SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Keith Feral who wrote (150160)11/1/2004 12:46:33 PM
From: Jacob Snyder  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
<hunt them down on their own soil>

Correct. We can't win against guerrillas who have Safe Havens, places they can recruit/train/fundraise and we can't touch them.

So, how do we "wipe out" those Safe Havens? Your answer is, "Send in the Marines." This is wishful thinking, an unrealistic plan, because:
1. we don't have the troops to do it.
2. The only way we can get the troops would be a draft.
3. The American people won't tolerate a draft.
4. Even if we had the troops, and even if the attack succeeded, this method would create more support for our enemies, so
5. They could replace their losses faster than we can kill them.
6. We would end up even more overstretched and overcommitted than we are now, trying to hold down even more hostile populations.

Face it, the American Empire is at the point every Empire gets to: overreach. We are like the Roman Empire in 300 AD, trying to hold the Danube-Rhine line. We are like the the Brits after WW2, or Napolean when he reached Moscow: victorious but exhausted, unable to hold what we've conquered. The endgame, the inevitable re-alignment of capabilities and commitments, it's going to be ugly.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext