Nenad Djurdjevic wrote:
>
> The comparison is only in that it is very hard to beat a nation into
> submission. America failed to do it in Vietnam.
As a veteran of that war, I can assure you that the US could have won that
war. We had a Commander in Chief who would not wage war. Instead he
attempted to make what was done a policing action. The traditional goals of
war (destroy the enemy's ability to wage war) was abandoned. He forgot what
General MacArthur said, "There is no substitute for victory!" In the
process, he killed 50,000 Americans and nearly 2,000,000 Vietnamese. This
was abominable. If it's war, only swift, overwhelming action toward victory
will save the most lives.
> The Soviet Union failed to do it in Afghanistan.
Consider the state of the Soviet army at the time. They became bogged down
in a political process not entirely dissimilar to that of the US in Vietnam.
> The only way to do it now would be with a
> massive nuclear strike.
Sorry to be so blunt, but nonsense.
It will be bloody though. This is not an enemy like the enemies of the past.
This enemy may be willing do die to nearly the last man, and this enemy
requires very little to wage war - only resolve and a state willing to
harbor them. We may have to take nearly all their lives (the terrorists) and
we will certainly have to eliminate the safe harbor (ruin the resolve of the
Taliban and eliminating their ability to hold the populace they hold). All
will depend on the enemy. The way in which the enemy looses will be his
choice. Currently, nations representing more than 800 million people are
pledged to action and there will be more. No nation can stand against such
as this. Following this, rebuilding the nation will be imperative.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
