Rumsfeld to step down

[pourts]

Maybe strict adherence to the Powell doctrine isn't possible in every situation, but it's an ideal worth striving for that makes a lot more sense then the one under which we entered OIF.

Well put. I would say strict adherence isn't possible in any situation, but it provides a decent enough framework.

 

[invertedflyer]

pourts,

Few on this forum will argue that the UN is always the best option. I was just using China and Russia as an example... I don't think China wants us to fail though, Russia maybe, but China is one of our biggest trade partners and wants to see stability in the region. Regardless, that is definitely a case in which our national security would be threatened.

I wasn't aware of enriched uranium in Iraq... but then again none of this stuff gets reported anyway. SCUDs, agreed, money from UN programs..? A little hazy on that one.. sanctions hurt the Iraqi economy dramatically.. it also had a profound effect on the people of Iraq... much of the international aid shipments meant for the Iraqi people were held by Saddam...

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying as a whole here. I am NOT saying we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, just that we should have followed the framework of the Powell Doctrine more closely. We basically didn't follow it at all... that is my main point.

That is a good example of one of the few UN resolutions that was ever enforced. The "international community" let Saddam go on and on with 18 different resolutions against him, and it let Hezbollah dig bunkers and get ready for a war with Israel despite UN resolutions that it should disarm.

It happened in 1995 as well with Bosnia/Herzegovina...can't forget about that (although that was primarily NATO).

 

[Fly Navy]

there was a sway in public opinion due to the "Highway of Death"

One reason why every aspect of war doesn't need to be televised. That was pure overwhelming force, destroying the Iraqi will to fight piecemeal. Wars don't end with "enough" force, they end with dominating force. Unfortunately the public can't handle this. It's ugly.

 

[nittany03]

One reason why every aspect of war doesn't need to be televised. That was pure overwhelming force, destroying the Iraqi will to fight piecemeal. Wars don't end with "enough" force, they end with dominating force. Unfortunately the public can't handle this. It's ugly.

The trouble is, those that oppose war on principle will be scrambling to televise this just because it shows how "evil" we are. And let's not forget the news media's rule of thumb; "if it bleeds, it leads." Great ratings when people are horrified; hence the reason behind half the stuff that ends up on the news these days. I believe it'll be a long time, if ever, before the media can be counted on to act in the military's interest.

 

[Brett327]

One reason why every aspect of war doesn't need to be televised. That was pure overwhelming force, destroying the Iraqi will to fight piecemeal. Wars don't end with "enough" force, they end with dominating force. Unfortunately the public can't handle this. It's ugly.

Contrary to popular belief, "highway of death" actually had very little impact on the decision not to continue to Baghdad, per my previous posts. It is, however, another example of the media portraying events as they "seem" to an outside observer that is not in possession of all the facts. This false reality gets repeated enough so as to become the de facto truth for the public. This is why it's dangerous/counterproductive to allow the press too much access to the battlefield. Some may find my attitude a bit Orwellian, but there really is no such thing as freedom of the press on the battlefield. The truth can be sorted out when the battle/war is over, but before that point, the military should exercise tight control over ALL information flowing from the battlefield. War is too important an endeavor to do otherwise.

Brett

 

[pourts]

Contrary to popular belief, "highway of death" actually had very little impact on the decision not to continue to Baghdad, per my previous posts. It is, however, another example of the media portraying events as they "seem" to an outside observer that is not in possession of all the facts. This false reality gets repeated enough so as to become the de facto truth for the public. This is why it's dangerous/counterproductive to allow the press too much access to the battlefield. Some may find my attitude a bit Orwellian, but there really is no such thing as freedom of the press on the battlefield. The truth can be sorted out when the battle/war is over, but before that point, the military should exercise tight control over ALL information flowing from the battlefield. War is too important an endeavor to do otherwise.

Brett

Interesting perspective. Under this school of thought, would you allow the media on the current "battlefield" in Iraq? If not, then the only images and reporting the American people could get would be terrorist propaganda. Not that what they get now is much different (CNN sniper video).