ISIS

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2016, 05:11 PM)Benton Wrote: The difference being we never won on the ground in the Middle East.

We had victories, we established temporary bases and we hung on to them until temporary objectives were complete. And they were largely irrelevant to opposition forces that are mobile in the sense that they don't observe the same border arrangement as military command. So we punch hard in one spot, they move to the next and we follow there and take another shot. And they move. There's no end to a war like that, as the forces we're combating — in most cases — aren't trying to permanently hold specific resources or locations. There's nothing to "win" for them outside of us leaving the area.

The bases we established post WWII were different. There wasn't continued aggression. We weren't still fighting Nazis in the 70s and 80s. Outside of an attack by a Libyan aligned group, the biggest threat to the naval base in Naples is the local economy. Even if we did have a friendly patch of desert (wasn't that supposed to be the reason we were so chummy with the Saudis?), establishing a significant base there wouldn't do much if the opposition just moves to another area as its stronghold.

Of course we won on the ground in the ME. We have to infuse our way of life into their culture. I've seen the effects of doing that first hand. There are more people that live in California than live in Iraq. We and other NATO forces need to invest in their economy. Hopefully we can get a little oil out of the deal as we show them other ways and products to produce.

For instance, I provided security for reconstruction teams. You give an Afghani a pile of rocks and he can build you a mansion and a luxury car. You give him a 2x4, a hammer, and nails, the dude is lost. I suppose it's just not in my nature to say we cannot make conditions better over there; perhaps because I've seen them.