2008 On The Surge
posted by on August 6 at 11:25 AM
All of the talk about “troop surge” working is empty. The surge itself is bad news for American power in the context of its primary conflict, which is not with terrorist networks, or disobedient Arab states, but with its global economic rival, China. With America’s industrial and financial strength weakening, and more and more of its wealth distributed to other capitals of the world, what’s left is its military power. And it’s not merely a matter of military strength but of military wizardry.
As David Harvey has pointed out, one must connect Shock and Awe with Hiroshima, both were not necessary to win their respective wars but to demonstrate American military technology. So the failure of Shock and Awe (it failed to beat Iraq into a new submission) is the failure of this demonstration—the purpose of which was to put the main industrial and financial rival into its (proper) place (in the global order). The level of Chinese military technology may not match the US, but, more than any other country in the world, China has the ability to “troop surge” any difficult situation into an order that’s in its favor.
To even debate whether the troup surge is working or not is to fall into McCain's trap. Epic fail.
Falling US imports and a falling US dollar mean that, economically, China is in at least as much trouble as the United States.
"both were not necessary to win their respective wars"
Why yes we could have invaded mainland Japan and suffered a million infrantry casualties for a war they started with an unprovoked attack.
Also, if we hadn't developed the big one, then when the USSR got its own, we could have said "please please give up your nukes -- you see, we don't have any ourselves!" And they would have said "why yes of course--we'll destroy them right away!"
Damn that FDR/Truman cabal!!!!!!!
Charles,
I am going to part with you. The surge is working. It is precisely the reason why the Iraq War isn't front page news and why Sen. Obama and the Democrats AREN'T making it the issue front & center during the 08' campaign. Even Sen. Obama acknowledged that during his recent trip to Iraq.
Also, Hiroshima was correct. Today is it's anniversary. We (the USA) used atomic weaponry against Japan because they didn't have atomic weaponry, it was easier than sending a million man army(?) to invade the Japanese mainland with huge casualties to both soldier and civilian and to end terribly and quickly a protracted terror (WWII).
Finally, we (the USA and it's allies) don't want "to beat Iraq into a new submission". We want to make them a democratic and economic partner after ending the Hussein dictatorship.
It isn't perfect but it's working.
The shorter version is we literally can't afford it.
PERIOD.
Time to pull the plug and get out of Dodge.
wow. a mudede post i both understand and completely agree with.
"So the failure of Shock and Awe"
You wanna talk about failed policies? Lets talk about Marxism's failure to create anything even remotely resembling a vibrant and productive society.
Incorrect. "Shock and awe" was a complete success--Iraq's regular, uniformed army was completely dominated and ultimately destroyed by US forces. The occupation, however, which featured an insurgency with irregulars that live invisibly among the civilian population, has been a bloody mess.
What worked for the Chinese in the Korean war would be a disaster for them today. At least until the Iraq war bled the army and marines white, the US military would have totally destroyed any regular army of uniformed troops. That's why the Chinese are racing to modernize their force.
@7
OK. Go ahead. Talk.
@4, please reread my post. i'm not talking about the surge working or not. that issue is meaningless.
Charles,
I reread your posting. I stand by what I said. The surge is meaningful because it's working in Iraq. We're not at war with China. Granted, China has a seemingly unlimited human resource and it's economic growth is outstanding but I don't see how that relates to the surge in Iraq. If you mean our "primary conflict" is economic and with China, I don't dispute that. But the former is a military conflict and the latter an economic one in a very different part of the world with very different resources. We're comparing apples & oranges partner.
BTW, thanks for the tip regarding Hugh Masekela. I saw him and actually met him. He also signed a CD "Live at the Market Theatre (Johannesburg)". It was an honor. He was a gentleman.
Questions:
-How on earth does engaging in quagmire middle eastern nation-building show the Chinese that we could or couldn't beat them in a conventional or nuclear exchange? If we engage in an all-out fight with the Chinese there won't be any extended nation building.
-China is growing fast but at current rates it will be 20-30 years to match the USA in terms of GDP and much longer to match us for GDP/Person.
-The American public whines about the Chinese taking jobs and so forth, but nobody is itching for a catastrophic battle. I'm guessing your average Chinese businessman or peasant is the same.
@8 "Shock and awe" was a big dud... Probably because it never really happened:
"'The current campaign does not appear to correspond to what we envisioned,' said Ullman, principal author of the 1996 book, 'Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance.'"
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31858
BTW, with Rumsfeld in control, who expected anything to be a success?
"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other Pentagon brass now deny giving the impression they planned to shock Saddam into submission with an overwhelming display of force, thereby ending the war quickly. Rumsfeld blamed the TV media and their stables of hired defense experts for raising expectations of a massive and relentless bombing blitz and a short, decisive war."
ANYWAY, there was never any doubt we'd dominate the Iraqi Army. Charles is correct: the point (when there was one) was to demonstrate our "wizardry" and it failed, if it even happened at all.
The "surge" is the military equivalent of a tourniquet--a medical procedure one uses in an emergency, and uses only temporarily; used permanently the limb (or person) dies.
It's a last-ditch effort, not a cure, for what ails the patient.
But as usual, the American people and MSM are incapable of having a reasoned conversation about it, just "did it work or not." All NASCAR Joe and Jane want to hear is "victr'y" and if McCain can fool them into thinking the "surge" will allow 'em to chant "Wur Number Won!" again...
Gold plated military with lead boots. Generals with limited intellectual abilities because they were brainwashed by religion. Not China's problem.
If we'd followed Shinseki's plan at the beginning, we wouldn't have had to surge, and there'd be a hell of a lot more people alive.
INCOMPETENCY OF COMMAND is the issue.
#4 - you're a moron. Have any other Bush/Fox news talking points you want to throw out here?
Comments Closed
Comments are closed on this post.