I think war is more political than that.

We had committed considerable resources and held quite a bit of land, in the military sense. Vietnam was another example of a failed occupation/police action. Or do you think that if we had "stayed the course" that we'd be winning now? Were we winning prior to the scale back of troops?

I wouldn't say so. I would say that the Taliban won that fight, and continues to win. The reasons why are numerous and complicated, but it's a fair example of an organized force defeating a more advanced organized force all the same.

Not that that's a tragedy, by my lights. I don't think the US should be in the business of policing the world to spread goodness, etc. etc. It's better to look at it as a loss and cut our losses than to think there's some kind of achievable goal in "fighting terrorism" and continue to dump resources into that goal.

Hmm maybe the USA did learn something from the Korean War. It certainly does seem that if there is to be peace in the middle East, that SOMEONE is going to have to leave an army to keep it safe. Does the EU have enough soldiers to maintain a demilitarized zone? For decades? What happens if the EU separates over time and circumstance?

I told you back in the days of Saddam Hussein, that the NEXT skirmish that breaks out, the USA will not respond to. That we have had enough and need to pick up our marbles and go home.

It is time for another country to be the World Leader and it looks like Putin is trying to fill that vacuum. Good man, yes? :s

That doesn't disprove my point. It does illustrate, in my view, the ludicrous idea that you can hold an entire country with 192,000 US soldiers.

192,000 US soldiers would probably be enough to secure Baghdad and some 500 sq. km around it and not much else.

You'll note, that back in the day when people still stole land from each other through war, conquering an entire nation was rather rare, especially on the time scales we're considering here. It's only with the advent of the nation state, that through capitulation this has changed. Now, if you're dealing with a tribal society, that has no allegiance to a central government, the idea of "conquering and holding" Iraq was laughable really. Same with Afghanistan. You can get a few tribes and their territory under your bootheel and that's it.

I told you back in the days of Saddam Hussein, that the NEXT skirmish that breaks out, the USA will not respond to. That we have had enough and need to pick up our marbles and go home. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

That doesn't make sense. You started that "skirmish". Or war, as some people fondly refer to it.

Hrmm, I dunno. I really couldn't say what it would take to secure such-and-such amount of land or a country at this point. I plead ignorance on that. But I would say that because war is largely political, especially when you are dealing with a guerrilla force, that I'm still convinced that a less advanced force can defeat a more advanced force. It just depends on whether or not you have the populace on your side [and by "on your side" I don't intend any particular method, whether it be fear or inspiration, only that the people of a land are where the fight is at]

How far back in the past do you want to go in order for the USA to gracefully bow out?

When Reagan got in the driver's seat, it all went to shit and never recovered.

My argument is more or less that the function of victory is not a single variable function where the input of said function is the technological ability to to kill.

I have two lovely books, if that be our preference, titled "150 questions for a Guerrilla", where a General Alberto Bayo -- who helped train Che, though I'm ignorant on the specifics of that -- lays out some basics of Guerrilla warfare for a rank-and-filer, and "FM 31-21" -- an old field manual written by the Army on how to conduct and support (and therefore reverse engineered to combat) guerrilla warfare. Not that this guarantees any sort of victory. But it shows that I'm at least not alone in the opinion that military victory is not solely a function of technological capacity to kill.

Is this what we are disagreeing over? Or are we just disagreeing over the particular example I used?

To talk of responsible gun owners is to miss or evade the point. What about all those irresponsible people that have managed to legally obtain a firearm? And are all of these so-called "responsible gun owners" responsible at all times, indefinitely? Of course not! Otherwise they don't actually exist.

That, I think, is the interesting question. As the laws are now it's no surprise that irresponsible persons obtained firearms.

I think licensing requirements to be a firearm distributor is where policy makers interested in tackling the issue -- rather than pandering to their base -- should target.

Not Reagan. It was the first Roosevelt who started our grand march along the path of imperialism and into what Washington called "foreign entanglements."

Yay. And though hollowed be their holy names, the founders were responsible for a fair amount of conquest.

Though I suppose you might say they are cleaner, because at least then we actually acquired land for the murder we perpetrated. There was something of a reasonable cause. These are more ideological, and therefore unwinnable, than all that.

My argument is more or less that the function of victory is not a single variable function where the input of said function is the technological ability to to kill.

I have two lovely books, if that be our preference, titled "150 questions for a Guerrilla", where a General Alberto Bayo -- who helped train Che, though I'm ignorant on the specifics of that -- lays out some basics of Guerrilla warfare for a rank-and-filer, and "FM 31-21" -- an old field manual written by the Army on how to conduct and support (and therefore reverse engineered to combat) guerrilla warfare. Not that this guarantees any sort of victory. But it shows that I'm at least not alone in the opinion that military victory is not solely a function of technological capacity to kill.

Is this what we are disagreeing over? Or are we just disagreeing over the particular example I used? — Moliere

Of course there are many other factors involved but "all things being equal", the more technologically advanced party will win from the other. The problem with the examples given is that the conditions for victory were totally unrealistic. If you want to control a country, you need to hold it. If you want to hold it, you need boots on the ground. Whatever much guerrilla warfare did accomplish in Iraq, it already went wrong because not nearly enough people were committed to holding Iraq.

And in all honesty, I don't think the US can field enough soldiers to occupy it precisely because of the decentralised cultural heritage of the area and the geographic distance between the US and Iraq.

Tactically, guerrilla warfare is difficult to fight against, especially if your condition of victory (strategy) is occupation. If you do want to occupy an area that isn't a nation state (and even then you can screw it up), the concept of timescale would have to radically alter (decades instead of years) and you need to fight for it inch-for-inch, take and hold, and not think you can get it all in one fell swoop by toppling the leaders and occupying a few large cities.

Not to be too trite, because I find the topic interesting unto itself -- but it seems that we are in agreement, then. Yes? I wouldn't disagree with what you have said here.

Not the Founders, no. Although Washington fought in what we call the French and Indian War, that was some time before he became a Founder, and the failed American assault on Canada during the Revolutionary War can hardly be called a conquest. Jefferson's "purchase" of the Louisiana territory from Napoleon's France is more properly opportunism than conquest; one might say America benefited from the imperialism of France in that case, as it did from that of England earlier, while it was made up of colonies. Again, though, we can't attribute that imperialism to the Founders.

It's when we get to Jackson that we, as a nation, can be said to have begun our conquest and annihilation of the Native Americans. Jackson was not a Founder. Regardless, I was referring to America's propensity to impose it's power across the seas, not from sea to shining sea, as that seems to have been the focus of the thread.

Well, those were all the events I was thinking of. And I think you make fair points. Though I tend to think of the revolutionary war as a war of conquest, in addition to the French and Indian war. He may not have been a founder at the time, but it's not an unfair characterization to say that it was a war of conquest. The purchase of the Louisiana territory, while I grant that the massacre came later, was still itself conquest.

But, fair points. There's still a difference to be had in my characterization and Action Jackson. And I am certainly way off topic at this point too ;).

In the field of Supply Chain Management there are (I have heard) formulae worked out for how much warehouse space and staff one would need to support x square feet of retail space (like, for a batch of Walmart stores).

I would suppose that somewhere in the bowels of the Pentagon somebody must have worked out approximately how many soldiers are needed to control a city of 4 million, and how much materiél will be needed, and so on. True? False? Anybody know?

Just guessing, but it seems that to control Baghdad (about 4 million in 1987) 200,000 troops would not be excessive -- that's 1:20, but if one is dealing with a discombobulated population that doesn't like each other about as much as they don't like the occupier, that would be about right. To control and manage Iraq we would have needed roughly 1.5 million troops, or about 1/10 of what we deployed during WWII.

Clearly a draft wasn't going to fly for Iraq. We were using national guard troops as an expedient alternative to drafting. No disparagement intended, but the national guard system is made up of weekend soldiers who have lots of concurrent commitments elsewhere, like entirely civilian careers, families, etc. Some of the men in the national guard were relatively elderly--again, no insult intended, but these were not 20 year olds in for 2 years and then out. The wear and tear on the multiply re-deployed national guard troops was pretty severe.

Being a lawyer, and getting old, has made me persnickety. Getting old has probably also made me fond of the word "persnickety." I use it as often as I can. "Whippersnapper" too. I like how they sound.

All people are reckless under stress. Stress happens. Therefore people carrying guns are dangerous to me. Guns need to be banned and then those who keep them will be criminals we can put in jail before they kill somebody.

It's pretty sad that in an educated and purportedly developed nation, there is a pervasive feeling that weapons are necessary for safety. I would have hoped a 'civil society' would be precisely the place where it was not necessary to carry weapons. And if you are 'polite' to others out of fear that they might be armed, it hardly counts as real courtesy.

I still don't know how to delete a post. Hit the wrong button. But I do want to say something about this.

My father used to go to bed with a 38 at his bed side, and I know several others who still do. I have nothing against guns for hunting, target practice and for protection, but I do not think machine guns, grenades or other idiotic weapons should be available. I like shotguns, clay pigeons.

There seems to be a left leaning portion of society that condemns guns on the basis of the actions of a few lunatics. At the same time, the right leaning portion of society asks others not to allow refugees into the country for fear that we may be letting in terrorists. In both cases we are judging the whole on the basis of the irrational actions of a minority of participants.

I wonder about how 'polite' society is possible today, we seem to be moving too fast to allow it.

I used to do HIV prevention outreach to high risk populations -- this was back in the late 1980s. The bars and baths were safe from crime; the adult book stores, so so; the streets, questionable; and the parks -- potentially violent, especially at night after the parks were closed (which was when there was action) and I handed out condoms and info (to possibly be read later -- way too dark there to read in the park).

People did occasionally get murdered in the parks--maybe 1, 2 or 3 per decade. One morning (1:30 a.m {+/-) I was sitting on my perch on a rail fence waiting for guys to saunter by. A young guy joined me on the rail. We chatted a bit, and among other things he told me he had a gun on him. I wasn't happy about it, but there was nothing much I could do or say at that point that would decrease any risk to life or limb. Eventually he moved on, and there were no murders there that night. I was mugged on a downtown street by a knife wielding drugged out zombie around 11:30 p.m

I've never owned or carried a gun in even gun-shot risky areas. Did I think I was somehow invincible? Could be, I suppose. I rarely feel particularly threatened, and have learned the hard way that the best approach in strange situations is to act like you belong there. Like, don't stand on a street corner turning in circles trying to figure out where you are. One might as well pin a sign on one's back: MUG ME.

I'm not a fatalist either: I expect things to turn out OK. For a hammer, every problem is a nail. For the armed person, every problem might require shooting. There is quite a bit of self-fulfilling prophecy if one is, or is not, carrying a gun. No gun, fewer people get shot.

Supposing that early morning in the park I had a gun handy and pulled it out, telling the guy to go back the way he came. Having done that, I would know that this now angry person might be waiting for me when I decided to leave the park (only one way out) and stepped onto the sidewalk under bright street lights. Bang bang, maybe. Dead crank.

I still don't know how to delete a post. Hit the wrong button. — Cavacava

You can't, but you can request deletion by flagging a post or otherwise contacting the site staff.

There seems to be a left leaning portion of society that condemns guns on the basis of the actions of a few lunatics. — Cavacava

The problem is that they're not "lunatics" (well, some are, but countless aren't), and there's not just a few of them, there're loads of them. The one's that are judged to be "lunatics" get treated differently by law than others who've committed a crime (or crimes) involving a firearm.

In both cases we are judging the whole on the basis of the irrational actions of a minority of participants. — Cavacava

Whether or not the objection is based on the actions of a minority of participants becomes far less relevant in light of both the number and frequency of occurrences and the significance of the detrimental consequences.

All people are reckless under stress. Stress happens. Therefore people carrying guns are dangerous to me. Guns need to be banned and then those who keep them will be criminals we can put in jail before they kill somebody. — Landru Guide Us

While it is true that stress effects everyone, not everyone becomes "reckless" just because they are an armed citizen. I am not suggesting that everyone is capable of such judgement calls nor am I suggesting that innocent bystanders cannot be at risk but there is a risk ratio to consider.
How many innocent lives do you think one armed attacker could take, in a public place such as a supermarket, if 40 out of 100 private citizens are armed?

Carrying a firearm comes with a great deal of responsibility and judgement calls that sometimes have to be made in a 'split second' and considering the use of a firearm is never an easy one. Yes, some become reckless when stress arrives in a life and death situation but others are capable of channeling that stress into a heightened awareness of what is going on and make those split second decisions and it does save lives, sometimes without firing a shot.

A while back our US Representative for Arizona, Mrs.Gabby Giffords, was speaking at a local supermarket in her state where it is legal to carry a concealed firearm without a permit, when these events played out.
Reading this account illustrates the responsibility that actually has to be applied. "Pray you never have to use it, but be prepared to use it if you have to."

I wonder about how 'polite' society is possible today, we seem to be moving too fast to allow it. — Cavacava

That is a very thought provoking statement. I think in some ways the political correctness that was ushered into society to show respect, encouraging politeness, has in a way allowed for people to feel offended by anything that goes against their own thoughts.
Aristotle taught us that it is a mark of an educated mind to entertain the ideas of others without taking them as our own. But it is almost as though the political correctness that was initially meant to include everyone respectively, has now become a convenient caveat to be personally offended, sometimes without notice to the offender.

People did occasionally get murdered in the parks--maybe 1, 2 or 3 per decade. One morning (1:30 a.m {+/-) I was sitting on my perch on a rail fence waiting for guys to saunter by. A young guy joined me on the rail. We chatted a bit, and among other things he told me he had a gun on him. I wasn't happy about it, but there was nothing much I could do or say at that point that would decrease any risk to life or limb. Eventually he moved on, and there were no murders there that night. — Bitter Crank

It is interesting to read your feelings about someone sharing something so personal in that he was carrying a firearm and knowing that exact feeling from having gone through it myself. I think our reactions were very common and I think that is how most people do respond.

I was mugged on a downtown street by a knife wielding drugged out zombie around 11:30 p.m — Bitter Crank

Supposing that early morning in the park I had a gun handy and pulled it out, telling the guy to go back the way he came. Having done that, I would know that this now angry person might be waiting for me when I decided to leave the park (only one way out) and stepped onto the sidewalk under bright street lights. Bang bang, maybe. Dead crank. — Bitter Crank

You are quite right in that you might very well have died that night because of one fatal mistake, the one that gives credence to the popular idea that if you have a firearm, it is more likely to be used against you than it will to save you.

The fatal mistake is that you NEVER pull a firearm as a use of intimidation. Period. The ONLY time you EVER pull/display a firearm is if you fully intend on using it because your life or the life of another is in imamate danger.

How many innocent lives do you think one armed attacker could take, in a public place such as a supermarket, if 40 out of 100 private citizens are armed? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

And how many innocent lives are at risk and/or are taken as a result of private citizens being armed? This greatly outweighs the benefit of preventing armed attackers from taking as many innocent lives as they otherwise would, so your point, yet again, fails to justify the legal system which allows such private citizens to obtain and carry such weapons in the ways that they do.

Carrying a firearm comes with a great deal of responsibility and judgement calls that sometimes have to be made in a 'split second' and considering the use of a firearm is never an easy one. Yes, some become reckless when stress arrives in a life and death situation but others are capable of channeling that stress into a heightened awareness of what is going on and make those split second decisions and it does save lives, sometimes without firing a shot. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Yes, but the consequences of those bad judgements outweigh the consequences of those good judgements. This is evidenced by statistics. Here in the U.K. we have considerably less gun crime, and it isn't because our private citizens or police force is armed, since it's only special units which are armed, and we have very tight gun control.

A while back our US Representative for Arizona, Mrs.Gabby Giffords, was speaking at a local supermarket in her state where it is legal to carry a concealed firearm without a permit, when these events played out.
Reading this account illustrates the responsibility that actually has to be applied. "Pray you never have to use it, but be prepared to use it if you have to." — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Yeh yeh, responsibility has to or ought to be applied, but it ain't in countless cases, and that's the problem that you've failed to account for.

I guess your feelings are along the lines of "I wanna gun anyways, despite this massive problem".

I'm not sure why you haven't addressed any of my comments, by the way.

I'm not sure why you haven't addressed any of my comments, by the way. — Sapientia

I am sorry, Sapientia. Please don't take it personally, as it is not intended that way. I will try to answer you now. Which post did you want me to start with? The first one or the last one?

I am sorry, Sapientia. Please don't take it personally, as it is not intended that way. I will try to answer you now. Which post did you want me to start with? The first one or the last one? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

No worries. I didn't take it personally. I just wondered why you hadn't replied. Start wherever you think most appropriate. I don't really mind.

"In both cases we are judging the whole on the basis of the irrational actions of a minority of participants".
— Cavacava

Whether or not the objection is based on the actions of a minority of participants becomes far less relevant in light of both the number and frequency of occurrences and the significance of the detrimental consequences.

--Sapientia

Yes, I agree with this but it does not address the contradiction. The same can be said of the actions of Terrorists, their ideology claims a sacred origin, their killings are what the mediators of their god have said they ought to do. The importance of their ideological view point is "relevant in light of both the number and frequency of occurrences and the significance of the detrimental consequences"

It is an easy step to claim that all of Islam condones violence, and these terrorists are proof that violence is inherent in their faith. It is easy to say that the 'right to carry arms' is the cause of much of the violence we see in the United States, and it is easy to condemn gun owners as perpetrators of this violence.

It is the same sort of value judgement. We tend to judge a ideological group by the actions of its most radical elements. If differentiation is a basic instinctual force in culture, the radical describes the border of what is meant by labeling one a member of a group.