Douglas MacArthur Quotes

Ever since the end of WWII, no major war has been fought where there has been a classic victory where one nation is conquered by another and there is a surrender. Many of the wars have been fought against non-state actors or our war aim is a regime change or the establishment of a more friendly government. We have no desire to occupy the countries generally, and there is often no one “in charge” of the enemy who can even surrender. Bruce was referring to the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War. In each case, despite the lack of a surrender document, it can be said that America won both of these wars initially and then had great trouble with the occupation, the nation building, and keeping the peace. In Iraq and Afghanistan we suffered almost no casualties in the initial invasions. The occupation and “peace” is where we suffered almost all of our casualties.

General Grant had the fort surrounded and the confederate general hoped to surrender the fort and allow him and his men to leave to fight again some other day. This was often agreed to so the military objective would be gained without the casualties of a battle. However, Grant and Lincoln did not simply want to gain forts and territory. They wanted to end the war. Those Confederates who survived the battle were taken prisoner and were out of the fight.

Very few societies ever had the wealth accumulated so that they could afford prolonged military operations. In addition, long, prolonged conflicts erode morale, both civilian and military. The Afghanistan War that went on for over a decade caused both and put a great strain on the U. S. national budget.

The so called War on Terror had many lessons. President Obama and many of the military leaders in the Pentagon realized that just as we evolved the concept of a Cold War, a new concept was needed to deal on the long run with the Al Qaeda terrorists. Typically in war, the nation is fully mobilized with the surrender of the enemy the major objective. When peace is negotiated, there is some demobilization and other things begin to take precedence. However, given the non state highly decentralized nature of Al Qaeda, there is no way to ever negotiate peace because no Al Qaeda official can speak for any more than his immediate cell and cadre. They will likely never stop attacking in any foreseeable future since their motivation is ideological and religious. It doesn’t take full military mobilization to protect against individual acts of terrorism, and indeed arguably the large mobilization only gives the terrorists more nearby targets. So American leaders were evolving a state of high protection, surgical strikes and attacks on Al Qaeda leadership and cells, and at the same time a demobilization of many of the overseas ground troops. It is not a state of war yet there will be attacks from time to time against us and attacks by us on Al Qaeda, yet there cannot be an all out war which is de factor non winnable in toto, but is very controllable. For Stein and other hawks, this new state is unfathomable. If there is any attack on Americans or American interests to them we are either at war with full mobilization or have surrendered. The total number of American civillians killed in the 10 year war on terror has been less than 2 months of normal automobile crash deaths or 3 months worth of gun accidents, or one tenth of the deaths caused by flu in a single year.