Some Experts’ Opinions You might see him on Fox news or maybe shouting in a courtroom, the adjunct professor from Georgetown, Dr. Michael Sheuer, or simply, “Mike”, has major concerns about the way American’s foreign policy has been handled in recent years. The choice isn 't between war and peace. It is between war and endless war , in this age of warfare, the purpose of conflicts that our leaders drag us into, become uncertain as the deaths multiply. Mike has a valid point. During his career running operations in the CIA, the Bin Laden case is a standout, so it is important that people of opposing views at least take a minute to consider his steady, keen outcry against the way American leaders deal with foreign allies.
We are maximizing our security, and we are determined to keep this from happening again. Pitts also says, “ you don’t know what we’re capable of. You don’t know what you just started. But you’re about to learn.” Pitts writes this almost as a threat to the terrorists to tell them, they can try again and try to break us but we will get revenge. Pitts uses emotion and logic to persuade the Americans that the terrorists can do what they want to us, but America is tough enough to handle it.
There has to be more research done in order to identify the reason behind the bombing. Governor Cuomo states that this violent incident will not let Americans live in fear. As a result, the bombing is making the presidential candidates to demonstrate their qualities of leadership. The bomb attack is a reason why many view the United States an unsafe place. Terrorism has always been one of the biggest problems the
In 2004, the U.S. military began to seriously reconsider the problem-a problem associated with asymmetric warfare. In reviewing the concept, academics tend to focus more on the effort to explain the puzzle: why the underdog can win in war? If "strength" conventionally considered to support the achievement of a victory in war, how can we explain the victory party that "weak" against the
Decapitating of the leaders, or the killing, arrest or capturing of the leaders of terrorist organisations, has become an essential feature of United State’s counterterrorism policy design. Many scholars and analysts claim that it weakens terrorist organisations and reduces the threat they pose. Unsurprisingly, the killing of Osama bin Laden on May 2, 2011, in Abbottabad, Pakistan, has proved to be a major tactical victory for President Barack Obama and specially for the war on terrorism. Despite the success of this operation and successive attacks on al-Qaida leaders, decapitation is unlikely to lessen the ability of al-Qaida to continue its terrorism in the long run. Rather, it may have counterproductive consequences, fortifying or nourishing the
The goal of our nation is to continue to prosper, and to keep the American virtue. War would only tear this nation apart. The economy, as well as the people would suffer, and the nation would fall, and struggle to recover once again. Therefore, I am against declaring war on Great Britain. War has unpredictable outcomes, that could either ruin a nation, or just end further conflict.
The allies knew that it was going to be a risky process trying to defeat Hitler but they knew that in order to have a successful operation they would have to do the unexpected. I admire their courage and confidence as they went about this. In Sun Tzu’s, The Art of War there is a chapter titled, “Attack by Fire”. After reading this, I was able to capture some similar methods from Patton’s Ghost Army. In, The Art of War, Sun Tzu states, “And therefore, it is said that enlightened rulers must deliberate upon the plans to go to battle, and good generals carefully execute them” (Tzu, 172).
Furthermore, war also played a considerable amount in United States history. George S. Patton once said, “the object of war is not to die for your country but, to make the other bastard die for his.” This shows the idea that human nature is devious and destructive. The United States is the world’s superpower. We are seen as the big brother and other countries depend on us as we depend on other countries. However, everything can not be solved with a peace treaty.
Moreover, fighting is exciting to humans. It gets the adrenaline pumping. According to Marlantes, “Combat is the crack cocaine of all excitement highs”.14 So wars happen because of human choices that go far beyond the desire for food or the need to reproduce. Obviously, war is tremendously destructive and it can be very bad for the lives of individual humans. But is it possible that violence and war have had a positive effect on human development?
5 He decided to conduct of a war of attrition, using search and destroy tactics, in which the measure of merit was body count. 5 The premise was that, if he could kill enough of the enemy, they would lose heart and cease their aggression against the South Vietnamese.5 Westmoreland’s strategy was able to inflict massive casualties on the enemy, but it did not achieve the desired outcome. The North Vietnamese did not lose heart or did not cease their aggression against the South Vietnamese. Within the chronicles of military history, Westmoreland’s plan for success in Vietnam proved to be a plan for failure. And then there is the government and political elements that contributed to the failure.
Ron Paul, MD, stated the following in his article titled "Ron Paul: Down with Deadly Drones”: "The use of drones overseas may have become so convenient, operated as they are from a great distance, that far more 'collateral damage ' has become acceptable. Collateral damage is a polite way of saying killing innocent civilians…” From these statements it is easy to conclude that U.S. drone strategy is causing far greater harm than good to our national security and international reputation. Some may feel that drones reduces risk to American service members, but this can be true only in the most shortsighted sense. Internationally the expanded use of drones is wildly unpopular and in fact creates more enemies than it eliminates and is only reinforcing the perception of American arrogance. We are in essence saying to the world that we can go wherever we want, whenever we want to and do whatever we want to.
While Goldwater’s political stance leaned more toward unnecessary military action against the USSR, Johnson’s campaign completely disagreed with the notion. Therefore, in an effort to negatively objectify Goldwater’s stance on the Cold War, the notorious Daisy ad created frightening depictions of the extermination of an innocent young girl by a nuclear attack, obviously provoked by Goldwater. LBJ then follows this accusation on Goldwater by stating that ,“These are the stakes. To make a world in which all of God 's children can live, or to go into the dark. We must either love each other, or we must die.” Johnson seems to almost threaten the public that if they do not vote for “their love for each other”, they would die.