Quote from: HaffrungHowever, that wasn't the case with Iraq. It was a war of choice, against a state that was far weaker than it was at the outset of the Gulf War.

Agreed, but only after about a decade of UN approved economic sanctions and other political maneuverings. You can't really say that Iraq wasn't a long time coming.

Quote from: HaffrungFurthermore, the occupation of Iraq and effort to build a stable nation is a political objective. Everything that has gone on in the last four years is a political struggle.

The effort to impose stability on the nation is a military objective handled by the armed forces while the creation of a government is a political objective. I won't disagree that the two objectives dovetail in with each other, but they are still two seperate objectives.

Quote from: John MorrowOut of curiosity, have the Brits been any more effective at controlling the political situation in the areas they control than the Americans, given the claim that they have better experience in that area?

From what I've been able to find out, they are having a slightly worse time of it. Nobody has achieved what could be called "spectacular success".

Quote from: SpikeJust as an aside, I don't believe peace can actually be created by 'peacekeeping operations'. It can be IMPOSED, but what happens the moment the troops pull out?

Peace could be 'forced', and in the long term by a mixture of genocidal violence and forced relocation/education of generations to destroy any residual cultural identifiers.

Now: Find me the nation with the will to do so and the power to back it up.

Agreed. This is one of the core problems in Iraq. The former government under Saddam Hussein existed in a "peaceful" state through the use of genocidal force to impose that peace. This had gone on since Saddam took power and lasted for decades. It was the peace of the gun and nothing else.

Quote from: droogIt is without a revolution. The danger signals are there when you say 'should'.

We're talking to liberals here.

Quote from: SpikeJust as an aside, I don't believe peace can actually be created by 'peacekeeping operations'. It can be IMPOSED, but what happens the moment the troops pull out?

There is no inevitable course taken once peacekeeping troops pull out. For example, in the Suez Canal Crisis, the peacekeepers managed to help stabilise the situation quite effectively. As Haffrung points out, Cyprus is another well-known example.

QuoteRecall that the Bosnia-Serbia thing has been simmering since the 14th century. Only a series of strong military-might backed rulers kept the region reasonably peaceable.

That's a simplistic reading of the situation. The modern Balkans problem really begins with the collapse of the Republic of Yugoslavia. Pointing to the 14th century is just an attempt to present this situation as some sort of single, recurring, timeless problem, which it is not.

QuoteFormer Soviet sattelite nations are a interesting case study in this regards. While mostly ethnically homogenous, and having strong cultural identifiers deliberately and ruthlessly stamped out in favor of 'Soviet monoculture', in current times we are seeing an increase in ethnic strife and tension as they have more freedom to express their native culture, along with nationalistic friction between states in Central Asia.

Most former members of the Soviet bloc are not ethnically homogenous. Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia all have sizable Russian minorities, and Central Asian states like the -stans are ethnic patchworks.

QuotePeace could be 'forced', and in the long term by a mixture of genocidal violence and forced relocation/education of generations to destroy any residual cultural identifiers.

Now: Find me the nation with the will to do so and the power to back it up.

Clearly, it is only due to the imposition of extreme, "genocidal" violence that America's northern states and southern states are at peace, or that the French and Italians are not bloodily murdering one another.

Quote from: Serious PaulDude you take this stuff way too personal. As if each and every post is a personal affront to you-it pretty much makes me not want to talk to you, because obviously I can't talk with you.

I don't take it very personally at all. I do respond to ad hominems with ad hominems though.

Quote from: jeff37923Buddy, you don't even know what a military is. You just found that negative report by a prig Brit who spent 11 months in Iraq as a REMF and decided that gave him the insight needed to critique operations there.

And now Sgt. Jeff37923, of the Fighting 101st Keyboarders, is gonna straighten me out!

QuoteCombat and warfare themselves are complicated businesses to execute. Once a mission objective has been handed down from the commander in chief, the military then tries to achieve that mission objective while trying to lose as few fighting men as possible. Now with that in mind, trying to achieve "broader political objectives during conflicts" is pretty extraneous to achieving the original mission objective while ensuring that the fewest men under your command get killed.

That's a narrow and unrealistic portrayal of the situation. It falsely differentiates between political objectives and mission objectives - a distinction not made in practice, even in the American military. For example, in Iraq, one of the goals of the campaign is to "Make Iraq an ally in the War on Terror". The "broader political objective" here is not extraneous to the "original mission objective" - it _is_ the mission objective.

Now, _tactical_ objectives might be more easily distinguished from mission or political objectives, but even then, not always. For example, when American embassies are evacuated under hostile conditions, American soldiers try to stay on the embassy grounds rather than cause a diplomatic incident by leaving them, even if to do so would be tactically advantageous.
 

QuoteAfter reading the report, I don't have a lot of respect for the good Brigadier General. He has completely overlooked the impact of the Iranian-backed insurgency, he didn't acknowledge that Iraq was in the middle of electing its first democratic government after decades of brutal dictatorship (which, ya'know, might just fucking distract the Iraqis a bit) while he was stationed there, and he seems to have glossed over the impact that a liberal president who dismantled the armed forces had on the American military (dismissing it by merely saying that the American military has lost its professionalism since the first Gulf War, well no shit when you've got congressmen and senators calling the soldiers Nazis and child murderers now while at war its going to effect those soldiers' outlook).

That's just a bunch of non sequiturs and manufactured talking points. If those are the best objections you can come up with to a highly detailed article on US military practice, I am quite comfortable in continuing to cite it.

Back to original Topic :
 Honest recruiters for the military can be a very good thing happening.


 PseudoP - thanks for the comedy.


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarBack to original Topic :
 Honest recruiters for the military can be a very good thing happening.

You're saying this like there are no honest recruiters, or there were none before.

The vast majority are honest and decent people.  As with so much else in life, it's the comparatively small number of bad apples who ruin it for everyone.

Quote from: KenHRYou're saying this like there are no honest recruiters, or there were none before.

The vast majority are honest and decent people.  As with so much else in life, it's the comparatively small number of bad apples who ruin it for everyone.

 No - you and I agree that there are mostly honest recruiters for the majority. Just 3 or 4 posters on here seemed to have assumed that they are all lying scumbags.


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarNo - you and I agree that there are mostly honest recruiters for the majority. Just 3 or 4 posters on here seemed to have assumed that they are all lying scumbags.

Gotcha.  

Quote from: KoltarNo - you and I agree that there are mostly honest recruiters for the majority. Just 3 or 4 posters on here seemed to have assumed that they are all lying scumbags.

I don't think recruiters lie, there is just very little they can say to prepare people for the reality of military life.  The military has a lot to offer but there also can be quite a bit of baggage that comes with it even outside of deployments.  It's good for some and not so good for others.  It can be hard to comprehend or even to know what questions to ask if you don't have any experience with the military.

QuoteI don't think recruiters lie, there is just very little they can say to prepare people for the reality of military life.

This is a matter of deliberate intent, not practical limitation.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineClearly, it is only due to the imposition of extreme, "genocidal" violence that America's northern states and southern states are at peace.

If you are talking about the American Civil War, then you really need to study your history more than you have.

Quote from: J ArcaneThis is a matter of deliberate intent, not practical limitation.

Just when I think you couldn't get any stupider than you were in that Romance thread you go and post this.

Seriously girl, get some therapy! I don't know which uncle gave you the bad touch-but damn girl you are bitter!