Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Can we win?

This week in class we brought up the idea of a victory over a concept is impossible. The Vietnam War sparked uproar across the world because the United States attempted to "police" the world and stop the spread of communism. The unsuccesful war cost both the U.S. and Vietnam hundreds of thousands of lives. Almost the entire nation was against a war effort, which should have sent a signal to Washington saying that we shouldn't go to war. As blind as Washington occassionally is, they decided to go ahead to fight in a war in a foreign country with difficult terrain that would lead to many casualties. U.S. did not complete its objective. But I guess I can't be so mad at the U.S. for going to war because this was a good learning lesson... well I thought it would be.
Ah, the War on Terror, the most unclear war ever fought in U.S. history. I don't see any point on rambling on about the war and how the objective is vague and it constantly changes from time to time. But what I do know overall its a war against a concept. Terror being that concept, ofcourse. We have been at war for a little over half a decade now, and have made quite a bit of progess in terms of removing terrorists of the streets in the Middle East, but not put an end to the concept. It is impossible to get Islamic radicals to make peace or accept our western ideals and vice versa. It extremely difficult to change someone's values and morals in just everyday life. So how is the U.S. going to change or make peace with such radical, anti-western views? They aren't. The U.S. should've taken Vietnam as a lesson. Vietnam's objective wasn't even as abstract as the current one and look how Vietnam turned out to be. Victory --> not happening. Band-aid to maybe hinder terrorism ... ehh possible.
What do you think?

11 comments:

Tess said...

i agree with you, mostly. Making war on a concept is hard, especially because concepts are like diseases but they spread faster. if you're going to try and stop a concept you have to stop it at the source by either a) wiping out a population, or b) re-structuring the entire situation and killing half the population so you can re-educate the other half (the younger ones). A is not exactly humanitarian, ethical, or possible--and neither is B for that matter.

i'm not sure how but all of a sudden the idea of the US becoming officially neutral popped into my head. Not a probability by any means, but it sure would confuse the rest of the world... i wonder what other ramifications it would have? is it too hopeful to think that could even start a peaceful trend?

Scott J said...

To carry on this idea of a concept as a disease, Tess's idea that a concept is like a virus is a real accurate analogy. If you don't wipe it out completely, it will spread and become "antibiotic resistant." Meaning, it no longer can be fought or cured. The U.S. has not learned this and is fighting in a futile effort to kill the virus. Our "drugs" didn't work at first against terrorism, so I don't think they ever will.
I think you raise a good point that Vietnam was a good lesson for us to learn. And, though this is bad, perhaps it was good that it happened if we think back to six years ago before the Iraq war. But we didn't learn it and I don't know why. We made the same mistake twice. So what do we do now?

Creed Thoughts said...

This 'disease' analogy is a great one. It makes perfect sense when you look at it. The United States is fighting by the "Rules of War." Their enemy, is not. This is evidence of the disease's (terrorism) ability to become drug resistant. On top of it all, we're not even sure what/who the disease (enemy) is. We removed Saddam from power but years later, we're still fighting. The whole situation is incredibly complicated and could be debated for hours but the consensus, in this class at least, is that our efforts are futile.

Jack said...

I believe that you really cannot wage war against a concept because concepts can be agreed or disagreed upon by all kinds of people all around the world. AND if a country wages war on a concept, all that country is doing is drawing attention to the concept. The way I see it is that no matter the outcome the results will always be negative. Case and point the outcome of the Vietnam War.

Michael S. said...

The ideas and questions your raise in this post are very important. Ultimately, you are asking if a nation can defeat a concept. I would agree with you that we cannot, no matter how much we want to. The reason I say this is different than what most people would say.

When a nation tries to fight a concept, people supporting that idea become much more passionate. For example, we went into Iraq because of WMDs. We also alluded that we would be fighting terrorists. I want to point out that there was essentially no terrorist activity in Iraq prior to our occupation of the nation. Now, however, there are numerous terrorist groups in that particular nation.

Ultimately, because we wanted to fight terrorism, terrorism grew and more nations/people became anti-American.

Will A. said...

I agree with Jack that as we fight against this concept, it expands and swells into something that is basically out of control. Although terrorism shouldn't be ignored in the world, when is it necessary for the United States to wage somebody else's war? Why is it that when a country is in trouble, they look to the US? Ultimately, I cannot convince myself one way or the other regarding our current involvement in Iraq, I think it was necessary for us to do something regarding 9/11. Truthfully, if I was in GWB's shoes, I would have probably screwed up even worse decision making wise.

Paul Stanley said...

I like your second half a lot. Coming to the realization that we cannot make peace with Islamic radicals is a very important conclusion to draw. Many people think that if we reach out to them that we can salvage our relationship, however our very existence is what the problem is. With a situation like this, it's best to simply try and manage the damage instead of eliminating it.

SHANIL D. said...

Waging war against a rival country is not about changing one's perception or image. America is at war right now because they feel it is in the best interest of national security to have power and influence in the Middle East. America cannot change the way people perceive the country or even how people think. People from around the world are all different in a variety of ways. Spreading democracy is the righteous justification of the war, but America essentially is trying to prevent another terrorist attack in the states by sending a message of authority to terrorist groups in the Middle East. Some argue that America is at war against a concept, but ensuring the safety of its people is a concept worth fighting.

Unknown said...

I think this is a monumental occasion. On your very last post I agree with you for the first time. In fact I even agree 100%. I may be conservative, but I'm also realistic. I don't think we should be fighting some abstract "war on terror" either. (This next part is going to sound very sarcastic but I assure everyone, I'm very serious) I think instead of going into random little countries (like vietnam and iraq) to "prevent" war, we should just wait until someone attacks us. Because there will always be people who refuse to believe we're in danger without actually being attacked. The "PATRIOT act" for instance is one such thing. Paranoids (aka liberals) think the entire government is watching everything they read because they think they're sooo important to our government's CIA. I say forget it, let some crazies come kill a bunch of us and then maybe we can fight a real war. Not some unpopular bs like in Iraq.

Frankie said...

Like others have said, the disease analogy is wonderful. Trying to stamp out a concept only makes those who have been hurt in the process join in against you while leaving it be allows for it to grow in strength and possibly hurt you more.

The Rage of Achilles said...

I do not agree at all philly cheese cut th sleeves. You even imply, or at least this was my inference, that we should not have attempted to defeat the terrorists at all. We cannot stand by as this concept you talk about spreads like wildfire. Also, while the brand is the War on Terror, I think our enemy is more clear than we are making it out to be. Look if you think about it, the terrorists are fighting a war against a concept as well. Its called freedom. Now, freedom vs. fundamental, radical Islamic views is very edgy. The idea that we should have learned from Vietnam and not gone to war is heretical. I think by learning from Vietnan we should have attacked the war differently, not avoid it completely.