4 ms·

Huh? None of them had the power of videos online and twitter. The wide mass spread of ideas worldwide is what makes the 'idea' more potent than anything ground

by pj_mukh 11y ago

Huh? None of them had the power of videos online and twitter. The wide mass spread of ideas worldwide is what makes the 'idea' more potent than anything ground troops could go door-to-door to kill. We have to face it, we cannot shoot and bomb our way out of this. The wars you mention had battles drawn out on big fields. That hasn't been relevant in a century.

Turing_Machine 11y ago
"Huh? None of them had the power of videos online and twitter." Okay, now you're just trying to spin. Naked force has settled more issues ("solved more problems", as you put it) than any other human activity. "The wars you mention had battles drawn out on big fields." What they had was an opponent willing to carry out a policy of utter destruction. ISIS doesn't have such an opponent. Yet.
- pj_mukh 11y ago
  ISIS is not an opponent that will meet you out on a big field. They don't care if its USA or Russia. What they would rather have is Russian and American troops invading. They'd love that. Film it all, post it up on twitter to convert a large swath of the population that is 'on the fence' to join their death cult. A show of naked force is EXACTLY what they want, because it means they WIN.
Turing_Machine 11y ago
P.S. With respect to "battles drawn out on big fields. That hasn't been relevant in a century" Umm...Stalingrad? 1943? Dude, I really think you need to read some more history, and I'm not saying that to be condescending. Your grasp of historic events seems to be a little hazy. Also, for some reason both the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. thought the Fulda Gap was quite important, right up to the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.
- pj_mukh 11y ago
  D-day would've have been a more apt a comparison for a war out on the naked field with full blown charges. There was definitely an evolution of warfare (to more asymmetrical styles) in WW2 when compared to WW1 (which I was comparing as my 'century' mark) and its Passchaendale-like battles. Either way, if you had taken the time to not just focus on such a 'Eurocentric' view of history, you would have brought up Sri Lanka and its take down of the idea of Tamil independence (I don't condone this), but they did successfully take down and all but obliterate the Tigers using pure ground naked force. It is the one example I can think of (I'm sure there are more outside Europe), where a ground force was able to neutralize a virulent idea. However, they had the advantage of having a localized idea (i.e. people outside South India and Sri Lanka didn't care), in which case a ground war was more effective. Islamism is an idea with global reach. Cannot bomb an idea with global reach.
- npunt 11y ago
  I believe pj_mukh was referring to asymmetrical warfare in the style of Stalingrad being what is more common nowadays rather than before. Regardless, we got a clear picture of the cost and lack of result of such a strategy from the last 15 years, so the idea that this time will be different has a very high burden of proof.
  - Turing_Machine 11y ago
    Ummm... no. The last 15 years have been anything but a full-scale war-to-the-knife strategy, ala WWII. While the United States may not be willing to do that sort of thing, others may (cough...Putin, aka the honey badger of heads of state). Also, such policies have a way of changing if the perceived threat level becomes high enough, as the former inhabitants of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden could attest. I am not arguing (or interested in an argument about) whether those things were justified or not. I am merely pointing out that those things can and do happen. Generalizing from Afghanistan is also not justifiable. Many have tried (and failed) to conquer and hold Afghanistan (in no small degree because there's not really anything there worth owning). Syria, by contrast, has been successfully conquered, and held, many times.
    - npunt 11y ago
      Apologies I was only trying to give benefit of the doubt to pj_mukh's comment. Tho 100 years is a stretch, he does have a point about the past ~60. I believe we're saying the same thing aside from that distinction. Also, I was generalizing from Iraq. We didn't do such a great job holding that. This thread is ultimately about military intervention in a place that could be charitably called a total f'n mess, in order to wipe out a terrorist group we helped create from the last total f'n mess we made in the region. Compounding that is the modern challenge of a highly connected world in which every intervention down to the smallest altercation can be caught on video and propagate, creating strife and leading to future acts. Whether or not the territory has been held in the past, the option is not realistically available to us now, nor do we wish to hold the territory, and nor is there a qualified group that could fill the power vacuum that would result if we intervened in a serious way. I don't think Honey badger Putin (btw hilarious) can afford to commit necessary resources to secure Syria in any meaningful way either. Maybe if oil was trading in the $100s and he didn't have Ukraine to worry about, and it was far earlier in the conflict. We obviously have to keep the problem contained with use of both military and non-military means (cut off ISIS $$ for one), but ultimately have to accept that getting mixed up in this is nuts.

by pj_mukh 11y ago

Turing_Machine 11y ago

"Huh? None of them had the power of videos online and twitter." Okay, now you're just trying to spin. Naked force has settled more issues ("solved more problems", as you put it) than any other human activity. "The wars you mention had battles drawn out on big fields." What they had was an opponent willing to carry out a policy of utter destruction. ISIS doesn't have such an opponent. Yet.

pj_mukh 11y ago
ISIS is not an opponent that will meet you out on a big field. They don't care if its USA or Russia. What they would rather have is Russian and American troops invading. They'd love that. Film it all, post it up on twitter to convert a large swath of the population that is 'on the fence' to join their death cult. A show of naked force is EXACTLY what they want, because it means they WIN.

Turing_Machine 11y ago

P.S. With respect to "battles drawn out on big fields. That hasn't been relevant in a century" Umm...Stalingrad? 1943? Dude, I really think you need to read some more history, and I'm not saying that to be condescending. Your grasp of historic events seems to be a little hazy. Also, for some reason both the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. thought the Fulda Gap was quite important, right up to the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

pj_mukh 11y ago
D-day would've have been a more apt a comparison for a war out on the naked field with full blown charges. There was definitely an evolution of warfare (to more asymmetrical styles) in WW2 when compared to WW1 (which I was comparing as my 'century' mark) and its Passchaendale-like battles. Either way, if you had taken the time to not just focus on such a 'Eurocentric' view of history, you would have brought up Sri Lanka and its take down of the idea of Tamil independence (I don't condone this), but they did successfully take down and all but obliterate the Tigers using pure ground naked force. It is the one example I can think of (I'm sure there are more outside Europe), where a ground force was able to neutralize a virulent idea. However, they had the advantage of having a localized idea (i.e. people outside South India and Sri Lanka didn't care), in which case a ground war was more effective. Islamism is an idea with global reach. Cannot bomb an idea with global reach.
npunt 11y ago
I believe pj_mukh was referring to asymmetrical warfare in the style of Stalingrad being what is more common nowadays rather than before. Regardless, we got a clear picture of the cost and lack of result of such a strategy from the last 15 years, so the idea that this time will be different has a very high burden of proof.
- Turing_Machine 11y ago
  Ummm... no. The last 15 years have been anything but a full-scale war-to-the-knife strategy, ala WWII. While the United States may not be willing to do that sort of thing, others may (cough...Putin, aka the honey badger of heads of state). Also, such policies have a way of changing if the perceived threat level becomes high enough, as the former inhabitants of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden could attest. I am not arguing (or interested in an argument about) whether those things were justified or not. I am merely pointing out that those things can and do happen. Generalizing from Afghanistan is also not justifiable. Many have tried (and failed) to conquer and hold Afghanistan (in no small degree because there's not really anything there worth owning). Syria, by contrast, has been successfully conquered, and held, many times.
  - npunt 11y ago
    Apologies I was only trying to give benefit of the doubt to pj_mukh's comment. Tho 100 years is a stretch, he does have a point about the past ~60. I believe we're saying the same thing aside from that distinction. Also, I was generalizing from Iraq. We didn't do such a great job holding that. This thread is ultimately about military intervention in a place that could be charitably called a total f'n mess, in order to wipe out a terrorist group we helped create from the last total f'n mess we made in the region. Compounding that is the modern challenge of a highly connected world in which every intervention down to the smallest altercation can be caught on video and propagate, creating strife and leading to future acts. Whether or not the territory has been held in the past, the option is not realistically available to us now, nor do we wish to hold the territory, and nor is there a qualified group that could fill the power vacuum that would result if we intervened in a serious way. I don't think Honey badger Putin (btw hilarious) can afford to commit necessary resources to secure Syria in any meaningful way either. Maybe if oil was trading in the $100s and he didn't have Ukraine to worry about, and it was far earlier in the conflict. We obviously have to keep the problem contained with use of both military and non-military means (cut off ISIS $$ for one), but ultimately have to accept that getting mixed up in this is nuts.