The cost of War - The balance of war?

[Rich Parsons]

From the following link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060922/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/911_times_two

WASHINGTON - Now the death toll is 9/11 times two. U.S. military deaths from Iraq and Afghanistan now match those of the most devastating terrorist attack in America's history, the trigger for what came next. Add casualties from chasing terrorists elsewhere in the world, and the total has passed the Sept. 11 figure.

The latest milestone for a country at war comes without commemoration. It also may well come without the precision of knowing who is the 2,973rd man or woman of arms to die in conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, or just when it happens. The terrorist attacks killed 2,973 victims in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

. . .

I know we have a thread about how is the war really going?, but I thought I would give this its' own attention.

We went to war to stop terrorism, and in the process we have lost as many as were lost in the 9/11 terrorist acts that sent us down this path.

How many is too many?

Is being at war, and understanding that this will happen and this is for better cause?


Also are we really at war? I know people are being killed and shot at, but are we really at a state of war or are we just fighting in another country or two? I mean have really declared war as an act of Congress?

To me it looks like the balance of powers is no longer in balance. The executive branch has too much authority to engage this country into acts that are not approved by our representatives. A single elected person is making too many decisions with too much power and authority.



Thoughts?

 

[jazkiljok]

From the following link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060922/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/911_times_two




I know we have a thread about how is the war really going?, but I thought I would give this its' own attention.

We went to war to stop terrorism, and in the process we have lost as many as were lost in the 9/11 terrorist acts that sent us down this path.

How many is too many?

Is being at war, and understanding that this will happen and this is for better cause?


Also are we really at war? I know people are being killed and shot at, but are we really at a state of war or are we just fighting in another country or two? I mean have really declared war as an act of Congress?

To me it looks like the balance of powers is no longer in balance. The executive branch has too much authority to engage this country into acts that are not approved by our representatives. A single elected person is making too many decisions with too much power and authority.



Thoughts?

well, let me first ask, did we win the war on drugs? how's that going?

a war on terrorism isn't really any different- it's a vague shingle to hang a vague foreign policy on.

while i believe the removal of the taliban from power and direct attacks on alqueda bases in afghanistan were justified. the war on iraq is an unrelated issue. the terrorists there didn't exist or were mostly impotent threats until the US invaded, destroying the secular authoritarian regime's tight grip on the country and opening the door to the mess we see today.

while we needed to commit 100,000 more troops to afghanistan to crush the taliban completely. and where we needed an equal number of contractors ready to start major projects to revitalize that nation-- we instead attacked iraq under an ever changing series of reasons leaving afghanistan to essentially fall back into the narco-nation it previously was and allowed for the resurrection of taliban insurgency. we now have a place where the president of that country dare not leave the capital and only travels with a bodyguard made up of US special forces.

the executive branch does hold too much power and a congress of yes men has become a useless bunch. if it weren't for a still relevant supreme court-- who knows where presidency would end up.

 

[michaeledward]

We went to war to stop terrorism, and in the process we have lost as many as were lost in the 9/11 terrorist acts that sent us down this path.

How many is too many?

Is being at war, and understanding that this will happen and this is for better cause?

Also are we really at war?

I know people are being killed and shot at, but are we really at a state of war or are we just fighting in another country or two?

I mean have really declared war as an act of Congress?

To me it looks like the balance of powers is no longer in balance. The executive branch has too much authority to engage this country into acts that are not approved by our representatives. A single elected person is making too many decisions with too much power and authority.

Thoughts?

With One Hundred Fourty Thousands soldiers eating and sleeping in Iraq, we most certainly are at war. Today or tomorrow, the US death toll in Iraq will be 2700 persons. 2700 families will have lost a father, son, daughter, brother, or mother. The country is spending $2,000,000,000.00 per week to execute this war. Money we are not collecting through revenue streams (taxes & tarrifs). A war fought on the charge card. A war that will be paid for by our children and our childrens' children.

As for your thoughts on "How Much is Appropriate"; terrorism is a tactic which can not be defeated. It has served admirably as a straw man to concentrate power in the executive branch of our government. But is a war that will never be won. It is a greatly expanded scale of the 'War on a Sucker Punch'. - It's called a sucker punch cause you can't see it coming.

And a death toll of 2,700 - and injuries approaching 20,000 - would not be too much, if our goal was clearly defined, our execution was clearly executed toward that goal, and the government told us (the citizens) going into the war. In World War II, the United States suffered almost half a million fatalities, in about the same time period as our adventures in Afghanistand and Iraq.

But, we were told, that the war would take, "6 days, 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months". We were told that Iraq's oil reserves would be able to pay for the countries reconstruction. We were told the 'Mission' was 'Accomplished'.

Yes, Congress abdicated its responsibility with the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq. - A measure pushed on congress right before the November election - under the threat of smoking guns and mushroom clouds, as I recall. The Constitution states clearly that Congress Shall Declare War. But in Iraq, Afghanistand, Vietnam, Korea, and many other skirmishes since WWII, the Congress has peed its collective pants in the corner, afraid of being run out of town, for meeting their obligations.

Some Brave Congresspersons have introduced HR5875 during this session. This bill revokes the Authorization For Use of Military Force In Iraq granted the President four years ago. Support this bill. http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/House_bill_seeks_to_rescind_Iraq_0801.html

So, while your correct, Rich Parsons, things do indeed look bleak. Our Founding Fathers built (or attempted to build) a framework that is self-correcting.
Members of the House of Representatives face voters every two years. It is the strongest and largest body in our government, and they are directly answerable to the voters every 24 months. Vote the bastards out, if you think they did not meet their obligations. Vote the bastards out if they continue to approve 'Supplemental Funding' for something we have known for years was going to be a 'Long, Hard Slog'. The House writes the damned appropriation bills - they say where we spend money.
The President may believe he can create new laws at a whim, but the United States Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government, which despite their erroneous appointment of THIS president, has voted repeatedly to reign in the usurpations put forth by their choice. (As an aside, I am convinced that Justice S.D. O'Connor did not resign earlier - during GWB's first term - because she knew it was a farce. She waited until an election cycle in which she had no hand - other than her one vote).

Remember the feelings you are feeling today.
Remember, Remember, the 7th of November.

I was very close to running for Congress myself during this past year. I was going to run on the 'Bush Platform'.

A Bush Tax - to pay for the deficit President Bush has left us.
A Bush Draft - to rebuild the military President Bush has broken
A Bush Sacrifice - so that all voters are involved in the wars he started
A Bush Impeachment - I believe lying to the American people in the State of the Union Address is a High Crime.

My last thought(s)
Welcome to the outrage.
And, in the words of Woody Guthrie - This land is your land.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

The Will To Wage War
Author Mark Bowden, paraphrasing the thoughts of Sgt. Paul Howe of Delta Force, in Bowden's book Black Hawk Down:

Civilized states had nonviolent ways of resolving disputes, but that depended on the willingness of everyone involved to back down. Here in the raw Third World, people hadn't learned to back down, at least not until after a lot of blood flowed. Victory was for those willing to fight and die. Intellectuals could theorize until they sucked their thumbs right off their hands, but in the real world, power still flowed from the barrel of a gun. If you wanted the starving masses in Somalia to eat, then you had to outmuscle men like this Aidid, for whom starvation worked. You could send in your bleeding-heart-do-gooders, you could hold hands and pray and sing hootenanny songs and invoke the gods CNN and BBC, but the only way to finally open up the roads to the big-eyed babies was to show up with more guns. And in this real world, nobody had more or better guns than America. If the good-hearted ideals of humankind were to prevail, then they needed men who could make it happen. Delta made it happen."

In my view, you'll never get committed "jihadists" to "back down." They want to die. It's the fence sitters, the wanna-be's, those waiting to see if the America-haters have a chance of winning, that you encourage to join the fray by being less than brutal. It's not merely that a lot of blood will have to flow; it's that the blood will have to flow fast and furiously for it to make a difference. If you presume to wage war, then wage it to win.

In a meeting last summer, talk turned from business to politics, and more. The man across the table from me was a Marine helicopter pilot who served in Vietnam, was shot down in December 1968, and lost a leg in the process. What he said that really stuck with me was that since World War II, American political leaders, not American warriors, have lacked the will to fight war the way it needs to be fought to minimize American casualties over the long term -- by winning the war as quickly as possible. The 1991 Gulf War is the closest we've come to doing it the right way, and even then, the C-in-C ("Poppy" Bush) left the job half-done. Every time he reads or hears about another two Marines or five "Grunts" bleeding out in Iraq as the result of another IED, it infuriates and saddens him.

"The Jarheads knew what to do in Fallujah," he told me. "They, and the Army, can get it done elsewhere if the politicians don't pull them back."

He laughed ruefully when I said the powers-that-be are afraid of "innocent civilian casualties," and of turning "fence-sitters" into "terrorists."

"If we're afraid of waging war because civilians might die, then we've got no business being there in the first place," he asserted. "Either give our men and women every tool they need to win as quickly as possible, or get them hell out of there. War ain't pretty and people get hurt, some of them--often many of them--noncombatants. How many 'innocent civilians' have died at our hands and how many at the hands of "insurgents" and terrorists? Who knows, but it appears to me that there's plenty of killing of the 'innocent' by both sides in a protracted, half-assed guerilla war like we're fighting now. The quickest way to end the suffering is to end the ********** war. Our warriors can make that happen and make it happen quickly. They need the leash off."

As to making more terrorists, he agreed that the longer you allow a war to drag on, the more opportunity you give your enemies to multiply. Kill them all and kill them quickly. Hunt them, find them, kill them. A lot of "collateral damage" might be suffered by civilians, but when it's the result of overwhelming force brutally applied, the fence sitters who remain lose hope of prevailing, no matter how much they hate you. They shrink from the task. Most of the "hard guys" have already died.

Of course, the world is a much more complicated place than that framed by a former Marine pilot, isn't it?

Of course, a year later, we still seem to be fighting a "half-assed" guerilla war, don't we?

Obviously, neither of us gets the big picture.

 

[jazkiljok]

The Will To Wage War
Author Mark Bowden, paraphrasing the thoughts of Sgt. Paul Howe of Delta Force, in Bowden's book Black Hawk Down:

insurgencies don't just fade cause you kill lots of them-- though that is the only rubric that the military use given that terrirtory gains are already ceded to the occupying forces.

it's cutting off the supply of new recruits that end insurgencies.

unfortunatley, it's the collateral damage and brutality that takes the folks sitting on the sidelines and puts a gun in their hand. kill a brother, son, daughter, destroy a home, ruin a business and you take some one who merely sympathizes with the insurgents and you turn him into a recruit.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

If you dont think our guys know where the bad guys are in Iraq and "who needs killing" I think you are sorely mistaken. Fallujah was stopped because of mambypambyism over the collateral damage "ooohhh white phosphorous".

Those Delta guys typically know of what they speak when it comes to this "war" stuff.

 

[michaeledward]

If you dont think our guys know where the bad guys are in Iraq and "who needs killing" I think you are sorely mistaken. Fallujah was stopped because of mambypambyism over the collateral damage "ooohhh white phosphorous".

Those Delta guys typically know of what they speak when it comes to this "war" stuff.

"Fallujah was stopped"?

The United States Marines destroyed Fallujah in November of '04. (More than half of the 39,000 homes in the city were damaged. More than 10,000 homes were leveled. Some 60 Mosques were destroyed during the November Campaign).

An invasion of Fallujah was halted at the request of the IRAQI leadership in May of '04 - but that was not when the White Phosphorous discussions came up.

More recently, Fallujah has been abandoned my the United States Military to transfer resources into Baghdad. The United States Military has said that they can not establish stability in Western Iraq, and have given it up as lost.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091001204_pf.html

 

[Rich Parsons]

the executive branch does hold too much power and a congress of yes men has become a useless bunch. if it weren't for a still relevant supreme court-- who knows where presidency would end up.

I disagree with you on the issues of the Supreme Court.

I think they are not engaged and just sit back enjoy the perks and priviledged but none of the responsibilties of running this governement and making a statement when the Executive or Legislative branches over step their bounds.

 

[Rich Parsons]

With One Hundred Fourty Thousands soldiers eating and sleeping in Iraq, we most certainly are at war. Today or tomorrow, the US death toll in Iraq will be 2700 persons. 2700 families will have lost a father, son, daughter, brother, or mother. The country is spending $2,000,000,000.00 per week to execute this war. Money we are not collecting through revenue streams (taxes & tarrifs). A war fought on the charge card. A war that will be paid for by our children and our childrens' children.

As for your thoughts on "How Much is Appropriate"; terrorism is a tactic which can not be defeated. It has served admirably as a straw man to concentrate power in the executive branch of our government. But is a war that will never be won. It is a greatly expanded scale of the 'War on a Sucker Punch'. - It's called a sucker punch cause you can't see it coming.

And a death toll of 2,700 - and injuries approaching 20,000 - would not be too much, if our goal was clearly defined, our execution was clearly executed toward that goal, and the government told us (the citizens) going into the war. In World War II, the United States suffered almost half a million fatalities, in about the same time period as our adventures in Afghanistand and Iraq.

But, we were told, that the war would take, "6 days, 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months". We were told that Iraq's oil reserves would be able to pay for the countries reconstruction. We were told the 'Mission' was 'Accomplished'.

Yes, Congress abdicated its responsibility with the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq. - A measure pushed on congress right before the November election - under the threat of smoking guns and mushroom clouds, as I recall. The Constitution states clearly that Congress Shall Declare War. But in Iraq, Afghanistand, Vietnam, Korea, and many other skirmishes since WWII, the Congress has peed its collective pants in the corner, afraid of being run out of town, for meeting their obligations.

Some Brave Congresspersons have introduced HR5875 during this session. This bill revokes the Authorization For Use of Military Force In Iraq granted the President four years ago. Support this bill. http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/House_bill_seeks_to_rescind_Iraq_0801.html

So, while your correct, Rich Parsons, things do indeed look bleak. Our Founding Fathers built (or attempted to build) a framework that is self-correcting.
Members of the House of Representatives face voters every two years. It is the strongest and largest body in our government, and they are directly answerable to the voters every 24 months. Vote the bastards out, if you think they did not meet their obligations. Vote the bastards out if they continue to approve 'Supplemental Funding' for something we have known for years was going to be a 'Long, Hard Slog'. The House writes the damned appropriation bills - they say where we spend money.
The President may believe he can create new laws at a whim, but the United States Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government, which despite their erroneous appointment of THIS president, has voted repeatedly to reign in the usurpations put forth by their choice. (As an aside, I am convinced that Justice S.D. O'Connor did not resign earlier - during GWB's first term - because she knew it was a farce. She waited until an election cycle in which she had no hand - other than her one vote).

Remember the feelings you are feeling today.
Remember, Remember, the 7th of November.

I was very close to running for Congress myself during this past year. I was going to run on the 'Bush Platform'.

A Bush Tax - to pay for the deficit President Bush has left us.
A Bush Draft - to rebuild the military President Bush has broken
A Bush Sacrifice - so that all voters are involved in the wars he started
A Bush Impeachment - I believe lying to the American people in the State of the Union Address is a High Crime.

My last thought(s)
Welcome to the outrage.
And, in the words of Woody Guthrie - This land is your land.

ME,

While I agree that we are in a state of war with countries and there are deaths, and many families have suffered (* Which I respect them all for serving as they have *), I still have to ask are we officially at war. Has congress declared war? Has the UN supported a police action for these military troops? I believe the answer to be no. So I think it is an abuse of power and also a disgrace to those who have served and are serving, as it disrespects their sacrafice and commitment.

As to the largest single Group called the Representatives, I plan on taking action and voting my opinion. As I have voted since I was 18. It is not just a priviledge in my opinion but a responsibility to vote.

 

[michaeledward]

ME,

While I agree that we are in a state of war with countries and there are deaths, and many families have suffered (* Which I respect them all for serving as they have *), I still have to ask are we officially at war. Has congress declared war? Has the UN supported a police action for these military troops? I believe the answer to be no. So I think it is an abuse of power and also a disgrace to those who have served and are serving, as it disrespects their sacrafice and commitment.

As to the largest single Group called the Representatives, I plan on taking action and voting my opinion. As I have voted since I was 18. It is not just a priviledge in my opinion but a responsibility to vote.

Our current war is illegal. It was a war of choice. And a bad choice it was.

Of course, I have been saying that here since I joined. There was a time when it was a lonely position. It is nice to see it getting a bit more crowded around here.

But, this is not the first time Congress has abdicated its responsibility ... Vietnam, Korea, Grenada, Panama. Sadly, I don't think it will be the last time either ... Iran is looming large.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Our current war is illegal. It was a war of choice. And a bad choice it was.

Of course, I have been saying that here since I joined. There was a time when it was a lonely position. It is nice to see it getting a bit more crowded around here.

But, this is not the first time Congress has abdicated its responsibility ... Vietnam, Korea, Grenada, Panama. Sadly, I don't think it will be the last time either ... Iran is looming large.

I am not saying that we would not have needed to gone to war, but I believe we need to follow the proper process or we ourselves have lost what we are trying to defend.

 

[michaeledward]

I am not saying that we would not have needed to gone to war, but I believe we need to follow the proper process or we ourselves have lost what we are trying to defend.

Well ... I will say that we did not need to invade Iraq. It was a war of choice, and a very bad decision.

But, as for a proper process ... There are very few people crying for impeachment - or recall - or anything because the Congress did not Declare War. Our Representatives felt they met all of their Constitutional obligations by voting for the Authorization of Use of Military Force in Iraq. To them, that is the 'Proper Process'. I don't think any of the principles that are defense worthy in our Country, society and Constitution have been jeapordized by the AUMF.

Again - the invasion and occupation of Iraq was completely unnecessary - and we knew it before hand - if we listened to clearer heads.

Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction
Iraq had no ties to al Qaeda
Iraq had no ability to threaten its neighbors or our allies.

Iraq was no threat - to anyone.

It's nice we're all going to paying for this inpepertuity.