this is a slightly edited version of a similar post of mine at

tlaloc.gnn.tv

I love this comment, especially:

Were it not for the Marshall plan we might very well have already fought WW3 and 4 versus some slight variation on the Axis and be currently winding up WW5 against these same opponents.

I think, as a culture, we've been so blinded by the successful aftermath of WWII that we forget just what it cost us to accomplish that aftermath.  But people dying in a trench makes for drama, while funding the rebuilding of infrastructure does not.  Which is a pity.

Speaking of which, I'm so-so on your portrait of Hollywood, whose war film industry has cranked out far more patriotic fluff than not.  I read a fascinating article years ago that analyzed the way Hollywood treats WWII and Vietnam - how nearly every entry in the first is about how war makes heroes, and how nearly every entry in the second is about the moral degeneracy of war.  Yeah, go figure.  It's to our detriment that we can't think outside of those boxes and acknowledge that people did heinous things in the former and heroic things in the latter.  But, we're all a little tainted by the dream factory.

I'm also not sure how to read this:

If we lose it is because we have either not tried or tried and failed compared to the enemy efforts.

There are no-win situations in life.

Isn't this a bit of a contradiction?  I agree with the latter, but not necessarily the former.  There are some circumstances you just can't win, no matter what you do.  I don't think Iraq is one of those circumstances, but I do think there are positions that offer us no winning solution.

Thank you for the recommendation btw, to whomever recommended it.  I admit I'm not very familiar with this system so I don;t know who has the authority to do that.

Yes, I do see the link now that you mention it.  Thanks.

In regards to Hollywood, I certainly don't mean to imply that every film churned out is useful in terms of spreading and popularizing the american mindset.  Rather I just mean that taken as a whole, the net effect is very positive.  I would posit that there are three main forces that have driven the spread of english around the world.  The first was the very widespread British Empire.  The second is the industrialized business might of the US and England.  And the third (and by no means least) is the US media machine.

I had a coworker from France who told me that at least half of all the TV and movies in France are from the US.  She guessed closer to 70%.  Think about that.  France is a first world industrialized nation with its own native media companies and a culture that is, if not contemptuous, at least snooty towards America. And yet they are inundated with messages from the US.  It is fantastic what a huge propaganda machine we have built virtually by accident.

As to your second point, what I am saying is that winning a physical victory may delay defeat but without coopting the enemy it is nothing more than that.  Hence the WW1/WW2 comparison.  We won the physical war in WW1 but the ideological war was basically a draw.  You cannot physically defeat an opponent and win any meaningful victory because all you've done is set an appointment for future clashes.  Europe had centuries of warfare and no few crushing defeats.  Yet the warfare went on and on and on.  Decade after decade.

It wasn't literally until this last century that they have known any form of real peace (again among the major players), because it wasn't until this century that there existed a force that actually fought and won the ideological war.  It happend to be us, and we have vastly benefited from it.

Fundamentally it works like this- if there is an ideological basis to the conflict then you cannot win the matter physically.  Even if you wipe out those who follow the idea it remains within the public discourse and if it was attractive enough to infect some once it will do so again.  And that is assuming you actually managed to wipe out the opponent to a man, something that is virtually impossible.

Ugh, I don't feel like I'm answering your question very well.  Let me know if this helps.

I am certain that this statement "no lasting victory is born of crushing an enemy" is false. Did we coopt the indians? Did the North coopt the South? USSR beat Germany in a much more convincing fashion than the West. Was that not tangible when they saved themselves from being annihilated?

You are guilty of trying to fit the events of the past into your preconcieved notions of what is right and good. I can understand that because you are trying to believe something different about your fellow human beings. It is true that convincing your enemy of the superiority of your ideology or way of life would be the preferable resolution of the conflict but ultimately killing your enemy works if you are willing to do it right.

What we have lost is the understanding of how to win. We no longer see our enemies as clearly as we had in the past due to the dilution of our sense of morality. When push came to shove Washington defeated the British by force, Abraham Lincoln went for the South's jugular, and Truman dropped the bombs. Throughout history, nations and peoples gave up in face of overwhelming odds and crushing defeats and they did not rise to fight again or keep fighting. Usually it was not because the stronger side coopted their enemy but it was through brutal domination and humiliation.

"A military victory is merely defeat delayed"?... War is Peace and Freedom is Slavery. I am sorry but that is only superficially deep.

Vietnam marked the beginning of the subversion of the American will and in response the rise of spineless politicians. Have there always been such gutless cowards not willing to defeat the enemy when victory was clearly possible? Yes, but there have almost always - at least in American history - strong leaders acting as counterweight.

We are clearly losing Iraq for the same reason.  We have the vaguest tenets of a plan to coopt them (spread democracy) but it has no structure, no underlying mechanic to make it work, and has been pursued with such bumbling idiocy as to make it a joke.  So we lose again.  And the usual people scream about American fifth columns and traitors.

I agree about the lack of a plan to "coopt them" well but unfortunately the need to coopt came because we the actual destruction of the enemy did not occur. After the initial victory we almost immediately failed to address the rising insurgency. And the failures kept worsening. These failures I lay at the feet of President Bush and Rumsfeld who controlled both response, level of troops, and the desire to win. Also I lay these failures at our new political culture that does not allow true Heroes to come through the ranks. True Heroes who can actually have a goal and pursue it with full devotion without being distracted by the gutless gnats screeching about inhumanity of war. It seems that the time of Heroes is almost at an end in the modern ultra-sensitive, feminized culture of US. It is a temporary phenomenon that will hopefully end once America is actually struck strong enough to wake us up. I fear only millions of dead Americans would be enough to bring us back to life - until then we will keep dying this slow death of a genetically mutated superpower.

War is not a cure all. "So for instance with war we were able to smash the German state but we were not able to destroy anti-semitism." - Another meaningless semi-truism. The goal of our participation in WW2 was not to destroy anti-semitism, nor was that the goal of the Russian side. Nor really was it the desire of the jews. The goal was to destroy the nazi/fascist/imperialist aggressors and to stop their abominable campaign of extermination. And we've fully succeeded in those goals. The goals of wars are rarely mental and usually have very tangible physical repercussions. Tangible and completely valuable.

Consider Israel and the wars it had gone through. Do you really think that the Arab or Israeli goal is or will ever be to coopt the enemy? No because neither side has achieved your level of progressive enlightenment and are still fighting on that basic level of trying to destroy the opponent in the most crushing possible manner. Those wars are fought with specific goals in mind and the side that wins is generally better without any attempt or care for cooping their enemies.

WW1 and WW2 examples are poor because the Germany example is more of an exception. Do you really think if we did not expend any energy in cultivating the new Germany after their ww2 defeat that they would in time rose up to be a worthy enemy? We would've crushed them again and nuked them for good measure. They knew what was in their best interest (alignment with the west and democratic reforms) and went with it. Same with Japan. We had crushed them so completely and imposed our will on them to such a degree (coopted?) that they had no choice but to bow to our military superiority.

I am sorry to say it but your main points are invalid.

"Did we coopt the indians?"

Oh yes, very much so.  We removed them from their lands, severed their traditions, forced different tribes to live side by side sometimes with their enemies, and introduced them to alcohol.

It was not an intentional attempt to coopt them but what does that matter?  We did absolutely poison their ideology.

"Did the North coopt the South?"

Uh yeah!  It didn't happen during the civil war by any means.  In fact we are still in the process of coopting the southern slave culture.  The civil war is a perfect example.  Afterwards not much was different than before, precisely because the war couldn't effect the change that either side wanted.  It was the later change of the southern economies, the slow advancement of rights for blacks, and the popular acceptance of same that coopted them.  Southern culture is not yet dead but it is massively weakened and will die out here eventually.

"USSR beat Germany in a much more convincing fashion than the West."

And yet Germany moved into the western camp.  Almost as if the military victory were of secondary importance.  Hrrrm, maybe I should write a diary about that.  Oh wait...

"but ultimately killing your enemy works if you are willing to do it right."

Can you give me an example of someone "doing it right" then?  So far every example has supported my thesis.

"The goal of our participation in WW2 was not to destroy anti-semitism, nor was that the goal of the Russian side."

I agree which is precisely why WW2 was a war we could win and the "war on terror" is one we can't.  My point was simply that had we been trying to war on anti-semitism we would have lost.

"Consider Israel and the wars it had gone through. Do you really think that the Arab or Israeli goal is or will ever be to coopt the enemy?"

No, indeed not, but both sides are foolish in the extreme.  They've locked themselves in a struggle that neither side can hope to win. 

"Do you really think if we did not expend any energy in cultivating the new Germany after their ww2 defeat that they would in time rose up to be a worthy enemy?"

Dude they said the exact same thing about germany after WW1.  Remember the war to end all wars?  There would never again be a conflict of that scale?  that lasted only two decades and the germans were ready again.  Yes, had we not coopted them then they would have been a threat again.

"Same with Japan. We had crushed them so completely and imposed our will on them to such a degree (coopted?) that they had no choice but to bow to our military superiority."

Uh Japan wasn't even remotely crushed.  Remeber that's why we nuked Hiroshima and Nagisaki.  Japan was going to be an insanely hard fight so they gambled that if we dropped Fat Man and Little Boy that it would intimidate them into surrender.  High cost but it worked.  Japan was not crushed by any stretch of the imagination.