At War

[Art Eatman]

"Not involved in the Philippines, Indonesia, or Africa?? Don't we still have a major base in the Phillipines?"

No. Look up "Mount Pinatubo". The volcano that ate Clark AFB. And they voted us out of Subic Bay. We have a small "advisors" military presence that's involved in training.

"Indonesia and most of Africa have both had significant US backed international interventions, military and financial."

US-backed, as in "UN" is not remotely like a "US intervention".

"I don't believe the Jihadists have even said it's about world domination..."

Been so reported as quotes in various major media.

If you'll look at various statements made in Canada, Denmark, England and France, you'll find calls for those countries allowing Moslems to impose Sharia in their neighborhoods. During the riots in France and in Denmark, the French and Danish police were told by Moslems, "You can't come in here; this is our land."

It is correct that Jihadists don't want Infidels in their lands, but that's not the be-all and end-all of their stated aims.

Lobotomy Boy, I can agree with some aspects of what the general said. I can only note, however, that his

"Withdrawal would undermine U.S. credibility in the world. (The general then said): Were the United States a middling power, this case might hold some water. But for the world’s only superpower, it’s patently phony. A rapid reversal of our present course in Iraq would improve U.S. credibility around the world."

is doubful as to being correct. It doesn't hold water in light of what Cold War moves were made by USSR and China after our exit from Vietnam. They were encouraged by what was perceived as a lack of will on the part of the U.S. In that, they were of course correct.

It's not about having the power. It's about having the will to stay the course when using the power. Ask those who once were known as South Vienamese; ask the Kurds.

Art

 

[shootinstudent]

No. Look up "Mount Pinatubo". The volcano that ate Clark AFB. And they voted us out of Subic Bay. We have a small "advisors" military presence that's involved in training.

I do remember that now that you mention it. I guess that explains why almost all of them speak english. I think that's pretty comparable to the involvement in the middle east.

Been so reported as quotes in various major media.

If you'll look at various statements made in Canada, Denmark, England and France, you'll find calls for those countries allowing Moslems to impose Sharia in their neighborhoods. During the riots in France and in Denmark, the French and Danish police were told by Moslems, "You can't come in here; this is our land."

Yeah, and the Crips in LA claim that there are neighborhoods that belong to them too. There's a difference between thugs wanting to control their own neighborhoods and terrorists wanting to control the entire world. I've still seen no evidence whatsoever that the Jihadists want to expand beyond their "consecrated ground" in the middle east.

It is correct that Jihadists don't want Infidels in their lands, but that's not the be-all and end-all of their stated aims.

Maybe so, but it certainly would explain why Indonesians, Filipinos, and Malay tribesmen aren't lining up to come to the West and commit terrorist acts, nor making any substantial effort to attack US interests in the region. It makes sense to me; their cause is not really related to the cause of some gang of Arabs in Iraq.

There can always be more than stated aims, but as long as that something more remains unspoken, we won't know what it is. For now, I'll take them at their words and deeds: they want to turn their own countries into oppressive fascist style religious states.


What this means to me, getting back to the subject of war, is that there is no "war on terror" in the same way there was a war on Germany and Japan. The reasons for these conflicts are as diverse as the terrain and languages between them, and if imagine it's all part of the same movement, I think we're more likely to make mistakes in any single action...

Like, for example, attacking countries that were previously enemies of the religious radicals, instead of attacking the financial backers of the radical arab groups.

 

[Sam Adams]

shootinstudent

Can someone pleaes make clear what exactly this "clash of civilizations" is that we're fighting over again?

Read http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message.htm It is a short piece of "What if?" historical fiction written by Dan Simmons (author of "Hyperion"). No, it isn't history, but it illustrates why we need to take this thing very seriously, to act as if we are fighting all of Moslem civilization.

 

[BIGJACK]

War of liberation??? boy thats a joke.

GWB and company started this war for two reasons and two reasons only,

1. To improve his chances of being re-elected, and that just barely worked-won by less than 3% of the vote.

2. To insure that his buddies in the oil business got their pockets well lined befoe he left office. That has worked well.

Claiming the liberation of those people is almost as isonine as shouting "mission accomplished." Ther are few in that country that would not rather we had never shown up.

Its rediculous to say that the war is the cause of the situation with the oil industry. There was no similiar situation during the Korean or Viet Nam wars, both of which had many times more troops involved.

 

[Art Eatman]

shootinstudent, I can't accept your Crips/Bloods analogy. France has an Algerian moslem infux to some 20% of its population. A map showing the locations of riots indicated a nationwide scattering of trouble spots, in no way isolated to one or two small areas.

I suggest that the very small number of US military personnel in the Philippines in no way compares to our presence in the middle east. SFAIK, it's well under 1,000. (I won't declare that as an absolute fact, though.)

FWIW, there are three main language groups in the P.I.: Ilocano in northern Luzon, Tagalog in southern Luzon, and Visayan in the south. There are also some 600 localized dialects. English is pretty much a lingua franca throughout the islands.

"Maybe so, but it certainly would explain why Indonesians, Filipinos, and Malay tribesmen aren't lining up to come to the West and commit terrorist acts, nor making any substantial effort to attack US interests in the region. It makes sense to me; their cause is not really related to the cause of some gang of Arabs in Iraq."

I see that as pretty much a non sequitur. It is known that there are Al Qaida linkages among the Islamics in those countries. There was one plot broken up involving a Filipino, an airplane and an idea about causing trouble in the U.S. About three years ago, per a vague memory. The cause is not tied directly to Iraq, true--but it's part of the overall "Grand Scheme" envisioned by Al Qaida. Again, they have themselves said this in public announcements.

I've said nothing in any thread here that's not based on publicly available news over the last several years...

"What this means to me, getting back to the subject of war, is that there is no "war on terror" in the same way there was a war on Germany and Japan."

Very, very true. Therein lies the problem. With the commonly-accepted nation-state conflict as the only definition of "war", people are not taking it seriously. Based on what I've been reading over the last 4.5 years and re-reading about events since around 1979, it seems to me that folks darned well should be taking it seriously.

AS far as efforts to deal with the financial backers, that's going on even as we post.

Art

 

[gc70]

by Lobotomy Boy:
But right or wrong, once the decision to go to war was made, we should have followed the Powell Doctrine and went in with overwhelming force, rather than trying to do it on the cheap, as advocated by Rumsfeld.

Cheap shot...

Conquest:
US troops conquered the most militarily powerful country in the Middle East in 26 days. How much more "overwhelming" should a force have been?

Pacification:
If 140,000-165,000 troops aren't enough, how many are needed? Unless you propose giving each Iraqi a personal monitor, more troops "playing nice" aren't the answer.

 

[Art Eatman]

gc, lemme weasel a bit with "It seems", okay?

It looks like the larger number of troops that were requested by the Pentagon would have been useful in additional "sitting on" those who are now shooting at us and at opposition Iraqis. They would have been very useful in protecting the Syrian and Iranian borders against the inflow of Jihadists. IOW, better early controls to obviate the present mess.

They obviously weren't needed in the warfare phase of the operation.

Now, whether or not these extra troops could have accomplished what I've described above, I don't know...

Art

 

[gc70]

Art,

Granted, having more troops initially would have allowed more "sitting on." At best, that would only have slowed or delayed outside infiltration and local insurgents getting organized.

The Powell Doctrine was/is about using overwhelming force in battlefield situations; there is no Powell Occcupation Doctrine.

I read lots of complaints that Rumsfield didn't allow the generals to have as many troops as they wanted. I only wonder how the generals would have used the extra troops in different and more effective ways as an occupation force. More of what is being done now does not seem like it would make much, if any, difference.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I do remember that now that you mention it. I guess that explains why almost all of them speak english. I think that's pretty comparable to the involvement in the middle east.

FWIW, there are three main language groups in the P.I.: Ilocano in northern Luzon, Tagalog in southern Luzon, and Visayan in the south. There are also some 600 localized dialects. English is pretty much a lingua franca throughout the islands.

In Our Image: America's Empire in the Philippines (1990) by Stanley Karnow is a strong primer for anyone interested in a deep dive into the foundational elements of today's "insurgent activities" in the Philippines; an excerpt from a review by Publishers Weekly provides a teaser/hint on how they're similar to (i.e., 1% controls 90% of the wealth) and distinctive (i.e., LONG history of occupation not by military advisors but Catholic friars & other Christian missionaries) from their middle eastern counterparts:

Though Karnow claims that U.S. imperialism in its former colony, the Philippines, has been "uniquely benign" compared to European colonialism, the evidence set forth in this colorful, briskly readable history undercuts that prognosis. He shows that a succession of U.S. presidents and administrators coddled the archipelago's 60 or so ruling families, perpetuating the feudal oligarchy that continues to this day, and widening the gap between rich and poor. Karnow, whose Vietnam: A History is a standard account of the American venture in Southeast Asia, draws intriguing parallels: the U.S.-Philippine war of 1898, much like the Vietnam experience, dehumanized U.S. troops, who looted and annihilated villages; ex-President Marcos, like South Vietnamese ruler Diem, presented Washington with the problem of how to deal with a client state that squandered its credibility.

 

[jmf]

White Guilt

When I started this thread,

If you have been wondering why strong leadership in our government seems to have dried up, the following, from the Wall Street Opinion Journal, has it nailed. This is something that those of us at retirement age, "knew," but couldn't express quite as well as the author below. I copied and pasted this essay without adding or subtracting anything.

I really had in mind the weak leadership in relation to the Mexican Invasion of our country. One of the advocates of illegal aliens is trying to get the term, "illegal alien", classified as a racial slur. This fellow understands about white guilt.

Let us understand that millions of Mexicans crossing the border and entering our country and then marching in major cities en masse while waving Mexican flags, is an invasion. Weak leadership in this country has done nothing at all to repel this invasion. In fact, some pychotic senators have even made translator relayed speeches before the invaders welcoming them. Others have said-read whined-that it would be too hard to round all these "hard working, people who are only doing what Americans don't want to do." The implication is that anyone who opposes illegal immigration is a racist-bigot, which works on White Guilt.

This influences a part of the population in this country and nearly ALL of the so called leaders in the congress and senate. The reason they won't do anything about securing the border and deporting illegal aliens is that they are more afraid of being called racist than they are of seeing our country overrun with millions of invaders. It's as simple as that.

 

[Maggoty]

Wait a minute? who said the war was ever over?

When they told us the president landed on an aircraft carrier and declared the war over, we laughed and someone asked, "did anyone tell the Iraqis?" then we went back to shooting.

The war is still going on, the only difference is. the dissolving of the Iraqi army allowed those who did not want to fight us to stop. those who wished to continue are still killing American troops.

 

[Art Eatman]

"...they are more afraid of being called racist than they are of seeing our country overrun with millions of invaders."

Whether or not one agrees with the word "invaders", the description of the behavior is accurate.

Semper Fidelis, where I'd argue with the reviewer of Karnow's work is that any ruling group works with power structures, whomever they may be. They have no choice. Question: Whom else to deal with besides those who represent or control large blocs of people in an area?

Our working with the "sixty or so ruling families" in the PI is no different than our dealings with, e.g., the one ruling family in Saudi Arabia.

In the 1950s, my mother worked for the USOM-FOA, if you know the parents of that organization , with President Magsaysay's efforts at land reform. It was after his death and the ascension of Marcos that our relationship with Marcos led to today's less amicable status.

Back to the thread's topic: Once it was figured out that Liberal Guilt allowed a psychological manipulation of a high percentage of our power structure in order to gain political power and money, it was only a matter of time until this concept of White Guilt became a useful tool in a broader sense.

Art

 

[Otherguy Overby]

Seems the thread passed this by:

Art Eatman

What we call "civilization" is shaped or formed by economic activity. It shapes the social structure of a society. When a lack of economic activity on a world scale is coupled with a militant religion, you then have an "other" sort of civilization, rather than our more familiar western style.

Art

It's hard to start a revolution when everyone has jobs. When they don't...

Regardless, there are amongst us who wish to embrace this "diversity."

 

[Otherguy Overby]

shootinstudent

Yeah, and the Crips in LA claim that there are neighborhoods that belong to them too. There's a difference between thugs wanting to control their own neighborhoods and terrorists wanting to control the entire world. I've still seen no evidence whatsoever that the Jihadists want to expand beyond their "consecrated ground" in the middle east.

<snip>

There can always be more than stated aims, but as long as that something more remains unspoken, we won't know what it is. For now, I'll take them at their words and deeds: they want to turn their own countries into oppressive fascist style religious states.

Shall we consider Europe as a bit of a test tube? Take one failing socialist culture/economy and add Muslims (almost 25% by volume). Islam is now the number TWO religion in europe now. Sharia law is gaining ground. One thing people tend to overlook when parroting "religion of peace" is that Islam is not about peace. (Don't believe me? read here: http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/) Killing infidels is part of the religion. Converting them is also. However non Arabs who convert to islam are called "People of the Book" and are "tolerated" and taxed but never allowed an equitable position in Islamic society.

Currently in the US we've 20 million or so illegal aliens who are mostly Mexicans looking for work, welfare or whatever. Could one suppose we'd have a quite different problem with 20 million Muslims demanding their "Religion of Peace" be enforced within our "borders."

 

[shootinstudent]

Take one failing socialist culture/economy and add Muslims (almost 25% by volume). Islam is now the number TWO religion in europe now. Sharia law is gaining ground. One thing people tend to overlook when parroting "religion of peace" is that Islam is not about peace. (Don't believe me? read here: http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/) Killing infidels is part of the religion. Converting them is also. However non Arabs who convert to islam are called "People of the Book" and are "tolerated" and taxed but never allowed an equitable position in Islamic society.

Why did you link a book to support your claims when you clearly have never read it?

Currently in the US we've 20 million or so illegal aliens who are mostly Mexicans looking for work, welfare or whatever. Could one suppose we'd have a quite different problem with 20 million Muslims demanding their "Religion of Peace" be enforced within our "borders."

Will someone please tell me who are these arabs/muslims that are going to come and force Europeans to pray? How about Americans?

I keep hearing about them, but all I've ever seen are some poorly written picket signs during the cartoon riots. Where's a serious call for imposing "shariah" on the rest of us? Is there anybody with any authority/following to speak of who says these things, and would you please give me some of his statements?

 

[gc70]

Will someone please tell me who are these arabs/muslims that are going to come and force Europeans to pray? How about Americans?

They are the ones who ardently impose their beliefs on others whenever they have the power to do so. They are busy elsewhere at the moment, carrying out genocide in Durfar, or beheading Christian schoolgirls in Indonesia, or stoning unwed mothers in Niger. But they would do the same for you... if they could.

 

[Otherguy Overby]

shootinstudent
Quote: Otherguy:
Take one failing socialist culture/economy and add Muslims (almost 25% by volume). Islam is now the number TWO religion in europe now. Sharia law is gaining ground. One thing people tend to overlook when parroting "religion of peace" is that Islam is not about peace. (Don't believe me? read here: http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/) Killing infidels is part of the religion. Converting them is also. However non Arabs who convert to islam are called "People of the Book" and are "tolerated" and taxed but never allowed an equitable position in Islamic society.

Why did you link a book to support your claims when you clearly have never read it?

Uh, I have. It's mostly a bunch of psychotic ramblings with a common theme: kill, chop off opposite hand and foot, crucify, behead and other "approved" Islamic punishments for not believing.

For example:
[20.71] (Firon) said: You believe in him before I give you leave; most surely he is the chief of you who taught you enchantment, therefore I will certainly cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, and I will certainly crucify you on the trunks of the palm trees, and certainly you will come to know which of us is the more severe and the more abiding in chastising.

There's a whole lotta love in that, eh?

Since you seem hesitant believe me, here's another source:
http://nowscape.com/islam/koran_sura.htm
Torment to Non-believers:
SURA 4.56: (As for) those who disbelieve in Our communications, We shall make them enter fire; so oft as their skins are thoroughly burned, We will change them for other skins, that they may taste the chastisement; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise.

There's many more to read there.

Currently in the US we've 20 million or so illegal aliens who are mostly Mexicans looking for work, welfare or whatever. Could one suppose we'd have a quite different problem with 20 million Muslims demanding their "Religion of Peace" be enforced within our "borders."

shootinstudent:
Will someone please tell me who are these arabs/muslims that are going to come and force Europeans to pray? How about Americans?

I'll consider that a request for enlightenment. A google search:
http://www.google.com/search?hs=xQ7...la:en-US:official&q=europe+sharia&btnG=Search
(Europe & Sharia)
Will net about 1,780,000 hits

'Separate laws for Muslims' idea slammed

Published: 28th April 2006 10:08 CET

Muslim Council: no support for 'special laws'

Sweden's largest Muslim organisation has demanded that the country introduce separate laws for Muslims, according to Swedish television. Sweden's equality minister Jens Orback called the proposals "completely unacceptable".

The Swedish Muslim Association, which represents around 70,000 Muslims in Sweden, has sent a letter to all Sweden's main political parties suggesting a number of reforms, SVT's Rapport programme reported.

The proposals include allowing imams into state (public) schools to give Muslim children separate lessons in Islam and their parents' native languages. The letter also said that boys and girls should have separate swimming lessons and that divorces between Muslims should be approved by an imam.

The letter provoked an instant, and damning, response from integration and equality minister Jens Orback.

"We will not have separate laws in Sweden. In Sweden, we are all equal before the law. In Sweden, we have fought for a long time to achieve gender-neutral laws, and to propose that certain groups should not be treated like others is completely unacceptable."

Orback said he had spoken to representatives of the Swedish Muslim Council, and they did not support the association's position.

"We have freedom of speech, we have the right to opinions and we have the right to make proposals - but if a law is going to be changed, it must be the same for everyone."

Asked whether the proposal plays into the hands of racists, Orback said that it did.

"I think it is very problematic and unfortunate that people who have been in Sweden for so long make proposals such as this that are so opposed to our intentions, when we are fighting for women's rights and the right to divorce," Orback replied.

Liberal Party leader Lars Leijonborg also slammed the idea of separate laws.

"Sweden has equality between men and women. To introduce exceptions for Muslims so that women can be oppressed with the support of the law is completely unacceptable to me," Liberal leader Lars Leijonborg wrote in a statement.

TT/The Local from:
http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=3674&date=20060428&PHPSESSID=44c547113163a3440b8b5ae314873291

I keep hearing about them, but all I've ever seen are some poorly written picket signs during the cartoon riots. Where's a serious call for imposing "shariah" on the rest of us? Is there anybody with any authority/following to speak of who says these things, and would you please give me some of his statements?

Well here ya go, next door in Canada:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13321
[QUOTE:] (partial article quote:
So after 12 years in the country, they apparently haven’t had the will to commit themselves to Canadian citizenship, although they do have the impudence to suggest that Canada amend its laws to suit them.

Well, we all thought the Netherlands or France would be the first to adopt some form of Sharia law as the thin end of the wedge of catering to Muslim immigrants who universally appear unable to fit in with their host societies. Yet the Netherlands has just put a four-year moratorium on all immigration, including “asylum seekers”, has stopped schooling Muslim children in the home language of their parents/grandparents, and has closed down many of its Muslim community centers. And France is banning the headscarf on school property and is shoveling undesirable imams out of the country at a rate of knots.

So Canada has become the first country in the West to kowtow to immigrant Islamic demands that they not only have a right to settle in the country and be free to practice their religion unhindered, but also the right to bring their own laws with them.

I'll continue to assume Muslim activists don't have high regards for us western unbelievers.

 

[shootinstudent]

For example:
[20.71] (Firon) said: You believe in him before I give you leave; most surely he is the chief of you who taught you enchantment, therefore I will certainly cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, and I will certainly crucify you on the trunks of the palm trees, and certainly you will come to know which of us is the more severe and the more abiding in chastising.

This is a classic example of someone not having read the book using quotes to "prove" a point that doesn't make any sense. You just cited a speaking part by the Pharaoh, talking to Moses. This is the Quran's version of Moses talking with the Pharoah and telling him to let his people go, and the verse you quoted above is the Pharaoh's (who is about to get punished in the Quran) spoken part. Can you please explain how a spoken part by a Character in a bible story somehow makes the Quran violent?

As for the verse on hellfire, preaching that people who don't accept the true faith will go to hell is a standard feature of Christianity too. Preaching punishment in the afterlife isn't the same as violence now, and you'd see that context if you had read the entire book.

I'll consider that a request for enlightenment. A google search:
http://www.google.com/search?hs=xQ7&...ia&btnG=Search
(Europe & Sharia)
Will net about 1,780,000 hits

Yet, out of all these hits, you don't post articles about Muslims forcing other people to accept Islam or Islamic law. You posted articles about Muslims wanting to teach their own kids Islamic law. How does "We want to govern muslims by islamic law" translate to "we want to govern Europe and America by islamic law"?

 

[gc70]

by shootinstudent:
Yet, out of all these hits, you don't post articles about Muslims forcing other people to accept Islam or Islamic law.

Here are some countries whose legal systems include Islamic or Shar'ia law, to which the countries' populations are subject: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudia Arabia, Sudan, Syria,
Tunisia, and Yemen.

It seems that when Muslims are in the majority in a country, they want to impose their religious beliefs or value systems on the entire country. Even when they are not in the majority, they want to insinuate their values into the legal system. Of course, most other religions do not combine religion and government in the way Islam does.

[Note: adding more countries as I have time to do further research.]

 

[shootinstudent]

It seems that when Muslims are in the majority in a country, they want to impose their religious beliefs or value systems on the entire country. Even when they are not in the majority, they want to insinuate their values into the legal system. Of course, most other religions do not combine religion and government in the way Islam does.

Right, you posted a list of Islamic countries that radicals would like to control.

My point is that the idea that these nuts want to go to Sweden and force them all to pray is untrue. There's no "conquer the world for Islam!" plan, and the conflicts bear that out. Nations that are involved in the middle east have to deal with terrorists. Nations with no connection to the homelands of people like Bin Laden do not.

I think the claim that terrorists are trying to force us all to convert to islam by terrorism is mainly used to sell the war on terror as a war that can be made on any country at any time which has a significant muslim population or problems with radicalism. That is a bad thing.

 

[jungle]

I suspect that any further action taken against countries in the Middle East will be of a particularly violent and rapid nature designed to destroy as much vital infrastructure as possible in the shortest time. No troops will be sent to occupy and no claims of helping to rebuild will be made, we can't afford it. The only thing that will remain is the threat of immediate repeated destruction of the rebuilding of any war related assets.
We've tried the gentle, caring way-they are about to see the correct response.

 

[shootinstudent]

jungle,

How does destroying infrastructure limit the capabilities of terrorists?

More specifically, how would destroying Iranian and Iraqi infrastructure prevent Saudi terrorists from coming to the US to commit acts of terror?

 

[jungle]

In a classic guerilla war if the insurgents are seen as responsible for wide spread destruction, the murder of innocents, and the crippling of the country they will lose any popular support.
Any action of this type will tend to swing the populace of the target country, and any sympathetic countries away from the insurgents. Khadafi comes to mind.

Maybe you think you can talk them out of it, but that time is past. I have yet to see Syria, Iran, or the Saudis show any public disgust or remorse for what has happened at the hands of the insurgents. Iraq has become a handy and attractive killing ground for a large number of them from the surrounding region. The US is doing the vast majority of the killing.

Although Iran's nuclear program is not as far along as some say, I think that you can see a potential problem in allowing that bit of infrastructure to continue given the owner's repeated vocal threats to ourselves and our allies.

 

[ctdonath]

who said the war was ever over?

What war? The USA hasn't declared war since WWII.

And I think that's part of the problem. You can't properly fight a war if you haven't the nerve to declare one. That lack of nerve may very well be the result of the "white guilt" indicated in the first post. Maybe it's that WWII was indeed SO destructive and SO deadly that, as a societal "subconcious", we are desperately trying to not go there again. Wiping out whole cities, from carpet bombing to nukes, is anathema to the leading culture of freedom, individualism, and democracy - but we will if we have to, and wars since WWII haven't fallen into the "we have to" category.

The USA war machine is built to take on nations: geographically contained homogenates of formal sociopolitical unity. In WWII, Germany and Japan were war machines wherein the whole nation/society was perceived as contributing to a grave threat to Europe, and by strong indirection the USA.

The USA war machine is not built to take on geurilla (sp?) war, where we perceive ourselves as largely friendly with the citizens of the country, but have to violently eliminate the vermin which abuse the aftermath of a US-cause regime change. Saddam had to go (after decades of putting up with & containing a brutal dictator), he was handily removed, and now the place is unfortunately a magnet for his lingering supporters and opportunistic terrorists. That said, such aftermath is not unusual: the conquest of Germany and Japan was followed by years of locating and subduing violent holdouts. Cleaning up the aftermath is a long messy business.

The USA war machine is even less prepared to take on a religion. There is debatable reason to believe we may be at war with Islam in general (pro & con views on this discussed at great length elsewhere). Highly prising freedom of religion, and religion being an aggregate of individuals not beholden to geographic boundaries, and the religion in question contributing only a tiny fraction of its believers to a problem worthy of our violent intervention, makes it terribly difficult to direct our mass-assault military toward anything in particular.

War is messy. If you won't even call it "war" formally, it's awfully hard to execute well - precisely because the national will just isn't in it. For me sitting here writing this, "war" is an abstract notion to casually discuss; for my grandparents, "war" meant actual shortages and actual chance of actually being sent to actually fight. Pre-WWII, conquering European values (the term "white supremacy" being hijacked and overloaded into oblivion) worked precisely because a decision was made to take on EVERYONE in a region and subjugate them to European values; having scared our national conciousness $#!^less by going the next step to completely wiping out whole cities, and having the technology to do so via point-and-click interface, we don't want to go there again.

Perhaps the scare in Somalia et al, wherein deaths of a few soldiers caused us to withdraw, was really (in a collective subconcious way) a fear that the proper response would be to start levelling the place en masse. We've done it before - and those of our enemies who believe "kill a few Americans and the rest will run away in fear" would do well to realize that we do not fear them killing us, but instead we fear the Mr. Hyde we could very well legitimately become.

We Americans value life, liberty, and individualism.
We also know how to wipe out any number of opponents, plus intermixed noncombatants, very efficiently.
Like an upstanding citizen carrying a concealed handgun who refrains from road rage or other escalating hostilities not because he is afraid but because he knows the cost of "winning" and knows he can "win" very efficiently though at great human cost, the USA refrains from "winning" international conflicts precisely because it can, very efficiently, and knows the human cost is too high.

Overthrowing Saddam, the Taliban, and Syrian & Iranian leadership are worthy goals requiring violence. We could achieve those goals very efficiently, but the human cost of making glass parking lots is too high - better to slog through the messy path of one-on-one engagements.

 

[ctdonath]

Khadafi comes to mind.

Khadafi started behaving because the USA made it very clear that if he didn't shape up he would accidentally get a cruise missle delivered to his tent. He wants to live, so he shaped up.

The nuts we're up against don't care if they die. Heck, they like the idea of martyrdom. Veiled threats of "accidental" dispersement only encourage them - only actual termination will stop them, and actually doing it is so inconvenient - so leaders opt for containment and encouraging others to do it.