Shots Across The Bow

here's another question:

are there rules to warfare?

Yes there are. But those rules vary with the opponent, and the tactics they use, because the very first rule of war is "Fight to Win."

That's why you'll never find "proportionate response" in the tool kit of any effective military. It's like tying one arm behind your back because you outweigh the guy who just sucker punched you.

sounds like you're basically saying there aren't any rules to warfare, since that's what a "disproportionate response" would fall under.

i should clarify my statement:

fighting to win: yes, ostensibly this is the aim of those who pick the battles. it is certainly the aim of those attacked, if they retaliate.

the issue of proportionate response is an interesting one, since it is often impossible to objectively discern. i think it is necessary to try to be as proportionate as possible, however. the disproportionate response is one that stands to elevate a situation into something far beyond the initial melee, since it ups the ante. a "you killed my brother, so i'm going to kill your family!" response just adds fuel to the fire.

ideally, a war is quick and precise. in the real world, this is rarely the case (desert storm being an exception, for one, at least on the 'quick' front). personally i see the attack on iraq as a disproportionate response to september 11, and a response that is actually working against us, and our capacity to contain threats.

i don't believe all war is wrong, but i do believe this one is.

and please don't think that i am applying those ideas i don't agree with to you personally, rich. i'm talking about larger views that seem to be held by those who plan and carry out such actions.

you raise an interesting point. Escalation for it's own sake can be just as damaging as blind restraint.

However, we disagree with respect to Iraq. First, I don't see the War in Iraq as directly linked to 9/11. The war in Afghanistan, however, was directly linked. The government of that country was involved in the planning and support of those who carried out the attacks. The mission in Iraq is different. Instead of punishing those who struck us, we're working to make sure that nobody else can hurt us by A) removing a regime with the ability and the desire to hurt us, and B) freeing the people suffering under that regime from torture, murder, rape, and mayhem.

So the Iraq equation is not balanced against 9/11; it's balanced against preventing an escalation of 9/11 while also helping a nation become free.

To me, that equation balances out; to many others, it doesn't.

yeah, to me personally, the equation isn't balanced, since the threat posed by iraq was miniscule compared to other countries. plus, i think there are better methods to sway a situation than war.

as twisted and ruthless and ill-suited to lead as saddam hussein was, we are unfortunately not proving ourselves much better. i'm sure if you asked a sampling of iraqis whether they feel free now, most would say no. all of the horrible things you listed that occured under hussein's regime are frighteningly still occuring. in a different manner and to different ends, to be sure, but happening nonetheless.

this is due to those at the very top, who are operating by a narrow ideology which has little wiggle room for actual human nature. a little sun tzu would have done them well.

and unfortunately, terrorist activities around the world have only escalated in the past 5 years. not exactly the result that our strong armed approach was intended to create.

so i think the pre-emptive strike policy is an act of aggression. i'm sure we'll disagree, but hey. it's good that we can discuss this with civility.

but to get back to your original point:
yeah, that's a pretty stupid bumper sticker.

i hope you have a good weekend, rich.