"General" George Will Just Claimed You Can't Win Wars From The Air. I Have Just Two Words.

[TrollBuster9090]

Wesley Clark



Um...remind me again, George. How many ground troops did NATO send into Kosovo in order to defeat the Serbian paramilitaries, and stop the genocide?

Just to reinforce how stupid this beetle-headed, bowtie-wearing, bag of flatulence is, I'll use his exact quote:

"George Orwell said the quickest way to end a war was to lose it. I would add the quickest way to lose a war is to say you can win it from the air. ...Mosul will be re-taken, and wars are won by men on the ground holding rifles."

Okay, let's translate this into plain english. The last Republican Administration, backed up by the last Republican Congress (chickenhawks to a man, with the exception of McCain), thought sending ground troops into wars was the FIRST solution to every problem, and that philosophy proved to be a disaster. The present and previous Democratic administrations operated on the philosophy that you shouldn't start a war if you don't need to; and if you do need to you should try to win it from the air before committing ground troops.

The neocon peanut gallery never stops blathering about how weak Obama is for not sending in ground troops, because they're hoping to goad him in to making exactly the same mistake. This will set up another false equivalence between the parties, suggesting they're both equally bad at handling wars, and you may as well pick some other reason to vote for one party vs. the other. Like...which one can wrap themselves in the biggest flag, or which one can eat the most apple pie. Two areas of faux patriatism where the GOP always wins. I, for one, am glad that Obama is too smart to let that strategy succeed.

George Will should stick to being an armchair baseball coach, and leave the armchair general gig to THIS sweaty, simpering little asshat...

[elleng]

1. THANK YOU!

SO good to see him!

[TrollBuster9090]

2. You're welcome!

Hoping he'll be the next Democratic Senator from Arkansas, SOON!

[elleng]

4. BIG hopes, TrollBuster!

Any sign he's heading in that direction?

[TrollBuster9090]

5. No. We'll have to (pardon the pun) DRAFT him! ;)

However, I'd say that if Hilary Clinton ends up being the next President, he's virtually guaranteed a job in the Administration.

[elleng]

7. We drafted him last time!

I'm happy to see your optimism about his chances if Hillary becomes president. I'm not similarly optimistic; wish I were.

[Art_from_Ark]

13. He didn't run for governor when he had the chance

If Clark had run, his Republican opponent would have been none other than Mike Huckabee-- so there was a pretty darn good chance that Clark could have won that election. So, somehow, I don't see him running for the Senate, but stranger things have happened.

[TrollBuster9090]

14. I don't think he has local politics interests, so it wouldn't surprise me that he wasn't interested

in running for Governor of Arkansas. But the US Senate is something that would be right up his alley.

(Although, the truth may be that, at this point he doesn't want to tarnish a successful military career by moving in to politics.)

[elleng]

16. I don't know whether he would have won,

but I don't think politics is his 'thing.'

We thought we were lucky to persuade him to run, and had a fine time as he did. Senate? I doubt it. Governor's more like it, imo, for his clear ability to manage difficult situations and people.

Secretary of Defense/State/National Security Adviser have been my preferences ever since, and I have consequently been disappointed with Dems.

[Art_from_Ark]

17. I think he could have won the governorship

He had a lot of support, and of course, name recognition, and he could have run rings around Huckabee in a debate.

[elleng]

18. Heck yes!

I would have paid to attend such a debate!!!

In case you're not aware, his new book is out: Don't Wait for the Next War, http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/events/past-events/don-t-wait-for-the-next-war-a-conversation-with-general-wesley-clark

[Art_from_Ark]

19. What bothers me most about Huckabee

is that he was handed the governorship as a result of Ken Starr's witch hunt against Jim Guy Tucker. If the lieutenant governor at the time had been a Democrat, then there's no way that Starr would have hounded Tucker like he did.

[moondust]

6. ISIS handed huge symbolic defeat in Kobani

Kurdish fighters backed by intense U.S.-led airstrikes pushed the Islamic State of Iraq and Syira (ISIS) entirely out of the Syrian town of Kobani on Monday, marking a major loss for extremists whose hopes for easy victory dissolved into a bloody, costly siege that ended in defeat.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/syria-border-town-kobani-taken-back-from-isis-kurdish-fighters-say/

[TrollBuster9090]

8. Yes, and the Kurds are sweetening the irony by having a few women in combat, and also

a few women dropping the bombs. The same superstitious fanaticism that motivates them can be turned against them, and a lot of them believe they won't go to paradise if they're killed in combat by a woman.

[Zambero]

9. Two more words: Norman Schwarzkopf

It was an aerial campaign led by Gen. Schwarzkopf that forced Saddam to end his occupation of Kuwait. Sorry George, but you are every bit as ignorant as the neocons you cowtow to.

[TrollBuster9090]

15. Pretty much. They did run tanks at the end, but 95% of the war was won from the air. nt

[Calista241]

26. Saddam parked his army in the desert with almost no protection

Our domination of that conflict is one of the reasons we have so much urban warfare today.

We have proven our ability to dominate conflicts in open space, and our reluctance to bomb or assault locations with potentially high civilian casualties.

The last time we assaulted a hardened position with a high concentration of civilians was Fallujah. Before that it was Hue city in Vietnam.

George Will may be an idiot, but he is right on this point. We did drop bombs in Bosnia, but that wasn't what stopped the conflict. The threat that we'd go in there, kill everyone who resisted and put on trial those we didn't kill, and implement a NATO government is what ultimately caused the parties to cease fire.

[former9thward]

11. You can't win wars from the air.

In WW II both the Nazis tried to do it in England and the Allies tried to do it in Germany. It was a failure. In Iraq a grand total of 300 sq. miles have been taken from ISIS. That is a space of 20 miles by 15 miles. They control 77,000 sq. miles.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/us-and-iraq-prepare-offensive-to-retake-mosul-1421949677?autologin=y

[TrollBuster9090]

12. Surprised you didn't invoke Nixon's bombing the Ho Chi Minh trail. But if you want to invoke WW II

...remind me how many ground troops we used to invade Japan? (And no, Okinawa is not part of Japan.)

[former9thward]

25. Wow.

Talk about a U.S. centrist view point. There were 4 million Allied military deaths in the Pacific war and 25 million Allied civilian deaths. Millions of troops were used to re-capture Japanese territory not counting the massive Naval campaign. You seriously think dropping two bombs on insignificant cities brought about the Japanese surrender? Please learn some history...

[TrollBuster9090]

30. First, I noticed you avoided the question, and second

if you think 'two bombs' were dropped on 'insignificant cities' in Japan it's not ME who should be learning history. Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Kokura were chosen as targets for the A-bomb because they were deliberately left intact. Virtually every other city in Japan had been bombed. (Kyoto was also excluded for political reason.) Three options were explored to make the Japanese surrender. A) A naval blockade, to starve them, B) continuing the bombing campaign, including the A-bombs, and C) a land invasion. The land invasion was the last resort, given that they assumed it would result in 200,000 odd allied casualties. The naval blockade was deemed impractical because it would take too long, and they wanted to end the war before the Soviets could join, and thus claim half of Japan the way they did in Germany. So, they tried the bombing campaign alone, and it worked. Not a single allied soldier was lost as a pair of 'boots on the ground' in Japan.

(And yes, I deliberately used the word 'allied' so that we can dispense with the cheap "U.S. centrist view point" red herring this time.)

[former9thward]

36. They were left intact because they had NO military significance.

What you are saying is that ALL that came before the final atomic bombings had no significance in the Japanese surrender. They surrendered because of that. Absurd and that IS a totally U.S. centrist view point even though you will not admit it.

[TrollBuster9090]

39. No, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm surprised you don't get a bad case of hay fever from all these straw men you're building.

George Will criticized Obama for trying to win a campaign using only (or mostly) air power, claiming it CAN'T BE DONE. All I did was point to an example (Kosovo) where it WAS done, proving Will is an idiot. You then pointed out two examples where that strategy didn't work, to prove it CAN'T work. As somebody else pointed out to you, that's a logical fallacy.

I claim it's possible to run a mile in under four minutes, and point to a guy who did it as proof. You claim it's impossible to run a mile in under four minutes by pointing to ten guys who tried to do it and failed. Which one of us actually proved the point we were TRYING to make? I never claimed you can win EVERY war, or even a majority of wars with air power alone. I just claimed it's possible, gave an example, and said anybody who says it's impossible doesn't know their history. (Even their RECENT history.)

Your two negative examples were from WW II, and I only brought up Japan because it was also part of WW II. If you want to quibble about Japan not being an example of an air victory that's fine. Kosovo alone will do to prove my point. But I'd still argue that the surrender of the Japanese mainland is also an example.

You're claiming the Japanese Army/Navy defeats were factors in their surrender. I disagree. The Japanese Army and Navy were run by absolute fanatics, who would gladly have let every last soldier and sailor die before surrendering. The decision to surrender the Japanese mainland was made by the Emperor under pressure from civilian leaders after the bombing campaigns. Left to the military leaders, Japan would never have surrendered under pressure from military defeats OR civilian bombings.

Regarding your blathering about my "U.S. centrist view point," I have no idea where that came from. All I asked you was how many soldiers "we" used to invade Japan. The answer is zero. And the fact that you'd conclude I must have meant U.S. soldiers, rather than allied soldiers because I used the word "we" is just evidence you need to increase your dose of risperidone. I never made ANY sort of a U.S. centric argument.

[former9thward]

40. First the 78 day Kosovo campaign was just that -- not a war.

And air power alone did not win that either --

The more likely explanation, then, is that Milosevic surrendered from fear that NATO would invade Kosovo, with the devastating help of precision air power. In early June 1999, the United States, the United Kingdom, and other NATO countries were about to formalize a decision to mount a ground invasion of Kosovo. Former Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin undoubtedly communicated to Milosevic, with whom he met numerous times that spring, that a ground war was coming. (On June 8, Chernomyrdin said in a press conference in Moscow, "If the current peace plan for a settlement in Kosovo is not carried out, the situation in the region may develop according to a different scenario. NATO has a plan for carrying out a ground operation.&quot The United States and the United Kingdom also took strong measures to make that threat credible. Coalition forces widened supply roads in Albania and deployed more than 35,000 troops on Kosovo's borders, while the United Kingdom called up 30,000 ground-force reservists.

Anticipating a ground attack by NATO, Russia and Serbia tried to establish a Russian military presence in northeastern Kosovo in order to partition the region and retain control over some of it. Although the effort failed, it suggests that the Serbs and the Russians considered the threat of a NATO invasion credible and believed that Serbia would be defeated.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/59714/robert-a-pape/the-true-worth-of-air-power

The campaign against ISIS has resulted in the re-capture of 300 sq.miles of territory out of 77,000. You do the math.

[TrollBuster9090]

41. Heh, okay, if you want to save some face with semantics, that's fine with me. But if Kosovo

was only a campaign, so is the ISIL campaign, which was the subject of this post. So I don't know why you brought up WWII.

And you can quibble about the motivations for the victory in Kosovo all you want (or run Google searches until you find somebody who supports your view, and then quote THEM), but the fact remains that it WAS a victory won without ground troops. This proves it can be done, which was my original point.

[former9thward]

63. Show me a military person who says Kosovo was "won on air power alone."

[TrollBuster9090]

65. I don't have to. It WAS won without ground troops. Proving that people who asininely claim that

wars CAN'T be won without ground troops (or at least OUR ground toopsl) are ignorant of history. It's been done.

[former9thward]

66. You can't because there is none.

Just arm chair Generals behind their keyboards.

[TrollBuster9090]

67. Hahah! Okay, I guess you proved me wrong on a point I never tried to make.

Congratulations on defeating the straw man you built.

But if you're interested in my ACTUAL opinion; wars do NOT have to be won by "men on the ground holding rifles." There are many tools that can be used, and boots on the ground are, and SHOULD be considered a last resort. Only to be used after other methods have been tried.

[bobclark86]

56. Wow... ironic name

Japan was already seeking surrender. We dropped the bomb on Japan because the Russians (our real enemy, go look up American supplies and relief aid for the Finns -- who had swastikas on their airplanes -- during the Winter War of 1939-40) were willing and able to keep rolling past Berlin.

Japan has few natural resources. That's why they invaded Korea and Manchuria before the war. The blockade was already working. The factories were in ruins. They were suing for peace (the talks broke down in August 1945 over just how unconditional the surrender would have been). Claiming the U.S. nuked them to "end the war" against Japan implies we did the war equivalent of spiking the football, but with more of a "war crime" vibe.

Then again, you have to go past what American middle schools teach about the war to realize this.

[TrollBuster9090]

70. Isn't this exactly what I've already said in at least half a dozen comments to this post?

But yeah, the irony about my user name is getting to be pretty rich at this point.

Japan had already been bombed for years, starting with the Doolittle raid, and escalating from there. The carpet incendiary bombing had increased in the last four months, and they'd already been seeking a conditional surrender through the Soviets in secret. The A-bombs were just the straw that broke the camel's back, and switched their position from conditional to unconditional surrender. The naval blockade alone would have worked eventually, but the Allies were not willing to wait that long because they didn't want the Soviets to enter the war and partition Japan. (Morally, this is the part I have the most trouble with; but it's still a fact.)

And my point about absolutely no ground troops being used to invade the Japanese mainland, because they tried other methods first, still stands. And my original point about Kosovo being an even better example of this still stands, too.

[ProfessorGAC]

47. Accomplished Only By Island Hopping

Which, of course, was marked by invasion after invasion of islands by ground troops.

Don't think Japan is an apt comparison.

[TrollBuster9090]

55. As I said to another commenter, I don't think the surrender of the Japanese mainland was as

connected to the Japanese Army/Navy defeats in the Pacific as people claim. I don't think it would be accurate to say they surrendered because they were demoralized over their military defeats, because the people who ran the Army and Navy were absolute fanatics who COULDN'T be demoralized. Tragically, the only kind of demoralization that seemed to have any effect was the demoralization caused by carpet bombing the Japanese mainland with incendiary bombs for nearly a year. Dropping two A-bombs at the end of that only served to convince them that the air campaign was only going to get WORSE until there WAS no Japan. (Remember, the Japanese didn't know that there were only two A-bombs in existence at the time.)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. That's a nice example of an elementary logical fallacy.

You make a universal claim - "you cannot win wars from the air" - and to prove it you cite specific examples of people failing to do so.

Two obvious counter-examples are the Pacific theatre in WWII (not won exclusively from the air, but my understanding is that was what was decisive) and the Kosovo conflict (won exclusively from the air)

What you have demonstrated is that trying to win wars from the air sometimes fails, not that it always fails.

[Paladin]

27. "Elimentary logical fallacy," used in a DU thread unrelated to gun control?

Guess there's a first time for everything.....

[TrollBuster9090]

34. Thank you, that was my point, too.

1. There are two examples of campaigns that were won exclusively with air power. The Japanese mainland campaign, and the Kosovo campaign. If you can find even two examples of campaigns that were won exclusively from the air, then George Will's assertion that you CAN'T win wars exclusively from the air is demonstrably false.

2. That does NOT mean I was claiming you can win ANY war exclusively with air power, or even a majority of them.

I'm glad somebody can still recognize a logical fallacy around here, and in particular, the fallacy of the undistributed middle term. I didn't claim you can win all wars exclusively with air power, and I also didn't claim that Socrates is a dead cat!

[LanternWaste]

24. Bumper-sticker tactics not withstanding... a sustained air campaign conducted by NATO

Bumper-sticker tactics not withstanding... a sustained air campaign conducted by NATO in August of 1995 resulted in the Bosnian Serbs removing heavy equipment that month, entering into diplomatic talks the next month, and in November, take part in negotiations that resulted in the Dayton Agreement.

[elleng]

29. Thanks

[TrollBuster9090]

33. There were also suggestions that the CIA and other agencies started looting the Swiss bank accounts

of the Serbian leaders, so they had even more incentive to enter into a diplomatic solution.

That being said, the Kosovo campaign was an example of a recent conflict that was won almost exclusively with air power. After the diplomatic solution had been reached, NATO had to move in and occupy the territory, but at least they didn't have to fight their way in. And after the peace was made, it required a significant NATO and UN occupying force. In fact, the size of the occupying force needed to stabilize Kosovo was used as the model to calculate how many troops it would take to stabilize Iraq.

[TrollBuster9090]

35. Thank you. And, ironically, the air war against ISIS is probably more successful than the air war

against the Serbian paramilitaries because we don't have RUSSIANS at NATO headquarters looking at the target lists every day, and then telling the Serbians where the bombs are going to be dropped so they can move their tanks out of the way. On the flip side, ISIS is a lot more ruthless and fanatical than the Serbian paramilitaries, and so you can't hurt them by emptying out their Swiss bank accounts, or bombing buildings in their home territory the way you could with the Serbs. So, who knows if this will work or not. The point is that it's better to try it before you assume it won't work.

[WinkyDink]

21. Air, schmair---I'm just looking at that cutie-pie's visage!

[TrollBuster9090]

45. You've got good taste! nt

[WinkyDink]

72. :-)

[ChosenUnWisely]

22. The NATO military intervention was illegal but legitimate

Excerpt from: The Kosovo Report

Hopefully people will actually read it.

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/drwcasebook/files/the_kosovo_report_and_update.pdf

'The most promising window of diplomatic opportunity was prior to 1998. At each stage of the conflict, the diplomatic options narrowed. However, the political will to mount a major diplomatic effort could only be mobilized after the conflict escalated into full-scale violence.
The diplomatic effort throughout 1998, culminating in Rambouillet, was characterized by confusion and mixedsignals. In the face of Milosevic's ruthless strategy of oppression and the maximalist demands of both the LDK and KLA, there was little chance that diplomacy would prevail. The Holbrooke-Milosevic agreement of October 1998 led to the introduction of unarmed international monitors and did succeed in reducing the level of violence.

However, KLA units took advantage of the lull in the fighting to reestablish their control of many positions vacated
by the redeployed Serbian troops. Violence escalated again in December 1998 also after Serbian forces reentered the province.
The Commission believes that there are important lessons to be learned about the role of unarmed monitors in reducing the level of civilian suffering, if not averting humanitarian catastrophe.
The overall narratives of the international response are Inherently inconclusive, and hence without clear "lessons" beyond the prudential observations in favor of early engagement and greater attentiveness to nonviolent options.

Certain key conclusions are worth emphasizing.
1. Multiple and divergent agendas and expectations and mixed signals from the international community
impeded effective diplomacy,
2. The international community's experience with Milosevic as not amenable to usual negotiations created a
dilemma. The only language of diplomacy believed open to negotiators was that of coercion and threat.
This lead to legal and diplomatic problems - such threat diplomacy violates the Charter and is hard to
reconcile with peaceful settlement. The credibility of the threat must, in the final analysis, be upheld by the
actual use of force.
3. It is impossible to conclude, however, despite these weaknesses, that a diplomatic solution could have
ended the internal struggle over the future of Kosovo. The minimal goals of the Kosovar Albanians and of
Belgrade were irreconcilable.
4. Russia's contribution to the process was ambiguous. Its particular relationship with Serbia enabled crucial
diplomatic steps, but its rigid commitment to veto any enforcement action was the major factor forcing
NATO into an action without mandate.

THE NATO AIR CAMPAIGN
The Commission concludes that the NATO military intervention was illegal but legitimate. It was
illegal because it did not receive prior approval from the United Nations Security Council. However, the Commission considers that
the intervention was justified because all diplomatic avenues had been exhausted and because the intervention had the effect of liberating the majority population of Kosovo from a long period of oppression under Serbian rule.

NATO believed that a relatively short bombing campaign would persuade Milosevic to sign the Rambouillet agreement. That was a major mistake. NATO also underestimated the obvious risk that the Serbian government would attack the Kosovo Albanians. NATO had to expand the air campaign to strategic targets in Serbia proper, which increased the risk of civilian casualties. In spite of the fact that NATO made substantial effort to avoidcivilian casualties there were some serious mistakes. Some 500 civilian deaths are documented. The Commission is also critical of the use of cluster bombs, the environmental damage caused by the use of depleted-uranium tipped armor-piercing shells and missiles and by toxic leaks caused by the bombing of industrial and petroleum complexes in several citi
es, and the attack on Serbian television on April 17, 1999. The Commission accepts the view of the Final Report of
the ICTY that there is no basis in the available evidence for charging specific individuals with criminal violations of the Laws of the War during the NATO campaign. Nevertheless some practices do seem vulnerable to the allegation that violations might have occurred and depend, for final assessment, on the availability of further evidence"

[Scuba]

23. Isn't that Bill Kristol in the pic? I was expecting George Will.

[TrollBuster9090]

31. Yes it is. He's the other neocon armchair general.

I avoided putting a picture of Will up because I didn't want to crack your monitor.

[HoustonDave]

28. Bombardment is a temporary solution

In the short term you can effect substantial change with mass bombardment. There are numerous examples (as well as some conspicuous failures, such as I believe Saipan in WWII. ) In general, though, bombing the snot out of an area is only effective as long as the bombardment continues. Other than temporary destruction, however, long-term changes come from invasion and occupation.

The example above where someone assumed the two atom bombs were the sole cause of the end of WWII is laughable - obviously they missed a few places like Guadalcanal and a few other places where the Japanese Army received some severe attitude adjustment. It took four years of ground and naval combat to put Japan in a position where the atom bombs were that effective. Who would be naive enough to think that had we hit them on New Year's 1942 they would have surrendered then?

[TrollBuster9090]

32. Nobody assumed the use of two atom bombs were the sole cause of the Japanese surrender. Although

somebody was trying to use it as a straw man.

My point was that the battle to reclaim captured Japanese territory was a land battle. The battle to make the Japanese mainland surrender was strictly an air campaign, and other than Okinawa (which was never considered to be a real part of Japan) it involved no ground troops.

The Japanese mainland air campaign, and the Kosovo air campaign are two examples where a victory was won with 100% air power. The first gulf war was an example where a victory was won with 90% air power. There are other examples where people tried to win wars with air power alone, and it was a failure.

The point, therefore, is that it IS possible to win a war with 100% air power. It has been done. Therefore, George Will's assertion that it's IMPOSSIBLE to win a war with just air power is demonstrably false. That DOES NOT mean that you can win every war with only air power, and that wasn't what I claimed. It just means that it is false to say that a war CAN'T be won with only air power. It also shows an ignorance of history.

[former9thward]

37. The only ignorance of history is yours.

You cheery pick battles and portions of wars to try and win an argument. Fail.

[TrollBuster9090]

38. Sorry, but you've already demonstrated how ignorant you are of history by claiming we only dropped

"two bombs" on Japan. When, in fact, Japan was bombed with incendiary bombs for months before the A-bombs were used. Your ignorance is there in black and white for everybody to see. Don't blame me for that.

[hack89]

43. You are minimizing the submarine blockade of Japan in WWII

It is just as easy to argue that there was no need to bomb Japan because their economy would have ground to a halt and the population begin to starve due to the efforts of the US Navy submarine force.

[TrollBuster9090]

44. I mentioned the Naval blockade in another comment higher up. But the main point was that

using ground troops was considered only as a last resort, and air power was the first resort. As opposed to either doing the reverse, or making the asinine statement that wars CAN ONLY be won with ground troops. (Especially when that statement is made by a guy who spent the Vietnam War hiding under his dorm bunk in Divinity School.)

The trope that wars can only be won by boots on the ground has been repeated by neocon chickenhawks for so long that it's become accepted as fact. Even by liberals, ironically. I just wanted to do a little pushback on that myth.

[hack89]

46. That is not correct

before the atomic bombs it was a given that the Japanese homeland would have to be invaded. The invasion of Japan was the center piece of US strategy and at the time of the atomic bombings massive amounts of troops, ships and material were being assembled to invade Japan.

There is no reason to believe that air attacks alone would have forced Japan to surrender - by August 1945 the US was running out of targets. They had burned most Japanese cities to the ground and the Japanese industrial base was decimated. But the Japanese military had more than enough troops, ammo, planes and supplies to resist for another year. At best there would have been a military stalemate.

[TrollBuster9090]

50. First, I never said (ANYWHERE) that the two A-bombs were the reason for Japan's surrender.

I said the war for the unconditional surrender of the Japanese mainland was won without ground troops. Yes, they had a plan for a ground invasion in case the blockade and air bombing campaign (only the last part of which involved A-bombs) didn't work; but it DID work. And my point is that it CAN work, and to claim that it never can is to ignore history. The best example is Kosovo, but the first Gulf War, and the surrender of Japan are also examples. Although, the latter two are not as good an example as Kosovo.

[hack89]

54. No - there is no evidence that the conventional bombing campaign would have induced surrender

It was the atomic bombs that ended the war. If they had not been dropped in August then the invasion of Kyūshū would have commenced in October. There was no talk of surrender in August before the atomic bombings - the notion that things would have changed so much in two months is nonsense.

[TrollBuster9090]

59. "There was no talk of surrender in August before the atomic bombings"

" There was no talk of surrender in August before the atomic bombings"

Untrue. The Japanese had been secretly negotiating with the Soviets to broker a CONDITIONAL surrender with the Allies, who were insisting on an unconditional surrender. At that point the Soviet Union wasn't at war with Japan. Two of the Japanese conditions for surrender were that the Emperor should remain in place, and government leaders shouldn't be tried as war criminals. Two things got them to drop all their conditions, and declare an unconditional surrender. One was the A-bombings, and the other was the entry of the Soviets into the war. Japanese leaders didn't want the USSR to claim half of Japan after the war any more than the Allies did.

[hack89]

62. Unrealistic and undefined conditions that they knew the US would reject

and did with the Potsdam declaration. Besides - it is not clear that the Japanese government was unified in negotiations with Russia. It is also safe to assume that Japan's demands would have been unreasonable.

[TrollBuster9090]

68. I'm just sayin' You asserted there was absolutely no talk of surrender before the A-bombs in August

When, in fact, they'd been trying to get the Soviets to broker a conditional surrender since late June. The A-bombs were just the straw that broke the camel's back, and switched their position from a conditional to an unconditional surrender.

[gladium et scutum]

80. In addition

to maintaining Hirohito on the Chrysanthemum Throne, the Japanese Government demands included No occupation of Japan by allied troops other than a few being allowed in the Tokyo area. No allied war crimes trials, the Japanese would conduct their own war crimes trials using Japanese judges, and Japanese legal procedures. The Imperial Japanese army would demobilize and dis arm its own forces without supervision of the allies.

[Motown_Johnny]

42. "Enola gay"..."Atom Bomb"... "Hydrogen Bomb"

Intercontinental Missiles


Lots of ways to dispute that with just two words.

[TrollBuster9090]

61. POINT WELL TAKEN!

I'm not a General, but I DO have an armchair. Can I go on TV as a pundit now?

Okay, I'm going to shut up and go away now.

[dilby]

49. So you really believe that there were ZERO ground troops during the Bosnian War?

Who the hell were the Serbs fighting against on the ground? Just because NATO did not have ground troops does not mean that they are not necessary, there is no way NATO would have won that without the Bosniaks, and the Croat forces on the ground.

[Enrique]

52. well in this conflict the Kurds fill that role

we're talking about whether American ground troops are necessary.

[leveymg]

58. Bin Laden did his part against the Serbs, as well, fighting alongside US Special Forces.

Yes, there were ground troops in Bosnia. A lot of nationalities, including Arabs and Americans in the same sectors.

By the way, Erik Prince (later of Blackwater fame) was one of the SEALs in northern Kosovo at the same time Usama and his guys were there. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/04/810764/-Erik-Prince-American-Bin-Laden-CIA-Asset-Money-Gunmen

[TrollBuster9090]

60. You might want to re-read what I actually wrote. I specifically asked how many NATO troops were

used. The PNAC neoconservative philosophy has been that wars should be fought 'honestly,' and not through either airpower or proxy. The best example that this isn't necessarily true was Clark's victory in Kosovo.

[Savannahmann]

51. Actually, that's why I have no respect for Wesley Clark.

In the Kosovo incident, Wesley Clark ordered British and French Paratroopers to seize an airfield held by Russian soldiers by force. Let me repeat that. BY FORCE. The French refused the order, and the British were debating it when the order was withdrawn. The next day, the British arrived by convoy, and were again ordered to take the airfield by force. Wisely the British ignored the order, and instead came to an accommodation with the Russians rather than attacking them. Only an idiot would try and start another war the day before the cease fire went into effect. Only the heir to the throne of idiots would issue the same order that was ignored the day before, the very next day. If we ever nominate Wesley Clark for any national office I'm voting straight Green.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_at_Pristina_airport

Oh, and by the way. The American Admiral that Clark called for support also took the opportunity to opt out of the planned operations.

So no. Clark is not a genius military commander. He is a damned fool who much like Patton wanted to start a war with the Russians. Which is also why I consider Patton a damned fool.

So before you celebrate the glorious victory of this idiot, you really should do some reading on it. Because it wasn't the glorious victory you make it out to be. And if it was anything close, it's because allied commanders, including an American Admiral, took their opportunities to opt out of the operations that General Clark was ordering.

[TrollBuster9090]

64. You mean the airport that the Russians had occupied illegally, a day ahead of schedule, in order to

in order to A) evacuate Serbian war criminals, and B) fly in a division of Russian troops in order to partition Kosovo into a Serbian and an Albanian sector?

Well, I don't know why you'd condemn Clark's 'stupid aggression' while ignoring the Russians', but that's okay. But you're distorting a couple of things. Clark never ordered British and French troops to take the airport by force from the Russians. He ordered them to occupy it before the Russians arrived, in order to prevent the two things I listed above from happening. Yes, the French refused, but I still think Clark's decision was sound. The next day he did NOT order anybody to take the airport by force from the Russians, he ordered the runway to be blocked by helicopters. Again, to prevent the two things I listed above, which I still think was a good idea. In the end, other things were done that accomplished the same goals, and prevented the Russians from protecting Serbian war criminals, and partitioning Kosovo.

Sorry, it wasn't Clark who foolishly tried to start World War III, it was the Russians. Clark's solution might not have been perfect, but if he'd done nothing the two things I mentioned above would definitely have happened.

[Savannahmann]

73. So Clark didn't issue the orders?

You might want to tell a few people that. Like the NATO Secretary General. Oh, and General Wesley Clark.

General Wesley Clark, Nato's supreme commander, immediately ordered 500 British and French paratroopers to be put on standby to occupy the airport.

''I called the [Nato] Secretary General [Javier Solana] and told him what the circumstances were,'' General Clark tells the BBC programme Moral Combat: Nato at War.

''He talked about what the risks were and what might happen if the Russian's got there first, and he said: 'Of course you have to get to the airport'.

The American Admiral did refuse to comply with Clark's orders.

General Clark planned to order helicopters to block the runway, and requested American Admiral James O. Ellis for helicopter support. Jackson's staff contacted the US Brigade and were told that the Americans were using their right to opt out of the operation.

So tell me again how it never happened? Because lots of people, including General Wesley Clark say it did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_at_Pristina_airport#cite_note-jackson-2

[TrollBuster9090]

74. He didn't issue any orders to attack Russians, no.

He ordered NATO troops to occupy the airport BEFORE the Russians arrived, so they couldn't occupy it. He DID NOT order NATO troops to take an airport that was already held by Russian troops. (Any force involved would have been against the Serb paramilitias, if they resisted the NATO troops.) The fact that the Russians hadn't yet occupied Pristina Airport is even contained in the quote YOU JUST POSTED.

''He talked about what the risks were and what might happen if the Russian's got there first, and he said: 'Of course you have to get to the airport'.

As I told you in my first response, the Russians rolled into Kosovo a day ahead of schedule, with the intent of seizing Pristina Airport, and then flying in a division of Russian troops for the purpose of partitioning Kosovo. Something nobody in the world, other than the Serbs and Russians, thought was a good idea. Clark and NATO Secretary Solana were right to try and prevent it.

They didn't succeed because the French were apparently more worried about Serb snipers shooting at their helicopters than they were about the prospect of the Russians occupying half of Kosovo and turning it over to Serbia. So the Russians were allowed to seize the airport, and blocked entrances to it with their APCs. Clark then tried to thwart their plan to fly in Russian troops (in transport planes that were already loaded) by blocking the runway with NATO helicopters. In the end, the other NATO commanders convinced him that you could accomplish the same goal by simply blocking the roads OUT of the airport with APCs, rather than blocking the runway.

So, your reason for hating Clark is invalid. At no point did he ever order any NATO troops to attack Russian troops. You can go on hating him if you want to, but you'll have to find another reason. Sorry.

[Savannahmann]

75. He did use these words.

Read some on it. The orders he issued to the Brits were to destroy the Russians if they did not evacuate the airport. Deny history if you like. But don't expect me to fall in line and worship a damned fool.

Oh and those orders were heard by James Blunt and General Jackson. So how many Brits have to be denounced as a liar before you save your hero?

[TrollBuster9090]

77. You'll have to supply me with a direct quote from a credible source on that.

And hopefully not James Blunt's self-aggrandizing statements that he saved the world from a third world war.

It's well known that Clark ordered the British and French NATO contingent to seize the airport before the Russians arrived. It's also well known that Clark then ordered them to block the runway with either helicopters or APCs, and that Jackson refused. But that's an entirely different thing from being ordered to attack the Russian troops that were in the airport. You'll have to show me a credible source quoting Clark as giving that order.

[TrollBuster9090]

79. Here's an excerpt from General Jackson's own autobiography detailing the entire incident.

You can read it for yourself.

The order he refused to follow was Clark's order to block the runway, not to attack or expel the Russian troops from the airport. He felt it was un-necessary, given that A) NATO controlled the airspace leading to the airport, and B) they still needed Russia's cooperation if they were going to disarm the Serb paramilitias.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1562161/Gen-Sir-Mike-Jackson-My-clash-with-Nato-chief.html

[TrollBuster9090]

71. PS-By the way, if it makes you feel any better, while I backed the NATO position on Kosovo,

I continue to back the Russian position on South Ossetia. It's identical to the Kosovo situation, only in reverse. This time WE'RE playing the Russians' big bad guy part in backing Georgia, who is totally in the wrong. Bah!

[One_Life_To_Give]

53. Technically True, devil is in the details

In the Classic sense Air Superiority such as the Allies had in much of 44 and 45 as well as much of Korea and Nam is helpfull but insufficient. At some point you have to separate the non-combatants from the combatants. And that usually doesn't work well from 40,0000ft. MacArthur wouldn't of been much good at the Japanese Constitution and postwar reconstruction from the flight deck of a B-29.

However that says nothing about who must fill the boots on the ground. Notably East Germany and Poland did not have US troops on the ground. The boots could be filled by any number of capable allies. Since at some point we might hope to bring our own troops home. It would be wise to work with potential local allies. Who could serve to maintain the peace after we have gone. Unless we intend to try and garrison the planet?

[Enrique]

57. a giant picture of a handsome general

isn't a very good argument.

I do think there might be a decent argument involving the Kosovo war, but the hero-worship gets in the way.

[TrollBuster9090]

69. Sorry, didn't mean to use such a big glamor photo. It was the only one I could find.

At least he didn't wear the uniform during the 2004 primaries!

[MADem]

76. George Will was complicit in the theft of Jimmy Carter's briefing book.

Carter believes it, and so do I.

The guy is without shame or integrity.

[TrollBuster9090]

78. I think George Will was also complicit in the theft of Howard Cosell's toupee. He's obviously

still wearing it today. Never even washed it.