David Strike wrote:

> At a purely personal level - and having been constantly surfing the cable
> between BBC World: CNN; and SkyNews over the past eleven days - it would
> seem to me that the war lacks all of the elements necessary to an
> overwhelming victory and that, therefore, the reasons for going to war in
> the first place have been either badly, or mistakenly, defined.

This computer will be the death of me.  Every time I hit the return a couple
of times, it kicks me out of Outlook Express.  This is the fourth time I've
tried to respond to this message.

I don't think anybody is sure that this war is the right thing.  Most seem
convinced that something needed to be done, but not everybody, even here, is
sure this is the something.  It does not help that things do not appear to
be proceeding according to a rational plan.  I can't tell if this is
business as usual for wars, i.e. plans work great until the first shot is
fired and it's just because of the incredibly detailed press coverage or if
things really are as unsettled as they appear.  What I'm seeing suggests to
me that the real problem is that the real purpose is something other than
what we have been led to believe.  My guess, and it's really a guess, is
that the whole point is to find and kill Saddam.  That's the only intent
that seems to fit my limited knowledge of what's going on.

> As Clausewitz used to tell me, "Now, Streichy" he would say to me, in that
> very deliberate manner of his, "philanthropists may easily imagine there
is
> a skillful method of disarming and overcoming an enemy without causing
great
> bloodshed, and that this is the proper tendency of the Art of War.
However
> plausible this may appear, still it is an error which must be extirpated;
> for in such dangerous things as War, the errors which proceed from a
spirit
> of benevolence are the worst.  As the use of physical power to the utmost
> extent by no means includes the cooperation of the intelligence, it
follows
> that he who uses force unsparingly, without reference to the bloodshed
> involved, must obtain a superiority if his adversary uses less vigour in
its
> application.  The former then dictates the law to the latter, and both
> proceed to extremities to which the only limitations are those imposed by
> the amount of counter-acting forces on each side.
>
> "This is the way in which the matter must be viewed, and it is to no
> purpose, it is even against one's own interest, to turn away from the
> consideration of the real nature of the affair because the horror of its
> elements excites repugnance."
>
> As a 'humanitarian' war intent on winning the 'hearts and minds' of an
> oppressed populace, it doesn't seem, thus far, to have been an
overwhelming
> success.  I don't think that I'd care to be 'liberated' by a bunch of
Royal
> Marines kicking in my front door and throwing a sack over my head 'cause I
> objected to them running through my vegetable patch. :-)

I sort of like the saying "The point of war is not to die for your country,
but to force some other poor sod to die for his country."  I'm sure I didn't
get it quite right, but you get the idea.

I'm not a bit believer in humanitarian war.  Personally, I figure there are
a couple of key principals at work.  First, everybody needs to know that the
good guys (whichever side I'm on at the time) will go to war if necessary.
Second, war needs to be so horrific that both good guys and bad will work to
see that one is not necessary.  I can't help but wonder how things would
have turned out if all of the major powers had supported action against
Saddam.  It's a lot easier to resist when there are at least some people
that seem to be at least neutral than when everybody is united against you.
No country can survive for long if nobody will associate with them.  We'll
never know.

At any rate, the time for humanity is before the war starts or after it's
over.  There isn't and shouldn't be anything humane about war.

> As a war to overthrow an unpopular dictator, one apparently armed with
> "weapons of mass destruction", it seems to have run out of steam in terms
of
> capturing the centre of power. i.e. the Iraqi government, and/or Baghdad.

It certainly seems something is wrong.  I'm not at all sure what.

> The post-war aims seem to be not too well defined. i.e. there already seem
> to be cracks appearing in the coalition, with regard to re-construction
and
> who will get what tenders; and there seems to be some confusion about who
> should be allowed to govern the country afterwards!  Added to which,
doubts
> seem to exist as to the reaction of neighboring countries to a post-Saddam
> Iraq!

I've got some guesses on this one too, but they're still only guesses.  I
don't think there was a hell of a lot of planning for a post war approach to
Iraq until it became obvious that it wasn't going to be one or two week war.
This too seems to suggest that the purpose is something other than what
we've been told.  Personally, I don't believe we're there to free Iraq.  I
think that's window dressing to counter those who claim we're in it for the
oil.  On the other hand, I also don't believe that we're there to take
possession of the country or its oil.  That's not been our style.  Time will
tell . . . maybe.

> And whoever came up with the bright idea of "embedding" journalists -
armed
> with video-phones and not subject to censorship - with the troops on the
> ground, would seem to have little understanding of the over-riding
> importance of  propaganda in a conflict.  (In some respects, it almost
seems
> as though the whole affair has been taken out of the hands of the military
> and handed to the entertainment industry!)

It is truly an unusual situation.  I haven't a clue as to how or why this is
happening and I'm not at all sure it's a good thing.  I commented only a few
days ago that I much preferred hearing my war news after the fact,
preferably after a quick victory.  If nothing else, it seems to me that it
would be hard to maintain the advantage of surprise with news reporters
televising your every move.

> At the end of the day, the question has to be asked:  Which is better?  An
> uneasy peace with scope for a - albeit lengthy - political settlement?  Or
a
> protracted and bloody half-war with its attendant death and maiming, and
> that disrupts the lives of hundreds of thousands of people?

I'm afraid the answer is neither.  Of all the people who have commented on
this, I think Bjorn is the most balanced and Kuty is, for sure, the most
closely involved.  They seem to think we're doing more good than bad, which
is reassuring.  I hope they're right.  I've always felt that, if you wanted
somebody dead, even the leader of a country, you could make it so.  I don't
understand why that's not the case or, if it's true, why Saddam still
breathes.

> The fact is that, despite all of us holding to our own personal views
about
> the righteousness or otherwise of this war, only history will ever truly
> show whether it was justified or not.  :-)

Maybe yes, maybe no.  History has a habit of supporting those that write it.
This time may be different.  Maybe there's an advantage to the imbedded
coverage of the war . . . or not.

Lee