New Book: Winning the Unwinnable War

[Oleksandr]

http://winningtheunwinnablewar.com/ (about 20 bucks right now, still new on the market)

There is a video where the authors talk a little bit about it.
http://arc-tv.com/winning-the-unwinnable-war-2/

You still need to check the book out for any details.

One of many hings that the book describes is how US has been defeating itself for the past 50+ years. And that the solution is to change the sacrificial ideas of America, after that the war is simple.

[redhotrebel]

I'll have to get the book to see if it explains it better than the panel did. I found some things they said to be, unusual, to put it nicely.

Arguing at this point will probably get me "smacked", but one concern I have is something that I find out of place with objectivism in general, but thats a whole different discussion and quite possibly a flaw in my logic. That's what sucks about being relatively new to objectivism

However, I am very intrigued to hear more.

[Oleksandr]

You can get some more understanding from the following article that is part of the book but available online for free:

“Just War Theory” vs. American Self-Defense
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/iss ... theory.asp

But to get the real picture, you need to at least read Government chapter of OPAR, and various articles by Ayn Rand.

[Oleksandr]

I highly suggest reading the introduction which is available for free.
http://winningtheunwinnablewar.com/intr ... nable-war/

I will quote a small part of here to get your attention:

The warriors came in search of an elusive Taliban leader. Operating in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan, the team of Navy SEALs was on difficult terrain in an area rife with Islamist fighters. The four men set off after their quarry. But sometime around noon that day, the men were boxed into an impossible situation. Three Afghan men, along with about one hundred goats, happened upon the team’s position. What should the SEALs do?

Their mission potentially compromised, they interrogated the Afghan herders. But they got nothing. Nothing they could count on. “How could we know,” recalls one of the SEALs, “if they were affiliated with a Taliban militia group or sworn by some tribal blood pact to inform the Taliban leaders of anything suspicious-looking they found in the mountains?” It was impossible to know for sure. This was war, and the “strictly correct military decision would still be to kill them without further discussion, because we could not know their intentions.” Working behind enemy lines, the team was sent there “by our senior commanders. We have a right to do everything we can to save our own lives. The military decision is obvious. To turn them loose would be wrong.”

But the men of SEAL Team 10 knew one more thing. They knew that doing the right thing for their mission—and their own lives—could very well mean spending the rest of their days behind bars at Leavenworth. The men were subject to military rules of engagement that placed a mandate on all warriors to avoid civilian casualties at all costs. They were expected to bend over backward to protect Afghans, even if that meant forfeiting an opportunity to kill Islamist fighters and their commanders, and even if that meant imperiling their own lives.

The SEALs were in a bind. Should they do what Washington and the military establishment deemed moral—release the herders and assume a higher risk of death—or protect themselves and carry out their mission—but suffer for it back home? The men—Lt. Michael Murphy; Sonar Technician 2nd Class Matthew Axelson; Gunner’s Mate 2nd Class Danny Dietz; and Hospital Corpsman 2nd Class Marcus Luttrell—took a vote.

They let the herders go. . . .

Guess what happened next?

[Torrstar]

Same dilemma in Vietnam 40 years ago, no way to tell who the enemy is, which is an unwinable war IMO.

It leaves you with two choices, either withdraw and let them sort the mess out themselves, or second, prosecute the war against the entire population and be labeled monsters in the eyes of the civilized world.

A no win scenario for sure, though I should probably read the book and see what the authors think might be done.

[Hieder]

I think the biggest problem probably stems from the idea of what a war is in these days. Sure, the whole conflict has every element to fit the definition of a war, but legally it isn't a war. War declaration takes an act of congress. What we have today, and in subsequent scenarios following WWII, is a policing action. Government can't justify using full force because we are technically not at war, and congress won't declare war because it will make the U.S. look bad.

I'm sure the book talks about this to some degree. I just found the concept really interesting and did a philosophy final about how government bends the definition of vague words to fulfill their agenda.

[Oleksandr]

Same dilemma in Vietnam 40 years ago, no way to tell who the enemy is, which is an unwinnable war IMO.

Lol, seriously? Have you ever read what Islam imams say in Iran? Or what Iranian president says? Or what Islamic Republic of Iran did in '79? Or who funded Beirut explosion that killed 260+ US soldiers in one shot? Or who shouts "Death to America"? etc, etc. every year around the world.

But your conclusion is somewhat correct. What do you choose: your life or that some idiots in the world won't like you?

[Oleksandr]

I'm sure the book talks about this to some degree. I just found the concept really interesting and did a philosophy final about how government bends the definition of vague words to fulfill their agenda.

This is not a fault of politicians. US politicians only do what the populace wants. Show me how many people in US want a full front war to crush Iran?

[manicrabbit]

My friend is reading this now, I am going to borrow it after he finishes with it. I still don't have money to spare so, I am settling with borrowing books first.

[Torrstar]

Same dilemma in Vietnam 40 years ago, no way to tell who the enemy is, which is an unwinnable war IMO.

Lol, seriously? Have you ever read what Islam imams say in Iran? Or what Iranian president says? Or what Islamic Republic of Iran did in '79? Or who funded Beirut explosion that killed 260+ US soldiers in one shot? Or who shouts "Death to America"? etc, etc. every year around the world.

But your conclusion is somewhat correct. What do you choose: your life or that some idiots in the world won't like you?

I'm not sure what you are saying. 40 years ago people in North Vietnam, North Korea, the Soviet Union and China all ran around saying death to America and some of them had the capability to actually follow through on that threat.

Now if you are saying that the Islamic war is based on religion making it much more volatile I'll have to agree, as religious folks seem to be much more willing to die for their cause.

But go ask the Irish and the British what its like to fight a religious war, the parallels are actually quite close, just a different set of combatants. (with perhaps a little more rationality)

Saw an interesting movie this weekend, the Hurt Locker, really drove home how difficult it is to be trying to keep the peace where everyone you meet might be trying to kill you despite your good intentions.

[musashi]

Guess what happened next?

What happened next? I’m guessing the goat herders ratted the Seals out. And that the Taliban acted on the intelligence, shooting down the extraction helicopters.

It is a difficult situation. My ideas are probably far too simplistic and fraught with issues. But I’ve always liked the Green Berets motto, "kill ‘em all, let GOD sort ‘em out."

This whole Marshal Plan approach to warfare only makes sense if the populous of the loosing side is truly tired of fighting. Kill enough people, starve enough people, basically commit enough genocide and eventually one of two situations arise A) there will be no one left or B) the decimated remainder will decide to discard the old and embrace the new.

My war plan against the Taliban would have been a great deal more draconian. It would have begun with an announced nuclear strike on Meca and Medina with a high yield of environmental radioactive contamination (maybe a nice Cadmium bomb – I hear these do wonders on not only people but also vegetation) to make the area uninhabitable for a good amount of time. Then I would take a beach hold in Saudi Arabia (the habitable part), Iraq or Iran again killing as many people as possible. And then press on to destroy rest of the Islamic world. I would take the territory as colonies until I felt comfortable that territory could self govern in a peaceful rational manor, independent of religious control and with respect for all human rights.

Of course this strategy would provoke a global nuclear war and kill countless millions, but hey you can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs. After the dust settles on my crazy plan I believe a few things would become apparent. People would start taking the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty seriously, and begin to harshly deal with the violators. Second once enough people have died on all sides, I believe all surviving parties would be far more motivated to identify and comply with diplomatic solutions.

In my mind the problem is too darn many people hold a religious zeal and mandate to dominate the rest of the world. Get rid of most of the people and you solve a good part of the problem.

Who knows maybe a New World Order would come about as a direct response to my atrocities? In the final analysis, the lack of an empowered and defined world authority is at the heart of all these competing hegemonies. Again kill ‘em all (the hegemonies this time), see who’s GOD sorts ‘em out.

Fear Not - I have no power or intention to perfect any portion of this draconian plan. But I am not sure the guys on the other side can say the same.

[Oleksandr]

It is a difficult situation.

Oh, please. You are all accepting the self-sacrificial premise.

[Oleksandr]

Same dilemma in Vietnam 40 years ago, no way to tell who the enemy is, which is an unwinnable war IMO.

Lol, seriously? Have you ever read what Islam imams say in Iran? Or what Iranian president says? Or what Islamic Republic of Iran did in '79? Or who funded Beirut explosion that killed 260+ US soldiers in one shot? Or who shouts "Death to America"? etc, etc. every year around the world.

But your conclusion is somewhat correct. What do you choose: your life or that some idiots in the world won't like you?

I'm not sure what you are saying. 40 years ago people in North Vietnam, North Korea, the Soviet Union and China all ran around saying death to America and some of them had the capability to actually follow through on that threat.

Exactly, back in those days it was Nazi or Commie Totalitarians, nowadays it's Islamic Totalitarians. So, why do say you don't know who is the enemy?

You are basically accepting the self-sacrifial premise, that after one country develops a mud pile that shoves bombs at you and kills you, it's somehow your duty to cumb through that mud pile to discover which of those idiots did and did not participate in that specific bomb. And this is morally wrong.

It is either self-defense or not.

[musashi]

It is a difficult situation.

Oh, please. You are all accepting the self-sacrificial premise.

For me the difficult part comes via world’s reaction to the over powering response that must eventually occur. The world has been here before - the Reconquista when the Moores were driven out of much of Europe. The Reconquista was a local affair between the Mohamedens and the people they were oppressing.

Now we find ourselves on the eve of the re-Reconquista. The difference now is that there are many more countries and NGOs each with a dog in this fight. The difficulties arise as all these powerful entities interact and compete. It is really a very big fight.

[Oleksandr]

It is a difficult situation.

Oh, please. You are all accepting the self-sacrificial premise.

For me the difficult part comes via world’s reaction to the over powering response that must eventually occur.

What is your basis that the whole world will attack US? What countries specifically?

[Torrstar]

Exactly, back in those days it was Nazi or Commie Totalitarians, nowadays it's Islamic Totalitarians. So, why do say you don't know who is the enemy?

You are basically accepting the self-sacrifial premise, that after one country develops a mud pile that shoves bombs at you and kills you, it's somehow your duty to cumb through that mud pile to discover which of those idiots did and did not participate in that specific bomb. And this is morally wrong.

It is either self-defense or not.

Because you can't kill off every person in a country or religion just because "some" of the people hate you. That's morally indefensible and makes you no better than any totalitarian regime that's tried to exterminate its enemies.

[Oleksandr]

Because you can't kill off every person in a country or religion just because "some" of the people hate you. That's morally indefensible . . .

Please show me where I said that.

[Torrstar]

Because you can't kill off every person in a country or religion just because "some" of the people hate you. That's morally indefensible . . .

Please show me where I said that.

I'm not at all sure what it is you are trying to say. Spell it out please.

[Oleksandr]

Because you can't kill off every person in a country or religion just because "some" of the people hate you. That's morally indefensible . . .

Please show me where I said that.

I'm not at all sure what it is you are trying to say. Spell it out please.

You implied that was my view.

I already provided all the information on the view that I'm presenting: the book and one of its articles that is available online: http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/iss ... theory.asp

If you wish to argue on a different point that is not related to this thread, then start a new one.

[musashi]

The wipe ‘em all out (as many as possible) was my suggested solution Torristar.

For me the difficult part comes via world’s reaction to the over powering response that must eventually occur.

What is your basis that the whole world will attack US? What countries specifically?

That is a fun knott to attempt to unravel. Let’s take my plan in steps…

Step 1 Nuke Mecca & Medina

The consequence of this would be open war declarations from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Libya and Bangladesh (I am probably missing a few other players). The only significant threat here is Pakistan and they probably launch on India instead of the US. If Iran has the nukes they launch on Israel, or on any US expeditionary forces. North Korea attempts to launch as well, but the missiles and war heads were designed and constructed so poorly that a launch pad mishap kills 50% of the population on the Korean peninsula.

The motley crew of Islamic states can not march on the US, but they can overrun Israel. Which then sends its nukes (undeclared, but an almost certainty) at Iran, Syria, Egypt, Iraq (bringing MacArthur’s Nuclear No Man’s Land into reality and securing its boarders). The populations in Gaza and the West Bank become a rounding error omission to Israeli bulldozers & tanks. …. And of course al-Aqsa Mosque at Temple Mount.

Step 2 as the US takes the oil fields and holds areas of Saudi Arabia, Iraq & Iran.

World opinion will turn completely against the US. The EU will be completely galvanized against the US aggression. And Islamic NGOs spring up like weeds from Dearborn to Denmark. The OPEC cartel would unanimously embargo the US (Canada would try to make excuses for the US, but ultimately would cave in to peer pressure). The embargo would likely trigger a US invasion of Venezuela and Bolivia.

Russia and China respond to the aggression and threat to their deliveries of oil and we have WWI all over again. At the end of the day the most convenient method for Russia & China to reach out and touch US territory is via an ICBM.

Reconquista, Pogrom, Conquista, Manifest Destiny, Holocaust, Ethic Cleansing, Jihad each incarnation gets a new label, but it is the same medicine. And in each past application there have been some common symptoms. Basically once the carnage is over it comes down to one idea triumphing over another.

[Torrstar]

I already provided all the information on the view that I'm presenting: the book and one of its articles that is available online: http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/iss ... theory.asp

If you wish to argue on a different point that is not related to this thread, then start a new one.

The book I'm not going to read, but the article was interesting. After sifting through most if it I see the author advocating the invasion of any nation that is a perceived threat to the US, especially if they support Islamic Terrorism. (and that it is just and moral to do so per Objectivist theory)

So you do seem to be advocating this and I'd once again ask you to clarify your opinion and not try to deflect my question with links to quotes or accusations of thread derailments.

Say it clearly in one or two paragraphs.

If you want us to attack them all and kill the civilians as well as the soldiers please don't dance around the subject and say so.

If that isn't what you are advocating, please state exactly what you think needs to be done.

[Oleksandr]

Step 1 Nuke Mecca & Medina

The consequence of this would be open war declarations from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Libya and Bangladesh (I am probably missing a few other players) . . .

The motley crew of Islamic states can not march on the US, but they can overrun Israel. . . .

OK, so you contradict yourself. Before this post you meant trouble for US but now it is trouble for some other country? Also all those countries already are anti-American and have been for many decades. Must I list all the atrocities that happened to American citizens in those countries?

Step 2 as the US takes the oil fields and holds areas of Saudi Arabia, Iraq & Iran.

World opinion will turn completely against the US.

Umm, show me a country that 1) likes US today and 2) will go to war with us if we severaly punish Islamic countries for what they have done to American citizens over the decades?

The EU will be completely galvanized against the US aggression.

Show me a decade or even a year when UN viewed US positively at all.

And Islamic NGOs spring up like weeds from Dearborn to Denmark.

Spring up? They already exist there; they already bomb everything that they can every year or so. What is different here?

The OPEC cartel would unanimously embargo the US (Canada would try to make excuses for the US, but ultimately would cave in to peer pressure).

Mkay, so what? US soil has plenty of oil to last for many decades.

The embargo would likely trigger a US invasion of Venezuela and Bolivia.

This is just random, though, throwing a bomb or two at the stolen American oil there is not a bad idea.

Russia and China respond to the aggression and threat to their deliveries of oil and we have WWI all over again.

Seriously? Russia and China has plenty of oil themselves. They are the 2 largest countries in size on the planet.

LoL, what the hell can Russia and China do? The only thing they can do is throw nukes, and they well know what will happen to them if they do that.



Anything else?

[Oleksandr]

I already provided all the information on the view that I'm presenting: the book and one of its articles that is available online: http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/iss ... theory.asp

If you wish to argue on a different point that is not related to this thread, then start a new one.

The book I'm not going to read, but the article was interesting. After sifting through most if it . . .

No, buddy. Sifting through an article in search of a single quote is not going to do it for me. I would expect a little more effort than that after you put up a straw man argument against me.

It is clear that you are not interested in putting any effort here at all, so neither will I. Though, if somebody else asks me, I will consider giving a short summary.

[Oleksandr]

Just in case that it is not clear. I didn't start this thread to create a troll thread where I put over some view and try to beat it into others.

This thread was a small announcement of a new Objectivist book on the topic to whoever may find it interesting. If somebody wishes to debate the view, then there is always an option of starting a new thread - we have had plenty of similar threads on the subject already.

[musashi]

The book takes on a tough subject, I appreciate that ambition. If this dyslexia didn’t slow me down so much I’d pick it up. It is a tough subject. I’ll out line some of the areas that I think add complexity.

• We’ve got the world’s biggest delusion errrrr….. Religion. (Internally, I debate the scope. I think the religious-base of Mohamedens is quite small – they just enslave a large number of people).
• The followers are geographically diffuse.
• The adherents claim peaceful intent and the “one bad apple” defense. And the religion is spread into just about every city and town I can think of. Oh yeah and they claim they can’t lie unless it benefits the religion.(I love that one )
• The People for Camels group is deeply and violently intolerant of contrary ideas.
• They have control of several countries, and majority populations in many others.
• I’d estimate Islam controls half of the world’s oil reserves. And yes the US, Russia, China Japan and the EU all do compete for oil - none are self sufficient for energy.
• The current world authority (the UN) is corrupt, ineffective, impotent, corrupt, and divided into more factions than a broken piece of tempered glass (in that order).
• We have these nuclear bombs floating around. A global war is only button push away for ANY of the 7 nuclear states, and 2 NGO’s (I consider Pakistan and North Korea as non-governments – that would be fun to consider more deeply!)
• The Islamists want to expand their nuclear capacity. Iraq was trying; Iran is succeeding in building nukes. Purchasing of nukes from Russia is as simple as writing a check. Humm… Who has a bunch of spending money, and more money arriving as each super tanker pulls into port?
• The passionate followers of the illusion are decidedly against the current state of the world and want to dispatch with things like: Equal rights for women; air travel; television; music; pork; porn (let them pry THAT from my cold dead fingers –eww), alcohol, art that contains any depiction of a person (ever wonder where the noses on all those status went? Ottomans); Common Law; Science; Math; Philosophy; any other from of dilusi … religion. I am probably missing a few.

It is a problem. I’m glad Elan Journo took it on and attempted to move towards a solution. I don’t know how a middle ground approach can fix Islam. Islam is kinda like getting termites in a house and letting them spread to every area. Eventually you figure out part of the house is rotting away. You replace some portions (ie Reconquista) only to find that the repairs become re-infected. As you investigate in more depth eventually recognize that most of the house is rotting away. The termite analogy is solved by demolition. I’m not sure how Islam is solved.