Thread: the will to win, rawr!

Pitiful, but this is typically the kind of government the US used to support. For once its not our hand helping thugs to squash civilians. Pretty much a typical response though by the strong arms to maintain position and control.

If the US degenerated into a place to where the OWS people were armed and laid waste against the US gov't, what do you think would be the response of our gov't.? Would we not ever kill our own revolutionaries? One has to only recall Kent State.

Truth is, I think even the US could degenarate into this, as our gov't of men would try to maintain their power as well as our form of gov't.

While the carnage going on in Syria is hideous, and no one should embrace it, I think it is the right of their gov't to try to destroy the threat to their survivial
.

Too many times the people that replace the old leaders are no better, but many times worse than the folks they replaced.

I don't think the US needs to take sides here. Let the gov't crush this rebellion, or the rebels to take over. Try as we might, we will never stop war, or violence of this nature. To spend lives and treasure fighting the nature of mankind is a waste of time. Save the lives and the treasure for substantial threats against our own nation or those of our very close allies. Pick and choose your fights very, very carefully.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

be the Syrian government showin' that they have the "will to win"? they certainly aren't given the rebels any quarter, yarrrr!

- MeadHallPirate

The short answer to your question is: yes... the Syrian government is showing they have the "will to win"

War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfil our will.

Violence arms itself with the inventions of Art and Science in order to contend against violence. Self-imposed restrictions, almost imperceptible and hardly worth mentioning, termed usages of International Law, accompany it without essentially impairing its power.

Violence, that is to say physical force (for there is no moral force without the conception of states and law), is therefore the means; the compulsory submission of the enemy to our will is the ultimate object. In order to attain this object fully, the enemy must be disarmed; and this is, correctly speaking, the real aim of hostilities in theory. It takes the place of the final object, and puts it aside in a manner as something not properly belonging to war.

On War - Carl Philipp Gottfried von Clausewitz

Originally Posted by tsquare

The short answer to your question is: yes... the Syrian government is showing they have the "will to win"

On War - Carl Philipp Gottfried von Clausewitz

ahoy Tsquare,

this be the clear answer i was lookin' fer, matey.

now, lemme asks ye; do ye think thar be somethin' that our nation could learn from the Syrians, in terms 'o how this nation prosecutes an armed conflict?

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Tsquare,

this be the clear answer i was lookin' fer, matey.

now, lemme asks ye; do ye think thar be somethin' that our nation could learn from the Syrians, in terms 'o how this nation prosecutes an armed conflict?

- MeadHallPirate

It be the answer your looking for ... leading to the question you want to ask. You can't learn shit from the Syrians ... tiny little despots without a global view. Any idiot knows how to use such tactics ... their tactics have been used as long as man has existed.

“The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters.”

or

“In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good.”

The Greek city states sometimes found it difficult to wage war successfully, particularly if they were democracies, as people are reluctant to send themselves off to die without good reason. Therefore, factions wanting war often resorted to the use of "war leaders" who were given extraordinary powers. As you all probably know, they called them tyrants, that's where the word comes from. The will to win in a functioning democracy comes from the justice of the cause, once you have to force people to fight an unjust war you have tyranny.

Originally Posted by michael h

It be the answer your looking for ... leading to the question you want to ask. You can't learn shit from the Syrians ... tiny little despots without a global view. Any idiot knows how to use such tactics ... their tactics have been used as long as man has existed.



or

ahoy oh Michael H,

i don't know about hat, matey. i mean, imma not talkin' 'bout learnin' from the Syrians in how they deal with international affairs, aye?

imma referrin' to how the Syrian's pursue armed conflict. they be unsparin' and unburdened by sentimentality. in this manner, i was curious if the United States (its citizenry) could learn somethin' from Syria.

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by michael h

It be the answer your looking for ... leading to the question you want to ask. You can't learn shit from the Syrians ... tiny little despots without a global view. Any idiot knows how to use such tactics ... their tactics have been used as long as man has existed.

Well said... but that would generally discribe the condishion you would want if you were to take his nation for your own. We don't do that.

To the point:

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Tsquare,

this be the clear answer i was lookin' fer, matey.

now, lemme asks ye; do ye think thar be somethin' that our nation could learn from the Syrians, in terms 'o how this nation prosecutes an armed conflict?

- MeadHallPirate

Yes... but only to a point... and it may not be the point you are looking for.

To wage limited war... to set artificial limits on yourself, for whatever reason, is often self-defeating.

To be successful at war one must crush the enemies will to fight.

There is, nor should there be, any other goal. See here: Clausewitz, ON WAR

In the major wars fought by this nation since 1900, we have only done this twice (WWII and Gulf I). And note only in WWII did we bring the full and complete power of the nation to the enemy.

Our military and political leaders have not yet learned the realities of the 21st century. With the folks back home, speed is everything. Support here for Afghanistan and Iraq waned not in the brutal taking of the counties, but in the long effort of subjugating parts of them.
Look at the lack of concern over the use of drones... one bomb... a family compound is destroyed and maybe the bad guy. Brutal, efficient and the utmost of voilance.

Psychologically these days, everything has to have a happy ending in 22 minutes.

Originally Posted by tsquare

Well said... but that would generally discribe the condishion you would want if you were to take his nation for your own. We don't do that.

To the point:



Yes... but only to a point... and it may not be the point you are looking for.

To wage limited war... to set artificial limits on yourself, for whatever reason, is often self-defeating.

To be successful at war one must crush the enemies will to fight.

There is, nor should there be, any other goal. See here: Clausewitz, ON WAR

In the major wars fought by this nation since 1900, we have only done this twice (WWII and Gulf I). And note only in WWII did we bring the full and complete power of the nation to the enemy.

Our military and political leaders have not yet learned the realities of the 21st century. With the folks back home, speed is everything. Support here for Afghanistan and Iraq waned not in the brutal taking of the counties, but in the long effort of subjugating parts of them.
Look at the lack of concern over the use of drones... one bomb... a family compound is destroyed and maybe the bad guy. Brutal, efficient and the utmost of voilance.

Psychologically these days, everything has to have a happy ending in 22 minutes.

ahoy Tsquare,

i don't disagree, matey.

thar be somethin' 'bout the Syrians and fer that matter, the Taliban, that make'm seem to made 'o far tougher stuff than the citizens 'o our country.

them folks fight to win and give no quarter - ye have to admire that, though they be our foes. 'tis somethin' perhaps our civilian leaders should consider before enterin' any armed conflict ; "are our enemies stronger than our people in thar will to win?".

*ponders*

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

"are our enemies stronger than our people in thar will to win?".

*ponders*

- MeadHallPirate

additional pondering for you...

Are those folks stronger than our people in their will to win?

Or are they just used to far more suffering than our people are?

Further, are their leaders far more willing to inflect (allow?) more suffering on their own people?

All that without taking into account the cultural differences each people have for human life... theirs or that of other people.

Originally Posted by tsquare

additional pondering for you...

Are those folks stronger than our people in their will to win?

Or are they just used to far more suffering than our people are?

Further, are their leaders far more willing to inflect (allow?) more suffering on their own people?

All that without taking into account the cultural differences each people have for human life... theirs or that of other people.

ahoy Tsquare,

*ponders*

by this metric, the only countries the United States ought to engage in war be advanced nations that be prosperous, like Germany or Switzerland.

aye.

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy mateys,

oftentimes when vittory eludes our mighty nation durin' war, i often hear that our soldiers coulda won - 'twas America itself that lacked the will to win.

i was musin' on this as i read this piece;


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/wo...s.html?_r=1&hp

be the Syrian government showin' that they have the "will to win"? they certainly aren't given the rebels any quarter, yarrrr!

- MeadHallPirate

The Syrian government is in the process of losing, they don't have the will to win, it's the rebels who will continue to fight despite what the government does.
This is how the Vietnamese drove the Americans from Vietnam, by their will to continue fighting no matter what we threw at them.
This is how the Taliban is winning in Afghanistan, by their will to continue no matter what the US throws at them.
This is how the Shiites won in Iraq, by their persistence.

The US can defeat any large formation of regular military the world can assemble, but it can't win low intensity conflicts, because we don't have the will to persist for a hundred years, and they do.

Originally Posted by goober

The Syrian government is in the process of losing, they don't have the will to win, it's the rebels who will continue to fight despite what the government does.
This is how the Vietnamese drove the Americans from Vietnam, by their will to continue fighting no matter what we threw at them.
This is how the Taliban is winning in Afghanistan, by their will to continue no matter what the US throws at them.
This is how the Shiites won in Iraq, by their persistence.

The US can defeat any large formation of regular military the world can assemble, but it can't win low intensity conflicts, because we don't have the will to persist for a hundred years, and they do.

And thus we find a topic you know even less about than you know about economics.