TexasCHLforum.com

Oldgringo wrote: We really don't want to go back 70 years or so and bring up "the Church" and the Holocaust.

Oldgringo wrote:

PeteCamp wrote:I understand your point about honor and code being the foundation of what it means to be an American soldier. All of us who served share that feeling. We fight by our standards - not theirs. I guess I didn't read all the previous posts about 9/11, the Catholic Church in WWII, the NYC Mosque, etc. It does seem to me we are discussing the issue in a broader context. I simply pointed out that our national priorities seem to be dead-set on not offending the Muslims at any price. Placate them at all costs. Security at any price.

I'm not sure how anyone who has served in the armed forces can arrive at the conclusion that Muslims are any less offended by dropping a bomb on a house full of non-combatant Muslims in a war zone (I know we didn't intend to, but that is war), or by the presence of an army of infidels in their homeland, than they are offended by a bunch of nuts burning the Quran on a church lawn in Florida. Again, clearly, I do not support burning the Quran - as you say it is not right. But the crux of the issue is broader by it's very nature.

I have to add this to my reply because this is what puzzles me about this issue. I am firmly convinced that adding this "hearts and minds" approach to the business of war, that is so politically correct nowadays, is a national disaster. I want to consider how we won the "hearts and minds" of Germans and Japanese that brought about such a "peaceful" end to WWII. Our military fought with honor. That did not stop us from fighting to win a military conflict. You understand what I am saying? We tried the "hearts and minds" approach in Vietnam, and it failed miserably. 58,000 of us made the ultimate sacrifice to disprove that hideous idea. Winning hearts and minds makes the fatal assumption that one is engaging the forces of one's enemies by making friends with those who are not engaged in war against you. We learned in Vietnam that our friends were as powerless to stop those who hated us (and them) as we ultimately were. I thought our military leaders had learned the lesson after that debacle. IMHO we've still got things backwards. I guess it is because Generals and Admirals hardly ever pay the last full measure of war.

May I respectfully suggest that if we want to win the "hearts and minds" of our enemies, we should leave the issues on the table for the politicians and diplomats to discuss. If our enemies attack us, our military should win "hearts and minds" as Gen. Patton suggested. You will not make friends at the point of a spear until long after the last soldier dies. I have the deepest respect for Gen. Petraus. I just happen to be of the opinion that if he wants to win the hearts and minds of people who are deeply offended by the mere presence of our forces (and him) on their soil, then he should resign his commission, lay aside his weapon, and do so under the guise of a diplomat. Not a soldier. And I say shame on politicians, diplomats, and bureaucrats who try to mold a great soldier into a tool of diplomacy. Let the soldiers fight the wars honorably, but with full support and clear direction. Force the politicians and diplomats to fight the battle of peace and take their lumps at the polls.

To be concerned about the safety of those under his command is the General's duty. However, do we really believe that our enemies will be one iota less mad at us, and desire to kill us any less, if we all stop some idiots from burning Qurans? To think that is naive and fatal. So, I put the question to all - but especially to those who are paying the cost of freedom. Will NOT burning a pile of Qurans make the Muslim extremists your friends? Will it make your job any safer tomorrow? Will those who have sworn to their god to spill your blood (and ours) at any price love you for your tolerance and respect tomorrow? Not unless you plan on converting to Islam.

Sorry. this is way too rambling for this early in the morning. It is frustrating to see the mistakes of the past repeated by the present generation.

I absolutely agree, well thought out and well said!

(I know I said that I was bowing out of this subject but that was before I saw the girl with her nose cut off on the cover of the 9 August issue of "TIME" magazine in the Doctors' office yesterday. How can anyone defend, or defer to, barbarism such as that? If a religion promotes that kind of barbarism among its own, were the 9/11 atrocities really the result of a minor faction of fanatics?)

tacticool wrote:There's enough trouble in the world without looking for more.

snorri wrote:It's fundamentally no different than burning the US flag in protest.

"Military personnel threw away, and ultimately burned, confiscated Bibles that were printed in the two most common Afghan languages amid concern they would be used to try to convert Afghans, a Defense Department spokesman said Tuesday."

"Military officers considered sending the Bibles back to the church, he said, but they worried the church would turn around and send them to another organization in Afghanistan -- giving the impression that they had been distributed by the U.S. government."

ELB wrote:Apparently the US military short list of holy books that should not be burned does not include Christian Bibles; again, to avoid offending muslims:

"Military personnel threw away, and ultimately burned, confiscated Bibles that were printed in the two most common Afghan languages amid concern they would be used to try to convert Afghans, a Defense Department spokesman said Tuesday."

"Military officers considered sending the Bibles back to the church, he said, but they worried the church would turn around and send them to another organization in Afghanistan -- giving the impression that they had been distributed by the U.S. government."

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiap ... es.burned/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Petraeus should have kept his mouth shut. I frankly lost a lot of respect for him for sounding off like that. The Dove church sounds like a bunch of nuts, but Petraeus as a senior military officer had no business commenting on their 1A expression,and of course, what he did was bring even more attention to them, which is exactly what they wanted. Real smart. When Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, and a signficant portion of the left (including our present CinC) was trying to undermine our war effort, thereby encouraging insurgents to press bloody attacks on your troops to break our will at home, I do not recall him worrying about that inspiring danger to our troops.

There's no good way to spin this. This -- not the burning, but the kowtowing on Qurans, especially while burning Christian Bibles -- is a huge propaganda and moral victory for militant Islam (which is considerably larger than many want to acknowledge). The muslims will take this as a lesson about free speech in a democratic society. The lesson that muslims, particularly the militant kind will draw, is that once again the US and the West can be, and has been, successfully intimidated. The US military, including Petraeus has been successfully intimidated. (And the Dove church as learned a valuable lesson as well -- they know exactly how to get attention now.)

If you want your religion taken seriously, get your overtly militant people to kill, maim, and behead a the slightest pre-text. Similarly, get your (very large) supportive but less overt populations to throw a fit and imply violence will follow everytime some Western virtue clashes -- or is claimed to clash -- with one of your religion's tenets. Particularly free speech that might criticize or mock your religion (and if necessary, manufacture your own offensive cartoons and pass them off as western produced).

The lesson here is the the west will not defend the values it espouses if you kick it hard enough and often enough. It is like paying ransom for kidnappings; do it, and you get more kidnappings. Stop paying, and you lose some hostages initially, but pretty soon it becomes clear to the kidnappers that they won't get anything out of it, so it dies off.

Today, militant islam holds entire free societies hostage by threatening and carrying out fatwas against artists and authors, "carbeques" in major world cities, attempted and realized murders at CONUS recruiting stations, airports, and military bases -- and all we do is refuse to run legitimate political cartoons, write stories about "youths" of ummentioned origin and motivation, and produce 80 page reports on mass murder at one of our premier military posts without ONCE mentioning the ideology or tactic (i.e. terrorism) that acually inspired the attack. (Not to mention that we were afraid to deal with an obvious threat in our own forces, because he was, well, you know).

We do not need affirmative action for Islam. If some are offended by burning Qurans, fine say so. But if some want to riot or shoot at our troops (or our civilians), they need to be suppressed, violently, not appeased.

snorri wrote:It's fundamentally no different than burning the US flag in protest.

In Iraq and Afghanistan we have non-linear warfare. Think Vietnam. Why do we try to win their hearts and minds? Because the enemy still has a distinct influence over the populaces hearts and minds. Despite the intimidation, beheadings, Sharia Law and all that we love to hate, there are people in that part of the world that think it is right. So we have to demonstrate to them that our vision of civilization is the correct one, or we not only fight the "Bad Guys", but we fight the population that actively supports them.

My entire point is that we maintain our core values without over-reacting and generalizing and lumping-together anything related to Islam as being something that we should not tolerate. Islam in and of itself is something that I respect as much as any other religion, be it Eastern or Western. What bothers me and this applies to EVERY religion, is what bad-people do with it.

GreezyG wrote:

snorri wrote:It's fundamentally no different than burning the US flag in protest.

Your exactly correct. But it seems that some people who would be 100% opposed to burning a US flag are all for burning the Quran.

PeteCamp wrote:

In Iraq and Afghanistan we have non-linear warfare. Think Vietnam. Why do we try to win their hearts and minds? Because the enemy still has a distinct influence over the populaces hearts and minds. Despite the intimidation, beheadings, Sharia Law and all that we love to hate, there are people in that part of the world that think it is right. So we have to demonstrate to them that our vision of civilization is the correct one, or we not only fight the "Bad Guys", but we fight the population that actively supports them.

Interesting discussion. I don't agree with the whole linear/non-linear concept of warfare. To say that WWII was linear and Vietnam/Iraq/A-stan is non -linear (in the sense of winning the hearts and minds) is assuming that the German and Japanese people did not think the endeavours of their leadership were right and we had a duty to prove to them that our vision of civilization was right, or better than theirs. WWII was as much a war against populations as against armies. Otherwise how would you describe the perceived need to bomb London, Toyko, or Berlin? Those campaigns were designed to defeat the will of the people to support their leaders or nationalistic goals. Remember there were Germans who felt that what was happening in Germany to the Jews was right and actively supported that. Japan's navy did not relish the idea of a war against America, but the general population supported anything the Emporer did. Did I not hear you say that today we are fighting against "the population that actively supports them"?

The difference has arisen in how you go about the "winning over" of civilian populations. We would have never won WWII if we had tried to be friends and not offend the Germans and Japanese. The American people have bought into the idea that we can, at one and the same time, invade a country and still somehow be friends with the enemy and the population that supports them. War is purely and simply about being offensive to those who oppose you. If we believe it to be otherwise, we should not go to war.

This is the mistake that so many have made since WWII. We believe that we can win a war by "friendly means." It is not a fundamental difference in what comprises war, it is a fundamental difference in how one approaches the conduct of war. History teaches this lesson very clearly - and very harshly to those who ignore it. This notion of "friendly warfare" arose in the 1960's and should have died an ignoble death in Vietnam. Those of us old enough to have lived through that ridiculous era saw history teach us a harsh lesson. I fear that many more Americans will die before we finally, if ever, learn the lesson.

My entire point is that we maintain our core values without over-reacting and generalizing and lumping-together anything related to Islam as being something that we should not tolerate. Islam in and of itself is something that I respect as much as any other religion, be it Eastern or Western. What bothers me and this applies to EVERY religion, is what bad-people do with it.

I'm not going to argue the issue of religion save to say that it is not any other religion causing so much trouble in the world today. Respect it? Fine. Tolerate those who practice Islam and worship under our Constitution? Fine. But would you tolerate my preaching on Sunday that my parishoners should blow up thousands of innocent people? No. Probably goes against your core values.

Those campaigns were designed to defeat the will of the people to support their leaders or nationalistic goals.

not any other religion causing so much trouble in the world today