Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Eternal Wars Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: An objective view of the war on terrorism
Vanguard    4/7/2004 4:02:35 AM
I would like to try and "clean" the events we are assisting to these days and to give them a more realistic interpretation according to my view of the international relationships. I am of course ready to take any comments by you all. I would particularly appreciate criticism that could teach me something new. I think that historically, wars have always had more or less the same reasons to be fought: there is a faction that dictated the rules of the latest international order (by winning the previous war) and a faction that is subjected to this order and constantly measuring and judging it. The more the defeated of the latest war are satisfied by the international order imposed by the winners, the bigger is the probability that the defeated will not try to destabilize the order constituted by the latest war. That said i think that all the rest that we hear about why engaging in this so called "war on terrorism" is just crap. What we have here is a faction (a leading group of Muslims supported by a huge base of people kept in poor economic conditions and in a state of ignorance) that doesn't like the international order created by the powers who historically defeated and humiliated the so called Arab Nation (i.e the USA and Israel) I want to give you a practical example of what I mean. In 1945-46-47 we had occupation (stabilization ?) troops in our country (italy), mainly US and GB troops and their logistic tail of support included some civilians administrators. We certainly didn't ever think of burning some Americans or British in their car and then to hang them on a light pole! Apart from the occasional stab by the brother/father of the occasional raped italian woman, there have never been any major problems.....why that ? because the italians, the germans and even the japanese I would say, even if humiliated by the defeat felt that the new order was not opposed to their future plans. Apart from any political beliefs (me myself I'm not particularly pro USA) the Americans did their best to put the destroyed and defeated countries of the Axis on their feet again. Some ships full of crop and heading to Israel in 1948 were still being secretly diverted by the US President on the Sicilian shores to help the starving post war italian population. You could say that the arabs are fanatics and this doesn't work with them. I wuld answer: "wrong" could you call people who slammed their aircraft on the US carriers less fanatic that the people who slammed the two liners in the twin towers ?" I just think that the Japanese liked the new order of 1945 better than the "Arabs" like the order of 2000 which by the way is an evolution of the 1945 order. It's a fact that the "Arabs" lost all their wars to impose their will. They lost all their wars with Israel and many confrontations with the USA. They decided to fight their war in another way. You all have to put yourself in their shoes (Winston Churchill always recomended to put ourself in the enemy shoes to better understand him) and take a choice. Fight untill someone prevails or modify the current order to make it a little more acceptable for the challenging faction. It's my personal opinion, but just my personal one, that the USA are taking their chance on this so called "war on terror" to improve their position in some areas of the world (geostrategically and economically). For example I am pretty convinced that the invasion of Iraq has little to do with the war on terror. Certainly the USA being the leading power in the world have the possibility of making decisions like that if they believe they are good for the preservation of their dominating position (the number one goal of a dominating power by definition). The future will say if it was the right decision or not. I hope to have given a contribute to clarify the nature of the present international situation without aprioristic ideologic prejudices which are often seen even at the highest levels of national administrations. Vanguard
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3
Vanguard    RE:An objective view on the war on terrorism   4/13/2004 7:24:07 AM
I want to thank all the gentlemen on this forum for the many instructive comments that they gave to my line of thinking about the ongoing events in the middle east. It appears to me that some of the persons writing on this forum think that I am an French old participant who said that the American are stupid. My comment to this statement is that thinking that a country administration might be made up by stupid people is highly unrealistic. I want to make very clear that my precise intent on this forum is to give my contribution for trying to "clean" the international analysis from all the waste of emotions, national stereotypes and similar that can deviate it from a clear perception of a situation. This is because all the intelligent gentlemen on this forum know better that no national executive power assembly let these "perturbation elements" influence the decision making process of a foreing policy line. In the United States of America this is even more true than everywhere else. On the other hand, it is very true that the "emotional debate" generating from the public opinion has its place in the calculation process of the foreign policy makers. Thus it has its importance. What I was trying to do is to bring a "method" of the policy makers into this forum. It is very clear that you need a "method" when you decide what a foreign policy line to keep or to suggest. Without a method you don't go far. I have worked in the staff of Mr. Gian Domenico Picco, former UN Vice-secretary General under Mr. De Cuellar. This Outstanding negotiator (Mr.Picco)is the man behind the peace treaty between Iran and Iraq at the end of the eightiees; he managed, by using "a method" to make the peace conditions acceptable to both sides. I don't want to bore you with the details, and to keep it very simple, his method was: make the following regional order acceptable for both sides. He thought me that when you are talking about peace it's not important what you are trying to do to please the parts in the present; what's really important is what are the parts are hoping for their future, and on this philosophy I tried to base my view of the international relationships. I made the example of the end of the II world war in 1945 and this example has been criticized by many. I take the criticism as an instructive one, and I give credit to who says that Germany Japan and Italy had just to accept the peace because they were utterly destroyed and on their feet. This is undoubtedly true. Nevertheless here there is still the common mistake of "taking a picture" of a static moment (the end of the war) as the most representative. It is not. The most representative aspect of that situation is the intent of the winners; at least of the western winners. The peace conditions back then left a door open for the defeated nations and a hope for their future. The United States of America and the United Kingdom had learnt the lesson of "Versailles" and that moment has been one of the most constructive moments of the XX century history. It has been a fortune for West Germany, Japan and Italy to have to sign their treaty with the United States and with the UK instead of having to sign it with the Soviet Union. In fact we all know what kind of peace the Soviet Union gave to the defeated powers in its sphere of influence. I admit that the current situation in the middle east is complicated; there are many elements of difference with the 1945 situation and i know it. Despite that I am pretty positive that a policy based on "give them an hope" not to be confused with "just trick them" can be critical in resolving the current conflict in the middle east and even I dare to say the ongoing conflict against the bands of terrorists who threaten our stability. After all we all had many deads and destruction to achieve a certain degree of stability in our western "global" community. Thank you all gentlemen Vanguard
 
Quote    Reply

On Watch    RE:An [objective] view on the war on terrorism   4/13/2004 8:43:41 AM
>>>...what we're seeing here is something akin to an Eliza Dolittle makeover. He's just about mastered the US colloquial and is refining his diplomatese. -- On Watch <<< >>...when you are talking about peace it's not important what you are trying to do to please the parts in the present; what's really important is what are the parts are hoping for their future, and on this philosophy I tried to base my view of the international-- UN functionary<< Diplomat Double Speak (Counceling 101)! What we don't have here is a failure to communicate! The US knows what Radical Islam "really" wants, in its heart of hearts. And we've seen graphically to what lengths those fascists will go to achieve them. Pass the word to your clients 'Gus! We intend to SMASH them - It's what the US "really wants", and is "important" to US now, and in the future. Let's Roll! On Watch
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:An objective view -Vanguard   4/13/2004 6:12:18 PM
"I was referring to the latest international order not to the middle ages one" The issue was how Islam views the world. They don't look at only the last 50 years. They're looking at a continuum extending back to the time of Mohammed. They look at the world in the entire context. It's not accidental, and it *is* significant, that you're seeing terms like "Crusaders" used in statements of people like OBL. "The militaristic attitude of the German army survives more or less intact today too" If it does, it's rather well hidden. The present, dominant German culture is certainly NOT the traditional German culture in this respect. There is just no way to closely connect postWW2 German international and military policy with that of Germany, the German Empire, Prussia, you name it, back many centuries through 1945. -The Muslim cultures do feel threatened. They don't feel defeated. There is more than one way to measure defeat when we're speaking of cultures rather than armies. In this sense, Islam was never defeated, not even in the era when Europe ruled most of the Islamic world. However, apart from that sense of "victory" and "defeat", the fact is that the **world** culture changed, significantly, postWW2. Especially, the Western culture changed, and the change changed the nature of the international system. As of 1945, most of the Old World was ruled by one or another part of Europe. The dominant international ethic, right up to WW2, was still that one could rule another by force. That ended. And, Western culture changed, so radically, that, at present, the very thought of ruling a foreign country seems alien. This wan't a "defeat" of western culture. It was a voluntary change. But, the effect of the change was that the Muslim world was freed. To the feeling that their culture was superior, which they retained even when ruled by Europeans, they added the objective fact that these previously powerful Westerners just left, and allowed the Islamic world not merely political independence, but to develop new, military and economic power. Looking, now, Islam sees a West which, for half a century, was, arguably, in their POV, in retreat, which is to say, decline. Now, we look at things differently. And, given that our armies still whip Muslim armies more or less at will, our preferred POV has a certain logical force. But, we're not talking about how WE think. We're talking about how THEY think. Does the difference matter? Ask the westerners in Iraq, right now. Ask the Westerners in the West, who are working to follow Islamic terror groups, or plan for the possibility of WMD attacks in Europe and America.
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:An objective view of the war on terrorism   4/13/2004 6:35:09 PM
"are you serious after 30 years of saddam?what planet or better yet what are you smokin bubba?" Sorry. He's correct. Local culture was never defeated. Nothing the West, including, the US, Israel, the UK and France have done in the Islamic world over the last 50 years comes close to the level of destruction of WW2, in Germany and Japan, or along the Western Front, in WW1. (Only France, in Algeria, came anywhere close to inflicting this level of carnage, which is an interesting sidebar given the French idea of cilization and proper conduct, when it comes to America or the Jews.) No muslim country has been defeated in the modern era, in this sense. No branch of Islamic culture has suffered the general collapse of faith which happened in many parts of Europe, after WW1, or in Germany and Japan, in 1945.
 
Quote    Reply

Vanguard    RE:An objective view of the war on terrorism   4/14/2004 12:56:03 AM
All Gentlemen I had originally posted my first mesage on this thread. Then I saw that there is a thread about Iraq specifically and I posted my first message there too. So far the discussion has been going on on both places, which is illogic. I then wanted to inform everybody that this is my last message on this thread and to communicate that now on all the discussion about "an objective view of the war on terrorism" will be carried on the "iraq" thread Thank you all Vanguard
 
Quote    Reply

On Watch    RE:An objective view of the war on terrorism - Bye Bye   4/14/2004 7:41:42 AM
>>...now on all the discussion about "an objective view of the war on terrorism" will be carried on the "iraq" thread<< Well 'Gus, considering the length of time the hostage negotiations your HERO at the UN dragged out for 444 days, I'm sure by using his "method" you'll have a long long lomg run on the the Iraqi Board! Maybe there'll a Ronald Reagan type in the wings, to clear the air of the smoke you're blowing! On Watch
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3    RE:An objective view of the war on terrorism   4/28/2004 12:27:33 PM
he militaristic attitude of the German army survives more or less intact today too. It's the German appreciation of the situat ......................................... Well yeah-isn't a "millitary" supposed to be somewhat "millitaristic" in a sense However they don't claim to be the chief centerpiece of society, nor do they claim that war is good in itself
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3    RE:Realism vs Idealism   10/21/2004 12:21:31 AM
Chemist, the realists would be like Machiavelli. They would base things on what is best for them, and use practical, tried and true methods to accomplish them. The Idealists are like Wilson, they put their long term goals as more important than the available means to achieve them, in the sense that the idealists will take larger risks because they value their ideals over what is necessarily best for them. A realist would not have invaded Iraq and attempt to set up a democratic government. The neo-cons are idealists, while the paleo-conservatives are realists. -------------------------------- Actually the phrase "they value their ideals over what is necessarily best for them" as it is their ideals that determine what is best for them. If their ideal is only survival and power then yes they should be "realists" but if they have other ideals they are not irrational for adjusting their means to their goals. Extreme realism is really a limited philosophy. It assumes that the goals of survival and increase in power for ones own polity are the only rational goals. It also assumes that everyone else will follow the same assumption(this is not even true in wargaming: Diplomacy players for instance quite commonly sacrifice their power in an effort to get a player they don't like). Realism in short only explains means rather than ends. It doesn't even do that for many actions which would be the epitome of reason to a realist would be considered by most people and even some politicians to be forbidden. Extreme Idealism is basically flawed too in that it assumes the power of instituting perfection. Different people have different ideas of perfection sometimes, and many people are quite happy being scoundrels. Moreover it often does not allow for unforseen consequences. The right attitude is to be an idealistic realist. To realize that this is a nasty world and some things do have to be done. But at the same time there are some things that cannot be done whatever the consequences.
 
Quote    Reply

evlstu    Whatever   10/21/2004 3:40:21 AM
Just kill the terrorists and those that support them! Then there won't be any terrorism.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy