Quote:
|
Originally Posted by headsplice
None of which answers my question.
There are serious consequences for what the United States government, as a whole (including the Democrats that voted for war) has done. We have, literally, done exactly what al-Qaeda has told the Islamic world do. That is, invade a sovereign Middle Eastern nation under a pretext (and the Downing Street Memo is just more of a growing body of circumstantial evidence that the reasons given for invading Iraq were all bullshit) to secure a supply of oil.
|
You have gotten far closer to the truth than some of your replies. They need step back and see the big picture. Point one is a group called Muslim Brotherhood whose existence dates back to the 1400s. Their enemies are secular Arabic governments. They victims include Sadat of Egypt. They tried to take out Hussein of Jordan and nearly took out Assad of Syria. One of their great enemies was Saddam of Iraq.
One branch of the Muslim Brotherhood is Al Qaeda. But to confuse the issues, many (including some here) have even denied the existence of the Muslim Brotherhood - so as to put a single face to the enemy. That propaganda enemy is called Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda did this and that and ... wait? Who attacked the WTC in 1993? Another branch of ... the Muslim Brotherhood. Not Al Qaeda. Why did we suddenly become the enemy of so many branches in the Muslim Brotherhood?
Now we introduce another concept. What is the purpose of war? To return a conflict to the negotiation table. The most stupendous military victory can be lost if the political side does not plan for the peace. It is why war is fought with a strategic objective. It is why plans for the 'peace' settlement are made often before the first major battles are even fought. Informed political leaders are taught the lessons of history - including the most simple of facts from Sze Tsu's 500 BC book "Art of War". An informed neocon administration would have clearly understood that the police and army are never disbanded. But that is the difference between those who learn from history verses extremists who want to fix history with a political agenda.
When FDR and Churchill planned WWII, they established up front the strategic objective: unconditional surrender. If you don't appreciate why that simple phrase was so divisive to what the world would become, then you have not yet learned from history. Many meetings even at the highest levels were conducted to plan for the peace including Yalta, Tehran, etc. Therefore WWII was a victory because political types prepared for and executed an unconditional surrender.
How to not fight a war - no strategic objective - was Vietnam. The war was created on lies - no smoking gun. It had no strategic objective. It had no objectives from which political types could plan for the peace. Same is true in Somalia.
[To be continued in a next post]