Thread: Shouldn't the people who make war actually be in the war?

Originally Posted by xris

By 'lead into battle' I was thinking more of being right up there in the thick of the fighting, rather than standing way back in the rear directing what was going on, as somebody like Napoleon probably did, and Nicolas II too I suspect.

Were any of your suggestions, Ironduke, doing the actual fighting with sword or gun in hand?

x

Gustavus Adolphus, the Lion of the North.

Originally Posted by Ray

Hence, before brawn is resorted to, brains have to be exercised!

War is too precise and a devastating an instrument.

It is said that the business of war is too important to be left in the hands of Generals. Maybe.

But the outcome is worse in the hands of damned fool politicians!

Sun Tzu again!

At peace prepare for War, at War prepare for Peace.

Well the war preparations were on the whole flawless, the peace preparations sure went to hell in a breadbaske!

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Amled

Sun Tzu again!

Georges Clemenceau's dictum that "war is too serious a business to be left to soldiers" has been quoted by Sun Ray!

'Sunray' (pronounced 'soonrahe') also in Hindi means 'listening'!

Originally Posted by chankya

It occurs to me that in practically all the forms of government we have today in the world and have had for sometime now, one set of people actually make the decision to go to war and quite a different bunch actually prosecute the war.

Doesn't that disconnect actually foster a more casual attitude to going to war and actually staying at war.

What I'm asking is, when the life in line is not your own does that color your decision?

The Roman senators for instance fought in the wars. When the Romans fought the Carthaginians, the ranks of the senators and the equestrian class got decimated during the Second Punic War. I end up thinking that when a roman senator got up to speak after the battle of Cannae and spoke about continuing the fight the words carried a lot more weight than those of our politicians of today.

Bolded, mine.

Let's think about that from a different point-of-view.

YEAH, it sure DOES color one's thinking when your life isn't in immediate danger. But you're approaching it as if it SHOULD NOT, like it's a NEGATIVE.

Personally, I think it's a positive.

For instance, it's hard, REALLY HARD, sometimes, for a democracy to convince itself it needs to go war. Hell, look at your own attitude and some others on this very Board. There's almost no outrage you won't knuckle under to, no threat that you can't find a way to scamper away from, even temporarily, in order to avoid something hard, dangerous or expensive, even if the respite isn't permanent.

So, making it LESS likely to be able to rouse a timid politician to support the country's best interests seems a recipe for pre-emptive self-defeat.

AND a terrific way to goad an enemy into pushing his luck too far.

Furthermore, what of the aggressive enemy's calculations and decision-making? If he's faced with an enemy like, say, modern Europe, that has neither the will nor the means for meaningful application of violence, does making it yet harder to employ even what pitiful and weak force as can be manged seem to work in the interests of keeping the peace, or will that aggressive, well-armed enemy open hostilities that he knows will be extremely difficult for his effete, emasculated and effeminate enemy to meet in-kind?

Personally, I think our 'force is a last resort' / 'deperate last-hour diplomacy to avert war' / 'sadly preparing for the inevitable conflict' trash has gotten us into more violence than if we were armed to the teeth and projected a willingness to use it, whenever and wherever it was necessary. It would be necessary a helluva lot LESS if that were the case.

Originally Posted by Kipruss

There is a disconnect from those voting for war and those dying in it. Unfortunately we don't want the reverse to be true with only ex-armed forces being in control.

Why don't we, then? Who knows the reality of war better than one who's seen it? Perhaps you think YOU know enough about war, eh? Care to shoulder the responsibility of all them 'war/peace' problems that those ignorant politicos are screwing up so badly?

Then run for office.

Originally Posted by Kipruss

Can you imagine if "people" like Blueboy were in charge?

Why the quotes around 'people'? Do I not qualify in your eyes, as a 'person'? It was attitudes like that which were necessary to gas millions of people to death.

It seems I'm not as dangerous to the commonweal as somebody with your mindset, Herr Kipper.

Originally Posted by Kipruss

The amount of dead civilians would be horrendous

You're a vile slanderer, and I've already pointed out how YOU are the one with a warped sense of what a human being is.

Originally Posted by Kipruss

while he would rejoice in the dead Americans, calling it supporting his troops.

If you and I are ever in the same room, I'm going to cripple you for the rest of your miserable life. You went way too far with that.

Originally Posted by Kipruss

Best to keep "them" ranting on message boards like angry loathsome children and out of decision making.

Too late; I've already been involved with life-and-death decisions, and my record is excellent. I've helped kill people that needed it, and I've never made the mistake that would result in the wrong person being killed for no reason. You, though...you've never known what it means to hold that kind of responsibility in your hands. And yet you presume to call me a loathsome child.

Well. It would seem that I've lived an adult life, and accepted my responsibilities. But YOU? You've benefited from what I and others like me have taken on. Much as an ignorant, ungrateful adolescent would.

Who's the grown-up?

Originally Posted by Kipruss

At worst he is a poster child for why the world hates the US. At best he is a waste of bandwidth.

I believe you stomped off in an angry huff once before; I invite you to bugger off again.

Originally Posted by Kipruss

Better yet, if you want to avoid scum you can add them to your ignore list - Quick link, user control panel - left hand side Buddy/ ignore list. I think i'll do that right now....

AWESOME. And a 'good riddance' to you, loser.

Originally Posted by gunnut

So put a civilian who has never fought a war in charge is bad.

Put a military man who has fought in wars in charge is bad.

What do you want?

He wants NO WAR.

Because it's, well....you know...ICKY.

Originally Posted by xris

I'm notoffering a solution here nor am I suggesting that the USA should withdraw or should stay.

What I will say though is that the USA never should have gone in in the first place. The possible consequences of so doing were only too clear to see, as has been shown. These possible consequences would also have included the difficulties of pulling out once the US had gone in.

And so here we are - going in was folly and created a mess, but withdrawal will probably create a bigger mess with further loss of life.

However, the decision to withdraw must be taken at some point. Until the USA is out, no stable govt will be in place. The so-called democratic Iraqi govt in place at the moment will also have to go as will most of its leaders. It is tainted by association with the USA and will never be accepted, any more so that the Vichy govt in France. The USA is seen by large sections of the community as an occupying force, which is what it is.

I am a little surprised that no state has tried to charge the US with a gross violation of international law, namely the unprovoked attack on a sovereign state, similar to the way that Iraq early invaded Kuwait. But, on the other hand, am I surprised. Bringing together an international force to invade the USA to repel its aggression might prove a little difficult.

x

Whilst I didn't address the question to you I will reply.

So you are willing to criticise, and to condemn, and to claim that the US should tried, but you have absolutely no solution, nor are you willing to bear any responsibility whatsoever. Did you or have you ever expressed concern over the roughly 1 million Iraqis killed by Saddam? If you had your wish and he was still in power and killing 30 or 40 thousand a year as was his want, would that be a concern to you?

Originally Posted by Kipruss

The disconnect is that the children of politicians are not the ones dying in the war. It is easier to send others to die than your own.

As pointed out, this is untrue.

As to the amount of dead civilians, just think of the tens of thousands that have already died in Iraq. Is your boy sorry that this has happened? No. He would call it collateral damage or all the work of terrorists as though your bullets and bombs don't kill the innocent. How about his support for war against Iran. Will only those who wear uniforms die? For people that cause themselves Christians I sometimes wonder if you really want to be right.

1) I'm not making calls on anyone's feelings, but I maintain that since the majority of civilians that have been killed have not been killed by us either on purpose or as collateral damage, that this is rather irrelevant to begin with.

2) No war spares civilians.

3) Who is calling themselves Christian? I'm not, for instance. How is this relevant?

Rejoice may have been the wrong word. If you think i should be banned for it then maybe you and he are the PATSIES. Able to dish it out then run and hide.

Patsies? Of whom? I'm not aware of anything you've done or said that would get you banned, but I can make the prediction that you're the kind of person who's easily spun-up by rational discussion and who will eventually resort to personal attacks. You do the math.

And I have never run and hid from internet discussions, no matter how nasty they get. I've had users here accuse me of being a Nazi, a Fascist, a Hitler wannabe, and just plain stupid. I'm still here posting and reading while, generally, they are not.

Last month you lost another 80 troops. This month you have lost 45. How can you accept this? Your people are still dying in a war that most Americans (not on this board) don't want to be in.

Soldiers die, that's what they risk by signing on and suiting up. I don't like that it happens but I'm glad they're doing it. I happen to also think that what they are fighting for right now is very much worth it. I've never cared very much what "most Americans" think about things anyway, especially foreign policy.

Supporting the troops by accepting losses of 80 per month is some support. It is not twisted to only ask them to fight when it is needed.

You still misunderstand what support means. And they [i]are[i/] being asked to fight when needed - it has been determined that they are needed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If you want your boy to be in charge then vote for him.

He's not a candidate.

Yes, I will need to temporarily remove him so I can find five comments.

First, from a reply which can still be seen -

"It comes from my dislike of you.

That, and it amuses me.

Are you sure you're in the right place, Pattycake? "

I don't find these objectionable, let alone "loathesome".

On post 23 03-24-2007, 02:09 PM 15 UK sailors captured...

"You're a deeply stupid individual. Did you know that?"

On post 30 of same link,

"Shall I go on, you pile of excrement?"

Well, a) are you stupid? and b) what did you type that elicited the response? What was the context?

On post 91

"Or are you talking out your ass, you jumped-up arrogant know-it-all lay-strategist with a 1:300,00-scale globe and a whoooole bunch of books on geo-politics and strategy that you've no doubt read cover-to-cover (TWICE!), whilst pursuing that college degree in international relations from the advanced program at Fred's Collidge of Smart-Guy Stuff and Bait Shop?

I suspect the latter, but if you want to lay out your qualifications in this area...we're all paying the closest attention.

You dork."

Yeah, without knowing the context it sounds like you must've posted something extremely disrespectful of either the Brits or the U.S. or both.

Loathsome and childish. I'l get to the other comments in future when I look beyond two links.

Deal.

-dale

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Personally, I think our 'force is a last resort' / 'deperate last-hour diplomacy to avert war' / 'sadly preparing for the inevitable conflict' trash has gotten us into more violence than if we were armed to the teeth and projected a willingness to use it, whenever and wherever it was necessary. It would be necessary a helluva lot LESS if that were the case.

Yep. Be scary and respectible.

-dale

Originally Posted by dalem

Yep. Be scary and respectible.

-dale

And the suggestion in the OP is MORE likely to get us into violent scrapes at the national level than if we didn't enage in all this moral preening and posturing of how it's all so important to avoid war at any cost. (The phrase was actually used here, on the WAB, by a very dull-witted Euro.) It is perceived by bully-boy regimes as a statement to the effect that we'll endure ANY humiliation (and sometimes we're WAY too willing to swallow what we should not, therefore inviting even more outrageous affronts).

Originally Posted by Bluesman

For instance, it's hard, REALLY HARD, sometimes, for a democracy to convince itself it needs to go war. Hell, look at your own attitude and some others on this very Board. There's almost no outrage you won't knuckle under to, no threat that you can't find a way to scamper away from, even temporarily, in order to avoid something hard, dangerous or expensive, even if the respite isn't permanent.

If you mean my lack of moral outrage over Iran's actions, then that is because we've seen equally blatant outrages by every other country in the world also. I have no qualms whatsoever over you saying that you have a national interest in bringing Iran in line. Fair enough. You want to bomb them to achieve it? Fine. Why hide that behind some kind of moral story about good and evil. Screw morals. In international relations there is only enduring national interest.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

So, making it LESS likely to be able to rouse a timid politician to support the country's best interests seems a recipe for pre-emptive self-defeat.

I picked the romans after Cannae as an example on purpose. When the battle was done Hannibal dragged a few sacks full of golden rings(then a sign of roman nobility) back to Carthage. Between the battles at Cannae, Trebia and Lake Trasimene the romans lost close to 125,000 men. They did not surrender. They fought on and by the time they were done there wasnt anything left of Carthage.

Hardly sounds like timid politicians. But I take your point. The Romans were far more aggresive than possibly any nation today. Perhaps thats why they were able to survive that.

Originally Posted by chankya

If you mean my lack of moral outrage over Iran's actions, then that is because we've seen equally blatant outrages by every other country in the world also. I have no qualms whatsoever over you saying that you have a national interest in bringing Iran in line. Fair enough. You want to bomb them to achieve it? Fine. Why hide that behind some kind of moral story about good and evil. Screw morals. In international relations there is only enduring national interest.

Now we're getting somewhere.

I agree with the proposition that the MAIN consideration is what's good for my side.

BUT...I think 'the Prince's morality' as understood by Machiavelli is a vital consideration. YEAH, there's Good Guys and Bad Guys, especially in THIS story, and if you can't perceive it, well, then, join the side you think is likely to win, as you seem to think pushpin is as good as poetry; no distinguishable difference.

For instance, I believe we are the best example of 'statecraft as soulcraft' or 'national morality' in the modern world. Fallible, absolutely; we almost never measure up to our own standards. But we acknowledge the need to TRY.

For instance, the Spaniards have acted disgracefully in the face of a threat; they're gross moral cowards and failures in a moral sense. They'll pay for that over time. In days past, our foreign policy was also a moral swamp, but in an entirely different direction, and we're paying for that right now, too.

There IS a moral dimension to national policy, but it's not the same code as an individual's; it can't be. I know nobody but a very few are even going to know what I'm even talking about when I say this, but the ONE THING that I respect most about President George W. Bush is that he attempts to guide US policy HONORABLY. Now, I can hear the howls from here already, but I mean what I say, and it's all you foreign policy 'realists' that simply will not even get the point I'm making, but it's true. Immoral men like Clinton and Carter do not have the bottom to do hard, dangerous or unpopular things, even when it's good for the country; Dubya DOES, and he's proven it time and again.

CHARACTER COUNTS, and he's got it.

Originally Posted by chankya

I picked the romans after Cannae as an example on purpose. When the battle was done Hannibal dragged a few sacks full of golden rings(then a sign of roman nobility) back to Carthage. Between the battles at Cannae, Trebia and Lake Trasimene the romans lost close to 125,000 men. They did not surrender. They fought on and by the time they were done there wasnt anything left of Carthage.

Hardly sounds like timid politicians. But I take your point. The Romans were far more aggresive than possibly any nation today. Perhaps thats why they were able to survive that.

Absolutely right. They put out the message: try not to catch our eye when we're in a bloody-minded mood; it's healthier for you.

I dislike the notion of our young men killing their young men and vice versa as much as anybody else, PARTICULARLY now, with my son going into combat arms in a few more days. BUT...John Stuart Mill was perhaps never more correct in anything any philosopher has ever said as when he said:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."