Do We Have The Will to Win?

Discussion in 'Multinational HQ' started by Trip_Wire, Sep 9, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Trip_Wire

    Trip_Wire RIP,15202,112579,00.html?

    Do We Have The Will to Win?

    Brian Bresnahan | September 06, 2006

    Do you feel an impending angst as 9/11 approaches, especially knowing we'll relive that day through a deluge of 5th anniversary TV coverage? Or has it all passed you by and become just another calloused memory, no worse than any other you'd care not to revisit?
    Will you relive that day and wonder why it happened and then wonder how we've come to this day? Or do the concrete realities and reasons for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan escape your daily concerns?

    How much sorrow do you feel with each funeral notice for a serviceman or woman who stepped forward to fight the Global War On Terror? Does it barely register or does it affect you deeply, if even for only a moment? Do you pause and say a prayer for the family in mourning? Or do you shrug it off and carry on with your daily routine?

    Do you wonder at the courage and commitment of that man or woman which ultimately led to their sacrifice? Or do you simply wonder how they still had the tenacity to fight so many years after the catalyzing events of 9/11.

    Do you still feel the fire from that day? The fire, determination, and will to bring harm to those who exacted such a terrible toll upon us, and all who think exactly as they do. The same fire and will that spurred you to pledge publicly or personally, "Never again!" Or is the will gone? Or was it ever there?

    Some lacked the spirit to take on Al-Qaida, even after 9/11. A few more lacked the strength to take on Iraq and the similar threat Saddam posed. Now, a growing number lack the resolve to win this war, to see it through to victory. This, in and of itself, is a chilling predicament, considering our enemy draws upon the pool of their fanatical religious beliefs for a seemingly infinite supply of will and resolve to defeat us.

    And when stripped bare, it all comes down to that. Do we possess the will to defeat Islamic extremists whose stated, unequivocal goal is our conversion or destruction? Do we possess the strength of character, as individuals, and as a nation to defeat this clear and present danger?
    We need to ask those questions because that's who we continue to fight, and will continue to face into the foreseeable future, worldwide, including in Iraq.

    As violence in Baghdad increased, the picture portrayed was one of civil strife only -- of neighbor fighting neighbor, sect against sect. But, at the source, the pot was still being stirred by Al-Qaida and it was still they, as much as any others, our combined Iraqi and American forces were still successfully hunting.

    Gradually, more and more of that country moves forward into what critics still call an impossible future. In the last month we've seen the infrastructure advancements, a military milestone with 5 of 10 Iraqi divisions being fully operational and one of them now completely independent of our forces, the establishment of the full Iraqi civilian and military chain of command, the destruction of many terror cells by our combined forces, and the capture of Al Qaida's number two man in Iraq.

    Yet, the facts and success we enjoy against this enemy go unreported or are quickly overwhelmed by a tsunami of rhetoric from those who lack the will to fight or seem to pursue our surrender and defeat against them.

    The recent airline terror plots by like-minded extremists were forgotten in a flash, quickly hushed by those who, for no more than political reasons, would like all of us to forget the danger they posed, and from where that danger came.

    The defeat of Joe Lieberman, who possesses the intestinal fortitude to fight this enemy to the finish, simply because he has that strength of character, is growing evidence of Americans who lack the will to fight a tough enemy.

    In simple, yet very realistic terms, this is a tough war, and it is sure to be a long war against a nondescript enemy that we have to fight wherever they may be.

    There are those who understand this and those who do not. There are those who understand the consequences of defeat in Iraq (or any other front in the war against Islamofascists) and those who do not (and there are those who choose not to). There are those who never had or no longer have the will to fight. And there are those who advocate positions that are tantamount to our defeat.

    There are a growing number of people who now question the patriotism of those who advocate positions for our defeat and loss in Iraq. I'm not there, but I do have to question their motives and their will to win the war.

    So then I have to ask, do we still feel the fire? The same fire, determination, and will to stop those whose violent ideology includes our destruction; the same fire and will that should have spurred our country to pledge "Never again!" Or is the will gone? Or was it ever really there?
  2. On behalf of the majority of the citizens of the United States of America:

    1. No.
    2. No.
    3. No.
    4. Yes.
    5. No.

    And that's what happens when you take a just cause and manipulate it to serve a pre-existing political agenda for the Middle East that was based on supposition, hubris and a complete ignorance of the facts.

    The end. Next question please.
  3. There you go again. Iraq, Saddam and 9/11 all joined together.

    Haven't you heard, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. He was the number one enemy of AL'Q after the US.

    He posed no threat whatsoever to America.

    He was a secular leader.

    He was a very nasty piece of work but there are a lot more of them around in the world, some owing their positions to the aid, money and assistance of the US BTW but for some reason it is always Iraq, Saddam and 9/11 all joined together.

    The terrorists, the terrorist leader, the funding are nearly all Saudis.
    Yet the US continue supporting the house of Suad.

    Why is that I wonder.

    If you are wondering why people don't feel the same anger and determination to "get the bad guys" it is because your leadership took a token swipe at the real offenders and then lied and covered up so that they could attack a 3rd party who had nothing to do with it.

    Why should anyone feel determined to win the war in Iraq when they have no idea why you attacked them in the first place?
  4. Saddam fought a massive eight year war to oppose Islamic fervour and remain secular.

    By taking Saddam out we did AQ's bidding for them! And strangely AQ now only have one target, which previously needed an awful lot of effort to attack, being as it was, several thousand miles away.

    Then the US president, (who whilst Gov of texas had expounded isolationism) decided to move a shed load of young Americans right onto Aq's doorstep where the great satan could be fought by anyone with access to a rifle. - Much easier than trying to infiltrate people into the states and build terror cells in situ!
  5. Im glad to see you have dropped the "clash of civilizations" bombshell.
    Having read both versions (with and without his editted chapter) And the associated second text "the dignity of difference" Im not buying the bull, sorry.

    The clash of civilizations states that the two masses will react when forced into one anothers presence. The Caliphate and removal of Western forces would have prevented the two parties meeting.

    19 hijackers succesfully borached the American "security" forces, and kicked off in NY, by way of response in this delicate situation, several thousand armed none too situationally aware soldiers started kicking doors in around the middle east.

    It is definately volatile now!
  6. "A clash coming"

    Good to see that the two wars Bush started In Iraq and Afgahnistan, and soon Iran, wont count as a clash - I presume they are pre-emptive to the imminent clash (backlash), and once the Growing number of displeased Muslims around the world retaliate, it will all be their fault for starting it.

    - The clash of civilizations is a loaded statement, I appreciate it mightn't have been what you meant, It might help you in future if you chose another turn of phrase, purely to avoid such confusion -
  7. And this "coming clash" is still someway off in the future is it?

    Have you recently ridden in a Delorean at 88 Miles per hour perchance?
  8. Ok Ill be sure to remeber that radical Islam and the West arent at clashing at present next time Im watching the news.
  9. My will to win is not helped along by the incompetency of people I always thought were smarter than me.People I trusted to send me into harms way.

    I have a nagging suspicion that TripWire is trying to manufacture consent and redesign opinion

    Of course we have to win in Iraq.We fell into the hole we dug for the enemy and unfortunately we kept digging deeper and now we cant leave if we wanted to.Its not really about Iraqis anymore.They have become pawns in the great staring march between the US and Iran.

    The line in the sand has been drawn.Its only a matter of time before the first shot is fired.

    BTW as someone once said,behind every great war there is a Jew.I wonder what role Israel has in all this? :?
  10. The clash of civilisations is now.
  11. Well that would all depend on how long it goes on for wouldnt it!
    "Mission Accomplished" is still ringing in my ears after some chump tried to put a time frame on the conflict!

    - In the words of a proper wartime leader.
    "........this is not the beginning of the end, but it may be the end of the beginning..."

    (If not the exact quote, im sure you get the idea)
  12. BBear

    BBear LE Reviewer

    If I may;

    I can hardly see this "clash" of civilisations being more than Muslims VS everyone else. That isn't a "clash of civilisations", it's "One crazy ass religion" vs "civilisation".

    Now I know some of you will be shouting that Islam is its own civilisation, and that the "nation of Islam" can override nationalistic boundaries (certainly some of the Muslims I went to school with thought of themselves as Muslims before Englishmen, but I degress...) but I would not call a religion - where mass protests spill over into opportunistic violence all too readily, where some of it's most vehement proclaiments are found to be going against the text that they are raving about and where "equality" is an unknown word - a civilisation.

    In your terms Dogface - I'd say that we are in the middle of this clash. Many attempts have been made by Islamists to take power bit by bit, and also to reconcile the public mind into what is acceptable from the Muslim point of view (see below photo). Certainly in europe this is happening all too often. It's all a big power play. One which i'm not too sure we're winning.

  13. Sorry the clash of civilzations term was Doggies.

    I took it to mean more than he did, and ran with it due to the book of the same title. If Doggie wants to clarify what he meant that might help.

    Doggie - the clash of civilizations:
    define it, in your own time go on.
  14. eh?

    It is impossible to say how far through this conflict we are.
    think: Lenin when asked about the French revolution.

    Or as I have said Churchill in The early forties.
  15. Can you name me a state that has had democrcy forced upon it by an external power that went on to adhere to those principles?

    If self determination is so important, why was Saddam who was capably resisting Islamic infiltration deposed?

    And if the human rights of other nation's citizens are important, why do we not allow them to determine their own fates rather than arriving uninvited?