Hybrid Military

On a political note, I hate that we're still in Iraq because we never properly planned. Strategy = Ends + Ways + Means; determine the end goals first, what's trying to be accomplished, and then figure out how to do it (ways and means). But every strategy includes after-actions, which we still don't have. Thus, my prior reference to Bradley's rebuilding of Germany after WWII.

Now, I agree that the main portion of Iraq (its people) were not involved in the attacks on our nation; it was a group of terrorists, that were primarily supported by allies in Afghanistan. After conducting operations in 2002 (Enduring Freedom), many of those terrorists spread throughout other Middle East countries -- including Iraq.

I will concede that this was used as an excuse by our current administration to conduct operations against more than just the terrorists; but there is evidence that Saddam's government had "relationships" with al Qaeda. Coupled with his threat to his own people, as well as others in the world, and you have a decision to make: Are you going to remove the threat before or after?

I am not a Bush fan. I didn't vote for him; didn't vote for the other guy, either. Won't vote Republican or Democrat this next election. I look at how our freedoms are being trampled in the mud in the name of "national security," and I despise how congressmen and lawmakers--Republican, Democrat, Indepent, etc.--are using a strategy of "incremental creep" to take away our privacy, and our free speech. Those of you that hide behind "it's making us safer," you remember that when they come for you. Won't be tomorrow, or the day after; but it's coming.

Final word: There were ties between the government of Iraq and al Qaeda. What we didn't properly plan was how to help the Iraqi people, after helping them come out from under a cloud of tyranny and fear.

And if helping others have the opportunity to be free from fear isn't reason enough, then we truly don't understand the teaching of Romans 15:1.

 

Will you point me to that evidence please?

 

1) That has never been proven.

2) That is not a function of government. Government is about force, not about doing good works.

 

I do not agree with your premise concerning secular governments.

 

Actually, there are documented reports, from during the Clinton administration, of al Qaeda meetings and agreements.

Then there's this, indicating previous relations:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6E55B921-35D5-4710-82D4-C37A45902A7E.htm

But this will be disputed for many, many years to come. Can't wait to see what the history books say in twenty years.

Government is about society, and is a function of an organized society. Government's function is to ensure society continues to progress according to stated goals. The military is about force, and is a tool to be used by that government and society.

Okay.

 

I disagree with your premise concerning what government is. I admire your idealism but it isn't reality.

If it was well documented then it wouldn't be disputed.

 

Just as modern social worker highly educated police officers can't control the cities without taking away our civil rights neither can a social worker/soldier fight a war without getting themselves killed. Of course, this may be a part of the population reduction program - giving the people who like to kill people and break things the opportunity to do it to each other.

 

For the last 4000 years the purpose of govt has been to keep the barbarians under control so that the rich can get richer.

 

We'll have to disagree on this point, too. I believe you're mixing the job of government with the tools of government.

(warning: some over-generalizations follow) When a society forms, they generally identify a leader who represents the interests of that society, and will further those interests to the benefit of all. That leader, or leader group, will then utilize available means to further those interests. If obtaining more food for the society is a primary goal, and obtaining that food means competition with another society, then negotiations or flat-out war to obtain those resources occurs.

Our current national security strategy includes the statements:
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]Champion Aspirations for Human Dignity
[/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif][/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]Work with others to Defuse Regional Conflicts
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]Increase the amount of development assistance that is provided in the form of grants instead of loans.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]The United States already contributes more than twice as much money to health efforts as the next largest donor.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]American interests and American principles, therefore, lead in the same direction: we will work with others for an African continent that lives in liberty, peace, and growing prosperity.[/FONT]
[/FONT]
The government is about doing good works, as well as force (as you put it).

Actually, the government is about what you want it to do for you.

If the "leader group" is not fulfilling the functions agreed upon by the society, and/or not fulfilling the needs/desires of the society, then the society itself has a responsibility to designate a new leader. In our American republic, we do this through our voting every 4 years. In dictatorships, it's done through coups and revolutions.

Yes, those that have been placed in a position over the rest of the society, in order to lead it and make it better, seem to have a tendency to abuse that position. Temptation is strong, and the flesh is weak. Again, the society has a responsibility (if only to itself) to replace those that are benefitting only themselves, and not the society.

But the question there is: What are you doing about it?

In today's "information age," the problem is that we have too much documentation on both sides. There's a whole new meaning to "believe half of what you see, and less of what you hear."

 

I have to honestly say - this is NOT the sort of "hybrid military" Giuliani was talking about.

Thanks for the laugh, though.

 

A definitive YES! :laugh:

Sorry, but you did ask.

 

Well betterthanideserve, your losing me. I was hoping for some substance from you, but I see that's increasingly more doubtful. But hey, I may be wrong.