Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,828
- 1,790
Seems that never has an answer, for which there are reasons why:
VODKAPUNDIT
EXCERPTS:
VODKAPUNDIT
EXCERPTS:
Game Plan
Posted by Stephen Green · 10 August 2004
Before 9/11, we almost always knew how to win a war even the people who weren't in favor of fighting it.
Plenty of people thought we should have just let the Confederate states go their own way in 1861 but even they knew that if we beat General Lee on the field and occupied enough of the South, that the CSA would cry uncle and quit.
The First World War? Same story. Before President Wilson asked Congress for a war declaration, pro-German sentiment was pretty evenly divided with pro-English sentiment. But once war was declared, everybody knew drive on to Berlin, and the world would be made safe for democracy. Except the Germans called it quits before the Anglo-Franco-American allies even crossed the frontier, so WWI never quite ended for the Germans. And that brings us, naturally, to the Second World War.
Not a whole lot of pro-German sentiment here for that one, unless you count some of the really fringe members of the America First brigades. (If I need to refer to them later, we'll call Charles Lindberg, Joe Kennedy & Co. the "Proto-Buchananites.") Even after Pearl Harbor, there were still a few pacifists in the country, however but somewhere in their hearts, they knew the war would be won once we had soldiers occupying Berlin and Tokyo.
And so it went. We did those things, we won those wars.
Nuclear weapons and our first-ever defensive alliances complicated matters. Did we win in Korea, by simply holding the line? Or should victory have been defined as reuniting all of Korea under a friendly government in Seoul? Or, since the Chinese proved to be our real foe after Inchon, should we have considered anything less than deposing the Beijing regime to have been something less than victory?
As I said, nuclear arms and defensive alliances complicated things for us greatly. Our alliances forced us into wars we couldn't quite win (because of the nuclear threat), in order to avoid greater losses in future wars (which would have run even greater nuclear risks). Or, to put it in the kind of language I prefer to use when discussing politics, the Cold War sucked.
If you think war has become complex, peace is messier still and always has been.
Nobody ever knows what the peace will look like. Let's use our examples from earlier. Even as late as Appomattox, who could have predicted the KKK, Jim Crow, or Radical Reconstruction? No statesmen in 1914 knew that the war they were about to unleash would result in 20 million deaths, Russian Communism, or Nazi Germany. World War II?
NOTE: That's what gets me about all the complaints that President Bush "didn't have a plan" to "win the peace" in Iraq. Oh, blow me. Nobody ever has a plan for the peace. Or if they do, it will prove useless. "No peace plan survives the last battle" is the VodkaPundit corollary to Clausewitz's dictum that no battle plan survives first contact with the enemy.
By now, you probably know where I'm going with this little history lesson: How do we define victory in the Terror War, and what will the peace look like.
Let's get the second part out of the way first.
What will the peace look like? I don't have a damn clue. And neither do you. And if you meet anyone who claims to know, feel free to laugh at them really hard. So hard, you get a little spit on their face. Sometimes, justice can be small and spiteful ask a meter maid. Anyway.
When peace comes, it could look like whatever Mecca, Tehran, Damascus, Riyadh, Pyongyang, Khartoum, Kabul, Cairo, etc., look like after being hit by big city-busting nuclear warheads. Or it could end with the entire Arab and Muslim world looking like the really well-manicured bits of Connecticut. My best guess is, somewhere in-between. But that's only a guess.