Obama Celebrates Winning War He’s Losing

mission

Good news. There’s a turning point in the war. Just like the last four times Obama pretended to withdraw from somewhere.

Marking what he called a “turning point” for the U.S. military, President Barack Obama on Monday saluted troops returning from Afghanistan and declared the United States is moving past the time for large deployments aimed at nation building.

Obama noted that nearly 180,000 troops were deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan when he took office, and that number will be down to less than 15,000 at the end of the month.

“The time of deploying large ground forces with big military footprints to engage in nation building overseas, that’s coming to an end,” the commander in chief said in a speech to 3,000 at New Jersey’s Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, a launching point for deployments to Afghanistan.

So US troops will be staying on in Afghanistan past Obama’s old deadline. US troops are coming back to Iraq after Al Qaeda got its own country after his last withdrawal.

And Obama is trying to spin all that as a victory.

It’s a turning point when you win. Losing more people in Afghanistan than Bush did and then trying to claim that your partial withdrawal is a great achievement is low even for Obama.

Having to go back into Iraq and then patting yourself on the back for having reached a turning point because your boots on the ground aren’t officially there is cynical even for Obama.

  • Texas Patriot

    There is no question that we should have withdrawn sooner. The idea that we could transform a Muslim nation into a functioning Jeffersonian democracy with respect for individual freedom and human rights was a tragic mistake from the beginning. The “victory” such as it is consists of stemming the flow of American blood and treasure into a bottomless pit without any hope of accomplishing anything.

    • Pete

      How is a Loya Jirga different than a Viking Alhing or an Anglo-Saxon Moot?

      • Texas Patriot

        We’re much better off spending our scarce resources in the process of perfecting our own democracy rather than trying to create one from scratch in an area where the underlying culture utterly rejects core American ideals of individual freedom, human rights, and constitutional democracy.

        • Pete

          The Loya Jirga exists, so it is not starting form scratch.
          The

          • Texas Patriot

            If that’s what they want, let them work on it.

          • Pete

            (1) There are outside groups obstructing the normal group workings from Russia to Pakistan to Saudi Arabia to the Muslim Brotherhood to …
            (2) If the can flip Afghanistan than they can use its’ resources to do same to next country. It snowballs.
            If you look at the Wends in the 9th century or the Germans leading up to the Migration Period, you see what happens.
            The tribal councils break down and get replaced by chiefs. Then you get monarchies etc.
            There are still processes that promote democracy even though just a few people are looking out for their own interests (Magna Carta). There are processes whereby one person looking (the king) promotes free towns. there are the towns and individuals looking out for their iwn interests. this happened whrn serfs ran away from

          • Texas Patriot

            In the process of trying to solve the world’s problems for the last fifty years, we’ve let our own problems get out of control. At this point we can’t even police our own streets much less anyone else’s.

          • Pete

            One trick pony

          • Texas Patriot

            Just truth.

          • Pete

            Nope, not so much we can’t handle more than 1 problem as the Left works at cross purposes to the Right.

            Example: Nixon’s (a Republican) Vietnamization policy worked. In 1972 the North Vietnamese got their azz handed to them. North Vietnam triumphed after the Democrats pulled the rug out from the South Vietnamese and royally azz f_____ them.

            You can’t say it doesn’t work and you can’t engage in foreign policy and domestic policy at the same time, when a political party does that.

            But hey you will.

          • Texas Patriot

            It’s a question of prioritizing resources. During the last fifty years, we’ve under-prioritized the solving of domestic problems, and the result is that we are rapidly losing our competitive edge economically and technologically.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWM08DzTuhY

          • Pete

            So from 1790 to 1814, we should have prioritized to strictly domestic funding to increase the GDP and the wages of working Americans.

            Because you cannot possibly conceive that spending 1% less on domestic may not decrease GDP and wages, but actually increase it.

            You do know what Jefferson did when he washed his hands of Europe and imposed a trade embargo?

            You do know the losses in GDP, lives and wages when we were attacked by the Barbary Pirates.

            But hey 100% domestic spending, that is the ticket.

          • truebearing

            The greatest technological advances come during times of war. How does that fit your theory?

          • Texas Patriot

            Wars aren’t going away, but how we fight them needs to change.

          • Pete

            Yeah, we need to arbitrarily declare victory earlier.

          • truebearing

            How we fight wars will have more to do with what we face than what we decide we will face. The exigency of survival forces the changes…but that isn’t what I was addressing in your comment. You stated:

            “It’s a question of prioritizing resources. During the last fifty years, we’ve under-prioritized the solving of domestic problems, and the result is that we are rapidly losing our competitive edge economically and technologically.”

            What do you mean? How will solving these unspecified domestic issues solve our loss of competitiveness? Who will spearhead this solution and whose resources are being used to do it? Are you talking about more big government programs?

            Fifty years ago it was 1964. The US was #1 in every desirable category. It was also the time when we began squandering our resources for the ostensible goal of “solving domestic problems.” The Great Society debacle led to the incremental erosion of what made the nation #1 to begin with. That fact seems to contradict your theory.

          • Texas Patriot

            You’re right about one thing. The defeat of Barry Goldwater and the election of Lyndon Johnson in 1964 was the beginning of a long steady slide in American economic competitiveness that continues to this day. Just watch the video I linked along with the comment, and think about it. It should all start to become more clear to you at some point.

          • truebearing

            There is no question that Goldwater’s defeat was a serious turning point. I would argue that Nixon’s defeat by JFK was also a turning point, but perhaps not as obvious. Imagine the Soviet Union putting nukes in Cuba with Nixon as the president. Wouldn’t have happened, and not just because the Soviets would have feared him far more but because Nixon wouldn’t have allowed Castro to succeed to begin with.

          • JayWye

            How we POLITICALLY fight them needs to change;
            that is where the US has been losing. If we hadn’t been PC and sold out by leftist media and Fifth Columns inside the US,we’d have triumphed in every war we’ve fought.

          • hiernonymous

            “The greatest technological advances come during times of war.”

            Is this something you’ve researched and can support, or is it another sorta feeling you have? Most of the game-changing technological advances of the past few centuries – the steam engine, internal combustion, the telegraph, the internet, etc – were not results of wartime research. Often, war leads to risk-taking and acceleration of ongoing research in a way that makes it appear as if more advances are being made, but this can be misleading. For example, everyone knows that radar was invented in WW2- except that it wasn’t. It was invented in 1935; it first saw widespread practical application in WW2. The tank saw radical advances in WW2, but even the design elements of the tanks designed during the war can be traced to technological advances made in the interwar period, such as Koshkin’s work on sloped armor that made the T-34 so famous.
            It seems intuitive that war increases pressure for innovation, but it also seems intuitive that war diverts resources and time from long-term R&D in favor of quick-payoff innovations, and equally intuitive that research suffers when researchers and infrastructure are constantly at risk.
            Freeman has even argued that wars lag technological change, rather than cause them. He subscribes to the Kondrotiev cycle concept of technological innovation, in which waves of technological change occur every 40-60 years, often beginning during economic downturns, and that wars often follow these waves of change.
            At any rate, you make your assertion as if repeating a known truth – I’m curious to know how much thought actually went into it.

          • Asemodeus

            To be fair the idea for microwave ovens stemmed out of WWII surplus parts and a need for a new market for them.

          • Pete

            “”The greatest technological advances come during times of war.””
            It is a common meme. I believed it until about 10 15 years ago.
            I have greater appreciation for marketing majors and just people who want to make an honest buck.

          • truebearing

            Are your comments your own thoughts, or are they your usual aggregated, cut and pasted opinion of some other source(s)?

            Here is some more reading material for you. Naturally, you will quibble over definitions and cite advancements during “interwar periods,” failing to acknowledge that even during those periods, the military has been the biggest player in funding the research that produces the most important discoveries. That funding employs by far the most scientists, as well.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_military_technology

          • hiernonymous

            “Are your comments your own thoughts, or are they your usual aggregated, cut and pasted opinions from some other source(s)?”

            It’s more a function of my academic and professional background. It’s usual, when employing the phrase “as usual,” to be able to provide at least a single example of the behavior or activity in question. When I quote someone else’s work, I indicate it as such. If you disagree, link to the post in question and we can figure out why you think what you do.

            “I’m quite comfortable with my comment.”

            Not the highest bar one could set.

            The link you provide, by the way, examines science’s contributions and importance to the military. That’s interesting, but doesn’t support your generalization. It’s worth remembering that your comment said that the greatest technological advances come in times of war, not that they were related to support of the military. Those are two very different contentions.

            “It was a general comment, obviously, and not intended to list every technological innovation in the history of mankind.”

            I was curious about the degree of thought that went into your comment. You’ve satisfied my curiosity. Thank you.

          • truebearing

            Sloped armor, while an excellent idea, hardly compares to the advent of jets, much less atomic weapons. And then there are all of the advances that were made in medicine.

          • hiernonymous

            “There is a significant difference…”

            Not unless you seriously misunderstood what I mean be “game changing.” I’m talking about inventions that change human life, not inventions that merely change the outcomes of wars. I rather thought that the examples I offered would make that plain.

            As for the advent of jets, you apparently aren’t familiar with the history of the jet engine. Conceptual work on the turbojet began in the 1920s; by the mid-’30s, work had progressed to the practical level. The first jet-powered aircraft flew on 27 August, 1939 – before the start of the war.

            So, sure, that’s yet another example of a game-changing – or, if you prefer, “great” – technological advance that was not a wartime invention.

          • JayWye

            the “outcomes of wars” certainly DO change human lives”.
            Just ask any American of Vietnamese descent,those who came over after the commies took over Vietnam,the “boat people”. Ask the people of South Korea,or North Korea if you could talk to them. Ask the people of Taiwan. Ask the people of Israel.
            etc,etc.

          • hiernonymous

            “…the “outcomes of wars” certainly DO change human lives”.”

            Nobody said that they didn’t. Of course they do. Not as much as, say, improved agricultural techniques or the advent of steam power, but they do. Thinking that they’re the sole or primary driver of human change or advancement is where you start running into trouble.

          • truebearing

            You can mean whatever you want, but it doesn’t mean that what you want to write about is the same category I was talking about. “Greatest” is not “most.”

            You left the atom bomb, and the advent of nuclear energy, out of consideration because it dwarfs the impact of sloped armor.

            As for citing the Heinkel He 178, it was a German plane designed for the Lutwaffe and it flew 4 days before Germany attacked Poland. Germany had been preparing for war for years before they attacked Poland, so you can’t argue that it was developed during a time of peace. What a weaselly argument.

          • hiernonymous

            Here’s what you said: “The greatest technological advances come during times of war.”

            As a generalization, that’s nonsense. That’s not the same thing as saying that no great technological advances have ever been realized in time of war, but they certainly are not unique to such times. Nuclear fission was significant, of course, but in terms of dramatic impacts on human life, it’s hardly the most significant development of the past few centuries. I’d argue that such honors go to the steam engine, which, for the first time in human history, allowed humans to freely apply great mechanical force at places of their choosing. It revolutionized transportation on land and at sea, dramatically reducing crude death rates around the world. Not a wartime development.

            “As for citing the Heinkel He 178, it was a German plane designed for the Lutwaffe and it flew 4 days before Germany attacked Poland. Germany had been preparing for war for years before they attacked Poland, so you can’t argue that it was developed during a time of peace.”

            Given that the engine in question represented years of development of the technology in several countries, it can’t really be described as anything else. If you don’t understand that August 1939 was not “in wartime” – at least, not in Germany – then you are having trouble reading a calendar.

            “What a weaselly argument.”

            Weaselly is trying to explain how an engine developed between 1935 and August 1939 occurred during a war that began in September 1939 and ended in 1945. Again, you seem unable to understand that “in support of the military” and “in times of war” are not synonymous, and it’s a meaningful distinction. Wartime is a pretty poor time to do long-term fundamental R&D; what tends to happen, based on every example you’ve given so far, is that work that was well advanced during peacetime is rushed to practical application. A good counter-example to your thesis, for example, is the internet, which has changed our lives more fundamentally than, say, nuclear power. It began as a defense research project exploring ways to make data communications more resilient in the event of a nuclear exchange; but it certainly wasn’t developed “in time of war,” and its development and applications quite quickly left its military roots far behind.

            Bottom line: you engaged in a bit of silly overstatement. Probably the single greatest technological advance in human history was the domestication of plants and animals in the Neolithic Revolution; steam power is arguably second. If you want to talk about the great advances in medicine, go ahead. Not sure how you’d rank order them, but surely Jenner’s discoveries that led to the principle of the vaccine rates up there – not a wartime discovery. Antibiotics were discovered in 1928. Birth control was not a wartime discovery, Anesthetics have a long history, so it’s hard to isolate a single incident – perhaps the introduction of ether, first used in 1842 and publicized later that decade – not a wartime development. Obviously, there have been many medical advances made as a result of wartime experience – particularly in dealing with severe trauma such as amputation and head injuries – but that’s a very different proposition from suggesting that most great medical advances occur during wartime.

            Not sure how much plainer it can be made. In order to support your proposition, you have to show that the preponderance of significant technological advances occurred during wartime, and, well, they simply didn’t. It’s not enough to point to some big ones that did occur in war – that’s not what you said, and nobody has argued that technological advances stop happening in war.

          • truebearing

            Germany advanced in Austria and
            Czechoslovakia in 1938. That was the beginning of WWII.

            Technology doesn’t count unless and until it becomes reasonably functional. Try getting a patent on something that you can’t prove works. The Germans poured money into jet aircraft, and had they but a little more time, their jet could have changed the war. Japan was working on atomic weapons as well. We beat them, but if we hadn’t, we would have lost the war. That kind of technological power is overwhelmingly decisive and comes during times of war.

            “Times of war” is actually somewhat misleading. The US, Russian, Chinese, Israeli, and other militaries never stop developing new technologies, so don’t try to place arbitrary rules on war related techonological impact based strictly on whether a country has troops fighting at a specific time. The Cold War went on for a long time, during which massive amounts of research and advancement in technology ocurred.

            Domestication of plants and animals wasn’t “technology.” They weren’t creating GMO crops or artificially inseminating animals. Furthermore, you don’t know that the domestication of animals didn’t happen during a period of war, where leaving cattle to roam might mean losing your only food supply. Taming animals and keeping them in herds, protected from enemies, likely drove that advancement in animal husbandry. You made a thoroughly unsupported assumption when you cited these as examples of advancements that happened during times of peace. Why would you assume primitive people didn’t fight wars?

            I find it curious that someone who has been in the military doesn’t recognize the reason for the existence of the military: to hopefully ensure the survival of tribes, city-states, countries, or empires. From construction methods to agricultural methods to food storage to transportation, people have been advancing technology to defeat their enemies and survive war, both before war and during. You ignore the priority placed upon military capability that every culture in human history has been committed to, or been destroyed by the lack thereof…at least until modern times where annihilation hasn’t been practiced. Military conflict has always been about technology, and most of human history is defined by military struggle. How do you separate technological advances from cultures that were centered around military conflict?

          • camp7

            Very good.

          • hiernonymous

            Well, that’s certainly a novel approach – defend your comment by redefining pretty much all of human history as a time of war, therefore all the greatest technological advances came in time of war. But, sorry, can’t let it fly.

            “Germany advanced in Austria and Czechoslovakia in 1938. That was the beginning of WWII.”

            Except, of course, that it wasn’t. Had Austria or Czechoslovakia resisted, had the Germans decided to use military force to overcome that resistance, and had the Western Allies then come to their assistance, the war might have started then – but it didn’t. Still, this is a revealing comment – rather than concede a rather obvious and uncontroversial point, you’ll try to redefine history – and it’s rather pointless. Even if you could establish the jet as a wartime invention – and you can’t, we’ll get to that – it wouldn’t prove your point. Nobody has suggested that there are no significant advances in war; I don’t even think anyone would disagree that the pace of innovation increases during war. But neither of those are what you argued.

            As for the jet, well, if you want to date the use of steam power to a sketch by Archimedes, then I’m afraid we have to date jet power to the aelopile of 1st century Alexandria. No war link there, I’m afraid. For that matter, while Archimedes may have been developing a weapon, it was not in time of war – one of the reasons that Archimedes was free to follow his many pursuits was that his native Syracuse enjoyed a period of remarkable peace and stability during his lifetime. No “time of war” there, either.

            If you want to quibble about when the jet was invented based on patents, well, okay – Frank Whittle of the UK was granted one in 1932 and had his first engine running in 1937. Certainly work and improvement did not stop during the war, but to claim that the jet engine was invented in time of war is to ignore the fact that the conception and development did not occur in wartime. Unless, of course, you wish now to argue that WW2 really began, say, with the French invasion of the Ruhr in 1923? Or perhaps that the Versailles treaty, having laid the groundworks of resentment and economic hardship, was really the start of the war? Or the not-terribly-novel argument that the World Wars are really one long struggle? Knock yourself out!

            Domestication of plants and animals wasn’t “technology.”

            Fair enough. There’s a world of associated technology – all of the tools used for drilling seed holes, plowing, reaping, etc – but the domestication itself might better be described as ‘technique.’

            As for those advances coming in time of war, just how familiar are you with the paleolithic and neolithic? “War” to nomadic groups was not a years-long struggle of organized armed might; there were neither the demographic or geographic pressures for such. It is not until after the development of agriculture that nomadic groups could settle into one place and try to make permanent territorial claims. Nor was domestication of animals undertaken primarily to protect herds from competing human clans. Domestication permitted reliability of the food supply and exploitation of animals not otherwise possible. Hunt a bird, and you eat for a day. Domesticate a bird, and you get eggs. Hunt cattle, and you eat for a week, and get skin and bones for tools and clothing. Domesticate cattle, and you have milk, and power to plant crops, and transportation of larger loads. Nothing about our history suggests that the motives for these were “military.” In fact, it is not until the Hyksos, if I’m not mistaken, that we see domesticated animals used to any real effect in organized warfare, to the temporary discomfiture of the Egyptians. There might be earlier examples, but certainly not pre-civilization. To address your challenge more directly, the archaeological record doesn’t support the idea of any wars lasting long enough to account for or influence the Neolithic Revolution. Perhaps you have a novel understanding of the transition from paleolithic to neolithic to match your novel understanding of the chronology of WW2 – if so, feel free to describe it. With support, of course.

            “I find it curious that someone who has been in the military doesn’t recognize the reason for the existence of the military: to hopefully ensure the survival of tribes, city-states, countries, or empires.”

            I find it curious that you actually believe that anything written so far suggests anything of the sort. How, exactly, do you suppose that disputing the absurd contention that “the greatest technological advances come during times of war” suggests that one does not understand the roles of the military?

            “…people have been advancing technology to defeat their enemies and survive war, both before war and during.”

            Of course they have. That doesn’t imply that that is the only or even primary reason that they have advanced technology.

            “You ignore the priority placed upon military capability that every culture in human history has been committed to, or been destroyed by the lack thereof…”

            Nope. It’s you that don’t seem to understand the implications of what you wrote. You said that the greatest technological advances come during times of war. That is not remotely the same argument as “the greatest technological advances come in support of military goals.” While I would dispute even that, it is far more defensible.

            You don’t seem to understand or appreciate the difference. Technological advances rely largely on the free exchange of ideas, on the flow of information, and on the ability to conduct research and experiments in a relatively stable and long-term fashion. War interrupts the flow of information – among states, for obvious reasons, and even within a state, for practical reasons. Resources are diverted from activities without any obvious military applicability. I think it’s a fair generalization that wars tend to initially accelerate the apparent pace of innovation by compressing the timelines of ongoing developments of projects with obvious military application, in the process accepting greater risks of failure, loss of resources, etc. As the war goes on, fundamental R&D suffers. There are exceptions, of course – the U.S. enjoyed a degree of geographic impunity in WW2, for example – but it would be interesting to see you compare the number of inventions produced in WW2 that were based on acceleration of mature pre-war work with the number of late-war or post-war inventions based on conceptual work initiated during the war. No doubt there are some, but they wouldn’t include any that you’ve highlighted as significant so far.

            “…or been destroyed by the lack thereof…at least until modern times where annihilation hasn’t been practiced…”

            Eh? I thought you’d read Clausewitz. He argued that the French introduced the war of annihilation with their revolutionary nation in arms. If you’re referring to a Carthage-style destruction of the vanquished, that’s not an ancient-modern distinction, but a cyclical pattern in the conduct of warfare. Wars tend to peak in a sort of orgy of destruction that shocks the world and leads to periods, some of them quite long, of limited warfare. It would be hard to find a war of annihilation more thorough than that conducted by the Germans in Barbarossa; are you not including WW2 in “modern times?”

            “Military conflict has always been about technology…”

            Nonsense. Military conflict has always attempted to make the best use of available technology, but it is far more than that. Refer to your valid point about the domestication of animals not being “technology.”

            “How do you separate technological advances from cultures that were centered around military conflict?”

            No need to. See my comment above. You didn’t claim that the greatest advances were driven by military purposes; you said that they occurred during times of war. Hopefully, by the time you read this sentence, you will understand that the two ideas are not similar, much less the same.

          • truebearing

            “Perhaps you have a novel understanding of the transition from paleolithic to neolithic”

            You aren’t basing your maunderings on history, but on historical theory. As far as I know, there was no “Josephus” of the neolithic. Archaeologists aren’t exactly in lock-step agreement on every fossil record, though you no doubt want them to be. Fossil records are incomplete, and interpretation somewhat subjective. Another specious argument.

          • truebearing

            “You didn’t claim that the greatest advances were driven by military purposes; you said that they occurred during times of war.”

            Clearly, it is imlied they were driven by military purposes. Now you are really winding up the old pettifogger.

          • hiernonymous

            You really are having trouble following this, aren’t you.

            Let’s try again. Your claim was that the greatest advances are made in wartime. That’s a much narrower claim, and has a much different connotation, than saying that they were made for military purposes. Advances made in wartime may well largely be for military purposes, but the converse is not true.

            I understand the inclination to dismiss arguments you’re having trouble understanding as ‘pettifogging,’ but you’d be much better served in actually trying to understand what’s being said, and then try to figure out whether you want to – and can – dispute it.

          • truebearing

            Were there any functional jet fighters that preceded the Messerschmitt ME 262? No. There jet engines in various states of development, but a fighter is more than just an engine. War was the driving force behind the advent of jet aircraft.

          • hiernonymous

            That’s a bit like suggesting that the airplane was invented in WWI because the Wright Brothers’ flyer was not an effective combat aircraft.

            The first jet plane flew before WW2. You may not have known that before you selected that example, but now you do. So far, you’ve tried to avoid facing this piece of knowledge by trying to change the start date of WW2, by trying to broaden the definition of war to encompass, well, pretty much everything, and by trying to change the date at which the jet aircraft was invented. If you’re done trying to change the facts, we can get back to evaluating what they mean. The jet was quite plainly not developed under the conditions and pressures of war, so it quite plainly does not meet the letter or spirit of your earlier comment.

            If you wish to limit your claim to “the first jet fighter was invented in wartime,” well, sure. I’ll give you that. But we were discussing the “greatest technological advances,” and while the jet engine has revolutionized many aspects of life, allowing fast and reliable intercontinental air travel, we can’t really make that claim about jet fighters.

          • truebearing

            You have a point on the annihilation issue. I was thinking of the essentially genocidal annhilation practiced in ancient wars, but the Nazis would have if they could have.

          • hiernonymous

            “They were most effective at annhilating their own citizens…”

            Actually, the numbers suggest otherwise. They killed far more Russians than they did Germans.

          • truebearing

            As for the technological debut of steam, you can go all the way back to the Greeks and the genius, Archimedes, for the first relatively well documented use of steam in war.

            http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/war/CatapultTypes.htm

          • truebearing

            No response? How unusual.

          • camp7

            Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Who is to say what motivates invention? Is it the pure pursuit of science, inborn creativity, necessity, nationalism or perhaps altruism? Most likely a combination.

            Dogs and horses, agrarian or aggression, utility or war? What discipline summed the most impact? Sails,
            steam, combustion, electronics and nuclear fission, how would you qualify and quantify those impacts without a complete database of statistics and ratio
            dynamics? You fall into the trap of conjecture that you accuse others of.

            War has strengthened nations. It promoted organization, invention and efficiency pushing
            civilization forward by promoting it and defending it. It is slowly transitioning to modern industry but not without its historical contributions. We’re at a juncture now where war may be necessary again to protect the
            progress that we’ve made. And BTW, there’s some military technology being used now that the private sector will find very useful someday.

          • hiernonymous

            “You fall into the trap of conjecture that you accuse others of.”

            Well, no. I haven’t suggested that you need accept my conjecture about ranking steam’s importance, nor does my argument rely on it. I’m offering counterexamples, but have not tried to argue that there is a single cause, characteristic, or circumstance to replace TB’s “times of war.”

            “War has strengthened nations.”

            And weakened them. Two significant contributing factors to the downfall of Rome were its incessant internecine warfare and the economic pressures of trying to meet the Sassanid and German pressure on the borders. The degree of Rome’s stability, strength, and prosperity are arguably inversely proportional to the degree to which its political and economic resources were dedicated to the military. Earlier in Roman history, the Republic’s wars against Carthage superficially strengthened the state – the Romans learned naval warfare, honed their warfighting skills, and went on to conquer many lands with their newfound prowess – but those very victories laid the seeds for the destruction of the Republic, as the influx of treasure and slaves destroyed the agrarian society that had been its foundation. The Byzantine wars against the Persians, far from strengthening them, left them both prey to the Muslims.

            So while I’d agree that some degree of aggression and violence can act as a spur to innovation and action, such a focus rapidly becomes counterproductive. Similarly, trying to view the history of man as simply a history of warfare is terribly misleading and represents a distortion.

            “And BTW, there’s some military technology being used now that the private sector will find very useful someday.”

            Sure. And there’s some civilian technology being used now that the military will find very useful someday. There’s very little technology that doesn’t prove useful in both worlds. I had many an opportunity to use off-the-shelf civilian technology during my military career.

          • truebearing

            We can’t police our own streets thanks to Obama’s divisive agenda. He is a leftist and a Muslim, or at least a Muslim sympathizer. He has championed the evil and punished the good. He has encouraged the anti-white/anti-cop/anti-America mentality with every opportunity. He has opened the borders to every criminal in South America, not to mention terrorists from all over the world. He has encouraged racial violence in our streets. Why don’t you blame him? Why don’t you ever blame him? You certainly are willing to blame America for allof the world’s problems.

            You can’t ignore the world’s problems while trying to solve everyone’s problems at home. Our fight to defend freedom is essential, or was. Now no country is fighting evil aggressors and you see the results. Obama allowed ISIS and other terror groups to take over Iraq and rape, enslave, and murder thousands of men, women, children, and babies. Obama withdrew and created a power vacuum that evil filled.

            Should we have ignored the Nazis in WWII? Or maybe the British in 1812? Or perhaps the Barbary Pirates? You seem to think that foreign nations, or terror groups, are entirely reactive to US policy, with no minds or agendas of their own. Your argument assumes all of their actions are solely in response to ours and that their ideologies were all created in reaction to the US. That is a very naive, ego-centric view, and is impossible. The US didn’t exist when Islam began its ugly history. The underlyling assumption is that if the US were to entirely cease all foreign action, the nations of the world would suddenly stop fighting, seeking expansion, or conquering weaker nations. This theory was proven wrong by world history, pre-United States, and now again by Obama’s Post America Power Vacuum Doctrine.

          • Texas Patriot

            Read the new book @War by Shane Harris, and you’ll have a lot better idea where I’m coming from.

          • Pete

            “From combat to commerce” – Jerry Doyle

            That pretty much covers it generically.

            War is just a specific niche.

            If you fight war on the cheap, you will train the enemy (they are not stupid; they will adapt. Case in point: During the Korean War the Air Force stopped bombing rail lines because it would not accelerate or cause the collapse of the North Koreans. they were repairing rail lines as fast as we were blowing them up.), you will prolong the war & big business will carve out a niche.

            Cheers!

          • JayWye

            sounds like one more rant against the “military-industrial complex”.

          • Pete

            I believe he has a point.
            Then again what was there? MRAPs, food, facilities, construction projects, GSA material and non GSA material.
            MRAPS are a big ticket procurement item. Not too many people are into procurement/fed regs except to be on the outside b_tching about it.
            Not too many companies can do large projects around the world or have a track record (facilities and food). There were problems with safety, but it kept getting better with time.
            Construction and non GSA stuff was bid.

          • truebearing

            How about a synopsis.

          • Texas Patriot

            TB: How about a synopsis

            There are plenty of those around. Just go to amazon.com and read the reviews. That should give you a pretty good idea what it’s about.

          • Pete

            We are talking to a brick.

          • truebearing

            Hiernonymous or Texas Patriot?

          • Pete

            Patriot
            The more specific you get, the better Hiernonymous stuff usually gets.

          • truebearing

            I couldn’t resist the open shot.

      • letsdothis

        It actually appears that there might be a point buried somewhere in your gibberish, but there’s not a single coherent, structured sentence in the whole post. I have to say, its difficult to attach any import to your positions when I spend all of my time trying to decipher each sentence into some kind of rational thought. How you express things, and your ability to communicate clearly is an important part of dialogue. As much as “you internet kids” would would deny it, it matters.

  • Pete

    China sent 700 troops into South Sudan. China gets a lot of oil from Sudan. They are safeguarding their oil supply under the rubric of Peacekeeping.

    Peacekeepers have been known to rape. That was in the Congo and had nothing to do with the Chinese. Point is that just because there are peacekeepers there and they are called peacekeepers does not mean everything is okay.

    Peacekeepers can be sent to guard food shipments and then get caught up in politics such as when a clan steals food outright and tells other clans that if you done support us, you will starve. Think Blackhawk Down and Somalia.
    Another point is that China will have leverage with the parties in South Sudan, because they have troops there. That is unless they are useless like UN Peacekeepers in South Sudan who allow their bases to be used as Hezbollah artillery positions. However it is doubtful that the Chinese are supine or twisted in this way.

    Point is there is a cottage industry pointing out the number of US troops abroad and the number of bases overseas. Yet when the Russians, Chinese or Cuban do it, there is silence by Leftist MoFos.

    China sends 700 troops to South Sudan in its 1st infantry UN peacekeeping mission

  • mindRider

    Within ten years America shall suffer the severe consequence of having withdrawn from both Iraq & Afghanistan.

    • wesley69

      What has occurred in Afghanistan is a crime.

      Obama claimed this “good” war had to be won. However, he NEVER believed in achieving victory. He increased, then decreased the commitment without any goal in mind, despite the advice of the generals in charge. Brave young men and women went into war to achieve nothing. except their own death. Their ability to fight the enemy was limited by terms of engagement that favored the enemy and not our own soldiers.

      If he had no desire for victory, then why were these lives sacrificed and for what??? If he planned to withdraw eventually, why didn’t he withdraw years ago and save American lives. He didn’t because he didn’t want to give the Republicans a campaign issue.

      • JayWye

        Comrade Obama always intended that the US leave Afghanistan and Iraq as losers,with their tails between their legs. He intends that US never again fight in or attack any muslim country,that we be unable to militarily,and unable to politically,that the American People not have the will to stand up and act where it’s necessary in America’s interests.

        • robertannable

          And Obama was right. The poor country that beat the British and then the Russians was primed to beat the US.

      • Boogie’s Daddy

        At least Obama has learned the lessons of Viet Nam. He executed it seamlessly with no street protests.

  • Libslayer

    I think Obama should spend his next ultra lavish vacation touring the peaceful countries he has “liberated” from the evil American military that he “leads”
    I can see his daughters frolicking unaccompanied in Taliban occupied Afghanistan, Michelle shopping in Libya for fashion footwear and Barack hitting the links at the Mosul golf course. Photo-Op!

    • Pete

      You forgot Somalia and Yemen.

      Joshingly you Earnestly straightfacedly said that Yemen and Somalia were Obama administration success stories.

      And you are right, the Obama administration Libya was a success too. It was an example of R2P and an example of smart power.

      • Libslayer

        Yes! I can envision Barack leading a gay pride parade in Yemen and Michelle can lead a rally to raise the minimum wage in Somalia to three cents an hour. And the girls can do a rap skit in Mecca on the greatest challenge facing the Islamic world – climate change.
        Let the good times roll!!

  • Libslayer

    The “turning point” was the day this Islamic boob of a president was elected.
    Thanks to imam Barry, Islam has exploded all over the world, as he “bravely” targets Israel for building apartments on what he believes is Muslim land.
    Fundamentalist Islam has no greater American ally than Barack Hussein Obama.

  • JayWye

    seems this irrationality and delusion would/should be grounds for impeachment.

    the only winner here is the muslims.
    I suspect that is what Comrade Obama really means.
    He’s always been for the muslims,and against America.

  • Mongo66

    Should we start pool on how long until the Taliban reconquers Afghanistan and starts slaughtering its opponents?

  • ConcernedCitizen999

    Before you can say if he’s “winning” or “losing” you have to figure out which side he’s on.

  • Bryan Schmick

    Peace for our time – Neville Chamberlain after promoting the Munich agreement leading to WWII. So much for appeasement. Wish our leaders could learn from history. What is the difference between Russia/Ukraine today and Germany/Czechoslovakia then?

  • hiernonymous

    We distinguish between war and peace. If we didn’t, your comment would make no sense at all. That there are usually periods of tension preceding wars is true; but we also note the transition to actual fighting as significant.

    In terms of this conversation, it goes to the center of the issue. During wartime, information is not freely shared. Physical infrastructure is not secure. Key people, materials, and information are subject to destruction. People and materials are diverted to key parts of the war effort, and what is considered key is generally subject to the events in the course of the war. Wartime is, by its nature, separate from peace.

    Those separations are reflected in many ways. There are actions that are not crimes in peace and are crimes in war. There are actions that become capital crimes in war. Trying to pretend that periods of tension and wars are one and the same suggests that you’ve never been in one of the latter.

    If you are suggesting that human history is simply a long war, with lulls and flareups, I’d say that you have a curiously limited view of our past.