Kerry and Military Policy

[Kennedy 0]

Washington Post

one exerpt
(you may have to read this one a few times)

Quote

Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, 'If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no.'

So the UN can effectively win conflicts, but the USA can't.
So dying for the UN is ok, but dying for your country is not.
Thanks, I think we got it, John.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[PhillyKev 0]

I have no idea what that statement means or refers to. You made a lovely leap to a conclusion, but I'm not sure where you're getting that other than your bias. What is the question that he was asked, this statement is obviously him trying to get clarification of a question from someone else.

[billvon 3,070]

>If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false
> presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally
> no.

Do you believe US troops should die in a conflict where we cannot get the desired result?

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

>If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false
> presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally
> no.

Do you believe US troops should die in a conflict where we cannot get the desired result?

Does he believe the USA cannot get the desired result in conflict but somehow UN support tips the scales?
(oh yeeeeeah, the UN doesn't have troops of it's own, and uses ours)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[freeflydrew 0]

Quote

So the UN can effectively win conflicts, but the USA can't.
So dying for the UN is ok, but dying for your country is not.
Thanks, I think we got it, John.

Hey Kennedy, thanks for making us laugh, again...

[billvon 3,070]

>Does he believe the USA cannot get the desired result in conflict but
>somehow UN support tips the scales?

No. But let me ask you again: do you believe US troops should die in a conflict where we cannot get the desired result?

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

No. But let me ask you again: do you believe US troops should die in a conflict where we cannot get the desired result?

Give me an example of a conflict where the US military is/would be unable to achieve the desired results.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[quade 4]

Quote

Give me an example of a conflict where the US military is/would be unable to achieve the desired results.

Vietnam?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,070]

>Give me an example of a conflict where the US military is/would be
>unable to achieve the desired results.

Vietnam.

For the final time: do you believe US troops should die in a conflict where we cannot get the desired result? If you cannot answer, that's OK - just say so.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Quote

Give me an example of a conflict where the US military is/would be unable to achieve the desired results.

Vietnam?

Iraq?? Afghanastan?? Last I checked, fighting is still going on in both countries. America has not done well against insurgents, non-uniformed attacks in many battles. Look at the efforts in Africa and the middle east.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[quade 4]

The problem, as I see it, is that if the population of a country doesn't -want- to change, then there's really nothing you can do to -force- them to change short of genocide.

Without that threat, they can, even in near stone aged conditions, outlast whatever it is you think you're doing to them -- especially if they get even the most minimal of financial help from outsiders.

We helped the Afgan people oust the Soviet Union by giving them some relatively inexpensive shoulder fired missles. The Soviets thought they could control the populace with helicopters, but it doesn't take a lot of sophisticated math to figure out that isn't going to work when helicopters are expensive and shoulder fired missles are cheap.

In Iraq, we're outspending the enemy by vast amounts, but they (as a country) outnumber us and use inexpensive weapons. They can outlast however long we choose to be there.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[penniless 0]

Quote

Quote

No. But let me ask you again: do you believe US troops should die in a conflict where we cannot get the desired result?

Give me an example of a conflict where the US military is/would be unable to achieve the desired results.

Vietnam.

Give me an example of a situation where the US has gone in WITH full international support and a broad coalition** of allies and it has not been successful.

** that's a real coalition, not like the present Iraq situation where 1 nation provides 95% of the forces.

[Kennedy 0]

The loss in Vietnam was not due to military inability, it was due to the administration restricting it to tasks that did not accomplish the goal.

My answer is quite simple. No, troops should not die in a war where the desired results are not attainable. However, I do not believe there are military tasks that our troops cannot accomplish, so your question comes at the issue from the wrong angle.

Politicians and diplomats fail. Our troops do not.

Example: I tell you your goal is to run from the twenty yard line into the end zone (north). Then I tell you that the only acceptable means for accomplishing this are running towards either sideline (east and west).

Is the failure your fault? Are you unable to run into the endzone? Or have you been given a task that you could accomplish except that I have stopped you?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

However, I do not believe there are military tasks that our troops cannot accomplish, so your question comes at the issue from the wrong angle.

I believe you may be looking at it from too few angles. Sure, we have the capability to kill the entire world a couple times over if we really wanted to. There really aren't ANY limits on what we can do militarily from the perspective of total anhilation of the enemy. But there are political limitations. Those limitations are no less valid, in fact they are more valid because they define what our desired results are. Our desired result in Iraq is not to destroy all insurgent activity no matter what the collateral losses. Our desired goal is to help them create a stable democracy. That puts limitations on the type and amount of military force that can be used otherwise that goal becomes impossible.

To paraphrase, see your sig line.

[TheAnvil 0]

Do you believe anyone prescient enough to know US military power could not succeed would commit troops to such an action, armed with such knowledge, be they Republican or Dimocrat?

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

The loss in Vietnam was not due to military inability, it was due to the administration restricting it to tasks that did not accomplish the goal.

My answer is quite simple. No, troops should not die in a war where the desired results are not attainable. However, I do not believe there are military tasks that our troops cannot accomplish, so your question comes at the issue from the wrong angle.

Politicians and diplomats fail. Our troops do not.

Example: I tell you your goal is to run from the twenty yard line into the end zone (north). Then I tell you that the only acceptable means for accomplishing this are running towards either sideline (east and west).

Is the failure your fault? Are you unable to run into the endzone? Or have you been given a task that you could accomplish except that I have stopped you?

Apparently you mis-read the question.

"But let me ask you again: do you believe US troops should die in a conflict where we cannot get the desired result?"

Does the "we" refer to the troops, or the nation after taking political realities into account?

Perhaps you remember that Vietnam was a failure under administrations of both parties.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Do you believe anyone prescient enough to know US military power could not succeed would commit troops to such an action, armed with such knowledge, be they Republican or Dimocrat?

Extreme hypothetical and unworthy of an answer. Anyone that prescient could never rise to a position of leadership in either party.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,070]

> The loss in Vietnam was not due to military inability, it was due to the
>administration restricting it to tasks that did not accomplish the goal.

I agree, and would also add that the problem was not that our military was incapable of performing whatever military task asked of it - it was that we were fighting for a very specific political result, not a military victory. We're good at military victories. Look at Iraq - no problem at all winning the military war, but an agonizingly slow process of stabilizing the country.

Going back to Vietnam, if we had won the military war in Vietnam and precipitated World War III, we would have lost in the long run.

>My answer is quite simple. No, troops should not die in a war where the
>desired results are not attainable.

I agree! Looks like Kerry does too.

>However, I do not believe there are military tasks that our troops cannot
>accomplish, so your question comes at the issue from the wrong angle.

Agreed again. The problem comes along when we try to use our military for political, cultural and economic, rather than military, tasks.

>Example: I tell you your goal is to run from the twenty yard line into the
> end zone (north). Then I tell you that the only acceptable means for
> accomplishing this are running towards either sideline (east and west).

A better example would be to tell a sniper to prevent anyone from killing anyone in a small town. He may be a great sniper; but when the task at hand is to STOP killing, a sniper is a poor choice. He's simply not equipped for what you ask him to do.

[quade 4]

Quote

Do you believe anyone prescient enough to know US military power could not succeed would commit troops to such an action, armed with such knowledge, be they Republican or Dimocrat?

Interesting question. Serious one too except for your intentional spelling error.

I assume you've read 1984. One of the sub-plots is that the government has an on-going war, not with the intention of winning, but with the intention of a continuing effort that will motivate the populace into doing its bidding. In fact, whether or not the war is actually being waged isn't even an issue, simply the news of it motivates the masses.

So, if you look at history, this is a fear that has been brought up a few times and with good reason too. It's happened. Maybe not to the extent in 1984, but take a look at the origins of the Spanish-American war and you'll see that war has been started and waged for, of all things, commercial purposes -- to sell newspapers. Some say this is part of the reasoning behind FOXNews. I won't go -quite- that far, but it is interesting how focused the are in keeping the terror level up. Just look at their news crawl. The DHS threat level hasn't changed in -quite- awhile and if it did change it would be a breaking news story, yet they keep a terror status report in their news crawl 24/7/365.

So, anyway, yes . . . I do believe that knowing a war could not be "won" it's possible that nefarious politicans could start one none the less.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,070]

> Do you believe anyone prescient enough to know US military power
>could not succeed would commit troops to such an action?

It would depend on their definition of success. I know there are politicians who would commit troops (even if they knew they would fail) if it would increase their chances at re-election; I also know there are politicians who pray for US troops to fail so _they_ have a better chance at re-election.

But those people are in the minority. For the most part, they would not commit troops to certain failure. The problem is, no one is omniscient. You have to go with your best guess - and a large part of what makes a good leader is how good their educated guesses are.

[Trent 0]

Quote

We're good at military victories. Look at Iraq - no problem at all winning the military war...

So, no more making fun of the "Mission Accomplished" banner, right? We explained to you that the banner meant exactly what you just said and there was weeks worth of back and forth about it. Glad that's settled.

Just as a general note when you guys are trying to use Vietnam as a debate point....

We did have international support in no insignificant numbers. Don't think anyone contributed? Just ask the Koreans, the Australians, the Canadians... just to name a few... oh, and definitely don't forget the people of South Vietnam, the Montagnards, and other indigenous people that were fighting and dying just like the US soldiers. Also, try not to be so arrogant as to say that Vietnam wasn't a winnable war, if you'd have had a good look at the Viet Cong forces after Tet, you wouldn't have thought that. Many of the people in the south and many Americans that served there KNEW we could win and were enraged that they weren't being allowed to do it. Blame whoever you want for that, but don't use Vietnam as an example of an unwinnable war when *surprise* people with way more experience and knowledge about the situation will quickly disagree with you.

Oh, hello again!

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

So, no more making fun of the "Mission Accomplished" banner, right?

so, if the mission was accomplished, what are you into now? Mission Impossible II?

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I agree, and would also add that the problem was not that our military was incapable of performing whatever military task asked of it - it was that we were fighting for a very specific political result, not a military victory. We're good at military victories. Look at Iraq - no problem at all winning the military war, but an agonizingly slow process of stabilizing the country.

---

The problem comes along when we try to use our military for political, cultural and economic, rather than military, tasks.

That's what I said. Our military doesn't fail. It's the politicians and the diplomats who fail.

They've already failed once, requiring war, and they fail again in asking things of the military that is not their job.

Our military can win damn near any fight we ask it to win. It's a question of whether or not we can handle the ramifications of winning.

---

Going back to origins of this thread, the issue was Kerry and his view that our national defense is less important than the decisions of the UN.

Do you agree with that?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Going back to origins of this thread, the issue was Kerry and his view that our national defense is less important than the decisions of the UN.

Do you agree with that?

No, I don't agree that is his view. That is a partisan twist of his view in order to defame him.

Here's a more honest explanation of what he has expressed and shown to be his view.

Don't create enemies out of friends. An important part of our national defense is not pissing off the rest of the world when it's not necessary. We had unprecedented support for action in Afghanistan and from the rest of the world. Then that support was destroyed and turned against us. We would be a lot safer today if we had more allies.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Don't create enemies out of friends. An important part of our national defense is not pissing off the rest of the world when it's not necessary. We had unprecedented support for action in Afghanistan and from the rest of the world. Then that support was destroyed and turned against us. We would be a lot safer today if we had more allies.

How in God's name did you get that out of:

Quote

In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, 'If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no.'

Kevin, the man said dying for the UN effort was worth it, but that doing it without UN consent was not. It doesn't get much more simple than that.

He believes that being part of a UN effort somehow mean we will succeed, while doing the same thing unilaterally guarnatees failure and inabilty to affect the outcome.


By the way, I tend to believe what people say when they are not running for election far more than when they are fishing for votes.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*