WombRaider: Completely agree.
He has consistently been wrong, so have you. So, it's natural that you will completely agree with him.
WombRaider: What has it won us? Greater standing? Really? How do you quantify that? Quantify 'greater standing' for me. [INDUCTIVE FALLACY]
You're demonstrating yet another strategy that the losing side of the debate keeps utilizing, consistently asking questions without advancing an argument. That's equivalent to the losing boxer hanging onto the winning boxer without doing anything else, just to remain standing.
Anybody with a brain, and who is capable of researching the information, would not need to ask that question.
I mentioned "greater standing" with reference to rolling back Soviet influence in our own backyard. In that example, removing Soviet influence from governments in the Caribbean and in Central America, and replacing them with governments more favorable to the west, changed the geopolitical picture in the Western Hemisphere.
Now, without client states in Central America, the Soviet Union was limited in what it was able to do in our own backyard. So was Cuba. Before that, we were potentially limited in what we were able to do in our own backyard.
Do you see how that contributed to us having greater standing relative to the Soviet Union and just at one area? Today, we have a free trade agreement with those countries, strengthening our influence in this hemisphere. More on that later.
When it comes to the war on terror, a simple military concept applies. It goes like this. The more resources that a force on the offense is forced to use in defense, the less resources it has to carry out its offense.
Whether you are talking about sea, air, or land warfare, this is incorporated into our strategy. This is incorporated into our tactical, operational, and strategic objectives. When Al-Qaeda went on the offensive, they had momentum on their side. That is, until we attacked them in Afghanistan. Now, they were forced into the defensive.
However, bin Laden, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, are only symptoms of a bigger problem. This problem is an entity that is a true asymmetrical warfare enemy in this asymmetrical warfare. Our invading Iraq opened up another front, flanking Iran, a key perpetrator of regional terrorism, with countries that were now on our side.
With the Middle East now having countries in different states of democratic development, our asymmetrical enemies were forced on the defensive. This, is an example, of how our standing was improved relative to that of our enemies. We succeeded in Afghanistan, and in Iraq, where our adversaries had problems in their own backyards.
The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq set up a momentum that, had Odumba capitalized on it, would have put us in a situation to where we would've had several close allies in different states of democratic development. All of them would now have been fighting the war on terror for us, and the region, by proxy.
Now, instead of having a situation to where our asymmetrical enemies are weakening their respective governments in the Middle East, we made possible a situation to where they would've been in the defensive throughout the region.
Leave it to the Democrats to reverse that like what they did with our momentum in Vietnam.
Al Qaeda wanted to carry out more spectacular attacks on US soil following the 9/11 attacks. Even after we invaded Afghanistan, they never gave up. Our attacking Iraq, and invading it, all but took wind out of that. What was supposed to be an effort, including manpower, time, and resources, to turn the United States into a territory strife with major terrorist attacks, one after another, those resources had to be turned to dislodge us from the Middle East.
In the end, the ultimate goal was democratic and economic stabilization of that region. The Arab Spring was the demarcation to where we would've transitioned to doing in the Middle East what we did in Central America. The US-led military effort created the conditions for that to happen. The Democrat administration, that was supposed to carry on the strategy that worked in that area, dropped the ball.
Now, here's a kicker that you're clueless self and cohorts miss. Relative to the Chinese and the Russians, a good percent of the US military has wartime experience. We watch how the Russians and Chinese do their military operations, and know that if a conflict were to break out between the US and the Chinese or Russians, when the majority of the combat veterans are still in uniform, it will be a bad time for either adversary.
Even Obama sees the danger of those two countries, as he initiated the "pivot" that's shifting a lot of our forces to the West Pacific.
I could go on about how we won, and about how the spinoffs of these wars put us at an advantage. We won, we won with a straight cut victory, and we won with a lot of gains.
WombRaider: Of course the men and women who fought in these wars and conflicts are going to say they believed In It,
Despite what you are implying with this reply, yes, the majority of those who have combat deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan will argue a very similar argument that I'm making on this thread. They will not be doing it as if it were a "catch phrase" as your implying. Like me, they will argue it with passion because that's what most of them believe based on the facts.
WombRaider: but you leave something out, that being a military man, you should know. You fight for your buddies. You fight for your friends. That's what it comes down to.
That's a TACTICAL consideration, Stupid, the debate on this thread is a STRATEGIC consideration, not a TACTICAL one.
HENCE, my not mentioning such, and my mentioning the strategic aspect of this with regards to what the majority of war veterans think.
Don't tell me what I should, and should not know, regarding the military. You come across as an idiot when you do. It's plainly obvious that you have seen that repeatedly on the Internet, but you do not understand what it means. When it comes to the arguments, about the wars in the Middle East, about the Iran nuclear deal, about actions that the Obama administration should take, we are making an argument on a STRATEGIC issue. This requires a response involving STRATEGIC issues.
There are three major levels of operations that the U.S. government and the U.S. military engage in.
We have the strategic level. In basic terms, the strategic level incorporates the nation's overall plan covering a large period of time and a large area. Free trade agreements with other countries, what kind of military involvement you'd have with the country, and other similar considerations, are strategic. This comes along with strategic planning, which pictures how the assets are going to apply over a country, region, or large area.
We have the OPERATIONAL level. In basic terms, this is restricted to a specific area within a larger region or country. Similar concepts apply, but on a smaller scale.
Then we had the tactical level. This is where the "rubber meets the road." This is where battle drills come in, as opposed to moving battalions and brigades around within an AO. This is where "doing it for your battle" comes into play. Had the trend of this thread been TACTICAL in nature, I would have mentioned that.
Since we are arguing about Iran's nuclear program, as well as the Iraq War, or any other war for that matter, this thread is primarily a debate on STRATEGIC matters. Hence, the explanation that I provided that is STRATEGIC in structure. So, instead of this about "fighting for one's battle buddy" or "fighting to ensure that everyone comes home alive," TACTICAL considerations, we're talking about "engaging a policies that benefits the United States and its allies" or "fighting to ensure that the United States, its allies, Western civilization in general, don't perish or get the bad and of the deal," also known as STRATEGIC considerations.
Stay with me now, FOCUS! Pay attention to what you are reading!
WombRaider: Regardless of how the war ended, they're never going to say that it was a waste, because then that means their sacrifice was in vain.
WRONG, you're assuming that the majority of the service members are clueless like you are.
The majority of the service members who combat deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan will argue the same, or something similar, to what I've argued here. They will criticize the Obama administration for dropping the bubble with Iraq. They will criticize that administration for dropping the bubble with regards to the Arab Spring.
The majority of the servicemembers, who combat deployed to Iraq, will argue the same thing, or something similar, that I've argued. They will turn around and tell you that due to the failure of the Obama administration, that victory was reversed.
That will not change their position regarding the wars. This is a position based on their own research, experience, and understanding. This would not be based on any kind of "brainwashing" or "propaganda" in the hands of the corporations.
Your claim, about why they would say something has no bearing on reality.
Granted, there are a minority in the military who would say otherwise. They are a minority.
WombRaider: We didn't gain anything from it. The region is still communist.
Wrong on both accounts. The United States was not in the Middle East to fight against communism. If you are talking about the example I gave earlier, regarding our standing relative to the Soviet Union/communists, with regards to Central America, you're wrong.
They overthrew the communist regimes in those countries in the late 1980s/early 1990s. US businesses, and entities, ended up getting involved with the movement towards capitalism in Central America. The US State Department got involved with moving those countries in the path of democratization.
Today, those efforts have paid off. Even though an infamous Sandinista official one an election, he was only a shadow of his former self. He still embraced, as a democratically elected politician, many of the Democratic/political principles he would've rejected back in the 1980s.
Today, many of those same Central American countries are retirement and tourist destinations appealing to Americans.
If you're talking about the Middle East, you are still wrong. The opportunity is still there to salvage what the US military worked for over there. The Iraqis are fighting against ISIS. Even the Sunnis, who would be the biggest source of recruits for ISIS, are fighting against ISIS. The Shiite in Iraqis are fighting to maintain freedom.
I know for fact that that's what they want, because I saw that when I was there.
Unfortunately, there is lack of leadership from the White House to do what's needed to dislodge ISIS. You people can't scream, for almost a decade, for our forces to get out of Iraq and for us to clean our hands over Iraq, then turn around and blame the results of that very desire, when carried out, on other people.
If our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan can't be salvaged and winds up in defeat, it was because people like you, and the Obama administration, lost those efforts on American soil.
