Do Americans understand the difference between retreat and surrender?

Question

Isn't it insane for an Army not to retreat when it is not going to win a battle or a war? Isn't it responsible for the politicians to change the course? Even the lion has to go home alone and lick his wounds after he is defeated by a rival. The nature of the female lion is cruel. She is constantly looking for a new suitor, just like Satan is constantly trying to drag nations into war...yes or no?

I'm trying to explain how war is a force of nature and that retreat is natural and not cowardly. The male lion spends his life fighting rivals for his lioness. Ultimately he is defeated by a rival in a bloody battle and is forced to retreat. Bloodied from battle. The only winner is the lionness because her new suitor will eventually be replaced to. Nobody really wins in war is my point.

Answer 1

I presume many Americans do. But in democracies, most Governments won't trust the voters to follow a rational argument. And if a Government said it was retreating to fight another day, it would only give the game away. In any case, a retreat can look like a surrender to most people raised on urban Cowboy movies. They don't understand guerilla warfare, which is so much more difficult to defeat (especially on its own ground) than conventional "Charge of the Light Brigade" heroics which always puts so much faith in having bigger weapons - which have saved USA forces from their own ineptitude in the past, but won't help in the underground "war on terror". On the Moslem side, that war has (a) a reality base going far back in European interventions in the Middle East of which Palestine is the latest drama (b) a religious ideaology schism Bush massaged with his reference to "crusade" after 9/11. It seems these two threads obscure, even for Moslems, the fact that the Islamist (both Suni and Shia) are killing more of their own than anyone else. Guerillas cannot function without a supportive or cowed population. That's where they're vulnerable. Bush and others don't understand weapons can win battles, but wars last much longer (like centuries) and can only be won by strategy. Retreat in Iraq, exposing the population to the outcome, might enlist the mass of Iraqis against the Islamists, supporting foreign intervention. It all has nothing to do with Satan, only about power, from domination to self-respect. Religious and other justifications on both sides are invariably only stalking horses, used wittingly by the main stirrers, and unwittingly by the foot-soldiers. On both sides.

Answer 2

It is not Satan who drags nations into war.
It is mankind that does the bad deeds.
Wars were fought long before it was
fashionable to blame Satan or God
for everything that is wrong with this world.
Yes, it is insane to kill, in war or any other time.
Not only politicians should change their ways,
for global unity and peace everyone should be
doing the right thing: "Love thy neighbor as you
love thyself". It does not matter what race, religion
or colour of the skin, we are all of the human race.

Answer 3

Your rant kind of goes all over the place from lion to female lion to Satan. Are you on drugs?

I'm sure I know what retreat and surrender is, but that doesn't explain your strange philosophy.

Answer 4

Once there is enough Iraqi troops trained to handle there own business, we will pull out.

Only history will tell 20 yrs from now wether we we won or lost. However, with Saddam gone, it already is a victory.

Slim

Answer 5

I was with you up until the Satan part. If that part is meant metaphorically and not literally, then yeah, I agree. :)

Answer 6

Yeah I know we do.....But you have to understand that we are very stubborn and we don't always know the right time to give in.

Answer 7

yeah-but see as we may be stubborned also by staying there were also help them being there we allow them to be able to be a better community.

Answer 8

No.