BS?: "US Marines Are Locked In Battle With Syrian Troops"

[Nidan1]

Origianlly posted by Battlefront.com:

Sergei and Nidan1... easy now! I disagree with Nidan1's perception that historians do as he says, since I have plenty of books in my collection that are highly critical of "western" behavior. In fact, I don't think you could find many books written about the Cold War or Vietnam, to name two recent events, that do not have some hard, critical lines taken about large issues. This histories of WWI and WWII are generally packed with criticism of Imperialism and Colonialism, yet are mostly written by "western" historians.

Don't worry we are just playing.

What I was saying is I think that there is a modern trend, especially in American academia, to discount the discoveries and progresses made by western civilizations after the fall of Rome, and on to the present, as so much exploitation of Eastern and African cultures which were far more "superior".

I am not making the case that one is superior to another here, just the observation that others seem to want to do that with a passion.

Being that war and conquest has created the most upheaval and dynamism throughout the world, it is no wonder that we discuss this here in a military game forum, where most of us are amateur, and maybe in some cases professional historians.

Victor Davis Hanson has written that the military traditions of the western world as founded by the Greeks and then the Romans, has shown itself to be a decisive way to wage war, and in most cases has led to the conquest of peoples who maybe did not take warfare "as seriously" as westerners do.

Using the recent engagements in Iraq as an example...we can see that although Iraqis were armed and equipped and in some cases trained by westerners, their tactics and military traditions were overcome by the sheer violence and destruction created by western military units.

In Fallujah for example, last year when it was in the forefront of the news, the sheer violence created by the Marines far overshadowed the actual destruction that they caused in early April. Essentially, war reporting was turned over to Arab news agencies, that created a one-sided image of the battle, and caused a halt to the hostilities which only ensured that the devastation would be far worse six months later.

The cult of the warrior, as raised in the west, is to close and destroy the enemy, unfortunately our civilian populations and our so called leaders do not have the stomach to watch what we set our soldiers out to do.

[Battlefront.com]

Colin,

I'd suggest Venezuela is nation without double standards as the US has.

Funny... when I wrote what I wrote I thought about Venezuela as being the prime example of a nation with double standards Firstly, who is the #1 customer of its #1 industry? The US. So for all the rehtoric coming out of Chavez's mouth (and the guy is famous for his mouth) about how evil the US is and how it pushes its weight around, Chavez sits there and makes money off of the literal fuel for that power: oil. So his foriegn policy, if you can call it that, is riddled with hipocricy.

From a domestic front, like most populist/socialist leaders... the poor are in many ways worse off now than under the greedy Capitalists he replaced. Oil revenues are up, yet for some reason so is poverty. Where is all that extra money going, not to mention all the money from before that supposedly is redirected to the people?

From a political standpoint, Chavez is simply grandstanding on something that requires very little action to get support from the masses. In that way he is identical to Bush, who has used 911 and the "War on Terrorism" to silence critics and to gather up support which otherwise wouldn't be there. But it won't last for Chavez, just as it hasn't lasted for Bush or any other politician whose deeds are extreme and far away from the true heart of the masses.

So, Venezula is bad example

Steve

[Sergei]

The matter of morality in warfare is very complicated, and the problems presented are very dilemmaic. It's easy to say that the two things are not to be mixed, but then one should also ask himself, was the destruction of civilian villages by German occupators in revenge for partisan attacks fair game? Probably all of us would say no, so we can agree that morality does have its place in warfare. That's why we have international conventions on warfare.

As it comes to the Syria or Laos/Cambodia cases, I feel that the important point is that warfare is really only an extension of politics. War should not be waged in a way that harms the policy itself (such as spreading instability to the area, as happened in Indochina). But can it be..?

[PseudoSimonds]

Originally posted by Colin:

**** got to go so I can't finish the post

Please, don't stop now! This stuff is gold!

[Sergei]

Originally posted by PseudoSimonds:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Colin:

**** got to go so I can't finish the post

Please, don't stop now! This stuff is gold! </font>

[Nidan1]

Steve I think you have to admit that Bush's critics are anything but "silent"

[Battlefront.com]

Let's tone down the flaming here!

Steve I think you have to admit that Bush's critics are anything but "silent"

Depends on how you look at things. The ones that were opposed to him before were never silent. However, they were shouted down by the Bush Admin and its rabid support base in an attempt to silence them. Avoiding a debate on the issues is, in a way, a method of silencing criticism. It is the halmark of the Bush Administration's method of dealing with criticism.

However, there is a second group. And that is those that didn't want to be attacked and branded. These folks are now coming out in force. They include a lot of former recent Bush Admin officials, but an ever growing number of Reagan and Bush Sr. Admin officials are coming out and saying how utterly terrible things are right now. Now even many members of the Republican controlled Congress are voicing criticism, where before they were all "raw raw GW!" or at least not openly critical. The media, which spent so much of its energy on making the Bush Admin's case for war instead of questioning it, is also coming out of the closet.

So yeah, things are different today than they were 3 years ago.

But this doesn't have much to do with anything discussed thus far, so perhaps we should leave it there

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Nidan1:

What I was saying is I think that there is a modern trend, especially in American academia, to discount the discoveries and progresses made by western civilizations after the fall of Rome, and on to the present, as so much exploitation of Eastern and African cultures which were far more "superior".

You may be overreacting. No doubt there are some writers who deserve your characterization. There are always weak thinkers eager to jump onto what they perceive as a profitable bandwagon. But what I think has occurred over the whole body of historical work is not what you describe. Instead, there has been a wave of corrective writing that has tried to reveal and describe the "other side" of the generations of self-congratulatory works that ascribed Western puisance solely to certain "inherent" "virtues" present in the West and not found anywhere else. In order to counter that well-entrenched view, yes a lot of sludge has been dredged up and exposed to the light of day. And more than occasionally, other cultures have been portrayed in the most flattering light possible.

But that's not the end of the story. History is a dynamic process of interpretation and adjustment. After the wave has passed, the serious scholar is left, as always, with the task of trying to sort out the debris and reach the most accurate conclusions he/she can.

My own opinion, for whatever that is worth to you, is that the West achieved pre-eminence through a combination of inherent traits (whether they can be properly described as virtues is another matter entirely) and a whole host of historical accidents, happenstances, mistakes, etc. That this dominance has come partly at the expense of other cultures is undeniable. The extent to which the people of those cultures have profited from their exposure to the West is at present much more difficult to calculate. But that is not the same as to say that no such profit exists. And I also note that those cultures and polities were quite capable of doing very horrible things all on their own, with no prompting from the West.

Okay, that's my thumbnail sketch of a very complex question. What the hell, it's a Sunday morning, where I am anyway..

Michael

[Nidan1]

Michael your point is well taken...the fact however is that most cultures came out on the historical "short end" in their dealings with western expansion, especially up to the glory days of the Roman Empire.

The trend today to tell, the "other side of the story", is in my opinion at the expense of the truth in some cases, and done so in order to prove a current point.

Let me ask any military historian if it is sound strategy to attack your enemy only if he is in a certain place. If he crosses map reference X he is no longer able to be attacked. This is the exact situation that American military commanders were faced with during Vietnam. There were obvious political restrictions which caused this condition, but from the viewpoint of a ground commander, such a policy invited disaster.

If we allow the same situation to happen in Iraq, and insurgent fighters can slip across the murky borders of Iraq and its neighbors, we are again inviting destruction.

Just trying to get back on topic.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Nidan1:

The trend today to tell, the "other side of the story", is in my opinion at the expense of the truth in some cases, and done so in order to prove a current point.

This sounds like based on your political bias, nothing else.

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Nidan1:

The trend today to tell, the "other side of the story", is in my opinion at the expense of the truth in some cases, and done so in order to prove a current point.

This sounds like based on your political bias, nothing else. </font>

[Sergei]

That sounds like based on your political bias as well. Next you'll start attacking the media and UN.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Nidan1:

Let me ask any military historian if it is sound strategy to attack your enemy only if he is in a certain place. If he crosses map reference X he is no longer able to be attacked. This is the exact situation that American military commanders were faced with during Vietnam. There were obvious political restrictions which caused this condition, but from the viewpoint of a ground commander, such a policy invited disaster.

If we allow the same situation to happen in Iraq, and insurgent fighters can slip across the murky borders of Iraq and its neighbors, we are again inviting destruction.

The larger question of course is whether it is wise to go to war with a country when one is not prepared to go to war with its neighbors and allies as well. For very real geopolitical reasons were not prepared to go to war with all of Southeast Asia in the 1960s. For both geopolitical and very real military reasons, I do not believe we are anywhere near being prepared to go to war with all of Southwest Asia now.

MIchael

[Drusus]

One thing which should have a big effect on the morality of military operations in Syria is if Syria is actively supporting the insurgency in Iraq and the ways they are doing it. Does anybody have any good material about this? I am not saying that they aren't supporting insurgency. I just would like to learn more.

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Nidan1:

Let me ask any military historian if it is sound strategy to attack your enemy only if he is in a certain place. If he crosses map reference X he is no longer able to be attacked. This is the exact situation that American military commanders were faced with during Vietnam. There were obvious political restrictions which caused this condition, but from the viewpoint of a ground commander, such a policy invited disaster.

If we allow the same situation to happen in Iraq, and insurgent fighters can slip across the murky borders of Iraq and its neighbors, we are again inviting destruction.

The larger question of course is whether it is wise to go to war with a country when one is not prepared to go to war with its neighbors and allies as well. For very real geopolitical reasons were not prepared to go to war with all of Southeast Asia in the 1960s. For both geopolitical and very real military reasons, I do not believe we are anywhere near being prepared to go to war with all of Southwest Asia now.

MIchael </font>

[Stavka_lite]

Greetings all, I normally avoid these types of discussions but in this case I want to put in my opinion.

The question was raised as to why we study history? We study history so we don't make the same mistakes twice. We, as the American Public, Are making the same mistake again and it is the same one we make as a group time and time again.

As for comparing the Iraqi "adventure" to the Vietnam Fiasco we can find certain similiarities as well as dissimilarities. (Dissimilaity) The Iraqi war against the insurgency is just that, a war against insurgency(as far as we currently know). Vietnam had several foreign states directly and overtly involved.

(similiarity) The American Press is focusing on body counts, both foreign and domestic to further whatever agenda that publisher has as well as to increase sales.

Like Vietnam, it is currently fashionable to bash the American military(we are seeing more of that everyday and it is very subtle but growing) and the American Government by just about everyone in the world including Americans.

So what I guess my opinion boils down to is that we, as the public, have the responsiblity to scrutinize and critically think through the news we read. We must consider the sources carefully and with diligence and this is something we do not do.

For the sake of flame please notice I have not assigned right or wrong to either war.

My last statement is that living in a democracy(whatever flavor)means just because there is a majority on a given opinion does not mean that the majority is right.

Believe half of what you see and none of what you read.

Why is it we hold our Government responsible (as we should) but not our Press????

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by Drusus:

One thing which should have a big effect on the morality of military operations in Syria is if Syria is actively supporting the insurgency in Iraq and the ways they are doing it. Does anybody have any good material about this? I am not saying that they aren't supporting insurgency. I just would like to learn more.

Here is one article:

Outside Iraq but deep in the fight

What is not clear is whether Syria is actively supporting the insurgency or merely turning a blind eye to what is going on in its territory.

[Sirocco]

Let me postulate something.

Perhaps the Syrian regime has a fine line to walk; it's caught between a rock and a hard place. It has to appease the US on the one hand, and domestic opinion on the other, for no regime or government can ignore that.

The recent terror attack within it's own borders might give it some leeway to crack down on militants, but if it appears too much the lackey of the US it runs the risk of being overthrown, possibly with something even worse replacing it.

[Sergei]

Perhaps the Syrian regime has a fine line to walk; it's caught between a rock and a hard place. It has to appease the US on the one hand, and domestic opinion on the other, for no regime or government can ignore that.

Domestic opinion (as in, the wider public) is probably something that Syrian government can safely ignore, to a point. But in a country like Syria there probably are other organizations which to consider, even if they might not be considered to represent the public interest...

Btw. what recent terrorist attacks have there been in Syria? :confused:

[Battlefront.com]

I think Sirocco is confusing the Jordanian attacks with something inside of Syria. Looks like the terrorists overplayed their hand there because there has been a significant backlash from the average Jordanian. So much so in fact that the al-Zarqawi apologized saying he didn't mean to kill Jordanians, just Westerners. The reaction is not surprising since Jordan has been progressing quite steadily towards a respectable state.

Steve

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I think Sirocco is confusing the Jordanian attacks with something inside of Syria.

Yes, my mistake.

The question remains as to whether the attacks in Jordan had an effect on public opinion in Syria, which the last time I had an unscientific glimpse of it was very much pro insurgency.

[Londoner]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The issue of whether particular compromises of moral principles for military necessity had a net positive effect... that's where historians love to have debate.

Exactly, my apologies, what I was rather clumsily trying to get at.

Originally posted by Sergei:

I feel that the important point is that warfare is really only an extension of politics.

Something from Clausewitz that has stuck.

Consequently,

Originally posted by Sergei:

War should not be waged in a way that harms the policy itself

The Laos/Cambodia incursion didn't work on any level. Operationally, sure, it curtailed NVA/VC movement through the area but it didn't eliminate it. Strategically it didn't achieve anything significant and politically, most importantly, it didn't contribute to a credible, effective, democracy in the South - the political goal.

On the contrary, repercussions arguably hindered the ultimate political objective and left a lasting bitterness because of the suffering that ensued.

That's why I think most historians would disagree with you justifying, militarily or otherwise, U.S. activity in Laos and Cambodia.

[Kellysheroes]

Wouldn't it be kewl to have a GeoPolitic game like this to play now? US vs the World.

The player is G. Bush (haha yah think that would sell a lot of copies?)

China invades Taiwan, N. Korea invades S. Korea, Japan mobilizes a republican army. US skirmishes in Syria lead to a declaration of WAR. Egypt & Jordan attack Isreal unannounced!! India and Pakastan have finally had enough of each other. Iran takes advantage of the US weakness!! Saddam escapes prison and joins up with Bin Laden!!! woohooo wouldn't that be some game?

[Peter Cairns]

Michael,

The a to d thing was about how once third parties get invo;ved then others can join in. as i stated later in my post about Bin Laden feeling it was right to strike at the US because it armed Israel which had occupied the west bank.

I remeber Gen Al Haig advocating that in retaliation for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan the US should take action against Cuba, I think he called it "Horizontal Escalation".

like I argued where possible don't violate borders as it opens a can of worms.

Peter.

[Sergei]

Wait, you said US vs. the World. Wouldn't that mean that, for instance, instead of attacking Israel, Jordan would attack the US troops in Iraq? And what is GOP doing in Japan? :confused: