The article published on the website of the newspaper "The National Security"
on September 10 is headlined "Three wars on terror".The author of the article reports that one of Barack Obama's earliest acts as president was to
discard the phrase "war on terror," yet he has been waging just such a campaign
these past four years - with a skillful mix of subtlety and ferocity.
John Arquilla,the author of the article,tells us about 3 different wars on terror which were lead by Ronald Reagan, by George W. Bush and by Barack Obama.
For example,Bush's strategy proved exceptionally costly and highly problematic in Iraq, and even his initial success in "going small" in Afghanistan was all too soon overtaken by a stalemate-inducing impulse to send large numbers of troops there.So, it is opposed to Barack Obama's strategy.Obama's concept of operations, on the other hand, has been working well, and will never break the bank or exhaust our military - especially in the wake of his realizing, and reversing, the folly of surging more troops into Afghanistan, as senior military leaders persuaded him to do early in his presidency.
As for President Reagan, he signed National Security Decision Directive 138.The article draws a conclusion that Obama is now pursuing a strategy which strongly resembles Reagan's after the October 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 242 Americans.However,Barack Obama has done much better by hewing close to the concept that Reagan initially embraced. But, as was the case with Reagan, there is now a similar battle going on for Obama's strategic soul.
All in all, the author suggests that in the battle for Reagan's strategic soul, the conventional thinkers won out because they convinced him that there was far too much of the "dark side" in the Shultz-inspired plan. In the battle for Barack Obama's strategic soul, the "overwhelming force" approach has not yet carried the day -and with luck it won't. Here's hoping that Mephisto wins this one.
As for me, I think that the terrible thing about terrorism is that ultimately it destroys those who practise it. Slowly but surely, as they try to extinguish life in others, the light within them dies. It is hard to predict the course of events in future.I disaprove of Obama's actions because invasion will bring success.
John Arquilla,the author of the article,tells us about 3 different wars on terror which were lead by Ronald Reagan, by George W. Bush and by Barack Obama.
For example,Bush's strategy proved exceptionally costly and highly problematic in Iraq, and even his initial success in "going small" in Afghanistan was all too soon overtaken by a stalemate-inducing impulse to send large numbers of troops there.So, it is opposed to Barack Obama's strategy.Obama's concept of operations, on the other hand, has been working well, and will never break the bank or exhaust our military - especially in the wake of his realizing, and reversing, the folly of surging more troops into Afghanistan, as senior military leaders persuaded him to do early in his presidency.
As for President Reagan, he signed National Security Decision Directive 138.The article draws a conclusion that Obama is now pursuing a strategy which strongly resembles Reagan's after the October 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 242 Americans.However,Barack Obama has done much better by hewing close to the concept that Reagan initially embraced. But, as was the case with Reagan, there is now a similar battle going on for Obama's strategic soul.
All in all, the author suggests that in the battle for Reagan's strategic soul, the conventional thinkers won out because they convinced him that there was far too much of the "dark side" in the Shultz-inspired plan. In the battle for Barack Obama's strategic soul, the "overwhelming force" approach has not yet carried the day -and with luck it won't. Here's hoping that Mephisto wins this one.
As for me, I think that the terrible thing about terrorism is that ultimately it destroys those who practise it. Slowly but surely, as they try to extinguish life in others, the light within them dies. It is hard to predict the course of events in future.I disaprove of Obama's actions because invasion will bring success.
You wrote "I disaprove of Obama's actions because invasion will bring success." I do not think that the USA will be able to achieve its goals in Afghanistan, because people in this country will always protect it and never give up. It is an endless war and I hope the US government will understand it and withdraw their troops.
ОтветитьУдалитьDo you really think that 'invasion will bring success'?
УдалитьFAIR
ОтветитьУдалитьThe rendering fails to meet the requirements. You are to report the authr's ideas rather than to present them as your own, which means EVERY statement starts with a special introductory phrase. See the Guide to Rendering.
Slips:
... the author STATES that in the battle for Reagan's strategic soul...