Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
War by a Democracy
Topic Started: May 21 2004, 09:48 AM (120 Views)
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Given the current situation in the world I think this is topical. The major democratic states of the world are also some of the most powerful nations militarily. The USA is obviously the most powerful individual nation in military terms. I wonder whether our democratic nature however is our major weakness. Could we actually sustain a long drawn out conflict, perhaps with many casualities, perhaps with the introduction of conscription etc?

If it was a situation where we were directly threatened then perhaps we could. At any rate in some situations democracy is 'suspended' (Britain in WW2). Yet when the war more controversal and the justification less clear cut I think we do find it very difficult to sustain our role in conflicts. I think this is the problem we may face in Iraq, although militarily we could continue as our commitment drags on, particularly is casualties continue to rise, the public will loose patience with the war seeing no obvious benefits.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

I think many Americans feel that there is a direct threat and it comes from the middle east. Even though most rational people realize that there was no direct connection between 9/11 and Iraq, many Americans feel that the middle east is a festering sewer of trouble that needs restructuring in order for it to no longer be a threat to the US. Going into Iraq is part of this restructuring process. Even though this rational was not clearly articulated by the Bush Administration, I honestly believe this to be the actual reason for the invasion. To address your point DS9, I think America can sustain this conflict for a while and the reason is that 9/11 has convinced the American population that there is a direct threat from the middle east.
| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Terrorists have threatened more attacks on the United States.

Quote:
 
Could we actually sustain a long drawn out conflict, perhaps with many casualities, perhaps with the introduction of conscription etc?

This is an interesting thought, but doesn't bear out.

Can we sustaun a long, drawn out conflict? Sure. Here's the thing.... it is only a long, drawn out conflict because of the amount of restraint we are using in fighting it. We're trying not to step on toes while we maintain presence. Contrast this to WWII, where we firebombed entire cities to ashes. Casualties have been very low in this war. Remember Slapton, where 749 US soldiers died in a ONE MORNING rehearsal for the D-Day invasion (this was in the news a month ago).

There won't be many casualties, and there is no need for conscription.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

I think most people, whether they're from democratic nations or not, will fiercly defend their homeland - - patriotism. Whether people agree with their political leaders or not, they still tend to love their countries. Even though the Bush administration's idealogical agenda (not limited to foreign policy or military policy, by the way) gives many of us pause - I think (hope) the terrorists (the real terrorists) will find that they probably could have selected an 'easier' enemy almost anywhere other than the USA.

I'm still waiting for the President to take more of what I consider to be direct action against al-Qaeda - - specifically, I want to see Osama bin Laden in jail or dead - now! - same with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. I would support almost any means to this end - and I'd pay a great deal more in taxes to see it come about. This Iraq thing, though - I have serious problems with the President's notion that Iraq is a piece of the al-Qaeda, Islamic fundamentalist terrorism puzzle.

In the situation we have with terrorists or resistance fighters in Iraq, I don't think that democracy is our weakness (at least I don't want to believe it is). I think the weakness enters into the equation when we use (try to use) conventional military strategy against an enemy like al-Qaeda. To one degree or another, the terrorists have a strategic advantage in that they intentionally target civilian targets - 'soft' targets are so hard to protect and go far to erode morale.
| Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Our weakness is that we refuse to use conventional military tactics. We hinder our soldiers by making them police officers. They cannot take any action on their own, but must wait to be attacked before they can attack back. The terrorists have no such limitations.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus