This seems elementary to me, but why is it, in the last few decades, we have given the enemy plenty of lead time, sometimes almost down to the hour, as to when we are going to attack. This was true in the Gulf War, Afghanistan, the Iraq War, and now Syria. We debate, discuss, etc, until the enemy knows exactly when and what we are going to do. It reminds me of a horse race, ready, set, go and bang.
I do not know if it is the demands of news coverage or what, but we did not announce D Day or the atom bombs over Japan.
What are your thoughts on this? I mean, if we are going to go in and fight, (another debate) should not we try to at least make an effort to use the element of surprise?
Stupid Question
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by saturneptune, Sep 3, 2013.
-
-
Crabtownboy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Blame it on the Constitution.
-
This just in .....
HIGHLY [UN]RELIABLE WHITE HOUSE AND PENTAGON SOURCES REPORT THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA PLANS TO BOMB SYRIA ON 9/11!!!!!
:smilewinkgrin::smilewinkgrin: -
Bush I, gave a deadline - but did not say exactally when the fighting would begin.
I agree, by giving the exact time when we will take action is not good. -
Zbigniew Brzezinski shares your concerns SN. He's a bit more concise.
He just says . . . "Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization."
I think that might have something to do with why the founders gave congress the power to declare war and not the president. It slows down the rush to war. But then what do I know I'm not a constitutional scholar like John Yoo or Barrack Obama. -
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
In Gulf War I we dropped millions of leaflets prior to the ground war and the result was the largest mass surrender in history. -
By D-Day, Germany's ability to make war was significantly diminished, and Japan was fighting a war of attrition in 1945, stalling the allied forces for as long as possible leading up to the anticipated invasion of the homeland, upon which eventuality, the Japanese government fully intended to turn out every living body for the fight.
Therefore, the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki came as complete surprises, and with Hirohito still reeling from the blows, President Truman announced the emperor had three days to surrender, or Tokyo would be the third target. Faced with certain death from a weapon he could only faintly imagine, Hirohito capitulated. Ironically, Truman's announcement was the greatest poker bluff ever played. We did not have a third bomb. Harry's bluff saved millions of Japanese lives, and his use of the two bombs saved the lives of millions on both sides, as a land invasion of the Japanese homeland would have dragged on for years.
Germany suspected D-Day was upon them, but could not guess where the sea-borne assault would come. Their confusion rendered them unable to get the upper hand, though as with any invasion from the sea, they made it extremely difficult for allied forces. Still, the Allies beat their own schedule by nearly 200 days in approaching the German border. Nonetheless, Germany was still strong enough that, even after the defeat at Normandy and the fall of France, the Reich was still able to mount an effective defense against the invasion of northern Europe and the attempted circumvention of the dreaded Siegfried Line.
All this to outline the effectiveness of our opponents in that war. Those we have engaged since have been weak, corrupt and unable to defend themselves effectively. In Vietnam, we gave away our advantage through idiotic decisions made not be military men, but by unschooled and foolish politicians, fueled by a public opinion shaped by a biased media. We have since vowed never to fight a war that way again, and we haven't. But if anything, our opponents have been weaker still, and are incapable of retaliating. In fact, whether one believes it or not, there is no nation, not even China or Russia, that could mount an effective war effort against us. China's only advantage, and it would not last long, would be manpower, being able to mobilize 100 million troops. The problem is the quality of those troops.
Give a commander two Apache helicopter and a well-trained platoon of U.S. Army Rangers, and there isn't a division in the world that could stand against them. -
just-want-peace Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
TND:
What you say is true, BUT, just as in Israel, they prevailed only as long as they trusted God.
I personally believe that God has been with us in the past, but I'm not that convinced that God is going to continue to be with us - the way we are heading now - in any future "democracy planting". -
You made an interesting point about civilians running the war in Vietnam. Which administration do you think caused more damage, if one believes we should have been there in the first place? Personally, I put the blame square on the Johnson Administration. I know Kennedy sent limited numbers of advisors, but the conflict took a massive escalation during the Johnson years. At one point we had almost 600 K troops in Vietnam. In total, we lost over 58,000. Anyway, the man I consider the focal point of the failed policy was Robert McNamera.
While the actions of the Nixon Administration were not stellar, he at least reduced the number of troops. The invasion of Cambodia and Christmas bombing of the north were somewhat puzzling considering his goal was Vietnamization. I guess one of the saddest scenes is after Nixon resigned, when the North had overrun the South in 1975, and watching desperate people trying to get help at the American embassy, and seeing the last helo leave, after the 58,000 lives. I think this plus the pardon of Nixon allowed Carter to win in 76.
Yes, Army Rangers are the best in the world. Getting back to the present conflict, it may not make any difference in this case with Syria whether the attack was a surprise or not. Assad is already weakened by a civil war. He has limited quality of soldiers, and his air force and navy is almost comical. The chemical weapons and their delivery systems remain dangerous. Maybe it makes no difference, but there seems just basically something wrong with making a media circus out of the start of a conflict. I like the analogy I used before, the guy at the starting gate of a horse race, saying "ready, set, go" then bang.
Here is something else I wonder what your opinion is. It has been said our policy in the Middle East has failed over the last several decades. However, look at it. Jordan and Saudi Arabia and Turkey are allies, (real or not). We had a part of effecting change in Libya, Egypt, and Iraq (a high price). These may stick or not. But one must admit, that is a large number of countries. Also, we have smaller allies such as Oman, Kuwait, and Bahrain. -
pinoybaptist Active MemberSite Supporter
it's symptomatic of a deteriorating society where political correctness reigns supreme, divulging secrets is called patriotic, identifying clandestine agents is called proper, and all things which old-time Americans hold dear is called unconstitutional.
-
I don't think his assassination had anything to do with his Vietnam strategy, but I do believe Johnson, not having any military background and relying on his concept of leadership from his days in the Senate, believed he was doing the right thing listening to McNamara. But neither of them were qualified to lead a war effort. They should have left it in the hands of the generals, as Kennedy obviously intended to do.
-
Another point, I never met someone that transcended both wars, Vietnam and the Gulf War. I did know an older guy once in the service that had served in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam.
Anyway, getting back to the op, I do think the need of a surprise attack date has diminished throughout the years. It could become vital if we ever get in another conflict with a nation on our level at the time. -
-
One of the funniest quotes I remember from a Soviet leader (aside from remembering as a kid Khrushchev pounding his shoe on the table), was a reporter asking Brezhnev, the Soviet leader at the time, how he would handle a situation like Watergate. He said, Watergate, no problem.................
For your enjoyment, a Soviet fashion show by Wendy's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWAKtYGJZSM -
You two are starting to sound envious of the Russians and Chinese. Just pokin fun now don't go gettin all upset.
Seriously though this conversation already comes in book form. The Grand Chessboard. Have either of you read it?
From the book . . .
"The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role." (p. 198)
"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209)
"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)
For more quotes from The Grand Chessboard CLICK HERE. One of Obama's foreign policy advisers and good buddy wrote it.
He was close to Jimmy Carter too. I can almost hear him thinking . . ."Oh if only Obama had a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat he could use to unite the country behind him like Bush did. Congress and the American sheople would bow down and drink kool aid from his boots instead of acting like we still live in a republic an gettin all up in his face and everything".
Blame it on "democracy" Brzezinski does.