These Military Vets Have Found A Smarter Way To Fight The War On Terror

You need BOTH approaches if you want to actually win any war.

Dealing with those "at the front" is only one aspect of the war. Denying your enemy the ability to obtain new recruits is as essential as denying him weapons.

The fact that the Pentagon has not prioritized the denial of resources on all levels is a problem that needs to be addressed.

 

Which again as I already said the military has been doing since nearly the start of the war. Now you can argue they have you been enough focus on denial of resources or that we have used the wrong approach but to claim it is not being done simply does you really don't know what you ate taking about.

 

Ever wonder why the U.S. Air Force no longer has a Strategic Air Command ?

You have strategic bombing and tactical bombing.

 

Technically speaking all terrorist bombings are "strategic" under the definition of "strategic bombing".

They are intended to target civilian morale rather than military targets.

For every recruit that you deny to ISIS you effectively reduce their ability to carry out "strategic terror bombing" attacks.

 

Indeed. No arguments from me on any of that; the problem is the sort of 'nation building' we did after WW II was both a product of total surrender of the cultures involved, and they took at least 3 decades to get them on their feet and operating on their own. That sort of success just wouldn't have been viable in the ME, and the American public is so immersed in an 'instant gratification' culture it will never be able to repeat the WW II successes, imo, we shouldn't waste time on such projects any more.

Many of them think they invented modern thought, and know everything because they warmed a seat at a college or something, and everybody else who was born over 25 years ago are practically Un-evolved apes and aren't intelligent life forms. That's why so many 'millennials' are going to win lots and lots of Darwin Award trophies to go with those all got for showing up at school.

Ever notice how truly ignorant and poorly read most of these so-called 'journalists' are, even the nationally 'noted' ones?

 

What I learned in Vietnam, and saw happening from afar in Iraq and Afghanistan was that we can always win battles, but we cannot win occupations.
To have a successful occupation, you have to win over the native population - you will not win over the population when you cannot speak their language, and have ignorance and contempt for their values, religion, and culture.
In Vietnam it was not about ideology, it was about where the next bowl of rice was coming from, and I think Iraq and Afghanistan are probably similar.

 

Poverty is relative. You cannot just buy your way out of every negative thing going on in the world. That is the logic Clinton used when President which is part of the reason a lot of this stuff came to pass since then.

 

The article is partly naïve. Its naïve to: 1) think that all that's needed is to go in remove what we consider to be "poverty" and 2) that poverty is the root cause of the problem.

You and the article author apply Western ideals to a non-Western society. The USA should have learned the lesson that it cannot export American values to every nation and achieve peace.

Whether you like it or not, morality is not universal. A lot of people are motivated by their religion and cultural history. In the USA, you can insult a man's mother or wife and the man won't do anything. Go to Afghanistan and insult a mans mother or wife and you will be in a serious fight with the man and his family.

Go to the mid-East, you will see sons greet their father with a kiss on each cheek, then the son will step back and touch his own chest and forehead - the son is telling his father that he always has his father in his heart and on his mind. Who in America does anything remotely like that? Different culture. They will always listen to family over outsiders. You can't buy your way in.

And in many of those places, you are not just outsider but infidel.

 

They disbanded because I kept calling up the base commander and my Congressman at all hours complaining that 'those B-52's don't need to be taking off every 3 minutes any more and waking my ass up all night! The fricking war is over for us!' after we stopped bombing the North.

 

The OP is not about "buying your way out of poverty". It is about providing those in poverty with a means to make a viable living and thereby no longer be in a position of desperation where they have nothing to lose.

 

Your superficial grasp of the subject matter is duly noted.

Have a nice day.

 

I can relate to that.

Though I grew up during the 50's and 60's in the coastal area of the South Bay in L.A. County and the closest SAC base was 50 miles to the east (March AFB) I still remember driving by March AFB during the 1980's when an entire squadron of B-52's would be lined up and taking off and I would pull over the side of the road and watch an "E Ticket" event.

A B-52 with its eight Pratt & Whitney jet engines spewing out black smoke putting those huge bombers in the air was worth paying $100 to watch.

The B-52 is Americana.

For over three decades during the Cold War, SAC always had an entire B-52 Bomber Air Group ( 3 or 4 B-52 squadrons) in the air 24/7 flying towards the USSR, When they reached the point of no return and didn't get that order to nuke the USSR they turned around and headed back for home while other B-52's took off from SAC bases around America.

Living near a SAC base during the Cold War was just a noisy thing to put up with while winning the Cold War.

 

Really? I'll bet I have vastly more experience with that part of the world than you do.

But I recognize your post as your standard reply when you are clearly out of your element but can't admit it.

 

Suicide bombers of often bored rich kids with no purpose in their lives other than blow themselves up.

 

Mostly yes; some of the wonderful new 'converts' and immigrants who can't get laid by Euro chicks because of their nasty cult views and misogyny and get all butthurt and angry at their lack of respect they perceive from the lower class dhimmis around them.

 

Please provide statistical evidence to support that allegation.

TYIA

 

OK, you guys solve the problem of terrorism while I take my ex-wife home, drop her off and then play Legend of Zelda for the rest of the night

 

You are exchanging one Police State for another and once Freedom is given up voluntarily, it is never returned !

He who would give up Liberty, for a false security, will have neither.

No it is not so easy, rather this;

"A well regulated Militia being necessary for the security of a free State, the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall Not be infringed."

 

It comes down to this - in war it's either kill or be killed? If we want to keep our freedom (which I happen to believe is being grossly abused in all its various ways) then you need to eradicate those who have declared their intention to deprive us of it, QED?? In other words, we can't beat a disciplined and ambition-driven military (think Islamic State?) with a militia. Radical Islam intends to win this war by fair means or foul, and if your view is any thing to go by, my money's on IS.

 

So I gather you have not actually read the OP!

Defeating ISIS is never going to happen by "eradicating" them because you cannot kill an idea.

The way to defeat ISIS is to deprive it of resources in the form of new recruits.

An army that commits suicide with every attack needs lots of new recruits. Cut off the source of the recruits and the problem solves itself.

 

Would that it were so easy! For a start, how would you suggest the west can 'cut off the source of recruits'? Can't be done, mate - the idea is already too instilled, mainly because they've been incentivised enough by our liberalism to know that it's going to be a walk in the park for them. The moment to 'nip it in the bud' was when Assad was taking them on 6 years ago: now though, because we've allowed them to take over Europe, all we can do is either change our law to 'guilty until proven innocent', and deal with the guilty before they can act, not after the events, , or just sit back and wait for them to walk in and take over. God I really wish that my reasoning was as superficial as yours; it wouldn't half do wonders for my BP!!

 

Obviously the Partisans of France, those that fought the Germans during WW ll,

There are many examples, the British against constant German attack.

Never play down the Home Advantage over an invading enemy, hence why gun control is a fools errand, if you want a well regulated highly trained Militia, and at My age, I can still command and train Soldiers, so tell me once again of the great fallacies that shape the non combatants non Military of this World and why anything they say should even be considered of any value ?

 

And yes, I know enough on the topic, training with the assorted task forces and the process of IFF....
You cannot hardly fail as that process has stopped countless 9/11 type attacks on American soil.

 

That you have failed to grasp the content of the OP is glaringly obvious.

Depriving ISIS of recruits will do more to bring this scourge to an end than your naysaying bleating.

 

Well DUH! to that! But my question to you was how do you suggest we do it? Now stop with the squirming and either answer the salient question or shut up, and quit pestering me with non-sequiturs.