Quote Originally Posted by rborum View Post
Too Soft, Too Hard, or "Just Right"?

Ralph Peters certainly has a way with words. Many SWJ-ers have probably read his recent indictment of US operations in Afghanistan (and elsewhere). He argues that we are walking on eggshells - tactically and strategically - because we worry too much about offending the adversary's religion and killing civilians and that our moral weakness is causing us to lose the war. Peters says:

As our enemies’ view of what is permissible in war expands apocalyptically, our self-limiting definitions of allowable targets and acceptable casualties—hostile, civilian and our own—continue to narrow fatefully. Our enemies cannot defeat us in direct confrontations, but we appear determined to defeat ourselves.



Peters' analysis - consistent with arguments he has made a number of times before - raises two questions about which I would welcome the thoughtful input and feedback of SWCouncil Members (and other readers)...

I appreciate you considering these questions and look forward to learning from your insights and responses. This is the first substantive thread I have started here, so please forgive any clumsiness in protocol - and let me know if this question/discussion would be better placed elsewhere.
First of all we have discussed these things in great detail, a fact that does not necessarily lessen the value of looking at them again.

But I will also say that Ralph Peter's use of language is not the same as analysis. He is given to seeking base instinct over thought and he writes and speaks to that effect.

Tom