Politics - Millitary  

I just had to respond, first off my belief is that nobody wins a war many killed and many others that survive it mamed or mentally disabled. You call this a war my friend but this is only a battle. The war has yet to come I am afraid to say. One will win when all the others are destroyed.

I tell my kids all the time you can pick and choose your battles but you can not pick and choose your war. You can win all the battles but the war is the end!

I will not say whether we are winning or losing but if life is lost then there is a loss right? It is not about we killed more than they did.

Winman, the problem that the American people don't like to put their young men and women in harms ways without good reason. It takes a politician to sell a war to the American people, generals usually aren't good at dealing with people. You also need the a$$ kissing of politicians to get the votes needed to approve a vote to go to war, and most importantly FUNDING, if you don't have money from the Americans tax payers, you aren't going anywhere.

You will never be able to serpate the military from politicians, there is way to much power and money involved. The US defense budget is more than the GDP of most countries in the world. Defense constractors donate tens of millions of dollars a year to politicans so they can ensure they get their pet projects passed. Remember the Crusader? I have two close friends in the military (one is in Iraq right now), and they both tell me how bad it is there. But, it is their job, and they are very good at what they do.

I am one of those "democratic idiots" who didn't support Bush's reelection war in Iraq, but I did support the war in Afghanistan. You are 100% correc that we are winning the war in Iraq, and that general Patreius did a great job of turning that war around. But, Afghanistan is the whole reason we got into this area, and we need to finish that war, and win it. It is to bad that we had a president for the last eigtht years that felt that Bin Laden wasn't the most dangerous man in the world. It is good to hear that we do have one in office now.

You are correct, I just wish that Bush would have shut up and got out of the generals way.

War is an act of politics, in fact it is the ultimate political act. You are correct that politicians should not involve themselves on a tactical level but the strategic level of a military operation is a political act and must, of necessity involve politicians.

Politicians make the discussion as to whether to go to war or not. Politicians must determine what the strategic objectives are in a war. After these discussions have been made they need to get out of the way and let the military do its job.

Although I appreciate the fact that you're thinking about the real issues, not television and gossip columns, remember that if you're trying to make a strong point, grammar helps.
But buddy, I have to strongly disagree with what you're saying here. You do realize what America is about, right? It's called a democracy. People have a right to express their opinions, no matter what they are. If you have a right to tell people to shut up, they have the right to tell you to shove off.
I believe that part of the problem Americans have with this war is that it seems almost pointless now. After so much confusion, mostly due to crappy communication (BY THE MILITARY/GOVERNMENT, don't deny it!). People feel like we went into this war based on the threat of nuclear weapons, but NONE have been found. Now we're over there why, exactly? Where does our involvement end? Where do we draw the line? I'm sorry, but I don't feel comfortable simply handing over the lives of my friends and family, those in the line of duty, to people that may or may not be good at what they do.

Military must be controlled under the present, or the top leader of a country. War is the extending of politics. No politics, no war. Win what? you mean kill more people by your advanced weapons?
Who make the weapons? Who improve the weapons? Who offer money for developing weapons and training military? All of these depend on a strong economy. A strong economy is a result of good administration of the country. And good admistration requires great politicians.

starting a war under almost any circumstances is wrong because of the consequences. starting the war in iraq was mean. joining in a war depends - the allies joining in the 2nd world war was ok because of the sheer evil of the regime that started it.

But how do you decide whether the war is being 'won' or not?

I think you have to look at the objectives set out by the Bush Administration, and decipher which one's have actually been achieved.

1. Defeat terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and destroy their organizations
2. Identify, locate and destroy terrorists along with their organizations

- al-Zarqawi is dead, but Bin Laden is still at large and none of the terrorist organisations have been 'detroyed'.


3. Deny sponsorship, support and sanctuary to terrorists
1. End the state sponsorship of terrorism
2. Establish and maintain an international standard of accountability with regard to combating terrorism
3. Strengthen and sustain the international effort to fight terrorism
4. Working with willing and able states
5.Enabling weak states
6. Persuading reluctant states
7. Compelling unwilling states
8. Interdict and disrupt material support for terrorists
9. Eliminate terrorist sanctuaries and havens

- Iran and Packistan are still known to be sponsors of terroist organisations. Moreover, in April 2007, CNN reported that the US military and the International Committee of the Red Cross were protecting the People's Mujahedin of Iran, with the US army regularly escorting PMOI supply runs between Baghdad and its base, Camp Ashraf. The PMOI have been designated as a terrorist organization by the United States since 1997.


4. Diminishing the underlying conditions that terrorists seek to exploit
1. Partner with the international community to strengthen weak states and prevent (re)emergence of terrorism
2. Win the war of ideals

- I think most would agree that the Bush Adminstration have done more to alienate the US from the international community, rather than partner with it.


5. Defend US citizens and interests at home and abroad
1. Implement the Nation Strategy for Homeland Security
2. Attain domain awareness
3. Enhance measures to ensure the integrity, reliability, and availability of critical physical and information-based infrastructures at home and abroad
4. Integrate measures to protect US citizens abroad
5. Ensure an integrated incident management capability

- This is probably the only objective that has seen enough sucesss to concider it achieved.

For me the president really value al0t of their military advisers becAuse they will be the one who will depend to their presidency when a coup de tat happen to their administration,maybe their just want to show the world that they are powerful and n0 one can be ab0ve them buT for me that was n0t riGht.BecAuse we are talKing here the lives of the civilian and the innocent people who just want to live peacefully ,for every disputes fr0m the rebel cAn be fixed througH a peaCe withouT any sacrificing live that was only my opinion n0 pers0nal or hidden agenda to hurt any official im just sharing my oppinion