Questions That May Have To Be Answered Now or Later

[Annie]

http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2006/08/question-for-your-discussion-what-will.html

Saturday, August 12, 2006
Question for your discussion: What will it take to militarize the West?
By TigerHawk at 8/12/2006 09:40:00 AM


I'm going "down the shore" today, so I'm asking you to answer a couple of questions in the comments while I'm lounging on Risden's Beach in Point Pleasant: What will it take to militarize the United States? What will it take to militarize Western Europe?

Background

The cumulative events of the last five years and the tortured choices we face in the Israeli-Hezbollah war have caused many on the hawkish right to believe that our failure to confront Islamic fascism in its various dimensions is condemning us to fight a huge war in the future. For these writers, it is the 1930s all over again, and we are making the same mistakes that the leaders of the West made in the fight againt European fascism. See, e.g., Cardinalpark's post earlier in the week, John Batchelor's disturbing essay in the New York Sun, and Michael Ledeen's "Five Minutes to Midnight" post at the Corner. There are countless other examples.

The problem, it seems to me, is that we are not ready to fight another major war. We have only a couple hundred thousand soldiers that we might deploy, and that would leave us totally exposed elsewhere. To do much more than we are doing now we need a bigger military and we need to spend a lot more money.

Now, it is clearly within our capacity to put many more men and women under arms. During World War II, we put 16,000,000 people into the military, about 13% of the population. Today, even adjusted for an older population, we could probably put 30,000,000 people under arms if our survival depended on it. A huge war in the Persian Gulf would not take that many soldiers, but it wouldn't surprise me if military planners said that we would need four or five million.

We obviously have the capability, if not the will, to expand our military massively if we decide the threat warrants it. However, we will only be able to do this if we substantially militarize our society. We will almost certainly need conscription, and we will need to spend a much larger share of our national income on defense. We will also need to make different investment decisions inside the economy. We would need to mobilize the home front to sustain support for the war. Life would change for everybody.


The assignment

So, if an existential war against Islamo-fascism is as inevitable as World War II became after the appeasement of the 1930s, what event would be necessary to motivate the United States to militarize its society and economy to fight that war? What event, if any, would militarize Western Europe?

What will it take?

 

[Annie]

http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2006/08/question-for-your-discussion-what-will.html

Here's one response, the pics at his site are well worth catching:

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/08/tigerhawks-challenge.html

Saturday, August 12, 2006
TigerHawk’s Challenge

by Baron Bodissey

TigerHawk has thrown down the gauntlet today for us warbloggers:

What will it take to militarize the United States? What will it take to militarize Western Europe?

WW2 devastationGates of Vienna and many of its commenters believe that only another devastating attack on American soil will jar us out of our multicultural complacency. It may even take more than one such catastrophe.

As long as the vast majority of people are largely unaffected by Islamic terror, and as long as the major media are controlled by people who are actively inimical to America and its traditions, the population will not be mobilized to self-defense.

Nips and KrautsThe blogosphere has gained influence in the last few years, but there is no way for it to break through the pro-appeasement propaganda that now saturates the airwaves and the print media.

If this were WW2, we wouldn’t be worrying about the feelings of Muslims, or castigating ourselves as racists for attempting to defend ourselves. We’d be girding our loins to defeat the Ragheads just as we battled the Nips and the Krauts to an unconditional surrender.

JapoteurAdmit it — you winced at my last sentence, didn’t you? That illustrates the depth and breadth of the problem we now face.

So how many casualties does America have to take before it gets serious? 10,000? 100,000? A million? The answer is not yet clear.

Japs Execute Doolittle MenIronically, successful counterterrorism operations like the recent bust in London delay our full mobilization. By protecting us from those who would kill us, and all the while bending over backwards to appease Muslims, the authorities allow us to continue to exist in our cocoon of postmodern bliss.

But the day can only be postponed. The last decade of appeasing Islam has only encouraged our enemy and increased his recruitment. At some point he will succeed, and after Mad Jad gets his nukes the results may well be cataclysmic.

Work as Hard as a JapAs for Europe — nothing will militarize Europe. The deadening inertia induced by the European Union, combined with the ever-increasing economic drain of the welfare state, will keep Europe demobilized and demoralized, with the élites choosing dhimmitude over resistance.

In the end, if Europe is to be saved, it will be a US-Danish-Polish alliance that does the dirty work. John Sobieski and the Vikings are being dusted off for a final assignment…

Baron Bodissey

 

[Annie]

Another from the comments section. There is a link:

Our problem is that we lack the will to fight. All the media hype about how powerful Iran is, is garbage.

A conventional war with Iran would be no more difficult than the 1991 Gulf War against Saddam. Remember, Iran fought Saddam's Iraq for 8 years, from 1980-88, without being to overcome a statemate. Iran is NOT that tough.

However, due to Bush's poor communication, Americans think the Iraq War is a loss even after just 2600 deaths. We have been maneuvered into a position where we cannot wage a war longer than 6 weeks.

Here is a fascinating article about historical trends in warfare.

By Anonymous, at Sat Aug 12, 0236 PM

 

[trobinett]

Another from the comments section. There is a link:

The WILL TO FIGHT, I like that, its VERY true. This nation DOESN'T have the "will to fight".

This nation is being taken over by the surrender monkeys.

We won't know we've lost, until we've lost.

Enjoy the ride.............

 

[Annie]

The WILL TO FIGHT, I like that, its VERY true. This nation DOESN'T have the "will to fight".

This nation is being taken over by the surrender monkeys.

We won't know we've lost, until we've lost.

Enjoy the ride.............

i fear you are right. At the same time, I think that when we are at the point when their foot is on our throat, we'll let them know what we are made of and out legacy.

 

[trobinett]

i fear you are right. At the same time, I think that when we are at the point when their foot is on our throat, we'll let them know what we are made of and out legacy.

I won't say your wrong, and I won't say we still won't be able to kick their collective ass, but at what price?

Why must we wait, till it cost so much?

 

[Told you So]

should a major war occur, i dont think more troops are going to be necessary. In World War, 16,000,000 troops were deployed, but with the technology of today, all we need are a few people in a control room to guide missles, drones, and new-technological aircraft. By the time this supposed war occurs, our military-technological advances will double.

unfortunately, since terrorists have infiltrated many governments and islamic programs throughout the US and Europe, it will be difficult to actually destroy terrorist forces. It will take a series of major terrorist attacks on European nations (specifically France Spain and Germany) to push these nations over the edge, and it will force the governments to respond.

Our issues today include nuclear capabilities and such, of, specifically Iran. Recently, an Israeli fighter pilot shot down an Iranian drone over the Lebanon/Israel area. Hezbollah also was able to shoot missiles into Haifa (a city that was thought to be too far from Lebanon to be hit with hezbollah rockets). Apparently, Iran/ Hezbollah/ our enemies are able to buy new technologically advanced weapons (from China and Russia- in exchange for cheaper oil).

We wont need a draft or more soldiers because we will have better technology.

 

[trobinett]

should a major war occur, i dont think more troops are going to be necessary. In World War, 16,000,000 troops were deployed, but with the technology of today, all we need are a few people in a control room to guide missles, drones, and new-technological aircraft. By the time this supposed war occurs, our military-technological advances will double.

unfortunately, since terrorists have infiltrated many governments and islamic programs throughout the US and Europe, it will be difficult to actually destroy terrorist forces. It will take a series of major terrorist attacks on European nations (specifically France Spain and Germany) to push these nations over the edge, and it will force the governments to respond.

Our issues today include nuclear capabilities and such, of, specifically Iran. Recently, an Israeli fighter pilot shot down an Iranian drone over the Lebanon/Israel area. Hezbollah also was able to shoot missiles into Haifa (a city that was thought to be too far from Lebanon to be hit with hezbollah rockets). Apparently, Iran/ Hezbollah/ our enemies are able to buy new technologically advanced weapons (from China and Russia- in exchange for cheaper oil).

We wont need a draft or more soldiers because we will have better technology.

Well, OK, maybe you've got it pegged, I certainly hope so, but then, thats what the English were hoping for just before WWII started.

I'm more of a "proactive" kind of guy, don't like playing defense, prefer to be on the offense. That way, you call the shot's, kind of direct the play, so to say.

The way we're going today, we are letting the terrorist "direct the play". I got a BIG problem with that, but then, that's just me.

:bat:

 

[dilloduck]

Well, OK, maybe you've got it pegged, I certainly hope so, but then, thats what the English were hoping for just before WWII started.

I'm more of a "proactive" kind of guy, don't like playing defense, prefer to be on the offense. That way, you call the shot's, kind of direct the play, so to say.

The way we're going today, we are letting the terrorist "direct the play". I got a BIG problem with that, but then, that's just me.

:bat:

Bush got screwed because his set up for invading Iraq was pathetic. I dont' think the same mistake will made twice and I see the Hizbullys as more than willing to walk right into trouble--gloating over fighting Israel--what a joke. They destroyed Lebanon to look tough?

 

[PsuedoGhost]

Bush got screwed because his set up for invading Iraq was pathetic. I dont' think the same mistake will made twice and I see the Hizbullys as more than willing to walk right into trouble--gloating over fighting Israel--what a joke. They destroyed Lebanon to look tough?

Agreed. What was the reason why we invaded Iraq? That's what I would really like to know. At this point who cares about WMD or any of that bullshit. Let's have our leaders level with us. Is it because we needed a way to reinvigorate the economy after the recession? Was it to secure oil reserves in the Middle East? What was it for? Why? Any justification would be better than what we've been given for now... Left to justify it in our own minds is very, very reminiscent of Vietnam (I AM NOT COMPARING THIS WAR AS A WHOLE TO VIETNAM).

If anything came about from this whole mess, its that the military doctrine of pre-emption is effectively dead for a decade or so.

 

[dilloduck]

Agreed. What was the reason why we invaded Iraq? That's what I would really like to know. At this point who cares about WMD or any of that bullshit. Let's have our leaders level with us. Is it because we needed a way to reinvigorate the economy after the recession? Was it to secure oil reserves in the Middle East? What was it for? Why? Any justification would be better than what we've been given for now... Left to justify it in our own minds is very, very reminiscent of Vietnam (I AM NOT COMPARING THIS WAR AS A WHOLE TO VIETNAM).

If anything came about from this whole mess, its that the military doctrine of pre-emption is effectively dead for a decade or so.

Bush didn't have to convince me that Saddam needed to go. Odd that liberals who opposed it immediately criticized Bush for not doing the same thing to N.Korea and Iran citing them as a bigger threat. It won't be too hard to make a case for war with Iran. It will be a much harder task to get half of our country educated enough to the danger that exists.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Y'all are operating under the mistaken assumption that Islamic extremists actually care how we, in the West live our lives. They don't. They don't care about our freedom...they don't care about our culture...they don't care about our religions. What they do care about are the policies of western governments that have propped up corrupt and decadent regimes in the Middle-East in order to keep the oil flowing since the end of W.W. II.

For instance, the 1953 CIA sponsored coup in Iran which installed Mohammed Reza Shah as the ruler of that nation, replacing Prime Minister Mossadeq because he wished to nationalize Iran's oil industry. And let's not forget the US support for the House of Saud in those years as well.

It is Western policies in general, and US policies in particular, that have inflamed anti-western sentiment in the region. And since Chimpy McPresident came to office, acts of international terrorism attributed to Islamic terrrorists have very nearly quadrupled. While Chimpy's administration is not the prime mover behind these events, its policies have served to inflame the radical elements of the muslim world against both the US and the West.

"Islamofacism" is just another veil this administration is trying to hide its policy failures abroad behind and justify its continued attempts to undermine the Constitution here at home.

 

[dilloduck]

Y'all are operating under the mistaken assumption that Islamic extremists actually care how we, in the West live our lives. They don't. They don't care about our freedom...they don't care about our culture...they don't care about our religions. What they do care about are the policies of western governments that have propped up corrupt and decadent regimes in the Middle-East in order to keep the oil flowing since the end of W.W. II.

For instance, the 1953 CIA sponsored coup in Iran which installed Mohammed Reza Shah as the ruler of that nation, replacing Prime Minister Mossadeq because he wished to nationalize Iran's oil industry. And let's not forget the US support for the House of Saud in those years as well.

It is Western policies in general, and US policies in particular, that have inflamed anti-western sentiment in the region. And since Chimpy McPresident came to office, acts of international terrorism attributed to Islamic terrrorists have very nearly quadrupled. While Chimpy's administration is not the prime mover behind these events, its policies have served to inflame the radical elements of the muslim world against both the US and the West.

"Islamofacism" is just another veil this administration is trying to hide its policy failures abroad behind and justify its continued attempts to undermine the Constitution here at home.

Total appeasement --that'll work.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Total appeasement --that'll work.

Never works anyways...Neville Chamberlain showed us what a joke that is.

The point being, that "islamofacism" is a canard used by the Administration to cover up its failures and consolidate power. You've either missed that point entirley or, more likely, chosen to ignore it for the unpleasant and inconvenient truths it alludes to.

 

[dilloduck]

Never works anyways...Neville Chamberlain showed us what a joke that is.

The point being, that "islamofacism" is a canard used by the Administration to cover up its failures and consolidate power. You've either missed that point entirley or, more likely, chosen to ignore it for the unpleasant and inconvenient truths it alludes to.

no--didn't miss it-----just pointing out that the only way to make the muslims happy is to get out of the mideast and let Israel die

 

[Gunny]

should a major war occur, i dont think more troops are going to be necessary. In World War, 16,000,000 troops were deployed, but with the technology of today, all we need are a few people in a control room to guide missles, drones, and new-technological aircraft. By the time this supposed war occurs, our military-technological advances will double.

unfortunately, since terrorists have infiltrated many governments and islamic programs throughout the US and Europe, it will be difficult to actually destroy terrorist forces. It will take a series of major terrorist attacks on European nations (specifically France Spain and Germany) to push these nations over the edge, and it will force the governments to respond.

Our issues today include nuclear capabilities and such, of, specifically Iran. Recently, an Israeli fighter pilot shot down an Iranian drone over the Lebanon/Israel area. Hezbollah also was able to shoot missiles into Haifa (a city that was thought to be too far from Lebanon to be hit with hezbollah rockets). Apparently, Iran/ Hezbollah/ our enemies are able to buy new technologically advanced weapons (from China and Russia- in exchange for cheaper oil).

We wont need a draft or more soldiers because we will have better technology.

No matter what the techology, you win wars by taking land and you take land with boots on the ground. Airstrikes are short-term, immediate cures for specific symptoms. They will have little if any effect on the destroying the basis for those symptoms.

The way indicators currently point, the next "big war" will be between the civilized world and the Islamic Republic of Iran. It won't be like Iraq. Whether or not the Iranian people hate the despots that currently control their nation, they will close ranks with them and fight any outside invasion of their Nation.

It appears at this point "what it will take" is the Islamic Republic of Iran possessing and threatening to use nuclear weapons. At the moment, the "they won't have them for years" mentality prevails, and playing ostrich seems to be just fine with most of the West.

 

[Mr. P]

no--didn't miss it-----just pointing out that the only way to make the muslims happy is to get out of the mideast and let Israel die

I don't think that would even do it. IMO it would only embolden the fanatic movement to continue their stated mission, the destruction of the west.

 

[Gunny]

Never works anyways...Neville Chamberlain showed us what a joke that is.

The point being, that "islamofacism" is a canard used by the Administration to cover up its failures and consolidate power. You've either missed that point entirley or, more likely, chosen to ignore it for the unpleasant and inconvenient truths it alludes to.

Sure. Ignore the fact that Islamofascism exists and needs to be dealt with like any cancer in favor of taking yet another baseless shot at the current administration just because you don't like Republicans.

 

[dilloduck]

I don't think that would even do it. IMO it would only embolden the fanatic movement to continue their stated mission, the destruction of the west.

Agreed-----just trying to talk to Bullys' level. I think it's great that the enemy is doing such a good job of defining itself to all the idiots who didn't know who they were before. This cocky attitude of thiers will be thier downfall. A truce just ain't gonna happen--neither side even wants one.