11-11-2016, 05:15 AM
(11-10-2016, 06:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course they had to do with WWII. We kicked the Nazis out and we didn't want the Soviets to come in. (See comparison of Saddam/ISIS).
It's not the enemy you defeat, it is those that look to gain from your victory.
(11-10-2016, 11:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ...and hopefully one day the permanent bases we establish in the ME will only be required for launching pads, but just like the bases that where established in Germany their purpose was to deter those that would come in and take over those we defeated.
The last sentence is our mentality. We defeat an enemy, we generally move to protect it from those that would try to take advantage of the region. Just like if we would have kept an permanent and significant presence in Iraq the Bath party would not have been out threat, it would be those that tried to exploit the void.
(11-10-2016, 02:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Our biggest issue is not establishing a long term presence after we win on the ground.
No, but we "generally move to protect it from those that would try to take advantage of the region" from "those that look to gain from [our] victory" after "we defeat an enemy" even though "it's not the enemy you defeat."
And the reason we protect the area where we didn't and did defeat the enemy is to protect the region from those who would gain from our victory like the Soviets and ISIS . . . our enemies. Which is nothing more than occupying terrain to deny the enemy from occupying terrain.
Which brings us full circle back to those strategic reasons I mentioned. You agree with me, but you don't realize you're just saying the same thing using different words. What did you think I meant by "strategic reasons"?
