The charge of the light brigade was stupidity carried out by brave men. If you cant see the brainwashing applied by religious fundamentalism you should not be in this thread.
Really?? Pmsl...:smile: "They are the enemy Sir, they are not on our side so they must be mad Sir... Brainwashed Sir, there can be no other reason for them not to like us Sir... Probably on drugs too I'd say..." I can see the makings of a good monty python sketch here...
I saw a cartoon in a newspaper today which I reckon sums it up.......... "The first casualty in war is the truth; I learned that in the SAS"
I am currently reading Jeremy Scahall's Dirty Wars - extremely interesting reading about American special forces and the "war on terror" (sic). I have previously read Bob Woodward's Iraq trilogy as well as another book or two on the subject. Why? Because I really want to know what's going on. If soldiers are more lauded in the US than in the UK, it could well be because the propaganda machine is a lot stronger in the US. For the US, they are right and everyone else is ipso facto wrong. Their culture is the only one worth having. The enemy is easily identified - he's not American. Thankfully, in the UK, things are bit more nuanced with a bit more critical awareness. It is patent from my reading that the Iraq war was started because Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld wanted it to happen - for reasons we won't go into here. It was never connected to the "war on terror" and was planned well before 9/11. The British people could smell a rat and didn't want us to get involved in America's Neocon war - but Blair decided otherwise. Not only did the Iraq war achieve little or nothing but it was hugely detrimental to stamping out terrorism - its avowed aim. The Taliban flourished as the eye was taken off the ball in Afghanistan fighting an unnecessary war in the Middle East. Even the insurgency in Iraq was the direct result of complete bungling by the Americans, notably the absurdly arrogant and misguided decisions of Paul Bremer. It's a long story. What I want to know, from all the services personnel and ex-services personnel on this forum is how they think the war on terror is likely to end. What is the strategy and the end game - wipe out all terrorists once and for all? Anyone can see that that will never happen. So what's the pont then? I have great admiration for the courage and dedication of services' personnel, but I think that they are misguided - literally. They are essentially fighting a war to save American face. If that had been possible five years ago, they would all be home by now. The photo is a red herring. Abu Graib was not a one-off brought about by a couple of loose canons, it was just the tip of an iceberg of systematised abuse perpetrated notably by JSOC, sanctioned from the very top of the White House and which can still be seen at Guantánamo (about which we now hear very little). If the media get exercised about this sort of thing it's because if you can't show yourself morally superior to the insurgents you are fighting, you shouldn't be there in any case. The population intrinsically understands this.
Things don't have to be done to an 100% success rate to warrant doing them. The war on child abuse is unlikely to be won in five years; so should the police not bother trying to deal with that? Success should not be measured in a black or white / all or nothing scenario... All in my humble opinion of course...
Mrs Al moans about the Plod 'wasting their time and resources' chasing twokkers with the helicopter and any number of Plod cars; when all the little b***ds get is a talking to or a small fine......... I keep telling her it isn't Plod's fault, it's the justice system and the CPS.........the cost of chasing and catching them is irrelevant...........She can't see that taking someone to court and convicting them always costs more than the State gains.
I doubt many service personnel concern themselves with the big reasons. I'd suggest they are more concerned with their own job and their friends.
I think that's very true Tom. It's a similar situation, though a less extreme one, in all walks if life. If your job is to sell Mars bars, you don't constantly worry if they are making people fat - you get on and sell them. And if they are making people fat, that doesn't make Mars bar salesmen evil - they are just doing a job. But someone needs to think about the big reasons, especially in war. You don't prosecute a war unless you have big reasons for doing so seeing as it's very expensive and will create a lot of misery.
Yes, wars are expensive and create misery. But not prosecuting a war can also be very expensive and create a lot of misery. The "argument from misery" applies to both sides of the decision, not just to one side. Deciding not to go to war has its own consequences, and they may be dreadful too.
[QUOTE="But someone needs to think about the big reasons, especially in war. You don't prosecute a war unless you have big reasons for doing so seeing as it's very expensive and will create a lot of misery."[/QUOTE] That's why we have Pete1950!
I would hope that the Brigadiers, Commodores and above do concern themselves with the big reasons! They are employed to do just that, so private soldiers and sailors don't have to.
Big reasons are well above the pay grade of mere One-Stars, Pete! They are strictly middle-management (or are meant to be).
There is analogy that kind of fits here... In the military the driver of a vehicle doesn't need to know where he is going, he just needs to know how to operate the controls and what his operating limits are. The commander in the passenger seat will tell him where to go and when and the driver follows these instructions within his pre-trained limits and the vehicle will end up where it needs to be. Essentially it's above a privates pay scale to decide what policy is, he just follows what he has been told to the letter and everything will be hunky dory from his point of view.
The Military don't decide whether to go to war, parliament does.... Unless your name is Tony War alone cannot solve any conflict, let alone the "GWOT". It can have it's part to play, along side diplomacy, capacity building, economic support, negotiations and understanding the situation. I think that part of the problem in conflict resolution, is trying to make the map fit the ground, and provide a solution for "The country" in question; when it may actually not be at country... Take Iraq, one solution for three distinct regions? Similar story in Afghanistan and Pakistan region where the map does not reflect trial boundaries. Similar story again in Ukraine to a degree, and then again closer to home in Catalunya, and even closer at home in Ulster - where what Ulster consists of is not agreed in both sides ( 6 counties or actually 9?)
