August 10, 2014

"It takes an army to defeat an army."

Said Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Friday.
"It takes an army to defeat an army, and I believe that we either confront ISIL now or we will be forced to deal with an even stronger enemy in the future."...

The group is “operating with military expertise, advancing across Iraq and rapidly consolidating its position... Inaction is no longer an option"....
Army Lt. Gen. Mick Bednarek, chief of the Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq, used the identical aphorism last Wednesday:
"We must neutralize this enemy... This is an army, and it takes an army to defeat an army.... This is a very, very difficult, dire and dangerous situation here in Iraq...."

158 comments:

PB Reader said...

Thank you, Mr. President!

Thorley Winston said...

Bush won the war, Obama lost the peace.

rhhardin said...

Derbyshire suggests we let them all cook and eat each other.

Michael K said...

Gosh, who knew ?

Sebastian said...

But, but, we were "leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq."

Gahrie said...

Remember the Feinstein quote five years from now when we are fighting ISIS and the Left has revived Code Pink and is protesting the Republican White House.

The Drill SGT said...

Diane is not a complete idiot like her peer, Boxer.

It comes both from being a Mayor and a Jew.

- Mayors have to make decisions, and face the consequences.

- Jews now understand that there are bad people in the world and not confronting those people, makes matters worse.

progressivism mugged by reality.

Big Mike said...

So is Feinstein just plagiarizing General Bednarek?

pm317 said...

Who has an army around the region to take ISIS out? Saudis and Turkey perpetrated this monster and created a Frankenstein can't take it out, Jordan? Haha.. Iran and the Russians? Maybe but there is no trust.. the world looks to America, right? Or have we lost it too?

John Lynch said...

There was an army. For some reason it left.

Drago said...

Li'l barrack will be upset to read in the papers that the army he wanted to leave in Iraq is no longer there.

I wonder which republican state representative will be blamed for that?

traditionalguy said...

Obama is successfully losing to The Prophet's revealed religion of the Sword . It's written that way and Obama grew up prostrating himself and chanting its superiority over all five times a day .


madAsHell said...

Breaking news.....
Terrorists have hi-jacked a boat load of feck that was to be delivered at the White House.

Original Mike said...

"I believe that we either confront ISIL now or we will be forced to deal with an even stronger enemy in the future."...

The next 9/11 will be on Obama's head.

n.n said...

The 3 R's of politicized warfare: reduce, reuse, and recycle.

Make life, not abortion!

richard mcenroe said...

Could thing we cut out all those useless combat brigades. We need a new #hashtag campaign. #BangBangYoureDead

richard mcenroe said...

Feinstein is watching the rats scurry past her shoes to the scuppers and covering her ass, nothing more. Her only political goal is to enrich her family and cronies

Drago said...

Original Mike, there may well be another 9-11 like event but from the islamic supremacist point of view it would be a waste of time.

Obamas "flexibility" is yielding vast opportunities for radical consolidation of muslim countries under a shared radical islamist philosophy which renders many geographic borders minimally relevant.

Remember, as the lefties earth-bound messiah told us, the future must not belong to those who blaspheme the prophet of islam. And we all know that opposing radical islamist political goals is considered blasphemous to the radicals.

So expect even more western leftist support for these 7th century crazies.

James Pawlak said...

Is that anything like "The best way of stopping a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun"?

PS---IN RE JIHADII CAEDITE EOS NEVIT ENIM DOMINUS QUI SUNT ELUS

Anonymous said...

-Clintonian humanitarian intervention?

Too interventionist. Bosnia and Libya were practically acts of neo-conservative war-mongering.

-The California politics of Feinstein, Boxer and Marin County resident Nancy Pelosi?

Too mainstream. All that California debt and forward thinking is practically conservative. Insufficiently enlightened.

Let's go a few ticks Left of that into this Race Cloud here and see what happens. Hold hands, start singing and trust in him...

Gahrie said...

Thought experiment:

Imagine President Obama reallly is Barry Sotero inside, and is a secret Muslim. His goal is to weaken the United States and strengthen Islam.

What would he have done differently?

khesanh0802 said...

Wow (!) that Feinstein would be so blunt.

Schadenfreude is certainly in order, but it won't help the Kurds, or Yazidis, or Christians, or ultimately the Iraqis.

Clearly it is time to stop f**king around. I doubt that we can build up a ground force rapidly enough to have an impact in the short term. I suppose Marines could be landed from the Gulf and trucked up to Baghdad and beyond, but that's a long way and a long logistical tail. The only answer is to get serious about air support for the Kurds. It would certainly be easy enough to get some aerial observer teams on the ground to coordinate fires.

Had we maintained a military presence…yada, yada, yada … but we didn't.

I watched a couple of videos of the A-10's in action. It seems to me that they would be every infantryman's dream support weapon. Hard to believe they would be retired when asymmetrical warfare is the "war of the future". Some of us remember the need for "low and slow" air support in Viet Nam; the answer was the propeller-driven "Sky Raider" - a left over from WWII.

Once again I have to say it: I don't think Obama has the experience, the military knowledge , or the guts to do what needs to be done. I am afraid this is going to end as an even worse disaster than most of us believed possible.

Anonymous said...

Transcendental Peace Man says:

The only army that ever truly wins is the Army of Love. Gay, straight, black, white: everyone can join the Army of Love. Jews accepted on a case-by-case basis.

wendybar said...

Now Obama is crying "It wasn't my Decision pull troops from Iraq"http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/385069/obama-not-my-decision-pull-troops-out-iraq-joel-gehrke

pm317 said...

Original Mike said...

"I believe that we either confront ISIL now or we will be forced to deal with an even stronger enemy in the future."...

The next 9/11 will be on Obama's head.
-------------------

That may be but these evil monsters seem to be going for grabbing vulnerable countries which is a bigger prize than perpetrating what happened on 9/11 again. They are the next wave of Taliban on steroids in Iraq/Syria/Jordan/Lebanon/...

pm317 said...

"Jews accepted on a case-by-case basis."

If they are anti-Israel and give big money in fundraisers.

Original Mike said...

"Now Obama is crying "It wasn't my Decision pull troops from Iraq".

This guy doesn't have the character to own anything.

pm317 said...

"Now Obama is crying "It wasn't my Decision pull troops from Iraq".

And notice that he is also pointing fingers at the hapless and corrupt Iraqi government and wanting to wait for them to clean up their act before he acts.

Michael K said...

The logistical tail to do anything in Iraq is a non-issue. What I worry about is getting our troops out of Afghanistan. That will be a nightmare and it is getting closer.

All I can say is "Drill, baby, drill."

Of course, Obama will fight that.

Bobber Fleck said...

Faced with the realities of the Iraq situation, President Obama asked "when is my tee time today?"

buwaya puti said...

Feinsteins staff read the report and wrote her speech accordingly. Feinstein is known for making the right noises on occasion. But yes, her motivations are always suspicious. And they have been since she was a mayor.

buwaya puti said...

Depending on just how much capacity is currently available in our military air transport assets, given that so much of this is committed to supporting the force in Afghanistan. Depending also on overflight permissions from various countries, and availability of basing from our Gulf allies, etc. Its probably not too much of a stretch to say that, normally, as has been done in the recent past, a couple of light infantry battalions could be deployed in Kurdistan in a few days without too much trouble. The small scale of the forces involved also imply that sufficient light arms and ammunition could easily be delivered to Kurdistan.

Fen said...

ISIS is more lethal than what we have seen before because America has trained them. Not by design, but when you fight terrorists for a decade, the ones who survive learn all your moves. Thats why its unwise to dicker around - you need to destroy the enemy, not give him an 8 year class on small unit tactics and combined arms.

Anonymous said...

Transcendental Peace Man says:

If we were only to lay down our arms and kill no more, our enemies would have no choice but to love us. Put down the weapons and let Love win. Jews first on this whole laying down arms thing, of course.

Original Mike said...

The Kurds have an air base.

Anonymous said...

Transcendental Peace Man says:

Some poor souls believe that if we were to lay down our weapons the enemy would kill and torture and rape with impunity. These same people believe that Hitler actually systematically killed Jews in so-called 'concentration camps'. The Real History is out there, people.

David said...

We had an army there. No more.

The American army was and is a very effective force in combat, and would have had a very good chance to nip ISIS early if used effectively by the politicians and generals.

That opportunity is now gone, and we are confronted by a militant genocidal force that seemingly has no countervailing force to stop it. It is entirely possible that they could control most of northern Iraq, including Baghdad, within a few months. If our objective is (as Obama put it) to protect Americans AND stop genocide, it's likely going to take a lot more that we are committing right now. The current effort will protect Americans (avoiding another Benghazi) but probably not stop genocide, which is already occurring. Only the scale is in doubt.

It's a fine mess, and globally again raises the question of why anyone would trust the United States to be a reliable ally.

David said...

It's true. It was not Obama's decision to withdraw from Iraq. But it was his failed negotiation that caused it. Including his personal refusal to extend the deadline for decision. Once he had a chance to get out with a cover story of "not my fault," he grabbed it with both hands.

Anonymous said...

Transcendental Peace Man says:

When people understand that the Jews willingly killed themselves by the thousands to frame Hitler they are better apt to understand who can be trusted with Peace.

Original Mike said...

"Once he had a chance to get out with a cover story of "not my fault," he grabbed it with both hands."

Reports are he offered such a small residual force, it wasn't politically worth it to Maliki. He poisoned the negotiations and got what he wanted; an excuse.

Anonymous said...

Transcendental Peace Man says:

The Jews were transported by trains to special havens of Peace to ensure their safety, then they bit the very hand that fed them: if there was such a thing as the Holocaust surely there would be more than the fabricated evidence that is put on display. Only through telling the Truth about the Lies can we be finally Free to Embrace Peace.

pm317 said...

He is always looking for an excuse, a way out, even before he starts anything.

grackle said...

Obama, the Progressives and the anti-neocons, such as Laura Ingraham, have painted themselves into a no-win corner. They've spent the last 20 years turning public opinion against interventionism or any other kind of proactive foreign policy.

Now, when there is a pressing and obvious need to intervene in order to destroy a sizeable Caliphate already established across a huge territory encompassing large areas of 3 or 4 nations, the anti-war folks are reaping the results.

Watch, Americans, watch, Western Europe, watch while the Caliphate grows.

You may not like the Caliphate but the Caliphate likes you.

However, public opinion is fickle. The public will praise Obama for getting out of the Middle East but they'll also condemn Obama when the Middle East blows up in his face. What to do, what to do …

Gosh darn it – governing sure is hard.

St. George said...

Sounds like War for Oil to me.

Feinstein must be in Exxon's pocket.

Anonymous said...

Transcendental Peace Man says:

It is a Crazy World indeed when acknowledging Jews as the cause of all unrest in the world gets casually labeled as anti-Semitism. We can not Find Peace by hiding from the Truth.

Robert Cook said...

"There was an army. For some reason it left."

Yes, because the previous president negotiated with the Iraqis a "leave by" date for our troops. In order for us to negotiate an extension of that "leave by" date, the Iraqis required that any of our troops who broke Iraqi laws be subject to the Iraqi justice system. Obama refused to agree to this, so the Iraqis told us to leave.

Of course, none of this would be happening if Bush had never committed the war crime of invading Iraq.

William said...

ISIS is not using proportionate force in their war on the Chaldeans and Yazidis. They have therefore suffered a moral defeat. In warfare there is no loss more tragic and devastating than a moral defeat.

Robert Cook said...

"Obama, the Progressives and the anti-neocons, such as Laura Ingraham, have painted themselves into a no-win corner. They've spent the last 20 years turning public opinion against interventionism or any other kind of proactive foreign policy.

"Now, when there is a pressing and obvious need to intervene in order to destroy a sizeable Caliphate already established across a huge territory encompassing large areas of 3 or 4 nations, the anti-war folks are reaping the results."


See my previous comment: none of this would be happening if we had never "intervened," (i.e., illegally invaded) Iraq in the first place.

garage mahal said...

We should probably listen to Iraq experts like John McCain and Bill Kristol on how to move forward.

pm317 said...

Of course, none of this would be happening if Bush had never committed the war crime of invading Iraq.

That is true. But the problem that is ISIS is Obama's alone. It was his botched strategy in Libya, Syria, and his bowing to Saudis and Turkey that caused ISIS.

Skeptical Voter said...

Who knew that Senator Dianne Feinstein was a four star armchair general?

Look as a Californian I've got two senators--neither of them very likeable. They're both dotty old ladies in their late 70s or early 80's, and Boxer's original election to the Senate was an accident. But if you're a Democrat and an incumbent in California, you're the closest thing to hereditary nobility and a seat in the House of Lords.

Di Fi should stick to stuff she knows about.

Original Mike said...

ALL Presidents inherit what the last guy gave him. Most work to make things better going forward.

Lyle said...

We are lead by a weak, ignorant, stupid, and bigoted elite.

There are just way too many overly educated ignorant people running our fair country.

Robert Cook said...

The growth of ISIS and other extremist groups in general in the region have been greatly accelerated by our military interventions in the region. If we had never invaded Afghanistan or Iraq and had never initiated our ongoing campaign of drone strikes, circumstances in the region today would be far different, less unstable, and less catastrophic.

khesanh0802 said...

@ buyawa puti

I see two problems: 1. If air assets are available to move two light brigades, are there enough assets to keep them supplied?; 2. I have never been impressed with how fast the Army moves. If these brigades are currently in Afghanistan they will have a hell of a time disengaging, packing up and moving to Iraq ( and what happens to their zone in A?). If they are in the States I would guess that it will take at least a week to get them ready to move out. (We are talking Infantry and light arty at the least, right?). The Kurds need help NOW. The help they need is aboard the carrier Bush. If we can suppress the ISIL or make them retreat we will then have time to get boots on the ground.

I suspect we don't need infantry in combat right now, perhaps never. We need to supply air support and, soon, logistics. If I understand the terrain in Iraq, it lends itself much more to air war than Afghanistan.

The question is and will remain do we have the courage to do what's right?

Original Mike said...

"Yes, because the previous president negotiated with the Iraqis a "leave by" date for our troops."

This clusterfuck is the result America pulling up stakes and leaving. Let's give the President the benefit of the doubt. Let's say, though it' not true, that Obama thought it in our best interest to negotiate a SOFA. He failed.

Can you name any negotiation that this guy has succeeded at? He has never had to negogiate in his life. He doesn't know how.

khesanh0802 said...

I love Robert Cook's forecast of peace forever in the mid-east if the US had just gone away. As I recall Al Queda started as a movement against the impurity of the Saudi's approach to Islam. Bin Laden was banished from Saudi because of his activity.

As said the other day to Robert: with the same set of facts you could argue that our involvement delayed the inevitable uprising of these fundamentalist barbarians.

Anonymous said...

Transcendental Peace Man says:

When a crowd of people thousands strong can march proud in a major city like Paris or London and chant 'death to Jews' in the name of Peace we will know that the Big Lie is losing. Stay strong, People.

grackle said...

… none of this would be happening if we had never "intervened," (i.e., illegally invaded) Iraq in the first place.

The growth of ISIS and other extremist groups in general in the region have been greatly accelerated by our military interventions in the region. If we had never invaded Afghanistan or Iraq and had never initiated our ongoing campaign of drone strikes, circumstances in the region today would be far different, less unstable, and less catastrophic.


Yes, of course. Rampant Jihadism is Bush's fault. This, then, is the argument: The USA cannot give weapons to the Kurds … because … BUSH! The USA cannot stop the Caliphate because … BUSH! Those pesky Jihadists are acting up because … BUSH!

The problem I think is that no matter how you believe the world has arrived at this particular moment – the question still remains – What to do, what to do …

The answer seems to be … nothing much.

Governing is SO very difficult.

garage mahal said...

The lesson from Iraq is: don't invade Iraq. But if you do invade Iraq, stay a little bit longer than 8 years. Then everything will turn out perfect.

garage mahal said...

Let's say, though it' not true, that Obama thought it in our best interest to negotiate a SOFA. He failed.

If not reneogtiating an agreement was such a bad idea, why did Bush negotiate that agreement in the first place?

Anonymous said...

Transcendental Peace Man says:

The Nazis never baked the blood of innocent children into their crackers yet they were the bad guys: sometimes I weep for this World.

buwaya puti said...

Battalions not brigades. I'm thinking of the two battalions of the 173rd.
They are back in Italy I believe.
I don't know the state of our transport assets, as I said. We did have such capacity recently.
I have no idea if the Army is in a state, in terms of leadership or organization, to do this. But not long ago they certainly were.

traditionalguy said...

The easy solution is right there in front of our face. We need to arm and supply the Peshmerga Army of Kurdistan.

But Obama and Jarrett insist Iran's Shites have Kurdistan's oil or no one will be allowed have it.

Aiding Kurds would be like aiding the Netanyhu. That could defeat the Prophet's Sword that Obama and Jarrett have so carefully unleashed in Libya, Egypt, and Syria despite Coptic videos.

Stalemate.

Robert Cook said...

Original Mike:

Well, as to Obama negotiating a new SOFA, I'm not necessarily absolving him of anything. After all, if, after 8 years and our not having won the war in Iraq, if Obama felt we needed to stay, he could have acceded to the Iraqis' very reasonable requirement that American troops be subject to the Iraqi justice system if they broke Iraqi laws. After all, our troops shouldn't be breaking the local laws of the countries we occupy, should we?

Original Mike said...

Garage, go back and look. It was assumed that negotiations of a SOFA would continue. Iraqi stability required it. Those who doubted it (foremost among them, out President) have been proven wrong.

Original Mike said...

Right, Cook, because there's no way a competent negotiator could have gotten that changed. The guy failed. Though we all know he wanted to, so I guess he succeeded.

Robert Cook said...

"Rampant Jihadism is Bush's fault."

It's greatly America's fault. Al Qaeda was a small band of thugs who did not have much presence in the middle east. The growth of a small group of jihadis into larger and multiple groups was a reaction to our military intervention. The more people we have killed, the more others have reacted with anger and hatred and a desire for revenge against us.

Anonymous said...

Transcendental Peace Man says:

There would be no Muslim problem if we solved the Jewish problem once and for all. Do not mistake the weeds for flowers in the Garden of Peace.

m stone said...

Two sides to the story. On CBS, recently, Lindsey Graham laid the SOFA blame fully on the "Obama administration's intentional refusal to give the Iraqis a solid troop number that destroyed the deal." Plenty of corroboration.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/06/17/Senator-Graham-Obama-Administration-Lying-About-Iraq-Status-of-Forces-Agreement

Making US soldiers subject to Iraqi law was not a game changer, just a dem talking point excuse.

Bush didn't negotiate the SOFA in deference to Obama. The changing of the guard. An honorable thing to do.

Anonymous said...

Transcendental Peace Man says:

Make no mistake: I am not against all Jews. In fact, the lawyer who has defended my 'Truth about the Holocaust' website is Jewish. It is OK: he is not the 'praying' kind of Jew.

Quaestor said...

Gahrie wrote: Remember the Feinstein quote five years from now when we are fighting ISIS and the Left has revived Code Pink and is protesting the Republican White House.

You must be smoking some wicked hydroponic, Gahrie. Nobody who matters ever remembers what a Democrat says or does. That's the law. Otherwise people would remember these:

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. Than is our bottom line. -- President William Jefferson Clinton, 4 February 1998

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process. -- Representative Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi, 16 December 1998

And lots more here.

The only thing THE PEOPLE WHO MATTER remember is this: Bush lied. People died.

It's the law. Ask garage if you doubt me.

khesanh0802 said...

@ buyawa puti

Two battalions perhaps, but are they organized as a self-supporting expeditionary force? I doubt it; that's not the way the army works. Those BTN's would need arty support and "beans and bullets". Now you are talking a much larger commitment. God knows what capabilities are left in the Army with the people who have been running things for the last 6-8 years.

I'll stick with my air war scenario that has it's own "bring along" logistics and strike today.

Michael K said...

"The growth of ISIS and other extremist groups in general in the region have been greatly accelerated by our military interventions in the region. If we had never invaded Afghanistan or Iraq and had never initiated our ongoing campaign of drone strikes, circumstances in the region today would be far different, less unstable, and less catastrophic."

Says the man who believes that, if Bismarck had never unified Germany, everything would be peace and tranquility.

The left is determined to forget that 9/11 followed Clinton's feckless policy of ignoring attacks on embassies and finally on the USS Cole.

Maybe, if Reagan had not supported the jihadis in Afghanistan against the Soviets. we would have had a Soviet win in the Cold War. I expect that would be your preferred outcome.

Maybe if the Peace of Westphalia had never been negotiated in 1648 there would be no nation states and therefore no war.

Or maybe every European would have died in the 30 years war and you would be speaking Turkish.

Shall we go on with this ?

Drago said...

Im still waiting for the islamist and obama defenders to explain why obama told us Iraq was stable and the residual islamist crazies were a JV team.

I mean how could the intel be wrong? President Genius and the left told us they fixed all that.

In a minute or two Cook will be explaining how FDR was responsible for the Hitler/Stalin Pact.

Michael K said...

Then there was that SOB Charles Martel who, if he had lost the Battle of Tours, would have allowed the Muslims to rule Europe. Then there would have been no French Revolution and all the nastiness that followed.

Cookie, you could be on a roll here if you knew any history.

buwaya puti said...

The problem with making US soldiers in such a situation subject to local laws is that the local politicians then have a degree of control over US forces. In a thoroughly corrupt and politically compromised place like Iraq it will be a powerful weapon against the US, and a weapon against their domestic political opponents. And of course it will be leverage to extract payoffs from the US.
Used with malice it could easily make any US operations in the country untenable, every possible act by the US being litigated against.
A model of this was the Yangju accident in Korea, 2002, which was used as propaganda by entities affiliated with North Korea for political purposes. A local trial of the US soldiers involved would, even most Korean observers acknowledge now, have been a kangaroo court and would have whipped up local hysteria even beyond what actually happened.
The political context was of the then leftist South Korean government trying to justify continuing to make payments to the Kim regime.
And that's South Korea, a rich, stable and friendly place by any measure.

buwaya puti said...

Iirc the 173rd is so organized for independent operations, at least for a short time. They were parachuted into Kurdistan in 2003 in such a role, without land supply lines, and operated like that for a few weeks, in cooperation with the Kurds, among other things seizing Kirkuk and destroying the Ansar operation of Al Quaeda.
Of course any military force needs supplies and support, but its all relative.

Anonymous said...

Transcendental Peace Man says:

In a truly Peaceful World we would need no money, because everyone would share equally. And -- if we had no need for money -- then we would have no need for banks, or bankers. And if we didn't need bankers we certainly wouldn't need any Jews, would we? Peace is Easy when you keep your eye on the Big Picture.

Seeing Red said...

What did Barry say to the West Point graduates again?

Gahrie said...

After all, our troops shouldn't be breaking the local laws of the countries we occupy, should we?

When they are civilized societies, they are. our servicemen are subject to local laws in places like England, Germany, and Japan.

Quaestor said...

David wrote: It's true. It was not Obama's decision to withdraw from Iraq...

Then why did Obama say this: After taking office, I announced a new strategy that would end our combat mission in Iraq and remove all of our troops by the end of 2011. So today, I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year.

Someone has been lied to.

Quaestor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert Cook said...

"It's greatly America's fault. Al Qaeda was a small band of thugs who did not have much presence in the middle east. The growth of a small group of jihadis into larger and multiple groups was a reaction to our military intervention. The more people we have killed, the more others have reacted with anger and hatred and a desire for revenge against us."

I'll add to my previous comment: this is what bin Laden expected and intended. He knew we would respond to 9/11 with massive military force and he hoped this would be financially injurious to us, as it had been for the Russians in Afghanistan, and that it would inflame Muslims to take up arms. We played into his hands and gave him what he wanted.

The Crack Emcee said...

"It takes an army to defeat an army"

That's not exactly true - blacks have been beating America, army and all, for some time now.

True, we have meager weapons by comparison, and it's taking forever, but we're still winning.

Just sayin'....

Seeing Red said...

Cookies short version: the world will be at peace when the world is under Islam.

Gahrie said...

If we had never invaded Afghanistan or Iraq and had never initiated our ongoing campaign of drone strikes, circumstances in the region today would be far different, less unstable, and less catastrophic.

And oil would be $10 a gallon, terrorist attacks in the U.S. commonplace, and the Caliphate would have started in Afghanistan instead of Syria. Hussien would be slaughtering the Kuwaitis as well as his own people, and the Taliban would either be destabilizing Pakistan, or trying to extort a nuke from them.

Seeing Red said...

Again, it's really a shame we can't commune with Charles the Hammer or Vlad the Impaler. They might have some wisdom to impart.

Anonymous said...

Transcendental Peace Man says:

Elegant Design in its simplicity: then the Jews ruined the swastika for everyone.

Gahrie said...

That's not exactly true - blacks have been beating America, army and all, for some time now.


??????

Dude..your argument is tha Blacks are a beat down, oppressed minority in the United States that needs to be coddled, protected and supported by those who actually work.

Take a look around....you guys are destroying yourselves....you are literally killing your future generations, slaughtering each other in the streets, and supporting a political party that is busy replacing you physically and politcally with illegal Hispanic imiigrants.

If this is victory what would defeat look like?

Sorun said...

"The next 9/11 will be on Obama's head."

The first 9/11 is on Clinton's head, but no one cares.

Gahrie said...

this is what bin Laden expected and intended. He knew we would respond to 9/11 with massive military force and he hoped this would be financially injurious to us, as it had been for the Russians in Afghanistan, and that it would inflame Muslims to take up arms. We played into his hands and gave him what he wanted.

So how should we have responded? Because short of converting the United States to an Islamic state, there is nothing we could have done to appease (funny how that word keeps coming up when you talk about Lefty solutions to violence) Bin Laden and prevent him from continuing to attack and kill us.

buwaya puti said...

Defeat looks like a lot of things. Worst case is it looks like Tamerlane's towers of skulls, or Carthage's salted earth.
Next worst case, maybe, is all the surviving losers being driven off their land, as with the Circassians.
Other consequences vary.

Robert Cook said...

"So how should we have responded? Because short of converting the United States to an Islamic state, there is nothing we could have done to appease (funny how that word keeps coming up when you talk about Lefty solutions to violence) Bin Laden and prevent him from continuing to attack and kill us."

Well, NOT invading Iraq, for one. Withdrawing from Afghanistan when bin Laden fled the country, for another. Not killing and imprisoning people en masse, for a third. Treating the 9/11 attacks as a crime and focusing our efforts on apprehending and trying those involved, for a fourth. You get the drift: a proportionate response rather than a disproportionate response.

avwh said...

Didn't Clinton do all those proportionate response things in the first World Trade Center bombing?

That sure stopped the Islamofascists, didn't it?

Obama ought to be your hero, Cookie - he's the master ditherer and do-nothing CinC.

buwaya puti said...

911 was not a crime. A crime, as in the sorts of things addressed by the criminal justice system, is something with individual perpetrators and private consequences. The criminal justice system isn't even really a factor in maintaining public order.
It was, strategically, a demonstration of vulnerability. The damage was on a strategic level. This kind of thing cannot be ignored. To ignore it would be to permit other people to adjust their risk calculations (the geosteategic poker games) in what would be, for us, an unfortunate direction. To put it cynically, perhaps, the US had to destroy some of its more overt enemies to keep the rest acceptably fearful.

The Drill SGT said...

buwaya puti said...
Iirc the 173rd is so organized for independent operations, at least for a short time. They were parachuted into Kurdistan in 2003 in such a role, without land supply lines, and operated like that for a few weeks, in cooperation with the Kurds, among other things seizing Kirkuk and destroying the Ansar operation of Al Quaeda.
Of course any military force needs supplies and support, but its all relative.


The Erbil airport has one of the longest sets of runways in the world at nearly 16,000 feet.

for Khesanh0802, what we need is an SF ODB with attached A teams, along with a a USAF Operating Sqdrn and a couple of A-10 Sqdrns.

along with a regular delivery by C-17 of ammo and ordnance for the A-10s. We managed to supply the Kurds from 1991 to 2003, we can do it again. if we had the political will

Gahrie said...

a proportionate response rather than a disproportionate response.

Because that works so well....never. "Proportionate response" is just another form of appeasement. Time outs don't work in foriegn relations.

buwaya puti said...

A reason for publicly deploying combat troops as opposed to just secretive special forces is as a significant strategic gesture. The well publicized commitment by the US would do a lot to shore up the morale of the locals. The value of this cannot be underestimated.

Michael K said...

"Treating the 9/11 attacks as a crime and focusing our efforts on apprehending and trying those involved, for a fourth."

If Gore had won the 2000 election, I can see him still trying to present a subpoena or arrest warrant for bin Laden.

Seeing Red said...

Flip that question to our Southern Border, Cookie.

What difference, at this point, does it make?

It's a mess.

It's ok for our president, it's ok for US.

khesanh0802 said...

@ biyawa puti

Sounds feasible, but is still my second choice.

Michael K said...

"True, we have meager weapons by comparison, and it's taking forever, but we're still winning."

Well, numb nuts, I'll have to concede Chicago and Detroit. Would you settle for them or is Baltimore another goal ?

buwaya puti said...

Destroying a city and driving out its population is indeed a sign of victory, as is levying tribute from the losers, that I concede. But that is somewhat compromised by the apparent winners being obliged to live in the ruins.

Cedarford said...

The Drill SGT said...
Diane is not a complete idiot like her peer, Boxer.

It comes both from being a Mayor and a Jew.

- Mayors have to make decisions, and face the consequences.

- Jews now understand that there are bad people in the world and not confronting those people, makes matters worse.

progressivism mugged by reality

==============
Explain then why that corrupt old Jewish billionairess who got that way steering her husband defense spending graft and who was behind half the progressives appointed to the 9th Circuit isn't a problem.
A problem for the average soldier she wants to send there that will be a target because though an initial enthusiast of enhanced interrogation,
Feinstein is out clearing her name with her Leftist and Progressive Jew base by putting out the Sen. Diane Feinstein Toortuuurreeee!!! Report. (That will cost American soldier lives, not wealthy Jewish lives once retaliation starts in the ME and Afghanistan.

A very big chunk of powerful, influential Jews don't understand the priority is fighting bad folks - over the moneymaking and power opportunities they can get through Bush bashing, military bashing, all the moolah to be scooped up by the nimble and connected in war and security graft..
Or the Trotskyite Jews that saw opportunity jumping sides and becoming Neocon courtiers to the Republican Party, Karzai's Gang, the Iraqi factions - and sucking up war graft,homeland security graft (see David Chertoff) that way. Add the consulting and appearance fees back in the good old Bush Days.

Feinstein and her husband were even more blessed. The sheer weight of the power of the two of them meant they could play both sides for further power and riches.
In her way, more harmful than Boxer ever will be.
Another rich and connected Jewish wheeler dealer was Jane Harman, also playing both US political sides and on top of that, covertly aiding Israeli spies. It all got too much for even Pelosi to stomach, so she froze Harman out of the inner circle.

gk1 said...

Silly liberals. Life is way more complicated than a West Wing episode. Yet again your President Bartlett is napping on the job and some other crisis boils over. I guess you can always blame Bush, but even that excuse is no longer washing.

Gary Rosen said...

I don't think Transcendental Peace Man and C-fudd have ever been seen in the same flophouse at the same time. Still whitewashing ass-raping child molesters like Sandusky and Polanski, Fudd?

The Drill SGT said...

buwaya puti said...
A reason for publicly deploying combat troops as opposed to just secretive special forces is as a significant strategic gesture. The well publicized commitment by the US would do a lot to shore up the morale of the locals. The value of this cannot be underestimated.


satisfied as well by putting some planes on the ground based out of Erbil, while using SF rather than an Abn Bn at the MLR.

Michael K said...

Nice debate transcript from Powerline.

MR. ROMNEY: [W]ith regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should have been a status of forces agreement. Did you —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: That’s not true.

MR. ROMNEY: Oh, you didn’t — you didn’t want a status of forces agreement?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: No, but what I — what I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.

“Here’s one thing I’ve learned as commander in chief,” Obama said at the end of the exchange. “You’ve got to be clear, both to our allies and our enemies, about where you stand and what you mean. Now, you just gave a speech a few weeks ago in which you said we should still have troops in Iraq. That is not a recipe for making sure that we are taking advantage of the opportunities and meeting the challenges of the Middle East.”


The "opportunities" are multiplying as we watch.

khesanh0802 said...

@ the Drill SGT

If you're going to make that commitment why not use the ARG/MEF that's already in the Med? It is self supporting as I understand it; comes with it's own air support and limited logistics.

However committing ground troops is the last thing Obama is going to do, or if he does it it will be piece-meal and we will have a Somalia all over again.

I am really averse to putting US infantry other than specialized teams with adequate support in Iraq. I don't believe it is our place to pull everybody, everywhere's fat from the fire with our ground troops. If we use air, pilots will be exposed but nothing like using ground troops.

Lydia said...

Re Roberts Cook's "Bush did it" comment on the SOFA @12:21 p.m.:

Everyone involved, Iraqi and American, knew that the 2008 SOFA calling for full U.S. withdrawal was meant to be renegotiated. And all major parties but one (the Sadr faction) had an interest in some residual stabilizing U.S. force, like the postwar deployments in Japan, Germany and Korea. ...

U.S. commanders recommended nearly 20,000 troops, considerably fewer than our 28,500 in Korea, 40,000 in Japan and 54,000 in Germany. The president rejected those proposals, choosing instead a level of 3,000 to 5,000 troops.

A deployment so risibly small would have to expend all its energies simply protecting itself — the fate of our tragic, missionless 1982 Lebanon deployment — with no real capability to train the Iraqis, build their U.S.-equipped air force, mediate ethnic disputes (as we have successfully done, for example, between local Arabs and Kurds), operate surveillance and special-ops bases, and establish the kind of close military-to-military relations that undergird our strongest alliances.

The Obama proposal was an unmistakable signal of unseriousness. It became clear that he simply wanted out, leaving any Iraqi foolish enough to maintain a pro-American orientation exposed to Iranian influence, now unopposed and potentially lethal.

Quaestor said...

Cookie the Moron thinks 9-11 was a crime committed by criminals liable to apprehension by police measures. Furthermore he thinks police effort should be proportionate to the criminal's effort.

Jesse James: I've just robbed the Northfield bank, and am escaping at a trot.

Pinkerton agent: Thanks for the information, Mr. James. Hear that, men? No cantering.

If police measures were proportionate to the crime the courts would rarely be in session and jails would be mostly empty. (Cookie likes this. No arrests, no trials, no prisoners, no problem.)

If the Second World War were fought by proportionate measures it would still be raging now. There would be no Jews in Europe and no Israel. (Cookie is smiling now.)

If the Korean war were fought by proportionate measures my Hyundai Sonata would be an empty space in my garage. (Harder for Quaestor to get around? I'm liking myself more and more, thinks Cookie.)

If the Civil War were fought by proportionate measures the South would still be the Confederacy and Crack wouldn't be free to annoy us with his inane bitherings. (It seems proportionality has an upside, after all.)

Jupiter said...

Robert Cook said...

"It's greatly America's fault. Al Qaeda was a small band of thugs who did not have much presence in the middle east. The growth of a small group of jihadis into larger and multiple groups was a reaction to our military intervention. The more people we have killed, the more others have reacted with anger and hatred and a desire for revenge against us."


At the time the Muslim gangsters began their war on each and every one of their neighbors, the United States did not exist, and indeed the North American continent was unknown to the rest of the world.

Quaestor said...

Cookie, you may think I'm being a bully when I call you a moron. If so please forgive me. Actually I agree with your proportionality thesis. Whenever America is confronted by armed violence our forces should respond proportionately. It is the only moral course open to us provided the constant of proportionality is as near infinity as is practicable.

Quaestor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Krumhorn said...

It's greatly America's fault. Al Qaeda was a small band of thugs who did not have much presence in the middle east. The growth of a small group of jihadis into larger and multiple groups was a reaction to our military intervention. The more people we have killed, the more others have reacted with anger and hatred and a desire for revenge against us

You could fertilize forty acres with that BS. A drum circle is missing one of its members.

- Krumhorn

Robert Cook said...

"911 was not a crime. A crime, as in the sorts of things addressed by the criminal justice system, is something with individual perpetrators and private consequences. The criminal justice system isn't even really a factor in maintaining public order. "

9/11 was perpetrated by a gang of individuals, not by a state entity. Crimes do not necessarily have only private consequences.

Birkel said...

I suppose the citizens of Vienna are to blame for the current problems Muslims are facing. After all, they resisted and that's just not proportional. They could've just paid the jizya which would surely have been levied proportionally.

Query this, Robert Cook: Are forced conversions proportional to the offense of not being a Muslim?

Meanwhile, the Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928. I wonder which of the Bush progenitors is to blame for that.

Robert Cook said...

"If the Second World War were fought by proportionate measures it would still be raging now."

You don't think the allied response was proportionate?

buwaya puti said...

It was committed by a network, parts of which had intimate ties to a state (the Taliban, a de facto government). Various portions of several governments were in some degree or other in cahoots with this network.
If a crime is big enough it stops being a mere crime.

Gahrie said...

I hear Obama is going to cut ISIS's allowance in half, and make them go to bed early for a week.

Comrade Cook still thinks that's excessive.

buwaya puti said...

Most certainly the Allied response was disproportionate. If the Allies had limited themselves to strategic bombing on the scale the Nazis managed there would be much more original architecture in Germany.
Just one example.

Anonymous said...

Cook, the supposed hater of torture sure loves Saddam. He probably thinks his buddy Saddam used laughing gas on the Kurds.

Michael K said...

"9/11 was perpetrated by a gang of individuals, not by a state entity. Crimes do not necessarily have only private consequences."

So, the Taliban were innocent bystanders ?

Oh, the Humanity !

How about Ramzi Yousef? Was he another innocent? Petty criminal ?

"We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel, the state of terrorism, and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region." He later stated that he had hoped to kill 250,000 Americans to show them the exact pain they had caused to the Japanese in the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."[18]


Who is "we"?

Then, of course, there is The Bojinka Plot . Another petty crime ?

In 1994, Yousef and Khalid Sheik Mohammed started testing airport security. Yousef booked a flight between Kai Tak International Airport in Hong Kong and Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport near Taipei. Mohammed booked a flight between Ninoy Aquino International Airport near Manila and Kimpo International Airport near Seoul. The two had already converted fourteen bottles of contact lens solution into bottles containing nitroglycerin, which was readily available in the Philippines.

Another petty crime to Cookie.

Robert Cook said...

"It was committed by a network, parts of which had intimate ties to a state (the Taliban, a de facto government). Various portions of several governments were in some degree or other in cahoots with this network."

How do you know, and who were they? Why haven't we gone after them?

Quaestor said...

Cookie wrote: You don't think the allied response was proportionate?

Red Army - 13 million soldiers
US Army - 8.2 million soldiers
British & Commonwealth - 7.9 million soldiers
Raf/USAAF bombing effort - 2,770,540 tons

versus

Wehrmacht - 8.1 million soldiers
Luftwaffe bombing effort - 200,000 tons

You were say something about proportionality?

Robert Cook said...

"So, the Taliban were innocent bystanders?"

We have no information to suggest the Taliban knew of or were involved with the 9/11 plot.

Quaestor said...

Cookie wrote: You don't think the allied response was proportionate?

Let me put it this way for imbeciles who can't draw a logical conclusion from evidence: The Allied response was as disproportionate as possible, which turned out to be just enough to win.

broomhandle said...

"You don't think the allied response was proportionate?"

Clearly, Detroit is still struggling to recover from that Japanese nuke.

Quaestor said...

Cookie wrote: We have no information to suggest the Taliban knew of or were involved with the 9/11 plot.

Correction: You have no information to suggest the Taliban knew of or were involved with the 9/11 plot, because you haven't bothered to learn anything that might disrupt your illusions.

Robert Cook said...

@quaestor: And yet, the German almost succeeded in conquering the whole of Europe. The proportionality has to do with the degree of the offense and continued peril. The Germans were a great and proven danger to the western world, and had killed millions. Al queda was a far lesser threat.

Jupiter said...

Robert Cook;

"Treating the 9/11 attacks as a crime and focusing our efforts on apprehending and trying those involved, for a fourth."

The tools available to the criminal justice system, such as apprehension, trial, and imprisonment, are not much use against "criminals" who are willing to die in the course of their crimes. This is particularly true when those who recruited them, trained them and armed them are tolerated and sheltered by foreign governments.

But granting for the sake of argument, that the US and allied wars of the past decade were ill-advised, are you suggesting, Mr. Cook, that the appropriate policy, going forward, is one of disengagement? And that favorable results can be expected from that policy?

I am inclined to feel that disengagement may well be the best option, not because it will yield favorable results, but because we lack the national resolve to carry out any more effective policy.

Jupiter said...

"How do you know, and who were they? Why haven't we gone after them?"

Good questions. Because we are committed to the absurd fiction that they are our allies, and the people who do their bidding are mere criminals.

Rusty said...

Robert Cook said...
The growth of ISIS and other extremist groups in general in the region have been greatly accelerated by our military interventions in the region. If we had never invaded Afghanistan or Iraq and had never initiated our ongoing campaign of drone strikes, circumstances in the region today would be far different, less unstable, and less catastrophic.

An you know this how?

buwaya puti said...

Numerous reports including the 911 comission indicated deep ties between the Taliban and Al Quaeda.
The overthrow of the Talibs turned over the rock and revealed just how many foreign volunteers there were. Nearly all were brought in and organized by AQ. The Taliban also depended largely on Saudi/Gulf funding, part directly, part through AQ, and a lot from Pakistan, much of which also was derived from the Arabs. AQ had long term contacts and influence in the governments of Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, various Gulf states and of course Pakistan.
The Taliban also was riddled with ISI and other Pak military advisors. In one notorious case in 2001 (Kunduz incident) the US even permitted a special Pakistani evacuation of some of their compromised personnel to avoid excessive embarrassment to the Paks.
Governments and societies are not uniform units. Some parts of some governments , like that of Pakistan, are in a state of war, effectively, with other parts of the same government.

Jupiter said...

Why was Bin Laden killed, when he could easily have been captured? Because his capture might have revealed how many of our "allies" had aided, funded and sheltered him.

Robert Cook said...

"Correction: You have no information to suggest the Taliban knew of or were involved with the 9/11 plot, because you haven't bothered to learn anything that might disrupt your illusions."

If you have such information, would you please share it?

Robert Cook said...

Yes, buwaya puti, it is known that AQ have ties to the Saudis--our allies--and, of course, nearly all the hijackers were Saudis. Yet, we fight in Afghanistan for...what reason, exactly?

Seeing Red said...

Not a state entity? ISIS seems to be putting a state together, they just call it by something different.

Robert Cook said...

"But granting for the sake of argument, that the US and allied wars of the past decade were ill-advised, are you suggesting, Mr. Cook, that the appropriate policy, going forward, is one of disengagement? And that favorable results can be expected from that policy?"

A fair question and my answer is: I don't know.

By our own actions we have created a peril that may be too dangerous for us to ignore...yet, given the failure of our military presence over these past years to achieve victory--as, what are we really fighting for?--I cannot see why or why we will succeed going forward.

Original Mike said...

The Taiiban sheltered AQ. That's indisputable and it's enough.

Jupiter said...

"By our own actions we have created a peril that may be too dangerous for us to ignore.."

You mean a few petty criminals? Why can't we just lock 'em up?

Birkel said...

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928.

Given that The Muslim Brotherhood is the ideological forebear of these groups, I will leave it to Robert Cook to explain how the United States was responsible.

Please show the timeline.

buwaya puti said...

Taliban-AQ links were blatant and obvious. The material is so extensive that it seems absurd to respond. A quick read even of the Wiki on either should satisfy anyone. They are both very well sourced.

buwaya puti said...

Because that's where AQ were, and because both the Saudis and the Paks were too inconvenient to invade. The Taliban was weak and an easy target. If you didn't like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan you really would not like wars in Saudi an Pakistan. Both were also satisfactorily groveling to the US at the time, the moment they realized just how far their creatures had strayed. The Talibs made the mistake of not groveling. Both also have factionalized governments where one part has no control of the other.

richard mcenroe said...

"Di Fi should stick to stuff she knows about."

giving no-bid government contracts to relatives and stealing land from the veterans for her backers?

Drago said...

To the Robert Cooks of the world, there is no global issue/problem that was not caused by the US.

I doesn't matter what the truth is to them.

It is simply the default modern leftist political position.

grackle said...

It's greatly America's fault.

Yes, indeed. It's ALWAYS America's fault. Mention any nefarious band of murderers, name any deed of obvious perfidy, refer to any bloody despot and someone will come along and hotly declare them to be America's fault.

Predictable, ubiquitous boiler plate, handed down from the original communist propaganda point, to socialist to present day progressive. So pervasive that it's simply an unspoken assumption in lefty circles, so common that it's almost become woven into the conventional wisdom. Lovingly resurrected by each new generation of America-despising utopians.

So paradoxical: Public opinion doesn't want boots on the ground but the voters get quite nervous and grumpy when they occasionally notice the current mess in the Middle East. How does a President possibly manage this vexing paradox?

Well, you got a choice: You can either sell the boots or you can sell the mess. Obama's trying to sell the mess.

Michael K said...

There is now a coup going on in Baghdad. It won't help.

Maybe Cookie can explain all this to us.

Original Mike said...

"Maybe Cookie can explain all this to us."

The naive Mr. Cook? I don't think so.

Robert Cook said...

"To the Robert Cooks of the world, there is no global issue/problem that was not caused by the US."

Patent nonsense, of course. However, when we intrude upon and interfere with situations in other parts of the world, we do generally fuck things up, make them worse.

Virtually all of the disastrous consequences of our illegal invasion of Iraq were predicted, yet we did not care. When General Shinseki told Congress how many troops would be required to successfully pacify Iraq after ousting its government, he was sacked, as the powers that be did not want the the American people to understand how much an investment of money, men and material was really required, for fear we would say "NO!"

(Of course, Dick Cheney had listed some of the reasons we shouldn't have invaded Iraq after Desert Storm, when asked why we didn't proceed to Baghdad and remove Saddam from power. This leads one to believe Cheney knew what would happen consequent to our invasion in 2003, but didn't care, or worse, wanted to create a long-term disaster zone, the better to justify our maintaining a military and corporate presence in the region, the better to fatten the bottom lines of the various corporations whose business is profiting from death and destruction.)

Robert Cook said...

"You mean a few petty criminals? Why can't we just lock 'em up?"

Those few criminals of a dozen years ago have grown, in response to our military presence and actions in the region, into a larger problem. When you invade someone's country and start treating the citizens like vermin, you tend to make the people mad at you. Those who seek to seek to impose their extremist ideology by violent means play upon the angry resentment of citizens who have had family members harmed or killed to draw new recruits to their cause.

Fen said...

Cook: "a proportionate response rather than a disproportionate response."

Gahrie:

Yup, and as I mentioned upthread - your enemy is learning all your moves while you fight him. If you don't destroy him, he only learns to fight smarter and harder.

As for Cook, his bullshit is obvious even to him, that's why he had to throw the "illegal war" cannard in there, to distract from the weakness of his own argument.

Pretty much, anything Cook advocates is wrong. Listen to him and do the opposite.

As for the SOFA, the inside word is that Obama didn't want it and sabotaged negotiations from day one. And now we are going back to Iraq for a THIRD time. What a putz.

Birkel said...

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928.
What, pray tell, did the United States do to cause that terrorist organization to form 86 years ago?

What did the U.S. do to cause the siege of Vienna?
The conquest of Spain?

Robert Cook said...

"As for the SOFA, the inside word is that Obama didn't want it and sabotaged negotiations from day one."

And where do you get this "inside word?" How do you know it is not simply rumor?

"As for Cook, his bullshit is obvious even to him, that's why he had to throw the "illegal war" cannard in there, to distract from the weakness of his own argument."

Not a canard, just fact, (to paraphrase Walter Brennan from THE GUNS OF WILL SONNETT.)

Birkel said...

Robert Cook:

Please explain to me what a "legal war" would be. How would it start? How would it end?

Give three examples from history.

Thanks in advance.

Rusty said...

Robert Cook said...
"As for the SOFA, the inside word is that Obama didn't want it and sabotaged negotiations from day one."

And where do you get this "inside word?" How do you know it is not simply rumor?

Not a canard, just fact, (to paraphrase Walter Brennan from THE GUNS OF WILL SONNETT.)

Something else you seem unclear on the meaning thereof.
But it isn't surprising you base your rather variable moral stance on television westerns.


The same place you got this;
Robert Cook said...
The growth of ISIS and other extremist groups in general in the region have been greatly accelerated by our military interventions in the region. If we had never invaded Afghanistan or Iraq and had never initiated our ongoing campaign of drone strikes, circumstances in the region today would be far different, less unstable, and less catastrophic.

Robert Cook said...

"Please explain to me what a 'legal war' would be."

Since the formation of the United Nations, (and also following the Nuremberg Standards and the Geneva Conventions), a "legal war" (for members of the UN, signatories to the UN Charter) would be one where the UN Security Council, by majority vote, approves a member nation taking up arms against another nation, or, where a nation must go to war to defend itself against an immediately imminent or already initiated attack by another country.

Any aggressive war--that is, a nation initiating (or even threatening) war against another--is illegal. (You can certainly see where the example of Nazi Germany was used as a basis for such codification.)

And, to agree with you to a great degree: yes, most wars throughout history can be said to have been illegal, terrible crimes whose intent in most cases was the attainment of power over others and/or the theft of land and resources from others.

That illegal war is the rule and not the exception does not make our illegal wars any less despicable or criminal, especially as we preen and flatter ourselves that we are the "exceptional" country, the acme of national virtue, that we are the supreme good guys not just in the world today but in all recorded history.