The War is Over When Both Sides Agree to Peace

It is clear that Obama does not understand the complexity of war

MissionAccomplished0067

 

The radical islamist rag-heads have said the war will continue until the United States is no more.  That is a concept which is too complex for Obama to understand.

Advertisements

About Russ Steele

Freelance writer and climate change blogger. Russ spent twenty years in the Air Force as a navigator specializing in electronics warfare and digital systems. After his service he was employed for sixteen years as concept developer for TRW, an aerospace and automotive company, and then was CEO of a non-profit Internet provider for 18 months. Russ's articles have appeared in Comstock's Business, Capitol Journal, Trailer Life, Monitoring Times, and Idaho Magazine.
This entry was posted in Politics, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to The War is Over When Both Sides Agree to Peace

  1. Fuzz says:

    George, I don’t understand the intent of your comment.

    “Many good-hearted (and also the stupid ones) don’t understand that with war it only takes one to tango.”

    Are you saying that you can unilaterally decide to take action within a sovereign country if you determine activities inside are a potential threat to your own nation (ala Israel in Iraq and Syria and potentially Iran)? Are you saying that in this age of jihadism that action of a few terrorists, or even a single terrorist, constitute a “war” response to the locus of that ideology? Please expand.

    When the Maliki government first demonstrated that they were not about intelligent power sharing with the other factions in Iraq, our government should have laid down the law. The mess we have now was obvious at that time. Sunni and Shia can only co-exist with intelligent power sharing (unless a henchman like Saddam maintains order by force). Otherwise, the slighted faction will demand their own autonomy. Now, the Kurds are also setting the stage to carve out their own slice of Iraq. On top of this, add extremist elements who don’t consider the political administrations of either faction to be “pure” enough and must be ousted. We have a hot brew of corrupt Middle East politics mixed with religious extremism that seeks to convert the world.

    What do you propose for US action in Iraq at this time? ISIS is 40 miles from Bagdad.

    Like

  2. gjrebane says:

    Many good-hearted (and also the stupid ones) don’t understand that with war it only takes one to tango.

    Mr Fuzz – before you continue endorsing contributions to the Wounded Warrior Project, please check out their overhead rate (i.e. what residual fraction of donations actually go to help wounded warriors and families).

    Like

  3. Dena says:

    The argument for going into Iraq was weak in the first place and after we were in, the truth came out that only one person provided the information and that he wasn’t trusted by other governments. Next came the argument we were doing nation building with a bunch of progressives and socialist governments doing the building. These same countries aren’t doing the best job running their own country. In addition, the United States government took years to create by people far more educated in human nature than what you will find running around in Iraq.
    Should we have gone in the first place? NO. Was failure in the future? Yes.
    The two reasons for going back are you break it, you bought it.
    The other reason is the contrary to Obama’s words terrorism is growing and with the resources of a countries government, it’s going to grow even faster. As advanced as we are, a few drones are not going to do the job. It still takes boots on the ground. We can reduce the risk with air support but we are going to lose boots. Do you want to lose them over there or do you want a far larger loss over here?
    I was born in 51 and paid attention to the Viet Nam war. The results in Viet Nam were expected as were the results in Iraq. Nation building takes far more that taking out the obvious bad guys as there are many more in government whose only weapon is a pen.
    We wasted far to many lives in both wars and we are treating vets from both wars without the respect that both deserve.
    The war on terror is going to go on for many more years in many more countries and the sooner we admit it, the safer we will be. Otherwise, we will regret the day when the terrorist get the bomb. And don’t thing they won’t use it!

    Like

  4. Fuzz says:

    Dena, did you read the article I linked in my post? I just watched more Iraq coverage on TV showing the mass of army uniforms left by the fleeing Iraqi army. Islamic jihadism is the biggest cancer the world faces, other than something like hunger and poverty. If the trained and equipped Iraqi army won’t stand and fight a vastly smaller, less equipped group of terrorists, what is the US supposed to do….occupy Iraq permanently?….because that’s what you would have to do. Then, do we occupy Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Nigeria, etc. etc. etc.? When ISIS arrived in Mosul they looted the banks of up to $425 million, making them the most well funded terrorist group in the world. Plus, they’ve also captured arms and heavy armament. To try to achieve “victory”, through military might, is like (pardon my crudeness) trying to polish a turd. Only when the hearts and minds of the mass of Islamic people is turned against jihadism will there ever be victory. Russia couldn’t handle Afghanistan and when we leave, the Taliban and al Qaeda, will rise up again and retake the nation. Any military action we take in Iraq now should be to protect military assets that, if captured, could present a serious threat to our own security. (We don’t want ISIS having their own fleet of drones, etc.)

    Like

  5. Dena says:

    Bush warned us that this war would be different than other wars in that it would extend far longer. Either people didn’t listen or have forgot this as many back Obama’s anti war idea. We haven’t defeated the enemy and we haven’t closed the boarder so we can expect another 911 like attack some time in the future when the terror groups have rebuilt to the point where they can make another attack on us.
    I am not in favor of war but it’s better than the option of extinction.

    Like

  6. Fuzz says:

    Hi Russ,
    Reminds me of the stupid statement Bush2 made about the Iraq war. Read the below link carefully to understand the situation with Iraq and what should have been done in the first place. Here’s an excerpt:

    “Now take a look at exactly what happened in Mosul. While reports are sketchy, there were likely tens of thousands of Iraqi security forces of all types in and around Mosul. They had tanks and mortars and all sorts of armaments provided by the American taxpayer. On the other hand, the jihadis who won the battle probably numbered, according to the BBC, hundreds to around a thousand troops. Apparently they had no tanks or heavy artillery. The jihadis started firing, and the Iraqi security forces took off their uniforms, gave up their weapons and started running. All this after a decade of Americans fighting and dying and training and equipping them at the cost to the United States of well over a trillion dollars.”

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/12/iraq-is-vietnam-2-0-and-u-s-drones-won-t-solve-the-problem.html

    Did you watch the the recent Frontline documentary that showed in great detail that Iraq2 really was “all about oil”? The deception on the start of that war was one thing, but the bumbling inept understanding of the dynamics of that nation (basically tribes with a flag, held together by a henchman) is beyond excuse.

    My wife and I are both Viet Nam era vets. My dad is a WWII vet (91 year old). My Brother-in-Law is Green Beret (Viet Nam). As far as I’m concerned, both Bush2 and Cheney should have all of their assets….. all of them….confiscated and the proceeds donated to the Wounded Warrior Project. On Judgement Day they will have much to answer for.

    Fuzz

    Like

Comments are closed.