Pakistan: how long until finally, finally the gloves are taken off?

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by Skybird

If threatening that would make Muslim states using their influence to pressure Pakistan to back down, yes.

So, say Pakistan attacks the West anyway, and your response will be to kill millions of innocent people in other countries whose only connection with Pakistan is religion.

Pardon the cliche, but you would then literally be no better than the terrorists. You could quit defending civilization from the big bad Muslims, because you would have just lost your claim to it.

However, I wonder if I should read anything from the fact that nobody seem to has anything to comment on the original essay this thread was about

Sorry, I guess I got kind of sidetracked by the whole nuclear genocide thing.

[Freiwillige]

I get his point. One should avoid war at all costs but when war is declared their should be no controls or limits. America has haphazardly wandered in and out of far to many wars this last century for little gain.

Vietnam is a shining example of why we should have avoided these wars in the first place, but if we are going to fight, make that commitment, then by all means lets take the kiddie gloves off and smash them into oblivion!!!

Go general Patton on them or go home.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

Vietnam is a shining example of why we should have avoided these wars in the first place, but if we are going to fight, make that commitment, then by all means lets take the kiddie gloves off and smash them into oblivion!!!

Go general Patton on them or go home.

like this right?
http://www.oknation.net/blog/home/bl...images/Pun.jpg

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by JU_88

like this right?
http://www.oknation.net/blog/home/bl...images/Pun.jpg

It is well that war is so terrible - lest we would grow too fond of it.
- Robert E. Lee

“War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.”
-William Tecumseh Sherman

Pakistan to me is the most dangerous hotspot on Earth.

Wow, a few weeks ago it was as you have been said since many years that "Sunni" Iran is the most dangerous hotspot

It really is a case just like his destroy freedom because of threats to freedom rants Skybird is now proposing being a crazy lunatic because there are too many crazy lunatics.

Though I do wonder how someone can go on about the Pakistan military being part of a failed state because of their links to terrorists yet is unable to put 2+2 together.
Then again since he says that europe and the americas are also failed states he must be advocating nuking everywhere to teach them a lesson, it would certainly help with his dream of stopping people breeding

[Skybird]

And more good news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11498443

I always was totally and completely against outsourcing military capacities to private business. When in Europe the private armies of private entrepreneurs (=mercenaries) got sorted out and replaced with regular standing armies wearing "the king's colours", it resulted in higher combat efficiency and better cointrol and discipline, also, private business no longer was that able to interfere with politics in order to prevent war because peace meant no income and profits. - And now we are going back to those times of Landsknechte and Condottieris.

In novella 181 of his Trecentonovelle, the fourteenth-century storyteller Franco

Sacchetti has John Hawkwood encounter two Franciscan monks near his fortress

at Montecchio. The monks greet the Englishman.

‘‘Monsignore, God grant you peace,’’ said the monks.

‘‘And may God take away your alms,’’ Hawkwood responded immediately.

‘‘Lord, why do you speak to us this way?’’ asked the frightened monks.

‘‘Indeed, because you spoke thus to me,’’ replied John.

‘‘We thought we spoke well,’’ said the monks.
‘‘How can you think you spoke well,’’ said Hawkwood, ‘‘when you approach me and
say that God should let me die of hunger? Don’t you know that I live from war and
peace would destroy me? And as I live by war, you live by alms. So that the answer I

gave you is the same as your greeting.’

Hawkwoord was an English mercenary and successful soldier in the 14th century. He started in the hundred-years war, later fought in France and finally Italy. He fought both during wars with his army, and in times of peace, marauding with bands of bandits then, to get them fed and make some cash.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

I get his point. One should avoid war at all costs but when war is declared their should be no controls or limits. America has haphazardly wandered in and out of far to many wars this last century for little gain.

Vietnam is a shining example of why we should have avoided these wars in the first place, but if we are going to fight, make that commitment, then by all means lets take the kiddie gloves off and smash them into oblivion!!!

Go general Patton on them or go home.

Right that.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

So, say Pakistan attacks the West anyway, and your response will be to kill millions of innocent people in other countries whose only connection with Pakistan is religion.

Pardon the cliche, but you would then literally be no better than the terrorists. You could quit defending civilization from the big bad Muslims, because you would have just lost your claim to it.

Sorry, I guess I got kind of sidetracked by the whole nuclear genocide thing.

To le tthem have no doubt what would happen to them and their ideologic buddies, would make sure that right this would not happen and other nations like them would try to pressure them into giving up.

Beyond that, you have just declared that in case of somebody attacking you first, you will not retaliate. In other words you have already declared your intention to surrender in case of being attacked.

And you want to be taken as serious by our enemies? You have just given them card blanche: that when they press hard enough, you will give up.

Pakistan was born in violence due to religiously motivated ambitions, it lives in violence, and bvrings violence upon others, and it never will be anything else but a source of spreading violence. It was, it is, and it will be like that. No Islam - no Pakistan. No Islam - no Pakistani export of terror and Pakistani proliferation of nuclear knowledge. That is what links it to other Muslim nations - as if that was so difficult to see.

[MH]

When you want to shoot just shoot dont talk.


World is suffering Chamberlain syndrome all over again.
As then europe rolled its self on the back till too late it is happening again.

[Blood_splat]

I feel bad for our guys who are fighting, it must be so frustrating.

[Freiwillige]

When General Sherman marched into the south (C.S.A.) during the civil war he was brutal. But effective.

Warfare is not politically correct, Its ugly and horrible in the worst way and should be resoundingly avoided at all costs.

But I doubt Pakistan would even flinch if we told them that half of our nuclear arsenal is pointed at them and if they are feeling froggy go ahead and jump.

Obliteration is the greatest deterrent and builds respect for the ones who could turn your nation into a parking lot. Right now they play us as fools because they know that there will be no repercussion for there actions.

Sherman, Patton, Genghis Khan, Stalin, Hitler, Spartans all had the right idea's on how to fight a war just make sure your fighting it for the right reasons!!!!!

Be defensive in nature but if that fails you go on such a brutal offensive that they think twice before attacking you again!

[joegrundman]

I think, and i may be going out on a limb here, that Skybird's thinking on the matter is strongly influenced by Clausewitzian notions, particularly pertaining to the desirability of escalating to "ideal war" (which is i suppose total war).

I feel that Skybird does not adequately ask himself why, since the end of ww2, with the advent of nuclear weapons, and the increase in insurrectionary conflicts, the escalation to total war is not a viable option.

Also to say that since total war is not an option, the only other choice is to stay at home, is also something that can be challenged.

All great empires end up in situations of small, persistent conflicts around the periphery. And the US is a kind of great empire. What may be required is staying power and a means of handling the conflicts in a way that is not a long-term net-drain on resources (of all kinds) and not overly likely to produce war-weariness at home, something that modern democracies are rather prone to, once initial war-euphoria has worn off.

Nonetheless, these small persistent conflicts can add up, and in time do great harm to the empire.

So, i see the decision rather than as a need to raise the issue to one of a total conflict to permanently eliminate the opposition, an option which really is out of the question (even disregarding the SUBSIM flights of fantasy regarding pakistani atom bombs on western cities), the real question is, is it worth it in the long run, and if it is at present an unreasonable drain on resources, how soon can it be expected to be reduced to more manageable levels?

[joegrundman]

BTW Skybird,

big kudos for referencing Sir John Hawkwood

[Skybird]

The more "asymmetrical" a war is:

- the less Clausewitzian ideas can be applied

- the more difficult if not unwinnable the war becomes for the side sticking with the principles and demands of the Hague Landwarfare Convention (while the other side, whose participation in the conflict make that conflict qualifying for a description of being asymmetric, does not obey them - that is an inherent characteristic of "asymmetric wars").

But that is not the point so much, although these conclusions are dictated by any reasonable assessement of the matter of asymmetrical wars.

The point is: determination - or lack of.

If the latter, then the question is why you even started to fight at all. You are committing a crime against your own troops that way (which always has been one of my biggest criticisms of Bush, if you recall past debates in 2003, 04, 05, on Iraq). I am also criticising the Germans since long time to have absolute, total illusions about the nature of their military engagement in Afghanistan, and what can be achieved with an engagement like Germany's. I do not often say "Trapped in the Afghan maze" for no reason.

Either you are determined to do whatever is needed to crush the enemy and acchieve the military objective of the war, or you are not. Fighting kindly, and in the more beautiful way, with no sweat on your shirt and no blood on your hand, may earn you fine notes from the referees of the wellmeaning PC brigade. But it is meaningless. This is not basketball, and every goal by the enemy your people pay in blood for. You do not want to win by a margin of 77 to 72. You want to win 100 to 0, if possible. In war, there is no use in thinking in terms of "proportionality of means and tools". I deliberately refuse to thinkl and argue in terms of "proportionality" when it comes to war. You do not win by being fair or giving the enemy a chance, but by killing, crushing and destroying him, as fast as possible, as complete as possible, as brutal as necessary, you maximise your fighting power and and let go without holding back and allowing no distraction from the cause: destroying the enemy - the only chance that you will bring own losses to the minimum that you cannot avoid and reduce any further. You do not plan ahead to you and him shaking hands afterwards, but you want to saw fear in his heart so that after it ended he does not dare to turn against you again.

Morals and reasons are to be considered during the deicison making of whether to go to war or not. Consider them, and think twice. Ask yourself over your motives time and again. But if you are attacked, or if you have decided to go to war, understand that war means the end and the absence of peace, and the absence of morals and values deriving from peace. War has it'S own logic and it'S own values, and they are different than that of peace.

Espoecially true for asymmetrical wars.

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The more "asymmetrical" a war is:

- the less Clausewitzian ideas can be applied

this is true, but it doesn't seem to stop you trying

[Edit for reduced glibness]

Clearly Afghanistan and Iraq are complicated situations. But your idea that the solution is more firepower more ruthlessly deployed calls ultimately for indiscriminate massacre.

We do not live in that world.

Your argument that there is no such thing as jus in bello is also not borne out by centuries of warfare in Europe and elsewhere. Although WW2 saw the world at large close to losing that perspective.

There is in fact a civilisation, and war is in fact a social act.

And indeed people do plan ahead for today's enemies may be tomorrow's allies.

You want to throw away everything in order to score a win in Afghanistan?

As I said, the only realistic option for a hegemon, is to appreciate that areas of the periphery will be restive, and will require patience and skill to keep things manageable.

This was true for Rome, true for Great Britain, and is true for the US.

Destroying whole nations to solve this sort of moderate threat is massive overkill and defeats the point in fact.