The Century War VI: America's full resources fail
Simmons' Time Traveler proceeds to tell the author what the 21rst century will be like after the Century War gets underway.
"I give you the continent of Europe cast back more than five hundred years into sad pools of warring civilizations" ... "I give you an Asian world in chaos, a Pacific rim ruled by China after the vacuum of America's withdrawal – this nation's full resources devoted to fighting, and possibly losing, the Century War – a South America and Mexico lost to corruption and appeasement, a resurgent Russian Empire that has reclaimed its old dominated republics and more, and a Canada split into three hateful nations."
"This nation's full resources devoted to fighting, and possibly losing, the Century War"?
Has he taken a look at the history of these United States over the last hundred years? If we exerted our full resources, what exactly would be left to fight? Those pathetic little countries he envisions in Europe? The Arab states, plus Iran and Pakistan?
Keep in mind what we have seen in the last five years. We bullied Pakistan into supporting us and destroyed the Taliban and Baathist regimes without any discernable drawdown of our resources. Losses in the low hundreds, no new taxes, no sacrifice at home (except for the president's request that Americans go out and spend money to plump up the economy). True, the war of occupation in Iraq has been more difficult, but we are still fighting it on the cheap. And in the war Simmons describes, there would be no need to occupy much of anything. So exactly what would be expending our full resources on?
posted by Clemens @ 3:41 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
I had this argument with the Vicar's pal the other day.
He claimed America's forces were completely overstretched, I counterered brilliantly ( :) ) that the terrorists were throwing everything they had into the fight, but USA had not even begun to mobilise.
In WWII, someting like 40% of all US GDP (note: not the Gov't budget, all of GDP) was involved in war or war production. And they could have gone further if they had needed to.
Now that's mobilisation.
The USA has done all this (in my opinion a lot, and all of it good, but that's an argument for another time) with its peace time armed forces. Can you imagine that in WWII terms!?
Yes, that's the point I was making, so obviously you were brilliant!
It's hard for me to see what the Vicar's pal was thinking. A glance at the figures on the American effort is sobering for anyone who is not a true-blue American.
Even in our Civil War, Lincoln commented once that the Federals were fighting the war with one arm tied behind its back. He never militarized the economy. It was only in WWII that we did.
I think you are right in noticicng that few talking now remember just what that effort produced. Japan all by itself was a formidable enemy, and we put it on the back burner while putting our major effort into Germany. We still crushed Japan.
I pity the terrorists sometimes.
When all this is over, and some of them come to their senses and tell their side of the story, it'll be like the harrowing tales from the Axis troops in WWII.
We get so used to the lying media playing up the strength of the terrorists. Can you imagine what it was really like for all those young indoctrinated military amateurs facing the firepower and professionalism of the US Military? At Tora Bora for example? We've heard the hollow bravado of their masters, but can you imagine the cries of fear and woe from the young foot soldiers as the brainwashing disappeared in the terror of their last few moments of life.
The tragic destructive power of delusion and propaganda. It makes one weep.
All the more reason to stay the course and get this damn war over.
Post a Comment
<< Home