jcd11235

Are you sure you made such a distinction? I don't see it. Your exact words: Maybe you can explain how it doesn't, seeing as we have not had any incidents in the homeland since the war started. Outside of one day in the past couple decades, it's pretty rather safe in the US.[sic] So no event can be attributed for making it better or worse. Could you please highlight the distinction between domestic terrorism and foreign terrorism in your three sentence post, copied above in its entirety? Please remember, you specifically urged me to respond to the second paragraph. How would you suggest we deal with domestic terrorism and pseudo-terrorism, considering the occurrences are more common than are the occurrences of foreign terrorism? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I don't believe such organizations are representative of Middle Eastern culture, any more than the KKK, Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczynski are representative of American culture. If we blame the actions of extremism on an entire culture, we should not be surprised if we are judged the same illogical way. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Actually, I just try to refrain from assuming that my culture is superior simply because it's mine. There are lots of great things about American culture. There's also lots of things that are not worthy of pride. And the US imprisons more of its citizens, both in absolute terms and per capita, than any other nation in the world, a very significant portion of which have committed victimless crimes. Should we judge American culture solely by its dark sides? I don't think so. Nor do I believe we should judge middle eastern cultures solely by its dark side. In neither case is the dark side all that exists. Has it? Are you referring to the American slaughter of indigenous peoples? Or perhaps our (more than a) century of slavery? Maybe you refer to politicians publicly supporting segregation? Perhaps you might be referring to our epidemic of obesity? Are you referring to our abundance of random violence in our schools? Maybe you're referring to how we brag about our democratic republic while most citizens are too lazy to bother going to the polls. Do you mean our excessive use of fossil fuels? Perhaps you're referring to our ~50 percent divorce rate? Of course America is not all bad. There's a lot of great things about this country. But I don't wear the rose colored glasses necessary to believe it is all great. Like any other culture, including those in the middle east, ours has its good points and its bad points. I suppose if one only acknowledges the good things about the US, and the bad things about other cultures then it's easy to take the moral high road. Personally, I try to look at things a little more objectively. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I think what many people overlook is that, traditionally, with western ways comes commercialization. All too often, with that commercialization comes a loss of local culture. It's far too easy to forget from our perspective that that loss of local culture is often undesirable. I don't think the majority of people in the M.E. are afraid of modernization (e.g. computers, internet, etc.) as they are loss of their culture. They don't want to become another United States. They like their own identity. If we are going to invest in their economies, we need to invest in their businesses, and let them run those businesses their way, not import our businesses over there in an attempt to get them to do things our way. If we are going to invest in their governments, we have to let them do things their way; we can't dictate to them how things are going to be done. No sacrifice or contribution we make will make any difference if we don't let them own the process themselves, successes and failures alike. We Americans all too often think of middle eastern peoples as barbaric and uncivilized, which is far from the truth. The depth of culture is much greater than our own. To believe that they want there what we have here is short sided and naive. They want what they have, just a modern version of it. What they don't want is their rich culture to be lost in that modernization. American business is always eager to tap into new markets. If they wanted what we have, they could get the ball rolling with a phone call, without any need for violence. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Very interesting post. It inspires many questions, but none of them are directed specifically at you. How does public perception of civilian deaths, which are perceived to be decreasing, compare to actual civilian death rates? How does the increase in public optimism over the past year compare with the change of public optimism over the entire course of the war. Is it like a stock price that fell from $150 to $15 dollars over a four year period and then climbed to $25 in the subsequent year? Or, is current optimism closer to its peak level? How does the increase in public optimism relate to the rate of change of attention the war has received from the media and the opponents of the war over the past year? Does there appear to be a correlation? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I did. It was wrong, too. However, replying would have required hijacking this thread. At your insistence, I replied in a new thread. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Maybe you can explain how it doesn't, seeing as we have not had any incidents in the homeland since the war started. Outside of one day in the past couple decades, it's pretty rather safe in the US. So no event can be attributed for making it better or worse. Here is a short list of incidents in the homeland. It should in no way be considered complete. Specifically, attacks against US embassies, US military assets and US based aircraft have been omitted, as well as other incidents, I'm sure. I've attempted to only list incidents that have occurred in the past two decades. Some of these were terrorist attacks, others were pseudo-terrorist attacks. I don't suppose there is much difference for the victims. Safety is relative. Certainly the US is not the most dangerous country in the world, but it is doubtful we are near the top of the list, either. We certainly experience plenty of politically motivated and random violence. I emboldened an incident of political terrorism that occurred since the Iraq invasion. January, 1993, Langley, Virginia, Mir Aimal Kasi opened fire at cars stopped at stoplight in front of CIA headquarters in retaliation for US military bombings of Iraqi troops withdrawing from Kuwait, killing two and wounding three others. February 1993, A bomb in a van exploded in the underground parking garage in New York's World Trade Center, killing six people and wounding 1,042. June 22, 1993, Tiburon, California, Unabomber, one injured. June 24, 1993, Yale University, Unabomber, one injured. December 10, 1994 North Caldwell, New Jersey, Unabomber, one killed. April 19, 1995, A car bomb destroyed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people and wounding over 600. April 24, 1995, Sacramento, California, Unabomber, one killed. July 27, 1996, A pipe bomb exploded during the Olympic games in Atlanta, killing one person and wounding 111. February 24, 1997, New York, New York, Armed gunmen opened fire on tourists at Empire State Building in retaliation for America's support of Israel. March 24, 1998, Craighead County, Arkansas, Mitchel Johnson and Andrew Golden killed five people and injured ten others at Westside Middle School. April 20, 1999, Littleton, Colorado, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 13 people and injured 23 more at Columbine High School. December 31, 1999, University of Michigan, arson was attributed to Earth's Liberation Front, a group to which several dozen eco-terrorist attacks have been attributed over the last eleven years. September 18, November 16, 2001, Anthrax is sent to media and Congressmen, killed five people and infectied 17 others. (unsolved) May 2002, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, and Texas, Mailbox pipe bombings injured six people. October 2002, Beltway Sniper Attacks, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo killed a total of sixteen people, including a previous shooting spree perpetrated by the two. April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech, Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people and injured 17 others. Additionally, six people were injured in attempts to escape. March 6, 2008, New York, New York, Military recruiting station in Times Square was bombed. (unsolved) February 14, 2008, DeKalb, Illinois, Northern Illinois University, Steven Kazmierczak killed five people and injured 18 others. There have been eleven violent abortion related attacks since 1993, plus one unsuccessful suicide bombing. Additionally, there have been hundreds of bombings, bomb threats and incidents of vandalism perpetrated against abortion clinics since 1977. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You're intelligent enough to know that that is faulty logic. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Can you explain this one a little bit? I'm not quite sure I understand it. IMO, a candidate should not be eager to go to war, and be willing to exhaust all other options first. But I also want that candidate that can recognize when all other options have failed and military intervention is required. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

WARNING!! SPOILER!!! "I could have taken him any day of the week." Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Demeter is the best (and generally the fastest) browser I've used on any platform. As a bonus, it's developed in Sebastian, Florida. Xshelf is an incredibly useful little utility that adds a shelf to a screen edge (hidden when you're not putting stuff on it or taking stuff out) that has saved me much frustration over the past few years. It is inspired by NeXTshelf in NeXTSTEP, which was the predecessor of OS X. I'm not sure why Apple has not re-implemented it into the OS. Perian allows Quicktime to play AVI, DivX, XviD and other video formats. VLC is a freeware media player that started out on Linux. It doesn't have the useful database features of iTunes, and isn't as polished as Quicktime, but it will play just about any file format you can throw at it, DRMed files notwithstanding. I've found many useful freeware apps for my Mac, but these four are likely my most used. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Why is that? I believe part of the problem is how high academic achievement is not typically an accomplishment that merits admiration from one's peers in school. Many first generation immigrants view school as an opportunity to be exploited for maximum benefit, studying hard for the best grades they can get. Also, many first generation immigrants recognize that, as a second language, they have to put more effort into learning English than native English speakers. One other reason (I'm sure there are many more) is that first generation immigrants are exposed to less improperly spoken English, so they don't suffer the problems stemming from proper English sounding incorrect. (For example, Rush are a Canadian rock trio. does not sound correct but is, since Rush is a plural noun.) Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Other than the *minor* detail of thousands of dead soldiers, didn't the US generally benefit from World War 2? Could we have endured a shorter war at lower costs (in lives and financial terms) had we arrived at the party a little bit earlier? Certainly things could have ended up worse after WWII, but I don't think it's unrealistic to consider that if some decisions had been made differently, things could have ended better, also. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I think General Powell did. At the very least his Powell Doctrine shows a more thorough understanding of On War than many other generals have displayed. Of course, Gen. Powell advised the President against invading Iraq. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Excepting economists (I believe mathematicians are more qualified to make unbiased decisions regarding the economy.), my answer is yes. Unfortunately, expert advice is all too often disregarded for the sake of political expediency, among other possible reasons. In most cases, I wouldn't think it would. However, everyone, including elected representatives, have their area of expertise. If, for example, Colin Powell were CINC, I would be less concerned about the CINC second-guessing military leaders, since military leadership is an area of expertise for General Powell. Of course, due to that expertise, he would be more likely to follow his general staff's advice. Since my military experience is limited to an active duty combat arms MOS and a subsequent REMF Army Reserves assignment, I don't feel qualified to offer an opinion. I simply don't have sufficient knowledge. That's a very good question, and one that I don't have an answer for. The only thing I'm confident about is that there is no easy answer. Some of my thoughts: Once a political decision to go to war is made, a concrete mission, as well as total control of the troops could be given to the commanding general. From there, the only control the politicians have over the army is the ability to change the mission; they would not be able to dictate how a given mission is carried out. This approach has its own problems, not the least of which being violation of Article II Section 2 of the US Constitution. Such a policy would also significantly increase the potential of an attempted military coup. The latter danger could be mitigated with a policy, similar to a law in ancient Rome, IIRC, that the action of stepping onto US soil automatically relieves the general of his command. That's also consistent with Sun Tzu's observation that the same characteristics that make one a good offensive general make him/her a poor defensive general, and vice versa. Another possible approach, also not terribly practical, would be to require troops to furnish their own personal equipment, with the intent of creating an army made up of troops from a much higher social class. Presumably, Congress and the President would be much more reluctant to put these troops in harms way without due consideration and sufficient resources to accomplish the mission. I think both approaches have significant problems, and I'm not trying to promote the adoption of either. But your question is one that I've given much consideration over the years. I still don't have an answer. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I absolutely agree. POTUS is the last job I'd ever want. I'd rather be making minimum wage at a crappy job, living out of my car due to an inability to make enough money to pay rent anywhere. Which is precisely why, given the circumstances of your hypothetical situation, I would run. Anyone who actually wants that job has absolutely no business in the Oval Office. It should be viewed as a 4-8 year (5-9 or more if you count the campaign) stint as a slave, not a job promotion. Still, I hope those phone calls never come, and given the plethora of people far better suited for the job, it's a safe assumption that they never will.

I agree. While I believe US foreign policy has, at times, relied on the premature use of military force, I also believe that an understanding of military philosophy, structure and discipline is important for our civilian leaders. While I do not believe that military experience is a necessary or sufficient condition of that understanding, it is certainly an avenue that offers the opportunity of a better understanding. JROTC and ROTC also offer strong potential for the discovery and promotion of such interests. As Sun Tzu wrote many centuries ago, "The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected." (Giles translation) Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I can’t. I can. … Les Aspin took the fall for the bold bullet, but it has been widely reported that Bill Clinton was the driving force behind the denial. Regardless, it was politics over tactics that turned what could have been a very successful operation into an abortion. Which is exactly why it wasn't an example of politicians second-guessing military commanders, with those second-guesses having a beneficial effect on the outcome of the conflict. Perhaps I was not clear in my original assertion. Let me restate it: Military commanders are better qualified than politicians to make decisions regarding resources and effective strategies necessary to accomplish military missions. The wiki article doesn't offer any insight into what resources military commanders advised were necessary versus what resources they were actually authorized. Furthermore, we have the luxury of hindsight, which was not afforded those who were tasked with evaluating the situation and planning the operation. Having said that, I find it highly unlikely that the military commanders did not request more resources than were ultimately authorized for the operation. Edit: This post was written prior to reading Para_Frog's response to Kallend, above. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Honestly, it sounds like a corollary of the Domino Theory. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I read LTC Yinglings article. IMO, he lacks understanding necessary to successfully lead an army into combat. Or, more likely, he's sucking up to the political powers that be, perhaps looking for a promotion. If the generals advised that many more troops were necessary, yet were still ordered to invade by those in their chain of command, that onus is on their chain of command (i.e. the President), not the generals, as LTC Yingling would have us believe. In other words, they acted like responsible military leaders, following orders handed down from their chain of command without undermining the integrity of the command structure. True, the generals could have, and perhaps should have resigned their command prior to the invasion. I can't help but wonder how LTC Yingling would react to his majors, captains and lieutenants second-guessing his command decisions in front of the troops. The generals should not be blamed for the poor choices made by the CINC. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I think you're being too hard on yourself. It's doubtful that you're such a bad skydiver that you need to quit your day job just to make more time to practice. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I'm not convinced that there was (or was significant potential for) a "Saddam problem" during Bush2's tenure. Aside from that, I pretty much agree with your post. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

WWI and WWII both show that obeying stupid orders also leads to unnecessary deaths - lots of them. I think I get to what you are referring, but would you clarify specifically? Thanks. VR/Marg Well, the battle of the Somme comes quickly to mind. And Passchendaele too. The expression of the era was "Lions led by donkeys". Sadly, I'm not as familiar with those battles as I should be. A little bit of research on Somme revealed some major mistakes on the part of some of the British generals. Some of those mistakes were in fact political in nature. Some others were due to poorly thought out decisions. It was for political reasons that a strategic retreat was not considered. A good general, like a good businessperson, knows that it is folly to chase sunk costs. One of the things that allowed the Germans to offer the resistance that they did was that they were able to strengthen their remaining defenses by retreating from territory that had become to costly to hold. Another interesting bit that I read was that the British officers and the non-coms (and enlisted?) wore uniforms that were different enough from one another that the officers were easily distinguished from the enlisted men. I don't know who designed the uniforms, whether it was a politician of the day, or whether it was an oversight from the British's previous naval strength. Either way, it contributed to higher than necessary officer attrition, requiring the promotion of lesser qualified personnel. I also found it interesting that the French, using superior tactics and strategy, fared much better against the Germans than the British troops did. British General Rawlinson did not seem to have much faith in his troops. This is essentially the same mistake that civilian leaders make when they don't trust the judgement of their generals and second guess their recommendations. In a successful military unit, big or small, leadership has to have faith in the abilities of their subordinates. There's no place for micromanagement. How can troops be expected to trust their commanders if the commanders don't trust the troops to do their jobs? Still, even when left to make their own decisions, when two (or more) opposing generals face off against one another, at least one of them has to lose. Not all generals are equal. War is hell, and troops die fighting them. Generally (pardon the pun), generals are better at minimizing those deaths and obtaining maximum benefit in exchange for the sacrifice. Can you think of any examples in which politicians second-guessed multiple generals (that were in agreement with one another) and successfully snatched victory from the jaws of defeat? Don't think for a second that I'm attempting to support the war in Iraq. I've been vocally against the invasion since the WH administration began its campaign attempting to convince citizens that Iraq was related to 9/11 and had links to al Quaeda. Our troops didn't belong there then, and they only belong there now to the extent that we broke it, so it is our responsibility to make amends. We let Bush into office; we own his mistakes. They are our mistakes. But undermining the military is not going to make those mistakes or our responsibility go away. * * * Excerpted from B.H. Liddell Hart's Forward of Samuel Griffith's translation of Sun Tsu's The Art Of War: Sun Tzu's essays on `The Art of War' form the earliest of known treatises on the subject, but have never been surpassed in comprehensiveness and depth of understanding. They might well be termed the concentrated essence of wisdom on the conduct of war. Among all the military thinkers of the past, only Clausewitz is comparable, and even he is more `dated' than Sun Tzu, and in part antiquated, although he was writing more than two thousand years later. Sun Tzu has clearer vision, more profound insight, and eternal freshness. Civilization might have been spared much of the damage suffered in the world wars of this century if the influence of Clausewitz's monumental tomes On War, which molded European military thought in the era preceding the First World War, had been blended with and balanced by a know- ledge of Sun Tzu's exposition on `The Art of War'. Sun Tzu's realism and moderation form a contrast to Clausewitz's tendency to emphasize the logical ideal and `the absolute' which his disciples caught on to in developing the theory and practice of `total war' beyond all bounds of sense. That fatal development was fostered by Clausewitz's dictum that: `To introduce into the philosophy of war a principle of moderation would be an absurdity - war is an act of violence pushed to its utmost bounds.' Yet subsequently he qualified this assertion by the admission that `the political object, as the original motive of the war, should be the standard for determining both the aim of the military force and also the amount of effort to be made'. Moreover, his eventual conclusion was that to pursue the logical extreme entailed that `the means would lose all relation to the end'. The ill-effects of Clausewitz's teaching arose largely from his disciples' too shallow and too extreme interpretation of it overlooking his qualifying clauses, but he lent himself to such misinterpretation by expounding his theory in a way too abstract and involved for concrete minded soldiers to follow the course of his arguement, which often turned back from the direction which it seemed to be taking. Impressed but bemused, they clutched at his vivid leading phrases and missed the underlying trend of his thought - which did not differ so much from Sun tzu's conclusions as it appeared to do on the surface. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Jimmy Buffett has been known to incorporate some political commentary into his shows, also, though not nearly to the extent of some other artists. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

We need more military leaders who WILL 'cross the grain'. No, that would be bad for the military. Insubordination in the military is bad. Insubordination at the highest ranks is disasterous. We need commanding generals' chain of command to recognize the expertise of the generals to whom they gave command. That expertise does not change with the political winds. If the Pentagon or the CINC disregards the counsel of their generals (and admirals), it had better come after much deliberation, and there had better be a damn good reason for it. If there is a discrepancy between the opinions of the generals and the opinions of their leaders, the generals have two responsible options. They can suck it up and drive on, following orders, or they can resign their command. Public disagreement is bad for everyone involved, especially the troops. The military is not a democracy. If soldiers don't obey orders, the military breaks down and soldiers die unnecessarily. Having said that, the people need to reign in politicians who think that wars can be run from Washington. They cannot. How many times must we learn the same lesson before we are able to commit it to our collective memory? Generals should be given missions, to be accomplished as they see fit, within the guidelines of international law. Generals, and not politicians, are the experts of war. Generals should be trusted most in time of war. If the situation does not warrant that trust, then most likely, the situation does not warrant war. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!