Why is a 21st Century "War on Terror" so oldhat 19th/20th Century Occupation based?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

OK, President Obama has bought in completely to the Bush Doctrine (in my opinion) and the amorphous blob known as the War on Terror which will have no end and be the justification for all future warfare, incursions, police actions, occupations, etc.

But wouldn't you think they could come up with a way to achieve their goals besides the old school-never-works-in-the-end-anyway- long-term-physical-combat-presence model? We will just continue to erode our own economy and slide further into a fiscal abyss that robs us from achieving our own much needed domestic advancements/improvements.

[baldguy]

1. Because we're fighting a 16th/17th century enemy, and have to meet somewhere in the middle.

[StarfarerBill]

2. We have met the enemy, and he is us.

[ixion]

3. because it is really about Pax Americana, which is an old concept

the so-called 'war' is just a hollow phrase aimed at scaring people enough to let the government implement it.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

4. You're right, the speech was all about Pax Americana

Time for that concept to be retired along with American exceptionalism.

[baldguy]

5. Why does the the American Peace usually require so much warfare?

Because it's not about supporting peace, and never was. It has ALWAYS been about supporting the American Military-Industrial Complex & finding new markets for it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. Right. A speech which highlighted the international nature of the

conflict, the reliance upon the UN and NATO, is about Pax Americana.

What speech did YOU listen to?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

7. We already have 100,000 troops there and are committing 30, 000 more

I believe NATO is committing 5,000 more and their actual numbers are relatively small right this moment (7,000? I think I read that but will have to check). How international is that?

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. No, we have about 68,000 there, and are bringing that up to 98,000.

The "100,000" is sloppy rounding up of what the total US troops will be AFTER this deployment. The NATO troops currently have (I think) about 10,000, and we're looking for another 5,000 from them. Meanwhile, Pakistan is keeping the pressure on AQ and the Taliban on their side of the border - they have something like 20,000 operating in the Swat Valley, and the only way for the Taliban and AQ to avoid them is to cross the border - where US, allies, and Afghan forces will be waiting for them.

Sounds like an international effort to me.

[ixion]

8. oh please... France and Germany have already said "no thanks"

to your international cooperation. That is window dressing only.

[hayu_lol]

10. Actually, the mindset in Afghanistan...

is 6th Century...a period when 'real' men rode out with swords to kill their enemies.

We have a modern armed force doing what is essentially a police job.

[ixion]

13. that is the operating motive behind the 'war' on terror

militarizing what has been treated as a police action. The WoT is one giant gaping maw of a police action.

[omega minimo]

9. To make GrandPoppy proud!

[anigbrowl]

11. Could you expand on how you think a 21st century conflict ought to be fought?

It's true that asymmetrical guerrilla-type wars are hard to fight - on the other hand, it's not like we are driving fleets of tanks around looking for a pitched battle that will never arrive. We are making heavy use of 21st century technology for things like done reconnaissance etc. - I am not in favor of remote control bombing because of the difficulty of correctly identifying targets and resulting mistakes such as blowing up wedding parties, rather I am referring to using drones for monitoring and mapping to support ground troops.

[anarch]

14. nuke them from orbit?

send in the killer robots to mop up? kill them all, let god sort them out?