Career Center >> Department of Defense >> The Bloodless War
The Bloodless War
|
Posted 2 months ago The US has spent so much time building up this idea that we can fight an effectively bloodless war; that we will kill all the "bad people" without hurting anyone else. Does anyone else share my concern that this places an unfair and unrealistic burden on our troops and commanders, and is coming back to bite the US on the ass as more and more reports of civillian casualties come into the light as the inevitable result of the conflicts we have become a part of? Look at the news stories coming out of Afghanistan and Iraq! Yes, having a handful civilians reported dead here or there is tragic, and I'm not trying to say it isn't, or that it isn't something we should care about and certainly should strive to avoid. But when you look at the articles, and news sources report these deaths as some kind of huge scandal that should never have happened...what the hell? Where did this attitude come from? This isn't a TimeCop machine in a bowling alley, where the enemies stand still with weapons so you can shoot them and not loose points hitting the nice lady cowering behind a flowerpot. This is WAR, in REAL LIFE. Casualties and collateral damage HAPPEN. The fact that it happens so LITTLE is a tribute to the skills of our military, but it WILL happen and it needs to be accepted. The US needs to get its naive little minds around that fact. The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
|
|
| Posted 2 months ago Yes, I share this concern. It is troubling to me that the concept of a "Bloodless War" is quite similar to the strategy we attempted to use in Desert Storm, widely referred to as a "War without War". It seemed like we had admitted that this concept was unrealistic and reductionist at this time, and had pushed towards conflict resolution. I think War should always be looked at in terms of conflict resolution, and I hope we can get back to this position after the next election. |
|
|
| Posted 2 months ago My biggest issues with this situation is that it A) makes the public more comfortable with engaging in war by disguising the hard, cold realities of it and B) once we go to war, it places unrealistic demands on our military.
Oh, and it's damn foolish. Can't forget that one...it might be the most important. The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
|
|
| Posted about 1 month ago hmmm...no such thing as a bloodless war... |
|
|
| Posted about 1 month ago That doesn't seem to stop people from expecting one... The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
|
|
|
| Posted about 1 month ago ...if you get into a fist fight...someone's gonna get a black eye.... (Yes, I'm full of quotes!) |
|
|
| Posted about 1 month ago Are you sure Scooby (I know you're right, just go with me here)? Cause I seem to remember someone...perhaps even an Administration official of some high standing (eh?) attempting to perpetrate the myth of not only a bloodless war, but a war that could be fought over spring break with no casualties, and when it was over Hawaiian dancing girls would appear to shower the troops with flowers before giving them the secret and magical never-ending barrel of oil that made up the source of the country's wealth as a reward (fine...SLIGHT exaggeration).
The problem, in my opinion, has two sources: 1) Unrealistic beliefs of the general populace, and 2) failure to correct or even the encouragement of those beliefs by the government in order to gain approval for a war that would otherwise have had far less support. The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
|
|
| Posted 23 days ago Intresting thoughts on the views.....I believe at this stage in the war we need to start putting more political presure on the IRAQI government to head reconstruction efforts that will not be funded by American tax payer dollars and funded by the surplus of the oil profits from this past year, It is time for the IRAQI's to build up there own country with the guidence of the U.S. militarily and politically. These are my thoughts on this topic....
The serving soilder in IRAQ |
|
|
| Posted 23 days ago You got my vote feeleja |
|
| Posted 23 days ago Isn't 'bloodless war' an oxymoron? Here's a bit of a different angle on bloodless war, I guess. Those newly developed non-lethal weapons that the DoD and top secret nerd guys have: microwave and sonic field weapons, laughing/mood change bombs(no joke!), and other stuff. Maybe that's a part of it?!? I don't think there's such a thing as a bloodless war, either. War should always be the last option,and it shoudn't be 'preemptive'. Unfortunately with the nature of people, war will always be an option. Hope you get home soon, feeleja. |
|
|
| Posted 22 days ago tahdhaze86 I agree with your thoughts and as one of T.S. Intell analysts, this war is not bloodless I see and read alot of stuff that is crazy ynew IED tactics techniques and procedures, that i have to learn and read about so I can brief my commanders and troops that way they now wha the threat is and all. This war has gone surpassed the number of personell lost in the WTC, Pentagon, and in PA during 9/11. Thanks you for your support it is what gets us through these long days
|