Even Joshua Knew The Only Winning Move Is Not To Play
Anonymous said,"In all those miles had they come up with a plan on how to stop the war? Other than just pulling out (to what effect?), I haven't heard any of these "patriots" come up with a reasonable plan to follow...
Winning the war makes a lot of sense to me..."
There are a lot of issues wrapped up in Iraq. Did we go in on faked intelligence reports? Does our occupation have anything to do with our homeland security (Gen. Petraeus didn't have an answer until the White House called him)? Winning a war these days is not as easy as saying, "Send in the Marines." While I respect and support our troops, I don't think they can win and here's why:
- We have not learned from history. The British tried holding Iraq during WWII. I'm sure they thought they had "won" while they were exploiting its oil resources, but their occupation directly contributed to the rise of Saddam Hussein. Saddam's uncle/mentor was part of the regime that asked Nazi Germany for help against the British. We are most likely creating the next Fascist Saddam Hussein right now.
- What constitutes winning? Destroying all opposition? Imagine if some country invaded the US. You and I, and every other average citizen would take up arms to fight. Why do you expect Iraq to be different? Anybody invading the US would have to kill us all, as long as there was one American alive, he/she would be fighting for freedom, it's our way. The difference is we haven't been invaded in recent memory, we haven't kicked out invaders in recent memory, they have and that will embolden them.
- Why Iraq and not Darfur? Oil. If as some people think we are nearing the end of oil, then we need to hold Iraq's Oil.
- We are supplying guns and body armor to the insurgents. Why should our troops be killed by weapons we supply? Until we are smart enough to keep these weapons out of the hands of bad guys, we can't win. Iran is providing weapons and support to insurgents, unless we are ready to start WWIII, we'll never defeat Iran (a tactical strike will only lead to all out war). The money we send to that region to buy oil is supporting the insurgents and is used to teach children that we are their enemy, until we stop sending funds to that region, they will have all the money they need to keep fighting us.
The point that Vernon was trying to make with his transcontinental bicycle trip and his car-less lifestyle was that we can live on less. We don't need the oil to live happy lives. Think about winning the war this way. If Americans had alternatives to oil, and didn't need to import a drop of oil from the middle east, there would be no need to fight over the region. Iran couldn't continue its nuclear program because it wouldn't have the funds to do so. It couldn't support insurgents in Iraq because it wouldn't have the funds to do so. Cut-off the money (essentially cutting their supply lines) going to the region and you end most of the conflict and win the war.
Is it possible to end the flow of US dollars to the Middle East? I think so. There are technologies available today that can turn organic waste into oil (imagine sewage being turned into fuel instead of being "treated" and released into our streams). These processes are still in the small prototype phase only able to produce 500 barrels a day from a plant that cost around $40 million, but if we spent some of that 1/2 trillion dollars of Iraq war money on the process, I think we could up the output a bit. There have been advances in Lithium Ion Batteries, such that Electric cars like the Tesla can rival the performance of any sportscar and still get 200 miles per charge. Of course, an electric 5 passenger sedan with a range comparable to a gas powered vehicle would cost $100,000 or more, but again, if we spent some of that 1/2 trillion on development costs, I'm guessing we could bring the price down a bit.
I don't think this argument was as eloquent as I had hoped, but the point was that there are alternatives to fighting that can be more effective at winning.