john_anderson_ii
10-23-2007, 11:50 PM
The purpose of this post is to provide you guys some logical reasoning to use when discussing the Iraq war with someone who wants “Victory” or to “Win”. The “it's illegal” and “it's unconstitutional” arguments just aren't good enough. Some people need to have things spelled out.
At this point I'd like to mention that I will be talking about our troops as if they are dollar signs. I've worn those boots, packed that gear, and have been reminded over and over again how much my training cost the taxpayer. Please read the topic below without emotion, as if you are balancing someone else's checkbook. If this enrages you simply read no more. Don't complain to me about it.
Put your emotions away now, we are talking about someone else's checkbook.
The Scenario:
A supply convoy is traversing the open country between Al Najaf and Baghdad. An IED goes off next to a support HUMMWV. The blast kills the vehicle operator and the “A” driver, and seriously wounds the gunner and radio operator. The HUMMWV is crippled. A gunner in another support vehicle spots several insurgents within range to have detonated the device. The vehicle closes to investigate and a firefight ensues. In the end, the American forces take no more casualties, kill four insurgents, and wound two.
The Aftermath:
Who won this exchange? If you said the Americans did, because they dished out more than they took you haven't put your emotions away, and you are wrong. The Americans lost big in this exchange. The HUMMWV, armor, radio, and machine gun cost close to $100,000. The driver and “A” driver cost another $300,000 in training and family death benefits. The two wounded Marines I can't even begin to guess on. Disability for the rest of their lives, plus training a radio operator? This encounter easily cost the United States upwards of half a million dollars not counting medical care for the wounded insurgents. On the insurgency side they have a whopping five or ten thousand dollars invested in the people and equipment. They don't provide much training or family death benefits, nor do they invest a whole lot into their equipment. The convoy was disrupted by the insurgents, so their mission was accomplished. It's an insurgent victory. The convoy may have been protected, so our primary goal was accomplished, but the disruption and casualties cost confidence in the route. Which means more patrols, more reconnaissance, and ultimately more cost.
In the above scenario, we spent upwards of $500,000 to the insurgent's $10,000 or $50:$1. Now remember that more often than not, no insurgents are engaged after IED disruptions like this, because they are nowhere in the immediate area to be found. That means the normal economic impact on the insurgents is the cost of the IED and no more. In some cases, it could cost only $500 for some fertilizer and a blasting cap. In that case we are trading at $1000:$1
The cost of “Victory”:
We can bring emotion and the concepts of “right” and “wrong” back into the discussion now.
Victory is achieved by removing the enemies will or means to wage war. The means can be removed by bankruptcy. How long will our coffers last if we are spending between $50:$1 and $1000:$1 just to break even on the battlefield? Will they last longer than the coffers of the insurgent's financiers? How about our will to continue spending this much for so little results? When gains aren't made, investor confidence is rattled. Is it right to ask the American worker to give up the value of his labor, the tool he uses to care for his family, for so little gains. How long will the American worker continue to allow his labor to be used so irresponsibly? We Americans are loosing the will, and under the current policies, it's both justified and understandable. How long do you normally keep investing in a stagnant stock?
“Right”, “Wrong”:
By refusing to change policies and tactics, our politicians are leaving our troops to the wolves. The same politicians and pundits who claim to be so troop supportive and so patriotic, would rather leave our troops to suffer military defeat, and our people to suffer economic defeat, than admit that they were wrong and try something new. If they would swallow their pride, think things over, and plot a new course, perhaps we could have our victory without screwing over either our troops or our middle class. Our troops are now in a position where they can not win militarily without loosing economically, and it's wrong to keep them in that position.
“Just Come Home”:
Ron Paul's “Just Come Home” policy may not be the end-all-be-all answer. However, its the most responsible policy on the table at the moment. It acts responsibly towards our troops, our taxpayers, and our economy. Maybe, just maybe, when our troops are home, and our politicians are no longer scrambling to come up with ways to over blow “victories” to smooth over the costs, we can come up with a smarter solution. A solution that involves removing the enemies' will and means to fight. Like tracing their financing and issuing letters of Marque and Reprisal against the financiers of this insurgency. Maybe the sanctioned assassination of a few of their aristocratic money men will shake the confidence of others who would invest in groups known to be enemies of the United States? Wouldn't that be a wiser dollar to dollar investment?
At this point I'd like to mention that I will be talking about our troops as if they are dollar signs. I've worn those boots, packed that gear, and have been reminded over and over again how much my training cost the taxpayer. Please read the topic below without emotion, as if you are balancing someone else's checkbook. If this enrages you simply read no more. Don't complain to me about it.
Put your emotions away now, we are talking about someone else's checkbook.
The Scenario:
A supply convoy is traversing the open country between Al Najaf and Baghdad. An IED goes off next to a support HUMMWV. The blast kills the vehicle operator and the “A” driver, and seriously wounds the gunner and radio operator. The HUMMWV is crippled. A gunner in another support vehicle spots several insurgents within range to have detonated the device. The vehicle closes to investigate and a firefight ensues. In the end, the American forces take no more casualties, kill four insurgents, and wound two.
The Aftermath:
Who won this exchange? If you said the Americans did, because they dished out more than they took you haven't put your emotions away, and you are wrong. The Americans lost big in this exchange. The HUMMWV, armor, radio, and machine gun cost close to $100,000. The driver and “A” driver cost another $300,000 in training and family death benefits. The two wounded Marines I can't even begin to guess on. Disability for the rest of their lives, plus training a radio operator? This encounter easily cost the United States upwards of half a million dollars not counting medical care for the wounded insurgents. On the insurgency side they have a whopping five or ten thousand dollars invested in the people and equipment. They don't provide much training or family death benefits, nor do they invest a whole lot into their equipment. The convoy was disrupted by the insurgents, so their mission was accomplished. It's an insurgent victory. The convoy may have been protected, so our primary goal was accomplished, but the disruption and casualties cost confidence in the route. Which means more patrols, more reconnaissance, and ultimately more cost.
In the above scenario, we spent upwards of $500,000 to the insurgent's $10,000 or $50:$1. Now remember that more often than not, no insurgents are engaged after IED disruptions like this, because they are nowhere in the immediate area to be found. That means the normal economic impact on the insurgents is the cost of the IED and no more. In some cases, it could cost only $500 for some fertilizer and a blasting cap. In that case we are trading at $1000:$1
The cost of “Victory”:
We can bring emotion and the concepts of “right” and “wrong” back into the discussion now.
Victory is achieved by removing the enemies will or means to wage war. The means can be removed by bankruptcy. How long will our coffers last if we are spending between $50:$1 and $1000:$1 just to break even on the battlefield? Will they last longer than the coffers of the insurgent's financiers? How about our will to continue spending this much for so little results? When gains aren't made, investor confidence is rattled. Is it right to ask the American worker to give up the value of his labor, the tool he uses to care for his family, for so little gains. How long will the American worker continue to allow his labor to be used so irresponsibly? We Americans are loosing the will, and under the current policies, it's both justified and understandable. How long do you normally keep investing in a stagnant stock?
“Right”, “Wrong”:
By refusing to change policies and tactics, our politicians are leaving our troops to the wolves. The same politicians and pundits who claim to be so troop supportive and so patriotic, would rather leave our troops to suffer military defeat, and our people to suffer economic defeat, than admit that they were wrong and try something new. If they would swallow their pride, think things over, and plot a new course, perhaps we could have our victory without screwing over either our troops or our middle class. Our troops are now in a position where they can not win militarily without loosing economically, and it's wrong to keep them in that position.
“Just Come Home”:
Ron Paul's “Just Come Home” policy may not be the end-all-be-all answer. However, its the most responsible policy on the table at the moment. It acts responsibly towards our troops, our taxpayers, and our economy. Maybe, just maybe, when our troops are home, and our politicians are no longer scrambling to come up with ways to over blow “victories” to smooth over the costs, we can come up with a smarter solution. A solution that involves removing the enemies' will and means to fight. Like tracing their financing and issuing letters of Marque and Reprisal against the financiers of this insurgency. Maybe the sanctioned assassination of a few of their aristocratic money men will shake the confidence of others who would invest in groups known to be enemies of the United States? Wouldn't that be a wiser dollar to dollar investment?