But anyway. What I said was the affirmative of what you had stated. The relativistic slant is based on the way two different peoples view their government. Chinese have always been totalitarian in nature, and revolve around extreme patriarchical structures. Perhaps the form of government is misplaced by our standards, but the Chinese may be used to an entirely different set of ideals. But the Chinese government did to Tibet what the Americans did to the Native American Indians, only the chinses held a "legitimate" claim to the region. It may not seem right superficially, but the Chinese claim suzerainty over a strategic and essential part of the what is now part of china that dates back to the ancestral lands of the Yuan and Qing.

But how is the middle east crisis a thousand year old story bull? History isn't an important factor. That's history. You can't deny that. War has been constant, but the generalities of war do not deny the locus of major conflicts over the millennia. The current crisis is not relatively modern. People today would like to think that because it's easier to grasp. That bit of history you cited is the tip of a very large iceberg. One conflict has led to another, etc.

The ratio of deaths is relevant. The size and nature of opponents change constantly. But the one constant among some others is that one sided experiences more losses than the other. That's warfare.

On military strategy in Iraq, neither one of us is qualified to give that statement. The only ones that are even remotely qualified to make that call are the boots on the ground in Iraq.

The problem with anti-guerilla warfare is that we aren't allowed to go the length required to do it. Anti-guerilla warfare is as bloody as any tactics any insurgent could use. Read up on the British Malay crisis. It has all happened before.

But we did win. The whole point was to preserve Kuwait sovereignty. Entering Baghdad may be a contingency of occupation, which we did not do. Saddam never lost power because we did not demand he relinquish that power. Power vacuum was far too dangerous an alternative.

Conflict and modernity is, again, a very relative statement in regards to that theater. We could no more attribute the cause of today's conflict to post imperial vacuum than we could deny the volumes of history that contribute to the overall problem. So is history systemic? I would think so.

As to your comment on my comment about body counts. Well, I said the ratio was relevant. I didn't agree with you.

But honestly, they do know more because they are there. It's that simple.

They don't have left or right propaganda to sway their opinion the way we do.

Well, Wesley Clark was a Rhodes Scholar.

Holiday,
But I think that Islam in particular is a sort of hyper-identity marker for middle easterners. It has become their definition.

Why doesn't the US advocate for Islamic religion? How would you feel if Islamic Mullahs were advocating Christian doctrines? (If you are Christian).

But it's a shame that Islam has taken on such a terrible face. The Koran in particular is a very interesting read and is strikingly similar to the Bible. It can give you some insight into Islamic understanding.

The unfortunate aspect of your response is the continued denial of personal assessment, and the subsequent uncomfortable realizations.

As to the body count statement, my position was this (from post #21); "The ratio of deaths is relevant. The size and nature of opponents change constantly. But the one constant among some others is that one side experiences more losses than the other. That's warfare." More precisely, the body count matters because the essential nature of warfare by attrition is a fundamental truth of warfare regardless of the opponent's idiosyncrasies.

I also know a few people in the military, officers and enlisted. But I would be an existential exoticist to suppose that because I know people who are in the military, I know the temperature of the military in general. Their views are relative to themselves. The military has mixed views about the war, no doubt about that. But your two categories do not encapsulate the average military personnel, only a particular outlook on it. There are others who have a different outlook on their job. Everyone should have their opinions (left or right), but also the duty to fulfill their obligations to the state.

Now that is a good point as to how a soldier in one area can know as much as one in another area. I'm talking about the general feeling of the overall war and the impact on the front lines. Does a soldier in Basra know what's going on in another part of the conflict? NO. And they are not expected to. But they are connected to the conflict in a way that we are not.

As to military propaganda, would you want to field a demoralized army?

Agreed, Wesley Clarke is indeed a war critic. But that is as a civilian. Wesley Clarke the civilian is different from Wesley Clarke the military General. The retirement of his stars entitle him to a personal opinion. But as a officer under obligation to the state, he was a fantastic general.

As to guerilla tactics, you had assumed that (from post #21) and inferred in post #22, that it was your point exactly. The points are different. I did not see a coincidence in your statements.

Actually, I don't understand how the crusades differ much from the middle east war. If you are saying that since the Ottoman downfall the islamics are trying to regain influence and basically get rid of the western culture/ and religion then its islam vs. western and therefore Christianity (but I don't think we have any intentions of establishing Christianity there, right?). And the crusades were about Jerusalem; islam vs. christianity.

Why doesn't the USA try to advocate for the islamic religion. It would provide sway to keep the public at bay, of Kiddle East. And then no bystanders for the extremists

The unfortunate aspect of your response is the continued denial of personal assessment, and the subsequent uncomfortable realizations.

They have similarities - the region, the religion of the people. That's about it, though. To say they are the same conflict is to say that all wars are the same conflict.