People often confuse the causes of wars with the outcome of wars, which are in fact frequently different things. Once wars get rolling they take on a life of their own and the people who start them are often nowhere to be seen by the end. The classic example is WWI, in which five old-fashioned empires went to war in 1914; the British, German, French, Austro-Hungarian and Russian, each expecting to gain a specific advantage from it. They were soon joined by a sixth, the Ottoman. By 1918 three of the empires were utterly destroyed. A fourth had been overthrown by its own people. The two "winners," France and Britain, lay in tatters, bled white, and were soon to lose their empires. The winner? The United States, a nation not even involved at the beginning and taken into no one's account. Wars can work out that way.

quote:

No, I;m saying that looking at the details of war doesn't reveal the overall picture, which in my opinion, is the more revelatory view.

In that case, I will stick my pinkie on the chopping blockette here and suggest that I don't think a single person on this thread disagrees with that statement, wherefore I, for one, wonder what it is you are arguing against?

quote:

Originally posted by John Maddox Roberts:
People often confuse the causes of wars with the outcome of wars, which are in fact frequently different things. Once wars get rolling they take on a life of their own and the people who start them are often nowhere to be seen by the end. The classic example is WWI, in which five old-fashioned empires went to war in 1914; the British, German, French, Austro-Hungarian and Russian, each expecting to gain a specific advantage from it. They were soon joined by a sixth, the Ottoman. By 1918 three of the empires were utterly destroyed. A fourth had been overthrown by its own people. The two "winners," France and Britain, lay in tatters, bled white, and were soon to lose their empires. The winner? The United States, a nation not even involved at the beginning and taken into no one's account. Wars can work out that way.

A beautiful summation, JMR.

quote:

Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:

quote:

No, I;m saying that looking at the details of war doesn't reveal the overall picture, which in my opinion, is the more revelatory view.

In that case, I will stick my pinkie on the chopping blockette here and suggest that I don't think a single person on this thread disagrees with that statement, wherefore I, for one, wonder what it is you are arguing against?

Dude, I don't even remember anymore.

Wait:

Once wars get rolling they take on a life of their own and the people who start them are often nowhere to be seen by the end.

This is what I was talking about.

Well if that's all you were saying then I won't post my tirade about the agricultural revolution.

I will say this though,

quote:

People fuck and fuck and fuck for all time but I do not see anyone saying that fucking has fundamentally changed over time. no one is saying cyber sex is totally divorced form fucking or that diloes with batteries are totally different from dildos made out of clay with Kali on them.

Fucking was fundamentally changed: first by the concept of 'original sin', second by means of contraception.

quote:

Originally posted by the_Etruscan:
Well if that's all you were saying then I won't post my tirade about the agricultural revolution.

I will say this though,

quote:

People fuck and fuck and fuck for all time but I do not see anyone saying that fucking has fundamentally changed over time. no one is saying cyber sex is totally divorced form fucking or that diloes with batteries are totally different from dildos made out of clay with Kali on them.

Fucking was fundamentally changed: first by the concept of 'original sin', second by means of contraception.

The agriculural revolution is a good point of course.

Original sin is a graft onto sex, contraception is an amedment. But people still did and do both the same amount before and after the fact, it just goes toward sub rosa techniques and to more children unwanted.I don't think it fundamentally altered the desire and the expression of it. People still went out and got it on.

I dunno, I think it was a lot more kinky when you knew you were going to burn in hell for all eternity afterward.

quote:

Originally posted by the_Etruscan:
I dunno, I think it was a lot more kinky when you knew you were going to burn in hell for all eternity afterward.

Hey man, there are a lotta peeps who still do. They get all kinds of freaky with their sex I bet.

quote:

Originally posted by the_Etruscan:
I dunno, I think it was a lot more kinky when you knew you were going to burn in hell for all eternity afterward.

And, hey, there was (is) always Carnival.

quote:

Once wars get rolling they take on a life of their own and the people who start them are often nowhere to be seen by the end.

That is often true, although not always. WWII, for example, had a pretty clear sight on its initial and ending aim.

That is, from the American perspective. Which is probably a big part of why we benefited from it so well. We were throughly ruthless, committed, and massively powerful, yet frightfully rational.

Even ignominies like the West coast Jap civilian concentration camps had a rational basis, however sloppy that rationalization was.

quote:

Hey man, there are a lotta peeps who still do. They get all kinds of freaky with their sex I bet.

Abrahamists have the BEST fornication of all. And man can they host a great stoning...

That "American perspective" part is where WWII was different, not the original intentions of those who started it. Hitler and the Japanese thought that, by hitting hard and fast, they could win before the other powers could get geared up for war. It seemed to work for a while, but eventually the war took turns for which they were not prepared. As in WWI, America sat out the first two years of the war and had plenty of time to plan what they would do when, inevitably, the US was drawn into the war. When Pearl Harbor provided the pretext, the war aims were pretty simple and clear: destroy Japan's military might and occupy the country; destroy Germany's military might and occupy the country. Above all, avoid a WWI-style peace by armistice, which would only lead to another war. The A-bomb was a wild card nobody was considering in the early days. Luckily, America got it first.

I believe, as it turned out, Germany was not all that close to developing a successful atomic weapon.

quote:

Originally posted by UberDog:
I believe, as it turned out, Germany was not all that close to developing a successful atomic weapon.

They excelled in delivery systems.

quote:

The A-bomb was a wild card nobody was considering in the early days. Luckily, America got it first.

Talk about a surprise ending, eh?

Instead of negotiated surrender they got the first ever viable threat of total annihilation.

But GAWD AWMIGHTY, who doesn't love movie pictures of a&h bombs going off? Way better than shitty laser shows...

Who Exactly Is the Enemy in Iraq?

by Robert Dreyfuss

Maybe it's time we retreat to our bases.

ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US

quote:

Originally posted by RobW:
Who Exactly Is the Enemy in Iraq?

by Robert Dreyfuss

Pretty astute analysis for an actor.

With all due respect, that guy spends the first section of his article ticking off the strategic goals of the prevailing school of counterinsurgency thought, then says,

"That happy funeral is the result not of brilliant U.S. counterinsurgency efforts, but of the determination of our newfound Sunni allies to exterminate the group."

Granted, it couldn't happen until the Iraqis made it happen--safe to say the abruptness of the turnaround indicates a consensus between high level players--but according to current counterinsurgency doctrine, that is precisely the goal. What we tragically misunderstood for the first four brutal years of the occupation was that it's always been primarily a war for hearts and minds; it's been in their hands all along. But would they be cooperating with us if we were still employing the same, reflexive intimidation tactics we resorted to as recently as a year ago? Not likely.

Later on he says,
"Having spent five years boosting sectarianism in Iraq, killing innocent Iraqis, busting down doors in small villages, and trying to turn Iraq into an American colony, the United States simply has no credibility left."

While I agree with most of his reasoning in this article, I've read Dreyfuss before, and when it comes to counterinsurgency, he doesn't know which way is up. He doesn't distinguish between the conduct of a 4th I.D. and a 3rd A.C.R. (between '04 and '05). And he's not doing us any service by conflating the first four years of the occupation--spent dousing flames with gasoline--with the (hopefully) final year.

"Perhaps they worry that, if the situation in Iraq improves, the prospect of Democratic gains at the polls next November will diminish."

Which would not be an issue if they had been honest about the military logic of the surge--connected the dots between the advice of Shinseki in '02, and Petraeus in '06--and embraced counterinsurgency as the more enlightened approach from the start. Blame the neo-cons for four long years of Rumsfeld, at such a cost. No one listened to Petraeus for four years. They only took him on board when they were desperate.

Having said all that, I am totally bewildered by the turnaround. I honestly thought the surge was going to be too little too late--that we'd get routed and Iraq would descend into civil war, chaos and barbarism--but it sounds like cooler heads are prevailing. And just for the newbs who don't know me better, I was against the invasion from the start and I'll be as overjoyed as anyone (save those in uniform) to get the fuck out (without a bloodbath). And if we don't jump through this window of opportunity due to some "strategic drift" (a nice euphemism for the same cynical, green table calculations that led Bush to invade in the first place), then I think we deserve whatever we get.