Clearly we didn't learn our lesson from the Vietnam War

A Military Solution To Our Problems

By Dick Kazan (Posted with permission)

If only we had a bigger arsenal of more powerful weapons and a larger military we could "secure" Iraq and "win" our "war on terror," as we defeat our enemies and make the world a safer place.

That's the thinking of the U.S. government, as it escalates the arms race, largely with itself, and creates ever more powerful weapons to add to an arsenal already big enough to blow-up the world many times over.

And in January Defense Secretary Robert Gates recommended to President Bush that the Army raise its active-duty force by 65,000 to 547,000, while also recommending the Marine Corps build its active-duty force by 27,000 to 202,000.

The Army's target date to meet this goal was 2012, but on Sunday Army chief of Staff, Gen. George Casey announced 35,000 of these soldiers had already been recruited.

And yet despite a bigger arsenal and a larger troop base, somehow the world doesn't seem to be a safer place. Yesterday, in Iraq for example, suicide bombers killed numerous Iraqis and took the lives of five more U.S. troops, making this for the U.S. the deadliest month of the year, with 104 slain soldiers.

And that doesn't count the death toll, if any, of U.S. mercenary soldiers from its private Army provided by Blackwater U.S.A. and other military contractors. It is not publicly known how many of these soldiers are in Iraq but estimates are that there are 90,000 to 100,000 of them, in addition to the 160,000 U.S. soldiers, which means there is a total of over a quarter of a million U.S. troops in Iraq.

Meanwhile 11 British soldiers were killed in Iraq this month, making it the deadliest month for them since the invasion of March, 2003 when the they lost 27.

All of this despite the tougher security measures instituted by the Bush Administration 11 weeks ago.

Clearly we didn't learn our lesson from the Vietnam War, and we didn't learn from the Cold War, in which in an arms race with the Russians we could have annihilated a large part of the world. A fine example is The Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 in which we nearly went to nuclear war.

A military buildup is a sign of weakness, for it illustrates our fears rather than our strengths. It shows our intent to resolve our differences through military action or through intimidation by the threat of military action. And you can see the results this policy has brought.

The basis for peace is to act by peaceful means. To resolve our differences with respect and compassion. Or stated in biblical terms, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

President Bush says his "war on terror" will bring us peace and security but I'd like to suggest an alternative...
Continued here: http://saneramblings.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=153&sid=ce6e868aaf620722ec4c5e01488e4118

They never will either. American Exceptionalism sees to that.

Rumsfeld built a long and lucrative career on redesigning a military that could have won Vietnam by converting it from a massive army dedicated to winning a land war in Europe to a series of light, fast strike forces that could go into a region at a moment's notice, kill whomever the enemy was at the time, and get out.

The lesson of Iraq is that this won't work, either.

The true lesson of both Vietnam and Iraq is that getting involved in a war of occupation in a country that doesn't want us there should be avoided at all costs. The lesson of Vietnam is that propping up a vestigial colonial government against the will of the people is a losing proposition. The lesson of Iraq is that creating a power vacuum by deposing an unpopular leader is also a losing proposition.

Let's hope all these lessons are learned this time and that ideologues within the Pentagon have lied us into our last catastrophic war, ever.

If we redesign our military, it should be to redesign them as a truly defensive force.