counter insurgency?

Submitted by trans-parere (Canada), Sep 15, 2008 at 11:06

Doesn't seem to me to be the best military stance. One doesn't counter an attack by fighting according to the timetable of the enemy. There is no place for compramise in warfare. There is no winning just enough. One either sets out to win compleately, political popularity be damned, or stay home. Unfortunately in these last post world war II years we have surrendered before we have truly engaged the enemy and have adopted a politic that uses war piecemeal and half-heartedly. We assume going in that a display of might ought to do the trick, and when it invariably does not, we immediately question ourselves and our will to see it through. We have come to be sabotaging our efforts for political expediency at home while sacrificing our soldiers to half hearted efforts abroad. With such 'technique' it's a wonder we even get off the ground, let alone arrive to fight.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".