoop to the disgraceful (if effective) tactics of the enemy, and battle with no regard for civilian life (an inescapable fact of urban warfare) would we really be any better than them? I submit to you that we would not.

So, yeah, it sucks having to fight with one hand tied behind our proverbial back. But let's not jump to conclusions and cast aspersions upon the hard working members of defense industry and worst of all, the brave and selfless troops in the sandbox now.