It could be the passage of time and old age colouring things, but most Vets of WWII remember that war with nostalgia. The basics of the thing were pretty clear. The practical and moral grounds were beyond dispute. Civilization really was at stake. They were proud of what they did. The war shaped the national psyche and transformed a generation. Everybody had sons, uncles,brothers, cousins in uniform. Everyone had ration coupons. Everyone collected scrap and knitted socks and wrote letters to the front. People were united in a common cause in a way they never are in peacetime.

There never will be a war like that again. Modern wars are small, murky, troublesome affairs. The practical and moral grounds for intervention are invariably a source of heated dispute. Its often unclear who the enemy is. Civilization may or may not be at stake, depending on your point of view. The draft has been abolished, and few people take up soldiering and hardly any of us knows someone in uniform.

War is deeply out of favour now. We prefer peacekeeping. The warrior values - discipline, sacrifice, cohesion,strength, authority - don't figure much in mainstream culture [ except in sports ] and are even ridiculed. Modern wars operate somewhere on the periphery of our lives, and they divide us more than they unite. They certainly don't inspire much patriotism, another old fashioned virtue that has become faintly suspect.

There are no front lines in modern wars, and no goalposts either. How will we tell when the war in Afghanistan is 'won '? Is it when all the little girls can go to school? When the Afghan army can defend the country on its own? When, if ever, will that be? The realistic answer [ many, many years ] isn't politically acceptable, and the politically acceptable answer is unrealistic. The politicians can't tell the truth, and have forbidden the generals from doing so. They know the voters will never sign off on an open-ended mission that could last for decades.

The cliche about generals is that they are always fighting the last war. Now they're trying to fight a 21st century war with a 20th century institution. Born in the aftermath of the Second World War, NATO worked so long as its members could basically agree on who the bad guys were, and so long as very little blood was shed. But NATO may not survive Afghanistan. Its members are reluctant to cough up more troops, or even a few more helicopters. It has turned into a coalition of the unwilling..

Everyone who was alive then remembers the legendary battles of WWII - D-Day, Iwo Jima, Battle of Britain, The Bulge, Midway. But who will remember the Battle of Panjwai? No more than a handful of us, I suspect.

Its hard to imagine future generations contemplating state funerals for the last remaining veterans of Kosovo or Iraq or the Afghan wars, or young journalists seeking them out to capture their reminiscences for Remembrance Day. In the years to come, the men and women who fought in these forgotten skirmishes are likely to be forgotten too. They'll be regarded as honourable and courageous, to be sure - but perhaps also as sacrificial victims who didn't really make a difference in the end. The real nightmare of Afghanistan is the possibility that it will all come to nothing -that after we leave, there will be no one else behind us, and the waters will close over as if we were never there.

All wars have their folly and futility, of course. For every hero you can find a story of senseless slaughter. Most Vets never took the heroic view. Their stories tended to depict army life as an endless series of snafus, punctuated by random moments of sheer terror. But they always knew why they were fighting, and so did everyone back home.

The lads from WWII were lucky to fight the last good war. I doubt there will ever be another.

Excerpt from M.W.

quote:

Excerpt from M.W.

Maybe I'm thick......Where is this from?

Ooops, Pataloco:

didn't mean to confuse you.. the tag must have been dragged along when I did a cut/paste to post this scribbling..
just an internal memo tag I stick on writing not destined/ready for ' publication/outside use'..

often label my stuff in little folders/files as
M.W. i.e. musing/writing or
W.I.P. -work in progress
D.I.W.K - dumb ideas worth keeping
H.S. - Hot sh!t
R.F.S. -ready for sale
W.M.M.M. - will make me millions

as you can imagine the R.F.S. file is pretty sparse and the W.M.M.M. file is bulging, though , so far, without material result.

and, before Gunny goes and blabs.. H.S. file has - among other things a good supply of ' Babes of the Day' inspirational photos to stimulate the - er - mind..when pondering the greater world issues.

didn't mean to detract from the thread..

apologies, again...

Need some help going through that H.S. file/folder?

Rocketeer, you wrote quite an essay on the feelings of people/soldiers about WWII and now. Actually it is so much it would spawn another long reply. Please excuse me but I believe there isn't all that much difference from WWII to the situation of today. WWII, as you recall was extremely unpopular until Pearl Harbor. Until then the general US attitude was 'let them beat their own heads in'. Sons and daughters were too valuable to be wasted then as now. I believe it was the togetherness of all Western nations at the time to rally against what was viewed as evil which made the difference to today. That viewpoint, I believe, is lacking today and that makes the difference from those days to those of today! Few people in the Western world (US certainly included) see the danger of Islam. The general attitude is: 'if they don't bother me let them have their thing'. People don't see that we are slowly loosing our culture and identity. Politicians are doing nothing to stop the influx of fanatic and messianic people into our society that despise the anglo-american outlook on life and, when they live here, cling to their own cramped culture and don't integrate. Thus, in some years, the US will become an islamic republic because the more fecund people will overtake all others, no matter how smart or educated they may be. That has been so throughout human history. But, perhaps Yellowstone will blow before then and things won't matter any more. I am pessimistic but at least we (the US) is doing something...

Gunny:
thanks for the offer, my friend..but, rest assured I have reviewed and vetted that file a number of times, the young subjects have been collated, sorted, categorized and otherwise examined in minute detail and been assigned various 'tasks' in alternate scenarios.. -ahem -..I think I'll keep this secure/ eyes-only, for now, not that I don't trust your motives and genuine offer of assistance.

-cough -

Mastertanker:

I think the Anglo-American ideal has long been shattered and those today, for fear of being labeled ' racist' are lost in what to do over this issue.

The majority of Islamic peoples, just like the various ethnic groups/religious before them are moderates, more or less western oriented in, at least, the understanding of liberty, freedom etc. the desire for peace, the understanding that women have equality, etc.. all the essential elements of secular western society with an overlay of religion/spirituality not too divorced from attitudes expressed/espoused by the Mormons or Evangelical Christian groups at one end or Secular types at the other..

That they are ' prolific' in having children is , again , not unique as polls/studies show that Latinos in America are the fastest expanding group, Native American groups are also ' re-populating faster than Whites and Blacks, also, though, as they have matured and become exceedingly middle class, they are slowing down too.

The question is can the new groups integrate into a lifestyle while still being able to practice their faith and are these compatible?

Can a group that is God-centric divorce religion from the state? [ how effective is it with the fundamentalist Christian sects/groups who are at the forefront of pushing their beliefs/agendas on the politics of the day? undue influence? ] In that regard should we fear Islam any more than Christianity in certain hands?

Let us not lose sight of the fact that a small minority of extremists are causing the latest upheaval. Their brand of strict religionism is ultimately self-defeating.. the pattern is there in history.. radicalism soon falls to openness, democracy [ small D] and ultimately complacency as people get what they want-- comfort and security..

I am not concerned about the rise of Islam -so to speak - so much as I am worried about radicalism -left or right -. Ghettoization of immigrants is , at first simply for protection and security.. it takes a generation or two before the kids break free.. Believe me.. Closeting and burhkanizing the girls won't stop them from being drawn to Britney Spears, Xstina and the other ' role models'.. they quickly start wearing the trashy garb under their blankets at first, and then reveal all soon enough..

Where the problem lies in the fight to get to that point if those who don't hold the same values and allow a minority to dictate what can and can't be seen/read/etc..

Everyone has a right to freedom of religion but there's also the right to freedom from religion..

Are we after Tolerance? -meaning we don't like what you do but we'll put up with it

or Acceptance - you can do what you want and we'll acknowledge that you can do what you want as long as it doesn't harm others and you do not try to force it on us, just as we will not force things on you.

rambled a bit, sorry.. but I still think this isn't as clear cut as in Grandpappie's day...

Awww, screw it! Lets just go fishin!



Knew I had ta get a babe of the day in here somewhere!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: thegunny,

OY!!

Look at the gills on that!


If that don't send a ten thousand volt culture shock to a fundamentalist, I don't know what will..

If you don't mind, gunny, I think I'll have to make an amendment to my ' protected file '..

OUCH! Nice shot!

Rocketeer

I understand your point, but the facts are pretty heavy as to why WW2 is one to remember. For me, the best thing that came out of that war was my dad.

World War 2 Death Count

Although the precise numbers of deaths is impossible to determine and different sources believe in the accuracy of different numbers, these numbers are one set of figures for the number of deaths that occurred in World War Two. Figures for military and civilian deaths are provided where these were available.

<TH>Country <TH>Military <TH>Civilian <TH>Deaths

USSR 13,600,000 7,700,000 21,300,000

China 1,324,000 10,000,000 11,324,000

Germany 3,250,000 3,810,000 7,060,000

Poland 850,000 6,000,000 6,850,000

Japan - - 2,000,000

Yugoslavia 300,000 1,400,000 1,706,000

Rumania 520,000 465,000 985,000

France 340,000 470,000 810,000

Hungary - - 750,000

Austria 380,000 145,000 525,000

Greece - - 520,000

United States 500,000 - 500,000

Italy 330,000 80,000 410,000

Czechoslovakia - - 400,000

Great Britain 326,000 62,000 388,000

Netherlands 198,000 12,000 210,000

Belgium 76,000 12,000 88,000

Finland - - 84,000

Canada 39,000 - 39,000

India 36,000 - 36,000

Australia 29,000 - 29,000

Albania - - 28,000

Spain 12,000 10,000 22,000

Bulgaria 19,000 2,000 21,000

New Zealand 12,000 - 12,000

Norway - - 10,262

South Africa 9,000 - 9,000

Luxembourg - - 5,000

Denmark 4,000 - 4,000

Total - - 56,125,262

Typhoon:
I agree that the scale and extent of the losses and the total involvement of both military and civilians in the casualty lists are far in excess of anything we're seeing in the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts make for a poor comparison.. but.. today we have a more open and rapid coverage of conflict through the media. much of it unfiltered, so that every little incident is magnified.. tragic though it may be that a wedding party is snuffed mistaken for jihadis, the numbers lost are tiny when compared to the losses suffered during WWI when bombs were dropped on targets.. Dresden is still a much debated issue and the concerns from that are echoed in Afghan to day.. President Karzai, in his UN speech made just that claim.. The loss of life through ' collateral damage' is the single biggest drawback to winning the hearts and minds of the locals caught in the crossfire and trying to decide which side to support - not for ideological reasons- but simply to ensure survival of themselves and family..

With the reach and hype of todays media.. one death is multiplied a thousand fold.. Up my way.. we've lost less that 100 soldiers since going in.. compare that to the thousands lost in WWII and the hundreds of thousands lost in WWI..
Yet, these less than 100 KIA are effecting federal politics to a far greater effect - mostly negatively - than the losses from previous conflicts ever did..
The public is seeing only the down side, doesn't get nearly enough counterbalancing upside news of what is being stopped, accomplished, improved. .etc.. to make them feel this is all worthwhile.. and, sadly, given the supposed collapse of western civilization with the Great 08 Market Crash,, anything happening outside of the border is no longer relevant of worrisome.. saving their bank accounts and paying for groceries trump saving the world from a threat..

reality bites...

quote:

didn't mean to confuse you.. the tag must have been dragged along when I did a cut/paste to post this scribbling..
just an internal memo tag I stick on writing not destined/ready for ' publication/outside use'..

Ah, see, that explains it. The original post here (I thought) was very interesting, insightful, and well written. Therefore, I assumed you had stolen it from somewhere else.

This is a little bit off topic, but...well, maybe not. I was reminded of this article by this thread so.....It's an article about Human Terrain Teams, but also changing warfare, collateral damage, and winning the hearts and minds--


The story behind an HTS picture

Major Robert Holbert was part of the first Human Terrain Team deployed to Khost province, Afghanistan, in early 2007. I first saw his picture when I was reading an article about the Human Terrain System by Roberto González.

EXCERPT--

This was the first opportunity we had to change the military thinking and make them realize that you don't need to kill everything and call it a success. You still have to be able to kill when you have to. But you also need to know that it's about building relationships, establishing a rapport with the local population. To go forward and just kill people is losing. Look at the Soviets. They killed over 2 million Afghans and lost, so you know it ain't going to work. It's trying to teach them how to balance the velvet glove with the naked fist.

The social sciences are very powerful in this aspect. Anthropology is just a sexy word-- don't get me wrong, I like anthropologists! --but it's about social science in general, about economists, about historians, sociologists, psychologists-- everyone has something to bring to the game. It's about how to use those skill sets more effectively to reduce casualties among the local population and local soldiers. When we get it, really get it, people's lives are saved. That's what attracted me to the program and made me volunteer.

FULL ARTICLE--
http://culturematters.wordpress.com/2008/09/22/the-stor...hind-an-hts-picture/

Patoloco

I think the reason we are in Afghanistan is because a big group of maniacs ( led by a rich fella from Saudi Arabia ) called " The Taliban " fermented the idea of killing and taking down as many Americans as they could chew, on September 11, 2001. These ideas were more or less hatched in between their war with another group of fellas called " The Northern Front ".

I read that article:

" a ‘typical’ US Army white dude, but also a practicing Muslim, ardent Obama-phile, and all-round super guy.”

So what!

That's what I don't get. There was also a bit about how we supposedly look down on them because they have brown skin? That's not true at all. I don't know anybody who looks down on brown people from any part of the globe. If anything I wonder if HTS would be even tried if they were another color or had another faith? I doubt it. We are in Afghanistan to destroy all enemies whose one goal was and still is the complete destruction of the USA/WEST, etc,. I suppose HTS is a nice idea, but it's not as if we have been running around pillaging like the old USSR. And who cares if that Major with the notepad is an " ardent Obama-phile " ? Is that some special requirement that helps make HTS work? I don't get that at all. The bottom line is they are just as clever as we are, maybe even more so. They proved it on September 11, 2001.

Patoloco

P.S. I didn't write what I wrote to tick you off, I'm just saying is all.

".. .stolen it.." ????

patoloco,
you wound me, deeply...

my editor often tells me I'm verbose and have crappy style.. but, NEVER, has he insinuated that the drivel I spew was purloined { I assume that anyone turning out stuff so bad would be happy to have it blamed on someone else ]..

I'm going to my room to cry..

Typhoon-- Yes, there's a little....a lot of "HEY, OVER HERE, I'VE FOUND A LIBERAL IN THE ARMY, SO HE'S MORE BELIEVABLE"...or something like that. You have to realize who this guy thinks his audience is....

And I don't think you wrote anything just to piss me off. And I agree with your reasoning of why we are in Afghanistan, if the article said something different (or the Major did) I missed it....

I think the HTS is a not such a great idea-- Well as they are designed right now-- they include civilians. Well, except for this guy. He's already in the military and has the cultural expertise to advise and learn more. Many of the HTTs have civilians. I'm completely against civilian anthropologists tagging along on combat patrols (which is happening, and one has been killed). That's just high-risk, stupid behavior (high-risk in that you have a non-combatant who is now more of a liability in a gunfight). OTHERWISE, I think the HTS would be valuable in ALL conflicts. One other culture more confounding to us than that the Middle East is those stone-faced Asians. We could use some HTTs out there....Though, once again, I think we could draw a lot from our own ranks in that regard as well.

In my business, cultural (and language) knowledge is a must. The more the better.

As far as looking down on brown people? What military you been in? Rag-heads, sand-******s, little brown monkeys, jihadis, hajjis...there's a few more....I've heard them all (out of Canadians and Americans, btw). Yes, there's some prejudice out there. I think that's a given. It's not pretty, but it's out there. It's inevitable when you're trying to kill one portion of the population, and protect the other that doesn't seem to appreciate it (I always think of them WWII vets who throw "Japs" around like it was cool....I understand it, but damn....)

And Rocketeer, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to make you cry. If it makes you feel better, I was fairly impressed by your scribblings, so much so I "googled" this "M.W." to find the "real" source. I was actually hoping to steal it.....

Wow...the PC filter took out the "n" word....so sad.

Patoloco

Everybody has a name for their enemy. Maybe those who are in the thick of it deserve to say whatever they want no mater what skin tone they are. Hmmm...

quote:

Patoloco

Everybody has a name for their enemy. Maybe those who are in the thick of it deserve to say whatever they want no mater what skin tone they are. Hmmm... Wink

Well, yes and no. In Somalia they called them "Skinnies". I spent four months there. I was one of the first Marines flown in (1992), one of the last to leave (in 1993, we went back later in 1996). Want to know the first time I heard the term "Skinnies"? When I bought the book "Blackhawk Down" in 2004-ish. Some learn more about their enemies than others.

Not saying it's right, just saying that every single enemy of Americans had a nickname for us. Be it a German in WW2 or a terrorist in Afghanistan.