There are however, two stories that I want to touch on, and they don't include the Democratic nomination race.
First, Australia is pulling out of Iraq.
SYDNEY, Australia (AP) - Australia, a staunch U.S. ally and one of the first countries to commit troops to the Iraq war five years ago, ended combat operations there Sunday, a Defense Department official said.
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was swept into office in November largely on the promise that he would bring home the country's 550 combat troops by the middle of 2008.
Rudd has said the Iraq deployment has made Australia more of a target for terrorism.
The combat troops are expected to return home over the next few weeks. Local media reports said the first of the soldiers had already landed in Australia on Sunday afternoon.
One of Bush's strongest foreign allies, Howard, was defeated in an election last November by Kevin Rudd. Howard was one of several Bush allies thrown out of office over the past few years, which is merely proof to the wingnuts that the entire planet now has BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome).
Australia is bringing home her combat troops, however:
Several hundred other troops will remain in Iraq to act as security and headquarters liaisons and to guard diplomats. Australia will also leave behind two maritime surveillance aircraft and a warship to help patrol oil platforms in the Gulf.
Second, Bush gave another of his tedious speeches in which he repeated pretty much everything he's said a million times before. As usual, it was made to an essentially captive audience that was not allowed to express themselves. The "twist", such as it is, is that now Bush is saying that Iraq and Afghanistan are like WW2.
During a speech held at the graduating ceremony of the Air Force Academy cadets, U.S. President George W. Bush said the war waged by America in Iraq and Afghanistan is a “great struggle” and compared it with World War II, The New York Times reported.
Considering the fact that the WW II was regarded by many world leaders, military chiefs and historians as “the war of all wars” or “the war to end all wars” – let’s hope they were right at least on the first one – Bush’s assertion is in a very strong contrast with another one in which he said the U.S. military wasn’t exactly prepared for the aftermath of the first stages of the war.
...
The strategy of United States’ current enemies is to cause it to lose nerve and “retreat before the job is done”, said the President. He exemplified the situation using the experiences of Germany and Japan, which were defeated by the U.S. in WW II only to later become democratic states and allies.
This has been the primary neocon knee-jerk reflex.
Iraq and Afghanistan are counter-insurgency campaigns that are as different from WW2 as can be. There is no "terrorist capital" to overtake. There is no bunker headquarters to storm. The terrorists do not control territory as the Axis forces did, nor do they have air, naval, or armoured divisions. They do not have an industrial or economic infrastructure that can be bombed. The terrorists do not have the ability to conscript an army. In fact, their entire "command structure" is non-existent to the point of being what we termed "irregulars" in WW2.
WW2 was a completely conventional war. The Global War On Terror is much closer to a law enforcement effort (like the War On Drugs) than a conventional military conflict. But you don't get jingoistic cheer leading for law enforcement efforts like you do when you conflate something with a conventional war. It's like saying that the Highway Patrol is engaged in a 'war' on speeders. Yeah, our "boys" are moving in on the Speeders' capital city, breaking through the trenches with our tanks. Once we capture the head of the Speeders Army, we will finally be free of the terrible threat from these lunatics that want to threaten our families and destroy our way of life. Doncha wanna win?
Ironically, what Iraq has proven is that a few hundred "irregulars" can get the U.S. to squander a trillion dollars, more than 4000 lives, our civil rights and our alliances in some misguided foreign adventure. Their goal has been achieved, and it never was to cause us to lose our nerve or retreat before the job is done. There is no fixed, finite number of "terrorists" like there was a fixed number of Germans or Japanese.
We are 'fighting' a tactic, not a nation.
How is that like WW2?
2 comments:
This is going to dwarf WW2 and the great depression combined and ity is just beginning. Funny, I included Australia pulling its combat troops out as they said because they succeeded in their task with all of the other supposed successes Bush, the CIA, and the UN all of a sudden see compared to the Intelligence officials Bush is ignoring once again who call Iraq and the so called war on terror and Al Qaeda a total failure!
It failed on day one but in the failure bush will call success and leave his successor to be blamed for screwing up bush's success and have to deal with it!
As usual, it was made to an essentially captive audience that was not allowed to express themselves.
If you think the military on the whole does not support their President, you are mistaken, and therefore attempts to characterize them as some poor captive audience that would surely speak up if they could are misguided.
Considering the fact that the WW II was regarded by many world leaders, military chiefs and historians as “the war of all wars” or “the war to end all wars”
The "war to end all wars" was WWI, not WWII.
Iraq and Afghanistan are counter-insurgency campaigns that are as different from WW2 as can be.
Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan began as counter-insurgency campaigns. They became so after the military defeat and overthrow of the respective governments. Of historical note however is that a not overly successful counter-insurgency was waged by German dead-enders (notably Werwolf and Edelweiss Piraten) after the surrender of the German government in WW2.
More importantly though was that Bush's references to post-WW2 Germany and Japan have been in the context of rebuilding totalitarian regimes into functioning democratic allies.
The terrorists do not control territory
Incorrect. Taliban, and AQI until we chased them out of their strongholds, sweep into areas that are not under allied control and institute harsh Sharia-based control over the locals. They tax these locals and use intimidation and fear to gain access to aid and resources. Therefore, they make every attempt to control land. More obviously, Waziristan and other Pakistan territories are under control of Taliban militants.
The terrorists do not have the ability to conscript an army
Impoverished families in tribal areas of Pakistan send their children to Taliban-run madrasas so that these children can receive food, shelter, and some very limited form of education. These madrasas are in turn used to inject the children with the Taliban philosophy and ensure a constant stream of recruits. This is effectively conscription.
WW2 was a completely conventional war.
Another untrue statement. Insurgent and partisan groups were quite active during WW2. The French Resistance and Russian Jewish Partisans were two of the more noteworthy groups, but pretty much any German occupied area has similar groups.
The Global War On Terror is much closer to a law enforcement effort
I'm not sure how you can factually support such a statement. There are several aspects to the GWOT. Some of these aspects include law enforcement actions, many obviously include military actions, and some involve other use of government force such as economic and diplomatic actions.
There is no fixed, finite number of "terrorists" like there was a fixed number of Germans or Japanese.
That's an interesting statement. Perhaps you should clarify, since there are in fact a finite number of people claiming affiliation with terrorist organizations, just as there were a finite number of people having affiliation with the Japanese and German military.
We are 'fighting' a tactic, not a nation
Actually we are fighting an ideology. In any case, terrorism is not a tactic. A tactic may be defined as a conceptual action used to implement a specific mission and achieve a specific objective, or to advance toward a specific short-term goal. So for example, using a road-side bombs to interrupt allied military traffic is a tactic.
Terrorism is a strategy, which means a way of achieving some long term goal. Terrorism is used as a strategy to attempt to achieve some long-term political goal.
That said, when we talk about the GWOT, the term is imprecise. More precisely we would call it the Global War on Islamofascist Ideologues or something like that, but such a term is obviously a political liability. The bottom line though is that we are at war with against those who hold a particular violent Islamic ideology that has already declared war against us.
How is that like WW2?
Since I don't believe Bush ever claimed it was like WW2, it isn't. As I stated earlier, he was comparing the post-war situations of Germany and Japan with what he hopes will be the outcome for Iraq. And since we are quite obviously winning there currently (nobody could seriously claim otherwise), there is no reason not to hope for such an eventual outcome.
Post a Comment