Three Options: An Exercise in Strategy

Look, I come from an academic background and place a strong emphasis on rigorous reasoning in precise arguments. If you ask for a "straight" answer, then, in order for me to answer accurately and truthfully, you have to be prepared to clarify exactly what I'm being asked. Iraq is an extremely complicated subject - perhaps your definition of "clear" matches mine of "grossly oversimplified".

 

Here's another option.

"...To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." Zbigniew Brzezinski (Z.B.)

But, it's very important that when you are using this option you must never admit it in public. NEVER! To do so could mean your own peasants might revolt (and vote for Ron Paul!). Don't even admit it if your poll numbers drop through the floor! You see..."Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization."(Z.B.) so, you must nobly mislead the peasants (people paying for it all) and always speak in terms they can easily understand and rally behind like , peace, charity, liberty, freedom, democracy, good will towards mankind, all the while waving the flag, praising the warriors, mourning the fallen (but not too much lest the peasents start adding them up on their own) and generally denouncing the 'pacifists' as being a danger to "our" national security.

And one last thing. If you are going to use this option and one of your underlings gets caught in something that may lead to the dscovery that this option is being used...wait till he's found guilty then commute his prison sentence to keep him loyal or at least quite about the whole deal. :smilewinkgrin:

 

I'm not surprised.

"Viable", in context, should be an easy word for someone with an "academic" background. You're either playing games to avoid giving a "straight" answer or your "academic" background has not served you well.

 

Look who's been playing games by not giving a straightforward answer three or four posts ago. We could actually be having a discussion right now.

"Viable" in terms of what exactly? Economically? Domestically? Diplomatically? Morally? Security? Future foreign policy?

 

I vote for option 3. In case it is a forgotten art, if war is to be fought, the idea is to win it. That means you fight to win, win it swiftly, and exit. It does not mean you half hearted fight because politicians created rules of engagement. It also means competent leadership has to be running the war. Since we have neither, option 3, a swift and sure victory.

 

Your right. It is a lot like trying to do a flip from a standing position. If you do not give it your all and every ounce of energy you will have a problem. You can't commit with a half hearted mindset.

 

The question was:

Do you believe Admit Defeat & Leaveis a viable option?

You can answer with a simple yes or no answer in terms of each one of the areas you have outlined. It should take you less than 30 seconds.

 

Option 3? Are you being serious?

 

Nuc em till they glow. Either fight to win or get out. It is as simple as that. There are no middle of the road courses in war.

 

I personally believe the stage is being set for the anti-christ to come on the scene.

Russia playing footsie with Iran; Iran about to get nukes & vowing to eradicate Israel; Olmert wanting to give up the Golan Heights; the USA being so PC that we're just about neutered, etc etc ---there can be nothing but a war in the reasonable (ED GUESS= +- 10 years max) future and virtually all arms will be pointed toward Israel.

Unfortunately, the US of A will be so PC with Islam, terrorists, and enamored of all cultures and religions EXCEPT Christianity, that we will have nada influence to input into the situation.

I know that those of you who subscribe to the "Replacement Theology" disagree, but as far as I'm concerned that's 'tween you and God.

My belief ((opinion only) is that this conflict will see the emergence of the anti-christ, as this will be his opportunity to step in to prevent an outright nuke war and bring stability to the region.

So I really don't think that anything the USA does, or does not do, is going to materially affect the situation.

 

Ha, thirty seconds. Anyone who can thoughtfully answer those points in thirty seconds is either an academic expert or a simpleton. Since I am neither, I took some time considering my answers.

Economically? Yes
Domestically? Yes
Diplomatically? Yes
Morally? Yes
Security? No
Future foreign policy? No