When do you decide if a war is enough?

[republican]

I think the war is done when the enemy stops attacking or their is a truths called by anyside. Like in iraq it is not over yet for we still have militants who want to take control but they know they are losing greatly.

 

[jgarden]

Don't hold your breath for Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and other Islamic fundamentalists to surrender to the "Great Satan." They forced the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan and shut down its opium production - something the current Administration is incapable of enforcing. That was back when America was giving the Islamic militants arms and calling them "freedom fighters." That was back when the US considered Sadam an ally and supported him militarily against the Iranians.

Ask Israel if they expect their relations with the Palestinians to improve in the forseeable future. An organization sophisticaticated enough to execute 9/11 is more than capable of reducing the oil flow from the Middle East to a trickle.

I'm surprised they haven't attacked the entire system of computers throughout the Western world through a series of "viruses." If an amateur hacker in his bedroom can create havoc, what could a battery of trained professionals do?

Up until now, nobody has taken the time or effort to understand exactly what makes these people "tick!" Maybe its time to find out.

 

[Mimi]

I have no idea.......I always wonder why they start a war in the first place.

Too be honest, for me you need to stop war before the first human being dies........cause no life is worth losing for...NOTHING! War isn't about freedom, it is and always will be about money and power......"Look at me, I have a larger gun, so I can win....let's have war"

 

[redemption song]

the war in iraq is quite different from conventional warfare. despite what anyone might be told, we're not winning. we're not winning by a long shot. we're fighting several different sets of fighters with one goal - kick us out, and their intentions after kicking us out is pretty much an after thought. ours is a conventional army trained for conventional wars. theirs are guerilla fighters whose ranks include but not limited to insurgents whose various groups are going to be ultimately fighting for control, actual terrorists whose goals are to target western powers, and those who just want us out. there is also no central leadership we're fighting. where once there was an enemy we could identify through its leaders, this one is far murkier. no leader and they move autonomously of one another, and yet they are very well coordinated. this might well end up being something more akin to world war one, which was a war of attrition, where each side fought pretty much to the last man and the power with the most soldiers at the end won. the scenario is also mirroring the korean conflict and the vietnam war, where we were definitely winning the war in terms of enemy killed, but they just had more fighters to throw our way.

back in roman antiquity, there were a series of assassinations carried out by jewish extremists who were dubbed Zealots. they would assassinate in very public ways roman officials. the theory was that the romans would only take so much and leave. the romans had enough and killed pretty much anyone who was even thought to be associated with the Zealots in public ways. the romans didn't leave and the local population gave up.

the years following world war two, a radical jewish group emerged whom wanted and independent israel and wanted the british out. they took to the same measures and this time, their tactics worked. they terrorized the brits and it all came down to the bombing of King David Hotel in which the british were stationed. the brits pulled out and the terrorists won. (they can be compared to the insurgents of iraq today as the two aims are mirrors of each other)

the end of this war will be when we decide we've had enough.

 

[tocis]

Absolutely correct. Iraq is the theatre for a guerilla war... and Bush does nothing but push more conventional forces down there. One can't win a guerilla war like that, unless one is both able and willing to kill just about everyone who could possibly be one of "them".
*shakes head* One should think that someone learned something from Vietnam...
Every Iraqi killed by US forces only reinforces the determination of those willing to take up arms. In their opinion the US troops are evil occupation forces whose very presence is an insult to their honor. Most of them probably are happy that Saddam is gone, but they want to be treated with respect... not like children who have to be taught "freedom", especially not "US-type only" freedom. Add to this the horrors of Abu Ghraib which - in their eyes - only proved that "the US are the great Satan of the world", and you know why any western leader will have a hard time for years to come to be considered an honest man by "the Arabs".

 

[BobbieDog]

Wars never end.
Today we are enveloped still in the consequence of WW1 and WW2: they have marked our history and society in myriad ways; wherever we turn, in whatever discipline, we quickly come up against factor which is as it is in its detail, because of the these wars.
Wars reverberate endlessly, have half lifes, their outworkings bouncing and intersecting, passing down through the generations.
The outworkings of the Vietnam war are still gross and huge, those of Iraq ever mounting.
There is the mythology placebo, the media medication: you can buy into perspective that masks the evidence of war, but there is a price to pay for that; although you might die wrapped in your illusion, and some poor sucker in Iraq can pay the cost part.

 

[ShadowAspect]

Absolutely correct. Iraq is the theatre for a guerilla war... and Bush does nothing but push more conventional forces down there. One can't win a guerilla war like that, unless one is both able and willing to kill just about everyone who could possibly be one of "them".
*shakes head* One should think that someone learned something from Vietnam...

I think that someone did probably did! In fact the old lady who mops the floors at the pentagon probably knows enough about counter-insurgency warfare to make a better job than whats happening now.
The problem is that all the decent generals have been sidelined for a bunch of yes men who have their own pet theories (such as shock and awe). And so once again, just as in Vietnam, the war is being run by politicians chasing an idiology, instead of being run by soldiers who know what they are doing.

 

[BobbieDog]

All wars are started differently and all wars end differently.

So just what is the commonality that makes this all, wars?

What is that makes one person wish to say: that the difference between one war and another is fundamentally important; and make another person wish to say that all wars are the same, simply in being wars?

What started the war between Jews and Arabs? Has it ever stopped since it began? Can it ever stop?

Wars begin crucially over territory. One people seek to seize territory, another people seek to hold on to it.

Wars begin through hate. The urge to resist the hate weakens, and it becomes easier to go to war than resist.

Wars begin through fear: through deception; through those seeking power projecting an external enemy.

Are the details of difference, between one war and another really significant, compared to these universal wellsprings of greed, hate, fear, deception?

There are those whose agenda makes "limited" war acceptable, as long as the outcome is to their advantage.

There are those to whom all war is unacceptable: and for whom much can be sacrificed, in the quest for alternatives to war.

 

[ShadowAspect]

All insurgency wars, revolutionary wars, all guerilla wars... are all pretty much the same, and the method of fighting them has remained the same for eons.

It begins with adressing the social, political and ecconomic asperations of the people from whom the rebels draw their support, and it ends with agressive patroling by light infantry. There is some other stuff inbetween but its pretty much that simple.

Where America is going wrong in the first part, is that they are adressing Iraqs asperations for democracy. The problem being that Iraqis don't really want democracy as nearly as much as they want clean water and sanitation... They also want security and America out. Democracy comes a long way down the list.

And the problem with agressive patroling by light infantry is that America doesn't seem to want to do it. This is either because Americans are too lazy for foot patrols and would rather ride around in APCs. Or the politicians don't want to put American troops in the firing line... Unfortunately, you have to get in the firing line if you want to win wars, and you have to take casualties, but the politicians don't want to hear that. So they sideline all the generals who are telling them that, and promote generals that tell them what they want to hear... that technology means the war can be fought by remote control. Unfortunatly, all the evidence so far shows that the insurgents are the only ones havein any sucess with remote devices.

 

[Key Peninsula Redneck]

When the enemy has no more ability to fight.

 

[tocis]

Reminds me of a certain German dictator who, shortly before his final downfall, concluded while peering at the strategic map that the Soviets "don't really want Berlin - they want Prague!". Of x generals in the room, x-1 shook their heads in disbelief (when he turned around of course - they wanted to live), #x enthusiastically said "You are right, mein Führer, Prague has always been the portal to western Europe!". A short time later, x-1 disgusted generals and one new field marshal left the room...

Oh well, off-topic I admit. Let's continue with the thread now.

 

[Key Peninsula Redneck]

The war is over then the enemy has no ability and/or will left to fight. War does not determine who is right. War determines who is left.

 

[BobbieDog]

Key Peninsula Redneck]The war is over then the enemy has no ability and/or will left to fight. War does not determine who is right. War determines who is left.

That currently makes war often interminable.

Much of current war is about faith and perspective: the territory being fought for extends into understanding and identity.

Faith given identity is absolutely difficult to give up: so we tend to cling to such identity; we might fight to the death, for we know no alternative.

This now coincides with a disapproval of genocide: the international community would like to imagine that it would not allow genocide. We act to prevent the movement to the removal or annihilation of an enemy.

We have created an age of perpetual and interminable conflicts.

The bad side of this is obvious.

The good side is that the only resolutions are then political ones.

The bad news then is that so many politicians refuse to wake up to this political reality: strange really, you hive off to the military, what is a God given cottage industry for your trade.

The truth then is plain: we are no longer very good at politics. Perhaps in a media age, politics has become so corrupted and hamstrung that it is no longer fit for its task.

So, maybe, in this current age: while wars start when diplomacy and politics fail, or are abandoned; equally, wars end in some sense, when we again discover the efficacy of politics.

Perhaps the politics of this age, to be effective, must provide itself with new ground, perspective and instrument. Perhaps we must re-engineer our politics, such that the brightest and the best are drawn into its service. Perhaps the real problem is our current alienation from our own political processes.

 

[Mimi]

When the enemy has no more ability to fight.

But that doesn't mean it is fair....or even a good thing...War I mean. In you sig you have a picture how to achive peace...through war. Well, There is no way to peace...peace IS the way....(Gandhi said that and I have that quote on my fridge and read it everyday and believe strongly in it)

 

[redemption song]

That may be the most logical answer to this question yet!
(aside from mine )

no. the better answer is the when the enemy has lost the will to fight (acquiescence). the former implies that the people whom can't fight have fought to the last man and thus leaving the population devastated.

 

[Key Peninsula Redneck]

In you sig you have a picture how to achive peace...through war.

Actually, that says Peace though superior firepower.

There is no way to peace...peace IS the way.

Yeah...that sure worked for Neville Chamberlain.

But that doesn't mean it is fair....or even a good thing...War I mean.

I never said that it was.

That currently makes war often interminable.

Much of current war is about faith and perspective: the territory being fought for extends into understanding and identity.

Faith given identity is absolutely difficult to give up: so we tend to cling to such identity; we might fight to the death, for we know no alternative.

This now coincides with a disapproval of genocide: the international community would like to imagine that it would not allow genocide. We act to prevent the movement to the removal or annihilation of an enemy.

We have created an age of perpetual and interminable conflicts.

The bad side of this is obvious.

The good side is that the only resolutions are then political ones.

The bad news then is that so many politicians refuse to wake up to this political reality: strange really, you hive off to the military, what is a God given cottage industry for your trade.

The truth then is plain: we are no longer very good at politics. Perhaps in a media age, politics has become so corrupted and hamstrung that it is no longer fit for its task.

So, maybe, in this current age: while wars start when diplomacy and politics fail, or are abandoned; equally, wars end in some sense, when we again discover the efficacy of politics.

Perhaps the politics of this age, to be effective, must provide itself with new ground, perspective and instrument. Perhaps we must re-engineer our politics, such that the brightest and the best are drawn into its service. Perhaps the real problem is our current alienation from our own political processes.

If you destroy the enemy's ability to fight, then you won't have to worry about how they feel.

 

[ShadowAspect]

no. the better answer is the when the enemy has lost the will to fight.

...is the correct answer!

99.99% of all battles, skirmishes, wars or bar room brawls are won and lost in this way.

The philosphy of superior firepower has been proved to be inefective time and time again. Terror organizations have been known to survive hundreds of years despite the most brutal and heavy handed attempts to destroy them. These groups were able to keep up the fight, often armed with little more than pointy sticks, These days they have assault rifles, RPG's and a limitless supply of explosives... meaning that weapons technology is gonna be working better for them than it is modern armies, as technology is of very little help in defeating them.

 

[BobbieDog]

Key Peninsula Redneck]The war is over then the enemy has no ability and/or will left to fight. War does not determine who is right. War determines who is left.

Israel, perhaps more than most states in recent years, has subscribed to this philosophy: that of the Iron Wall; where the Arab will become resigned to Jewish presence, through being constantly stunned by Israeli firepower.

Fifty six years in, and it still hasn't worked. What we have is Israeli state ghetto-hood behind a wall, as conflict continues and intensifies: and a widening circle of war and carnage, as more of the region and the world is drawn into the conflict.

War also ends when its insanity is recognised. Those who would wish to wage war would not end it on such basis: but those who would not have war waged often force such resolution upon them.

Then we hear the war-monger’s whine, of having been stabbed in the back, of having had to fight the war with one arm tied behind their back: whether it be post WW1 Germany, or Hitler in his Bunker, or post Vietnam America, the whine is the same; the politicians let us down, the people let us down.

Wars can end when sanity breaks out: when peace comes back into favour; when humanity sneaks back into our souls.

 

[Key Peninsula Redneck]

Fifty six years in, and it still hasn't worked. What we have is Israeli state ghetto-hood behind a wall, as conflict continues and intensifies: and a widening circle of war and carnage, as more of the region and the world is drawn into the conflict.

The Arabs have not been able to wipe Israel off the map yet.

Israel, perhaps more than most states in recent years, has subscribed to this philosophy: that of the Iron Wall; where the Arab will become resigned to Jewish presence, through being constantly stunned by Israeli firepower.

How many times in the past sixty years has Israel triumphed against overwhelming Arab force?

 

[BobbieDog]

Key Peninsula Redneck]The Arabs have not been able to wipe Israel off the map yet. .. ... ..

How many times in the past sixty years has Israel triumphed against overwhelming Arab force?

I am suspicious of the contention that an Arab impulse to wipe Jews of the map preceded Zionism. I suspect that Zionism and an urge to wipe Israel of the map grew together.

I do not consider the continuation of Israel through conflict, to be the achievement of peace.

I am equally suspicious of the contention that Israel always fights from a position of disadvantage: I think that, as today, Israel is often the one who has had military advantage: although I accept that the old men on both sides will argue that one till the lights go out.

Israel has survived, and may have repeatedly triumphed: but the war has never ended; and the post question was about the conditions which ends wars.

I just have to stick to the faith that a determination to peace, and possibly justice, is what ends wars: wars are best talked to death.