Quote:
|
Originally Posted by daswig
Mephisto, the people on Hammer's side of the argument are counting....COUNTING on destroying Bush's and the American People's will to win. They know that they can't defeat us militarily, so they encourage the insurgents to adopt the most horrible methods to try and convince the American people that it's just not worth it. It's Vietnam all over again. Giap stated (I'm paraphrasing here) that he knew that the war was militarily lost, but people like John Kerry and Jane Fonda were his one great hope, that they could "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory" for America, and so all Giap had to do was keep the heat on and wait. It worked then, and now the "Hate America no matter what they do" crowd is trying to do it again.
|
This view, that the people opposed to the war are the reason the war has failed to achieve the victory that was promised is absurd, particularly when we consider the reports that were created and subsequently ignored by this administration that predicted a long bitter fight with an insurgency. Unless you presume that those reports were written with the expectation that the anti-war crowd in the U.S. would exist and therefore cause the war to change from flowers-at-our-feet to IEDs-on-the-roads.
This line of reasoning is amazing, really. That it is stated that the morale of the opposition is bolstered by the anti-war crowd in the U.S. and that this is the primary, if not sole, reason that the war has been so bitter. Ignoring, of course, the nature of modern armed conflict between a large powerful force and a small weak force. A nature that inevitably includes guerilla tactics which are near impossible to contain by the larger, more powerful force. This nature of warfare is brushed aside and the blame for the failure is placed squarely on the shoulders of those people who correctly claimed from the start that such tactics of war would be inevitable.
This would be laughable if not for the fact that far too many voters in this country actually believe it.