Is this fintstone...?
 

An interesting evaluation on certain underlying issues with modern warfare and the welfare/warfare state.

Quote:

On Recent Wars by Fred Reed People ask how we got into our splendid mess in Iraq and why we can't get out. The question is a subset of a larger question: Why, since WWII, have so many first-world armies gotten into drawn-out guerrilla wars in bush-world countries, and lost? Examples abound: France in Vietnam, America in Vietnam, France in Algeria, Russia in Afghanistan, Israel in Lebanon, etc. Why don't they learn? The answer I think is that militaries are influenced by a kind of man call him the Warrior who by nature is unsuited for modern wars. He doesn't understand them, can't adapt to them. The Warrior is emotionally suited to pitched, Pattonesque battles of moral clarity and simple intent. I don't mean that he is stupid. Among fighter pilots and in the Special Forces for example it is not uncommon to find men with IQs of 145. Yet emotionally the Warrior has the uncomplicated instincts of a pit bull. Intensely loyal to friends and intensely hostile to the enemy, he doesn't want any confusion as to which is which. His tolerance for ambiguity is very low. He wants to close with the enemy and destroy him. This works in wars like WWII. (Note that the American military is an advanced version of the military that beat Germany and Japan.) It does not work when winning requires the support of the population. The Warrior, unable to see things through the eyes of the enemy, or of the local population, whom he quickly comes to hate, wants to blow hell out of things. He detests all that therapeutic crap, that touchy-feely leftist stuff about respecting the population, especially the women. Having the empathy of an engine block, he regards mention of mutilated children as intensely annoying at best, and communist propaganda at worst. On the net these men sometimes speak approvingly to each other of the massacre at My Lai. Hey, they were all Cong. If they weren’t, they knew who the Cong were and didn’t tell us. Calley did the right thing, taught them a lesson. There is an admiration of Calley for having avoided bureaucratic rules of engagement probably dreamed up by civilians. War is war. You kill people. Deal with it. If you point out that collateral damage (dead children, for example) makes the survivors into murderously angry Viet Cong, the Warrior thinks that you are a lefty tree-hugger. http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed96.html

Fred Reed is a Vietnam combat veteran, and had the unique distinction to have returned to Vietnam later as a reporter. He is author of Nekkid in Austin: Drop Your Inner Child Down a Well.

ahhhhhhhhhhh shaddduppppppp


commie in drag (that is about the only philosophy you help)

Re: Is this fintstone...?
 

And your point is what Pat. Oh great mighty teacher :rolleyes:

BTW, you believe this you are truely an idiot.

Well, there are a few folks that appear to fit the mold here. :) Our current cadre of civilian leaders over the military are less prepared for warfare that doesn't involve repelling an invading force. Fighting the enemy on his home turf requires more careful planning and a greater level of comittment than they are prepared to undertake.

pat:

"Judge not, lest ye be judged..."

Shucks..that's already happened!!

Some posters here are selective in their hatred....others hate anything that does not fit their myopic little world...

You shuddup too.






















:D

True, and I might add: many appear not to own mirrors.

mul....Too close to the truth?

mul: selective in his anger; pat: more universal in his.

Cheers, guys!!!!

Without you this would be a dull world indeed!!

<G>

mul: rational in his anger; pat: more rubber room in his.

There's no anger here, I'm having too much fun.:D

The military is controlled by civilians...the warrior, in our Republic, has never started a war.

Fred Reeds jarring mistake is his reliance on what he KNEW, not the present. The amount of work that goes into trying to ensure minimal collateral damage/death is astounding. Mr. Reed should do his homework...his continued references to Vietnam are telling, and only serve to highlight his failings as a combatant and reporter.

Why is it that when Iraqis vote and to try and establish a form of government, at great risk to themselves, with all of the pitfalls we in this country experienced, that 'Nam is somehow a bellweather?

Why is it that when Iraqis vote and to try and establish a form of government, at great risk to themselves, with all of the pitfalls we in this country experienced, that 'Nam is somehow a bellweather? [/QUOTE]

try and establish a form of government - what exactly does that mean?

Why is it that we - the American taxpayers - should be on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars so that Iraqi's can vote for their favorite local warlord/imam?

Why did we take out the one stable secular government in the region and give the theocrats a fresh start?

You've asked a question and provided an answer for it in one sentence.

As an additional answer, I'll have to state that invading a country in order to provide it a different government is unlawful. unethical, and immoral.

I agree...the rub is that we are there, and what we make of the mess we created has far more import than petty bickering. The stakes are that high.

I promise no insight having been there, other than the fact that the vast majority of Iraqis want what we have, free of oppression.

My point was that the 'Nam reference is tired, very tired.

The first task must be to round up the idiots that made the mess, and prevent them from making another (ie Iran). The stakes are that high.

it should be easy to round them up too. just attend the Presidential Award ceremonies...look for the guys getting the highest medals this country has to offer...that would be a good start.

Some of what is written in that piece is loosely mentioned in this other piece by Fred.

http://www.fredoneverything.net/SoldiersAndPress.shtml

And in others as well. For those not familiar with Fred, he isn't a communist or tree hugger. Far from it. Just a guy who detests feminists, lawyers, taxes, expensive wars, government handouts, liberals, affirmative action, political correctness and last but not least, religious nationalist conservatives who get in the way of pure capitalism. Just the usual sort of bull***** that can rob a country of anything worthwhile. An equal oportunity criticizer. The type of person this forum lacks since there are so many "team players" in here. Makes for one hell of a writer.

Ed, the Press and the Military are fighting for the same thing at the 30,000 level: Freedom.

but when you get down to 10,000 feet:

the Press is fighting for freedom from Government for the People

the Military is fighting for freedom for the Government for the People

It's an interesting dynamic.

Quote:

Why is it that when Iraqis vote and to try and establish a form of government, at great risk to themselves, with all of the pitfalls we in this country experienced, that 'Nam is somehow a bellweather?

If you believe it's about forming a new government and voting, then yes, the Nam is the bellwether.

Why do people in here actually pretend to believe that they actually know what is going on in the world, Do any of you have first hand experience in a war? or are you just forming opinions from your media experiences. Just a question.

PS fatpat have you ever left south carolina?